As we end the EOY, I thought I'd share with you a nice interview by one of the worlds greatest theologians and apologist Dr. William Lane Craig. There is plenty to chew on in these five points. In this case, I suggest that folks listen for understanding instead of debate or rebuttal first and then may wrestle with the questions in light of the information.


YouTube Link: https://youtu.be/TtSXyrEzXs4


Have Fun!


FYI, Dr. William Lane Craig is an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, historian, and apologist. He holds faculty positions at Talbot School of Theology and Houston Baptist University.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig





.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Looking for Good News: https://www.goo

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Looking for Good News: https://www.goo

.

#4 will shock you!!

>#4 will shock you!!

>#4 will shock you!!

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Looking for Good News: https://www.goo

www.engadgethd.com - the other stuff i'm looking at

Praise the Lord God!


.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Looking for Good News: https://www.goo

Does the sun shine and rain fall on the righteous and unrighteous alike?

The funny thing about your statement is that, hypothetically speaking, your god (the character) could give lucifer (the character) permission fuck your whole world up in horrible ways, just to prove how loyal you are, to, again, the character of lucifer.

Think about that:

Imagine being unshakably loyal to someone, and that person allows a complete piece of shit, one who is such a horrible person that they've been sentenced to life in prison, the right to fuck your entire life up, just to prove how loyal you are.

In context, Peter said, that God is no respecter of persons he was talking to Jews who did not believe that Gentiles could receive salvation through Jesus and the Good News and the Holy Spirit.

So, if you're gonna quote the Word of God to make a point do it right.


>Does the sun shine and rain fall on the righteous and
>unrighteous alike?
>

In Context, Jesus is telling his disciples and all that came to hear him how to be live better lives in accordance with the fullness of the Moral Law of God and to not fall short to the limits that they have placed on God's Moral Law

Matthew 5: 44-48 "44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."


>The funny thing about your statement is that, hypothetically
>speaking, your god (the character) could give lucifer (the
>character) permission fuck your whole world up in horrible
>ways, just to prove how loyal you are, to, again, the
>character of lucifer.
>
>Think about that:
>
>Imagine being unshakably loyal to someone, and that person
>allows a complete piece of shit, one who is such a horrible
>person that they've been sentenced to life in prison, the
>right to fuck your entire life up, just to prove how loyal you
>are.


Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

>In context, Peter said, that God is no respecter of persons
>he was talking to Jews who did not believe that Gentiles could
>receive salvation through Jesus and the Good News and the Holy
>Spirit.
>
>So, if you're gonna quote the Word of God to make a point do
>it right.

I'll remember that when I come across any actual words given from any actual gods. That hasn't happened yet, in all of recorded history,

>>Does the sun shine and rain fall on the righteous and
>>unrighteous alike?
>>
>
>In Context, Jesus is telling his disciples and all that came
>to hear him how to be live better lives in accordance with the
>fullness of the Moral Law of God and to not fall short to the
>limits that they have placed on God's Moral Law

1. Is he specifically referring to the mosaic law? What's "the moral law", exactly?

2. What limits did they place on the law?

3. If all have, and will, fall short, why is he telling them not to fall short? He's literally giving them an impossible instruction, according to his entire existence.

Also, what limits did they place on the law?


>Matthew 5: 44-48 "44 But I tell you, love your enemies and
>pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children
>of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
>evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
>unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward
>will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47
>And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more
>than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect,
>therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."


In context, jesus makes a declarative statement about god:

"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."

The meaning of that statement is about god's character, and who he is speaking to is immaterial. You don't get to sit here and pretend that this is somehow only applicable to one specific lesson he was teaching to these specific people.

You also don't get to pretend that preaching takes passages like this and apply them to any number of situations. This is passage is used often to present the notion that life, even for the believer, will not always be what we want it to be, but that god is still in control, etc etc.

You're trying to take an academic slant, as though you're not actively proselytizing. your take doesn't hold water either way.

Particularly in the context of talking about how you're winning, with the implication that god is the reason why. That's prosperity gospel garbage, self help with a jesus fish on it, and you need to be able to account for those believers who aren't "winning".

The verse I alluded to does that, but your heretical prosperity implications absolutely do not, and your statements here expose significant contradictions.

