Posts by Rex

61

Alan F's flaming arguments and insults

by Rex in

hi alan, .

have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys?????

have examined the remarkable similarity to the mount st. helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly?

Rex

Hi Alan,
Have you ever looked at the carved up mountains, hills and valleys????? Have examined the remarkable similarity to the Mount St. Helen's canyon that was carved our very quickly? Catastrophism at it's finest.
You are right about the uselessness of arguing, so why do you do it? If I am so 'braindead' and 'foolish' then you don't have to say a thing, do you? Or, is the idea that the Great Intellectual Alan might just be wrongheaded and on the road to oblivion too much for you to stomach?

Here is an example of your standard tactics when you meet someone that doesn't believe your world-view:

>Of course, being a braindead YEC, you don't recognize evidence when it goes against your presuppositions -- namely, that there was a global flood cuz the Bible sez so.

>The point is that I can either present a hell of a lot more evidence against a recent global flood, or I can refer any reader to massive tomes on the subject. But why waste bandwidth on morons?

>But I'm fairly sure that you're going to run away at this point.

Still here, bro!

34

Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

by Rex in

here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

(my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

Rex

Hi Tetly,

>The chief criticism of presuppositionalism is that it uses circular reasoning, which is generally considered a logical fallacy. Many opponents of presuppositional apologetics would characterize the presuppositional argument as resting on a belief in the Bible as the source of truth because it is inspired by God, in whom we can believe because the Bible affirms it and the Bible is the source of truth. While some logicians accept tautology as a legitimate form of argument, most find it impossible to counter, since each premise is only acceptable if the other premise is also found acceptable. This charge seeks to subsume presuppositionalism within fideism, which holds that belief in God cannot be justified by reason at all, but must be accepted or rejected wholly upon faith.

My own personal views are derived from a logical sequence promoted by R.C. Sproul. It begins with the evidence for the events of Calvary with the proof 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Christ died and rose from the grave. This is similiar to Josh McDowell's views on the first premise. The Apostle Paul laid out his evidence in several of the epistles and even defined the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15.
There is absolutely no need to assume that belief in God is beyond reason, that's hogwash!

Rex

34

Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

by Rex in

here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

(my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

Rex

Hi Tetly,

I believe my school of presuppositions is the Clark Kentian......

>re-read the definition i provided of presupposition. scientists start with knowledge, therefore they do NOT start with presupossition, even if that knowledge comes from other scientific studies.

Don't they start with 'assumptions' (i.e. bad science) for dating geology? My head just about explodes when some natualist starts quacking about "5 billion years ago....this and that happened, by the way we don't know exactly how or why it happened, we just know that there could not be any intelligent design involved!"

Some scientists do indeed try to consider all of the evidence, not ruling out anything unmeasurable by natural means, and accepting that which is backed by solid human testimony that would pass in any court of law.....some, I said, very few it seems if they value their own tenure and research funds.
IF you categorically reject evidence of any sort then you very well do start with presuppositions. Here is a valid one for you.
1) We are here and we exist or we would not be communicating.
2) We are obviously designed well enough to continue to propagate our race.
3) The ecosystem works in basic harmony and balance and our planet is quite unique as far as present science can prove.
4) Any fool can see that!
5) Physics tells us their had to be a 'First Cause'.
6) Therefore God very well does exist and by a preponderance of the evidence.
7) Science has the task of proving there is no God.
8) It has not sone so, it is not in any sort of agreement as to our origins nor as to how we continue to exist.

> even in hypothesis, a scientist is hypothesising based on previous knowledge. you will not find a scientist who says, contrary to all evidence and knowledge:

Oh really?

"well, i'm feeling frisky today, so lets hypothesize that an invisible pink unicorn created the heavens and the earth, and see what we can find on it!": creationists do not start with scientific knowledge, therefore they do start with presupposition. Afterall, why would they be trying to prove that god created everything, when there is no knowledge or evidence that he exists?

>You need to stop the flaming: You infer that creationists are some how 'not scientific', intimidation by arogance and condescension is not a valid argument. BTW, on the last question....look around you. The evidence is staring back at you in the mirror.

Rex

12

The Atheist's Book of Bible Stories - Ch. 22 - Biblical Apologists Toolkit

by RunningMan in

over the years, i have run into numerous persons who have attempted to defend the bibles literal accuracy.

these opponents have presented explanations that range in quality from truly inspired justifications to pitifully lame excuses.

for example, when one believer was confronted with the fact that the ancient temple was credited with containing enough raw materials for a building more than a thousand times its size, he replied, "well, maybe it had a basement.

Rex

I am amazed!! You have no concept of how to interpret any of the basic forms or types of biblical literature. You should be embarrased to claim credit for this 'work' of yours. When you are done patting yourself on the back at how intelligent and clever you are, you might consider reading some books on interpretation or taking some classes.

"Understanding and Applying the Bible" by Robert McQuilkin is a good place to start for a smart fellow like you. I also recommend the MacArthur Study Bible in the New King James translation.

Rex

11

I had a few questions on your thoughts about Matthew 7:15-23.

by Check_Your_Premises in

i had a few questions on your thoughts about matthew 7:15-23.. first off jesus identifies false prophets by their fruits.

he then says that a rotten tree can only bear bad fruit, and a good tree can only bear good fruit.

but doesn't a false prophet have to provide some good fruit for people to follow.

