O�Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[seer]

Because if they, i.e. a gods thoughts, are eternal, then there can be no process called "thinking". Thinking is a process that takes place in time and the resultant thoughts/reasons/actions are therefore temporal in nature as well. If you want to argue that a god thinks and reacts to temporal events then said gods nature would need be defined as temporal as well. Also, with respect to knowledge, if a god knows your name, your dogs name etc... and has known those things as well as all things eternally, then not only is he not thinking or reacting to temporal events, that eternal knowledge would simply mirror temporal events.

I don't believe any of us understand this Jim, William Craig makes some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfn8CJarrSE&t=328s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbirUdSnZLU

[Charles]

I don't believe any of us understand this Jim, William Craig makes some good points.

Are you sure you understand William Craig's points, then?

[seer]

Are you sure you understand William Craig's points, then?

More or less, he believes that God is eternal but not timeless after He creates the universe, then he is temporal.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...-and-creation/

[Tassman]

Tass, that has nothing to do with the fact that Christians still think that adultery is a sin.

And who were Christians supposed to vote for Hillary? Don't be daft...

Of course. If they were seriously concerned about the sin of adultery.

What are you taking about? I can show the salve owners the texts on manstealing - whether they repent is on them.

Right and when one group of organic algorithms slaughters another group of organic algorithms - no biggy.

Nevertheless, the victims of mass slaughtering instinctively believe themselves to be significant individuals. Are they wrong?

Again Tass, you brought up turning the other cheek, and that has nothing to do with what the State does or doesn't do. And an eye for an eye, in context, is about not taking personal action. And a life for a life is just.

And what is the big deal - we are merely assemblages of organic algorithms...

we know

[Tassman]

I don't believe any of us understand this Jim, William Craig makes some good points.

https://www.biola.edu/about/theological-positions

So, we know in advance where his arguments will end up.

[seer]

So I should vote for a rabid abortion supporter who would have appointed rabid leftist judges? You really are daft Tass...

Of course. If they were seriously concerned about the sin of adultery.

And we are not equally concerned, or more so, about the killing of millions of unborn humans?


Actually no, they could not justify slavery based on kidnapping from Scripture.

Nevertheless, the victims of mass slaughtering instinctively believe themselves to be significant individuals. Are they wrong?

I guess we all have our myths...


Of course I do (in certain cases) since Christ is not giving rules for the State. I support the State meting out justice (not me) and as we discussed, a life for a life is just.

we know

You mean like your fantasy that you actually have significance?

[JimL]

I don't believe any of us understand this Jim, William Craig makes some good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfn8CJarrSE&t=328s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbirUdSnZLU

When you don't understand a thing, it's best to apply logic and go with that.

[seer]

When you don't understand a thing, it's best to apply logic and go with that.

No Jim, logic is only as valid as the facts that we have and on this issue we don't have nearly all the facts.

[JimL]

No Jim, logic is only as valid as the facts that we have and on this issue we don't have nearly all the facts.

That there are other facts is only a belief of yours, go with the facts you know.

[seer]

That there are other facts is only a belief of yours, go with the facts you know.

Well no Jim we are speaking of an eternal being, how He thinks, how He interacts with the temporal, etc... We don't know these things.

[Leonhard]

Because if they, i.e. a gods thoughts, are eternal, then there can be no process called "thinking". Thinking is a process that takes place in time and the resultant thoughts/reasons/actions are therefore temporal in nature as well. If you want to argue that a god thinks and reacts to temporal events then said gods nature would need be defined as temporal as well. Also, with respect to knowledge, if a god knows your name, your dogs name etc... and has known those things as well as all things eternally, then not only is he not thinking or reacting to temporal events, that eternal knowledge would simply mirror temporal events.

You would be correct to say that God doesn't think. God's knowledge is timeless, and therefore true at all times. God is also completely impassive, and changeless and simple in substance. So in any moment of our time we relate to God in the same way, and by the same relation, analogolous to the rim of a circle that is always equidistant.

[Leonhard]

More or less, he believes that God is eternal but not timeless after He creates the universe, then he is temporal.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writ...-and-creation/

I respect Craig's defense of the Kalam cosmological argument, however I part way with him on his theology on God.

[Leonhard]

This is what you think nowadays.

Wait, you actually think that's a gotcha? You do realize that even when you have an objective standard its possible for there to be both growth of understanding, and even realizations of errors. The very fact that this is possible is something that can only happen when you have such a standard.

[Tassman]

Wait, you actually think that's a gotcha? You do realize that even when you have an objective standard its possible for there to be both growth of understanding, and even realizations of errors.

The very fact that this is possible is something that can only happen when you have such a standard.

[Tassman]

So I should vote for a rabid abortion supporter who would have appointed rabid leftist judges?

She was NOT a at all. Her long-held view has been that abortion should be "safe, legal, and rare." She would NOT have appointed "rabid leftist judges" but judges that share her own moderate views...and those of the majority of the population.

And we are not equally concerned, or more so, about the killing of millions of unborn humans?

Actually no, they could not justify slavery based on kidnapping from Scripture.

They nevertheless justified slavery from scripture for many centuries. Scripture has always been made to conform to the social values of the day, this is an example of it.

I guess we all have our myths...

All humans believe themselves to be significant, that's why we bother to stay alive. We ALL resist being harmed or killed.

Of course I do (in certain cases) since Christ is not giving rules for the State. I support the State meting out justice (not me) and as we discussed, a life for a life is just.

But you vote for capital punishment. How is that not

You mean like your fantasy that you actually have significance?

Most people believe that they and their loved ones have significance, this is why they protect and sustain them. OTOH your escapist fantasy that we are made for an imaginary eternal life results in your own personal salvation taking precedence.