>>The funny thing about your statement is that, hypothetically
>>speaking, your god (the character) could give lucifer (the
>>character) permission fuck your whole world up in horrible
>>ways, just to prove how loyal you are, to, again, the
>>character of lucifer.
>>
>>Think about that:
>>
>>Imagine being unshakably loyal to someone, and that person
>>allows a complete piece of shit, one who is such a horrible
>>person that they've been sentenced to life in prison, the
>>right to fuck your entire life up, just to prove how loyal
>you
>>are.
>
>
>Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:

That's called Stockholm Syndrome.

>>In context, Peter said, that God is no respecter of persons
>>he was talking to Jews who did not believe that Gentiles
>could
>>receive salvation through Jesus and the Good News and the
>Holy
>>Spirit.
>>
>>So, if you're gonna quote the Word of God to make a point do
>>it right.
>
>I'll remember that when I come across any actual words given
>from any actual gods. That hasn't happened yet, in all of
>recorded history,
>


OK.


>>>Does the sun shine and rain fall on the righteous and
>>>unrighteous alike?
>>>
>>
>>In Context, Jesus is telling his disciples and all that came
>>to hear him how to be live better lives in accordance with
>the
>>fullness of the Moral Law of God and to not fall short to
>the
>>limits that they have placed on God's Moral Law
>
>1. Is he specifically referring to the mosaic law? What's "the
>moral law", exactly?
>

You and I have had this debate at length. I won. I'm not doing this again.



>2. What limits did they place on the law?
>

See Pharisaic Laws
In contrast to the two commands of Christ, the Pharisees had developed a system of 613 laws, 365 negative commands and 248 positive laws... By the time Christ came it had produced a heartless, cold, and arrogant brand of righteousness.

See Pharisee /JEWISH HISTORY
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pharisee

See the Mishna, also spelled Mishnah (Hebrew: “Repeated Study”)
Helpful Link: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mishnah


>3. If all have, and will, fall short, why is he telling them
>not to fall short? He's literally giving them an impossible
>instruction, according to his entire existence.
>

Well Paul said this So, please guive correct context

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.



>Also, what limits did they place on the law?
>
>

See above. The limits were based on their own human need for control and lack of understanding which in turn cause unnecessary hardships on people.



>>Matthew 5: 44-48 "44 But I tell you, love your enemies and
>>pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be
>children
>>of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the
>>evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the
>>unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward
>>will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47
>>And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing
>more
>>than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect,
>>therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
>
>
>In context, jesus makes a declarative statement about god:
>
>"He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends
>rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."
>
>The meaning of that statement is about god's character, and
>who he is speaking to is immaterial. You don't get to sit here
>and pretend that this is somehow only applicable to one
>specific lesson he was teaching to these specific people.
>
>You also don't get to pretend that preaching takes passages
>like this and apply them to any number of situations. This is
>passage is used often to present the notion that life, even
>for the believer, will not always be what we want it to be,
>but that god is still in control, etc etc.
>
>You're trying to take an academic slant, as though you're not
>actively proselytizing. your take doesn't hold water either
>way.
>
>Particularly in the context of talking about how you're
>winning, with the implication that god is the reason why.
>That's prosperity gospel garbage, self help with a jesus fish
>on it, and you need to be able to account for those believers
>who aren't "winning".
>
>The verse I alluded to does that, but your heretical
>prosperity implications absolutely do not, and your statements
>here expose significant contradictions.
>


You said all of that base don a DEAD WORNG assumption about my response to RJCC. Man, you can't even humble yourself to just ask a straight forward question without hedging to verbal bets and towers as you normally do.


I said that I'm winning because he's a Lame, unhappy, awkward, goofy, rude, selfish, little man that abuses his appointed authority on this board. And I'm winning because he's always hating on me and you never hat down, it's always up. So, therefore, I must be up and above him winning if he has time to haet on me.

You, on the other hand, can't keep my faith and beliefs out of your mouth, so in that case, God is winning.



>>>The funny thing about your statement is that,
>hypothetically
>>>speaking, your god (the character) could give lucifer (the
>>>character) permission fuck your whole world up in horrible
>>>ways, just to prove how loyal you are, to, again, the
>>>character of lucifer.
>>>
>>>Think about that:
>>>
>>>Imagine being unshakably loyal to someone, and that person
>>>allows a complete piece of shit, one who is such a horrible
>>>person that they've been sentenced to life in prison, the
>>>right to fuck your entire life up, just to prove how loyal
>>you
>>>are.
>>
>>
>>Though he slay me, yet will I trust in him:
>
>That's called Stockholm Syndrome.


