Replies

'm sorry but I must be frank here - your viewpoint is absolutely abhorrent and tragically wrong, and if applied writ large to society will lead it into total and complete destruction.

Wrong is an assertion that you've yet to demonstrate as true. The rest is argument from the consequences, a logical fallacy. That you don't like the consequences of my worldview does not make my worldview false. Further, I assert that because I believe my worldview to be true and because society has not yet collapsed, you are wrong regarding that as well.

Massacring innocent Jews is a crime against God and man.

You again assert a god that you've not demonstrated exists. How is it an "crime against man"? Be specific.

Since you cannot judge right from wrong, why are you on this website?

Since you can't argue without tossing up bogus strawmen, why are you replying to me?

The fact of the matter is, you do not live consistently by your own assumptions.

I'd call my lack of belief in universal moral absoultes a lack of an assumption. You're the one assuming that there is such a thing. I just have yet to be convinced. I also don't see how I'm living inconsistently.

Despite your inability to condemn the Holocaust,

I do condemn the holocaust, I just recognize that I have no universal standard from which to make a condemnation, thus my condemnation must be from subjective standards.

Despite your inability to condemn the Holocaust, you make absolute judgments of right and wrong all the time. You do this because God has given you a conscience, and you know that there is an absolute Authority.

I see that you've run out of arguments for your position, so you're just insisting that you're right and saying "Is so!" without providing any supporting evidence.

You've yet to demonstrate that this "God" exists, so any arguments that you make that depend on the existence of this "God" are meaningless. No, I don't "know" that there is an absoulte Authority, and it is unbelievably arrogant of you to assert that you know how I think.

That does not change the historic position of the church, which has been that the Bible is what it says it is.

Do you really want to appeal to the "historic" position of the Church, which also promoted a geocentric universe for some time?

No, it just makes it much more likely that they are man-created.

From my position, the probability that any god is "man-created" is very, very close to 1 regardless of the nature of the god in question.

To paraphrase a sermon I heard the other day, Christianity is not a religion that man would have invented, even if they could.

Why not? The concept of a god taking human form and suffering as a substitute for human transgressions isn't exactly unique to Christianity.

[argument from "Christianity is unique!"]

I can point to several other religions off of the top of my head that are also "unique" in their own right -- not concentrating on the works of man, don't demand rituals. That Christianity has elements not shared by other religions does not make it more likely to be true.

At some point I sincerely hope that you answer my question about 1 John 1:1-2.

What about your question? You asked if John was lying, insane or telling the truth. You left out "misquoted" (unless you think that John was the actual author of that particular work) or simply mistaken. As such, your question is meaningless. If you want to expand it, my answer is that I don't know. I never met John, I never experienced what John experienced and I don't have any way to really find out. As such, I couldn't tell you if he was lying, telling the truth, insane, misquoted or misinterpreted.

Wrong is an assertion that you've yet to demonstrate as true.

Wrong is that which goes against God. You cannot attempt to define it and still logically hold to the atheistic position. Nevertheless, inconsistently, you have a knowledge of right from wrong or you wouldn't be here.

You again assert a god that you've not demonstrated exists. How is it an "crime against man"? Be specific.

The spectacle of where your worldview has taken you is enough to make me weep. You know in your soul exactly what I am talking about. The murder of 11 million people is a crime against man, according to the universal moral standard which is God.

I do condemn the holocaust, I just recognize that I have no universal standard from which to make a condemnation, thus my condemnation must be from subjective standards.

Your "condemnation" is completely worthless. Why not simply say, "I don't care who is mass murdered, because my atheism so restricts me in my moral thinking that I can't see my way to condemn it." Yet when the tyrant comes to your door, I am sure that you will be the first to take up arms, in total contradiction to your stated beliefs.

Do you really want to appeal to the "historic" position of the Church, which also promoted a geocentric universe for some time?

Yes, because it is the historic position of the church and Bible-believing Christians for the last two centuries. Your comment about the "geocentric" universe is an attempt at injecting an unrelated topic that has nothing to with the point being made.

What about your question? You asked if John was lying, insane or telling the truth.

Yes, and you still have not answered. Saying he "misunderstood" is illogical at best, because the passage makes clear that John has seen, touched and heard Christ. He walked with him for the better part of three years. Manuscript evidence casts severe doubt on the idea that John was "misquoted". No, someone named John claimed it. Now, was he lying, insane, or telling the truth?

By the way, in denying the existence of God, you'll have to prove to me that you have been everywhere in the universe and know with absolute certainty that there is no God. Until then, you cannot know. I can, because of the proof that exists all around us in creation, the rational nature of His Word, and the testimony of what he has done in my life supernaturally.