Replies

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.

Wrong is that which goes against God.

Once again you assert this "God" without demonstrating it. You're assuming your conclusion and using your assumption to "prove" that my position is false. Usually that logical fallacy requires at least a little subtrufuge -- such as using a consequence of you being right as "proof" -- but you're apparently brazen enough to try to use "I'm right, therefore you are wrong" as a logical argument.

You cannot attempt to define it and still logically hold to the atheistic position.

Actually, there are a number of definitions of "wrong" that invoke no gods. In the context in which you used it above, it simply means that you assert that my position is incorrect. No gods are required for the definition of "wrong" in that context.

Nevertheless, inconsistently, you have a knowledge of right from wrong or you wouldn't be here.

Support this assertion.

The spectacle of where your worldview has taken you is enough to make me weep.

You know very little about me, so I don't really understand why you would weep.

You know in your soul exactly what I am talking about.

"Soul" is another undemonstrated assertion.

The murder of 11 million people is a crime against man, according to the universal moral standard which is God.

Ah, so your "crime against man" relies upon your "God exists" assumption, which you've yet to demonstrate is true.

I can understand why the murder of 11 million people makes people very emotional. I don't feel good about it either. Through biology and through social conditioning, I have a level of empathy that makes mass murder (and murder in general) revolting to me as well. I can understand the desire to have a "higher authority" that says that it's wrong. However, that desire does not translate to fact. Wanting very much for mass murder to be "wrong according to a standard as fixed within the universe as c does not make such a standard exist.

Your "condemnation" is completely worthless.

Is it? Condemnation of Hitler's actions got his leaders hanged.

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."

That would be a lie. I do care. You're once again ignoring my real position because you can't argue against it, inventing strawmen to knock down.

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.

How would taking up arms against a tyrant contradict "my stated beliefs"?

Yes, because it is the historic position of the church and Bible-believing Christians for the last two centuries.

And yet I find sources from the Church and other Bible-believing Christians who say otherwise.

Your comment about the "geocentric" universe is an attempt at injecting an unrelated topic that has nothing to with the point being made.

You attempted to cite the Church as an authority on Biblical authorship. I'm just pointing out that they've stubbornly held to false views in the past, even when reality proved them wrong.

Yes, and you still have not answered.

I did answer. I said "I don't know." I even explained why I am not in a position to know.

Saying he "misunderstood" is illogical at best, because the passage makes clear that John has seen, touched and heard Christ.

So he thought that he was touching the divine, but he was mistaken. Or he expressed his thoughts on the divine, but whomever wrote down what he said misunderstood what he said.Manuscript evidence casts severe doubt on the idea that John was "misquoted".

Huh?

No, someone named John claimed it. Now, was he lying, insane, or telling the truth?

I don't know whether he was lying, telling the truth, insane or mistaken about what he had experienced.

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.

By the way, in denying the existence of kfojsarweklriou, you'll have to prove to me that you have been everywhere in the universe and know with absolute certainty that there is no kfojsarweklriou. Until then, you cannot know.

Try to understand. I lack belief in ALL GODS. Not just the God that you worship. Not just the God that you and the Jews worship. ALL GODS. Your god is just one of thousands in which I lack belief. Your god, therefore, is your assertion among many thousands of others. The burden of proof is upon you to show that your assertion is true. Until then, I have no more reason to believe that the god that you present exists as I do for believing that Zeus exists. Yes, Zeus is supposedly very petty, rather quick to anger and something of a lecherous old man, but that doesn't in any way disprove his existence.

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.

Yeah, I've heard that one before. It's "You're just ignoring the obvious". It's not convincing, especially since I've heard the same argument from a Hindu.