.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

You dodged and diverted like crazy, as you always do.

The funniest thing you've ever said is that I can't keep your faith out of my mouth.

Do you know who nearly always brings up your faith first?

You.

as in, this very thread, about 5 reasons you can believe in god.

Yeah.

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

https://knowyourmeme.com/photos/325428-imagination-spongebob

God never existed - we have proof now.

What Difference Does It Make if God Exists? By William Lane Craig

https://youtu.be/23p5NnftE1k



For more resources visit: http://www.reasonablefaith.org
.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

is it working?

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

fell asleep halfway and dreamed my baby mama was holding my hostage lecturing me (with the audio)!

for the little that I actually did listen, this video is horrible if you wanted educated, mature, rational adults to take it seriously. but those that are opposite, I could see this being some what useful aside from it being boring as watching shit grow mold.

I feel the reasons are old and simplistic.

LOL

Anti-gentrification, cheap alcohol & trying to look pretty in our twilight posting years (c) Big Reg

¨Your mother is Colin Powell¨ - Lurkmode

www.Tupreme.com

"Reasonable Faith"<---- funniest shit I've heard all day.

Because faith, particularly within a religious context, is anything but reasonable.

But I digress; let's address the five reasons.

1. The origin of the universe.

Kalam? zzzzzzzzzzz

He presents an argument from ignorance fallacy, god of the gaps dressed up with talk about quantum mechanics.

He then presents an intellectually dishonest statement that, as an atheist, you have to believe that the universe "popped up, uncaused, out of nothing".

Wrong.

As an atheist, you simply accept that you don't know what happened prior to the big bang, if "prior" is even a thing, or how it actually occurred.

Plugging god into that hole in our collective knowledge does not make god a sufficient solution to that problem.

My favorite thing about WLC is that believers tend to tout him as their big dog, and yet he uses the same inept arguments as every other apologist.

The kalam, at best, gets you to deism, but absolutely cannot get you to anything resembling the god of classical theism.

An egregious error here is that he adds the "personal" element, which doesn't fit with kalam, and absolutely cannot justify that claim.

I love when christians or muslims use kalam, because it's a diversion. This is far easier to present than a legit argument for their specific god.

2. Fine tuning.

The fine tuning argument is laughable.

Why?

Because all it does it address the circumstance that makes up what *is* as we know it, and the fact that what is would not exist the way we know it, where the circumstances other than what they are.

That's it. It doesn't address how it occurred, simply leaping to "god did it", but there's zero connective tissue from the "what" to the "how".

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Fine tuning might be the most useless, masturbatory argument in the apologetics circle jerk.

For good measure, he cites quotes that are nothing but arguments from personal incredulity.

Again: this is the big dog in their yard.

3. Objective Moral values.

First, he has to make the case that objective moral values do exist.

He doesn't do that.

He asserts that they do, but does not make the case that they do. It's notable that he skimmed through this portion with the quickness, doing little more than making his assertion before moving on.

It's interesting that standards of morality have changed throughout time, and in fact does so in the very book that is the foundation of WLC's beliefs. more interesting, is that the morality of human beings improves the further it moves away from that book, to the point where the average christian has to cherry pick the parts that harmonize with their moral standards. They then fall back on the ever-growing list of post hoc rationalizations for the wealth of immorality present in the bible.

It's hard to reconcile the *idea* of objective moral values with the *fact* that our morality has changed so much over time.

The sad part is that all of these arguments are fundamentally the same:

"X is a thing, therefore god did it."

There's no actual evidence for the idea that morality comes from god. Sure, there's a book that says his word was written on our hearts or some shit, but then that presents the aforementioned apologetic minefield on the subject, because the bible gives us a how-to-guide on how to acquire and treat slaves.

4. The Resurrection?

really?

He cites the "fact" of the resurrection?

Well.. the four gospels have anonymous authors and one of them, Matthew, who, incidentally has the strongest case for a known author, has a pretty clear agenda, and none of these were first hand accounts. This is not great evidence, or even good evidence, particularly when we're discussion such an extraordinary event.

The fact that the explanation for both the conception and resurrection of Jesus is... drumroll.... magic.... is highly problematic. He was born of a virgin, and you know, got that y chromosome from the holy spirit.

There are no contemporary accounts of these extraordinary events.

Is it just coincidence that miracle claims decrease as our ability to record them increased, to the point where, right today, most miracle claims are things that are in fact completely mundane.

My cancer went into remission! praise jesus!

Yes, Mildred, cancer does that sometimes. Get back to us when that amputated leg grows back.

You'd think a deity of minimal competence, even one choosing such a poorly thought out method and time frame, would have ensured an iron clad chain of evidence for what is not merely an incredibly extraordinary event, but one of critical importance, given the stakes.

5. Personal experience?

He mispronounced "confirmation bias" and "argument from ignorance or personal incredulity", because that's the bulk of "personal experience".

Nothing he said is worth much as a foundation for believing in the existence of any god, much less the god in which he believes, which is also telling.

That's a trope among his kind, arguing for a generic god, sneaking in a personal attribute even when their argument doesn't allow for it, but rarely to they offer such arguments for evidence of the one in which they actually believe.

There's a reason for that.

I didn't "make time" to listen and respond.

I didn't reschedule anything, didn't put some important task to the side, and didn't put myself to listen.

Let's not act like I took a vacation day or some shit.

whatever.

the compliment still stands.

Apologies.

But yeah, the subject is one of great interest to me, and these apologists, form the great, shining stars of the field, to the lowest of the low, tend to use the same basic arguments, drawing the same conclusions from the same empty well of "evidence".

So most of these arguments are rather easy to refute with minimal effort.

but no not at all. It was one of the most thorough break downs of anything I've seen on this site in my 20 years here....I could have just said that.

Your passion and knowledge is abundantly clear as is your ability to remain unflappable in the face of utter bullshit and bad faith acting.

I appreciate you taking the time.

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

"Good, strong evidence", meaning not reliant upon faith or logical fallacies.

>"Good, strong evidence", meaning not reliant upon faith or
>logical fallacies.

my strong evidence is based on my personal experience.


The universe has a beginning. And because it has a beginning or a cause it had to be created by someone that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and more powerful than you or I could ever imagine. That is my strong evidence for God, the fact that the universe exists, you exist, and I exists.



.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but didn't provide any evidence.

Worse, even if I grant you all that you mentioned as evidence, and that evidence is sufficient to get to a god.

Nothing you presented is sufficient to get to your particular deity.

This is yet another instance where what you've presented can, at best, only get you so far before you have to just believe that you're right, but the arrogantly act as though your belief isn't simply a brief at all, but an established fact.

And that's when you're granted a bunch of caveats out of sheer generosity, but cannot substantiate.

Providing the Kalam presup nonsense about something that "must be timeless.....etc" only highlights the argument from ignorance fallacy, because it relies on acceptance of the assertion with absolutely zero evidence to support the assertion.

In other words: once again, the facts don't actually support the conclusion, and you still have to rely on faith, which is not at all reliable.

>You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but didn't
>provide any evidence.
>

You understand the facts of the argument. No need to rehash the known.


>Worse, even if I grant you all that you mentioned as evidence,
>and that evidence is sufficient to get to a god.
>
>Nothing you presented is sufficient to get to your particular
>deity.
>
>This is yet another instance where what you've presented can,
>at best, only get you so far before you have to just believe
>that you're right, but the arrogantly act as though your
>belief isn't simply a brief at all, but an established fact.
>
>And that's when you're granted a bunch of caveats out of sheer
>generosity, but cannot substantiate.
>
>Providing the Kalam presup nonsense about something that "must
>be timeless.....etc" only highlights the argument from
>ignorance fallacy, because it relies on acceptance of the
>assertion with absolutely zero evidence to support the
>assertion.
>
>In other words: once again, the facts don't actually support
>the conclusion, and you still have to rely on faith, which is
>not at all reliable.

Dude World renown cosmologists and Physicists agree with me on this matter.

And know, I didn't just step into Deism. I'm clearly arguing for the Theism position that is based on the belief in an active and involved God who created the universe, you and me.

Boy Bye!

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000703/

>>You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but
>didn't
>>provide any evidence.
>>
>
>You understand the facts of the argument. No need to rehash
>the known.

The facts?

"The universe has a beginning."

That was the only fact you presented. The rest was pure, unsubstantiated conjecture.

"And because it has a beginning or a cause it had to be created by someone that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and more powerful than you or I could ever imagine."

^^^^none of this is a fact. It's all conjecture, for which you have no evidence at all.


Your "strong evidence for God" is....

"The fact that the universe exists, you exist, and I exists".

So, you got me. You presented four facts, that amount to we exist, and the universe had a beginning.

The only things you can, with honesty and integrity, point to as a fact, are the "what".

The rest, the "how", is just conjecture and faith.

>Dude World renown cosmologists and Physicists agree with me on
>this matter.

No, you agree with them.

Please show one of these physicists and cosmologists providing evidence for the how, and not merely explaining the what.

As an aside, do you not think there are world renowned cosmologists and physicists that disagree with the notion of fine tuning as evidence for a god?

You're leaning heavily on credentials of others, but not presenting any actual information as a response to the significant flaw I presented in the fine tuning argument.

There's a reason for that.

>And know, I didn't just step into Deism. I'm clearly arguing
>for the Theism position that is based on the belief in an
>active and involved God who created the universe, you and me.

You're conflating your belief and what you're arguing *for*, with the actual argument you presented. The two are quite different, and what you presented gets you only to deism.

>>>You presented a textbook argument from ignorance, but
>>didn't
>>>provide any evidence.
>>>
>>
>>You understand the facts of the argument. No need to rehash
>>the known.
>

Man, now the textbook argument as to call it is filled with ignorance. That's rich.


>The facts?
>
>"The universe has a beginning."
>
>That was the only fact you presented. The rest was pure,
>unsubstantiated conjecture.
>
>"And because it has a beginning or a cause it had to be
>created by someone that is spaceless, timeless, immaterial,
>uncaused and more powerful than you or I could ever imagine."
>
>^^^^none of this is a fact. It's all conjecture, for which you
>have no evidence at all.
>



>
>Your "strong evidence for God" is....
>
>"The fact that the universe exists, you exist, and I exists".
>
>So, you got me. You presented four facts, that amount to we
>exist, and the universe had a beginning.
>
>The only things you can, with honesty and integrity, point to
>as a fact, are the "what".
>
>The rest, the "how", is just conjecture and faith.
>
>>Dude World renown cosmologists and Physicists agree with me
>on
>>this matter.
>
>No, you agree with them.
>
>Please show one of these physicists and cosmologists providing
>evidence for the how, and not merely explaining the what.
>
>As an aside, do you not think there are world renowned
>cosmologists and physicists that disagree with the notion of
>fine tuning as evidence for a god?
>
>You're leaning heavily on credentials of others, but not
>presenting any actual information as a response to the
>significant flaw I presented in the fine tuning argument.
>
>There's a reason for that.
>

I'm leaning on the fact that the universe exists and it has a beginning. In addition, I agree with the scientific community that supports the fact that the universe has a beginning. You want to argue the names and then dismiss credentials that are based on experience and reputation.




>>And know, I didn't just step into Deism. I'm clearly arguing
>>for the Theism position that is based on the belief in an
>>active and involved God who created the universe, you and
>me.
>
>You're conflating your belief and what you're arguing *for*,
>with the actual argument you presented. The two are quite
>different, and what you presented gets you only to deism.
>
>

Nothing in being conflated. I gave you a straight response. It's obvious that you don't know the difference between Deism and Theism.
This can help you: https://www.theosophical.org/files/events/MahatmaLetters/About_God.pdf


.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

too much shit get stirred?>

Folks going ham at me and then LOCK, ARCHIVE, and BOOM without me having a chance to respond to the wildest comment.


.
.

“It was the evidence from science and history that prompted me to abandon my atheism and become a Christian.” — Lee Strobel, The Case for Christ

The Case for Christ Lecture: https://youtu.be/67uj2qvQi_k

Good News: https://www.goodnewsnetwork

nobody is changing anybodies mind right?... not when it's you and the usual guys getting into it again.

we've all seen how that goes before.

let the water roll off your back and carry on imo.

You say that shit in response to people for calling you in your bullshit....



....and yet, here you are, actually whining and playing the victim.

Nobody went hard at you.

People literally just called you on your usual antics.

That's it.

And yet again, here you are, whining about yet another of your carefully cultivated trainwrecks getting shut down.

Those posts would go very different if you weren't such a dishonest, insincere zealot and actually tried your hand at being genuine, sincere, and honest for a change.

It's nobody's fault that you don't like people being a "smart alec" or a "know it all", want to be able to use piss poor, third-grade level analogies without people responding with the use of logic and reason, and want people to present opinions out of their ignorance.

It doesn't make sense for you to be so pissy about an environment that's so inhospitable to those sensibilities when this country is literally littered with perfectly churches for you to excercise all those things freely.