Rex

Good question here:

>In verse 23 Jesus says He will tell those calling on His name to "get away from me you workers of lawlessness." How would you respond to someone who says this implies that Jesus will reject those who are not following certain rules? What if they didn't know about certain rules, or think that they were being disobedient? For instance let's say it is actually wrong to celebrate Christmas, but you did because it didnt violate your conscience. Will Christ reject you?

We are not rejected for our sins and wrong beliefs, nor are we saved by our works (good deeds or baptism for example).
Eph. 2.8-9
"We are saved by grace through faith and that not of ourselves, it is a gift of God not of works, lest anyone boast."
Romans 6.23
"The wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus."
Romans 10.13
"for all who call on the name of the Lord will be saved."

If you want salvation here it is in a nutshell, this is what Jesus spoke of in John 3.3 and 3.5, being "born again."
Romans 10.9-10
"If you believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and proclaim with your mouth that he is Lord you will be saved. For, with the heart one believes unto righteousness and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation."

That's it, that's all you have to do is believe and tell God that you do! Repent of your sins and ask Jesus into your heart, then thank God for saving you! Now if you do this, please e-mail me and let me know as I will be happy to personally point you toward a fulfilling future. But know this, if you ask God to show you truth as I did He will do so without my help! He is in the saving business and all I do is try to be obedient to His teachings. I am praying for you even now!

Rex

27

Comments You Will Not Hear at the 8-7-05 WT Study (Good News)

by blondie in

the best of good news-the good news of god's kingdom.

our message-the good news of god's kingdom.

kingdom message.

Rex

Hi Blondie,

Thanks for the detailed and thorough manner that you handle the new JW material, oops, trash! LOL

Rex

9

Debunking the Bible skeptics and Liberal Theologians

by Rex in

recommended reading for christians who want to debunk the alleged 'facts' and claims of the naturalist element: .

archer, gleason l., enclyclopedia of bible difficulties, zondervan 1982 .

brauch, manfred t., the hard sayings of paul, intervarsity 1989 .

Rex

Recommended reading for Christians who want to debunk the alleged 'facts' and claims of the naturalist element:

Archer, Gleason L., Enclyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan 1982

Brauch, Manfred T., The Hard Sayings of Paul, Intervarsity 1989

Bruce, F. F.. The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Intervarsity 1983

Haley, John W., Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible, Zondervan 1977

Kaiser, Walter C. Jr., Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, Intervarsity 1988

O'Brien, David E., Today's Handbook for Solving Biblical Difficulties, Bethany house 1990

Sire, James W., Scripture Twisting, Intervarsity 1980

Stein, Robert H., Difficult Passages in the New Testament: Interpreting Puzzling Texts in the Gospels and Epistles, Baker 1990

I would add to that the philosophy expounded by C. S. Lewis in his works like; Mere Christianity and Miracles. Some of my lighter reading is from Lee Strobel; The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. Chuck Colson's Born Again and How Now Shall We Live. Josh McDowell has some good apologetics as does Hank Hannegraf.

Rex

34

Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

by Rex in

here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

(my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

Rex

Hi Kaput,

I've seen the darkness that you are hinting at and it strikes me as being unenlightened....

Rex

34

Christian answers to the Atheist Bible: Presupposing your beliefs

by Rex in

here is a very insightful article from ken ham....at the end is my own testimony in capsule form.

when the person you talk to on creation insists that you leave the bible out of it, they are really saying the deck should be stacked one way.

(my note: you've heard it this way, "religion does not speak on science at all.

Rex

Terry said:

>1.Evolution tells us that that which works best survives. Hence, success at existence conforms with how things in nature co-operate to exist. KNOWING has nothing to do with it. Mozart was a helluva composer at an extremely early age. He was not born KNOWING music. His manner of listening and doing worked, however, to create music which was itself "informed" by great orderliness and form.

Evolution is obviously in error then. How can you account for sheep? Let's go another step: How did a use less organ gradually become the eye and why did it 'survive' in its useless state? How did anything of substance develop from a mishmash of ingredients and happenstance?
Mozart was obviously born with an ability, a gift for creating music. How is it that we can enjoy the esthetics of his music, the sunset, a painted picture or a brilliant work of literature? Where did all of that fit in the 'survival of the fittest'?

>2.Logic is the art of noncontradictory measurement. When you measure something in nature (reality) you use a standard that serves to represent that reality in a transformed state (numbers, words, etc.) The standard is invented to serve the very purpose of measurement. Ad hoc. When religious descriptions are employed to represent super-reality (i.e. imagined reality) THERE ARE NO REFERENTS! You cannot point to the imperceptible. Consequently, all religious discussion is metaphor pretending to be data!

Where is your 'referent' for morality and order if there are no moral absolutes? You are beating yorself to death with your own logical club! You don't need referents for testimony other than the believability of the preponderance of the evidence. Scripture does indeed have much evidence, more so than any naturalist theories or philosophies.

>3. Misunderstanding the nature of CONCEPTUAL representatioan of imagination leads to BELIEF. Positing the operations of an invisible deity and then losing track of the fact it is only a POSIT is the basis of all religions.

The 'conceptual representation' responds to my comminication! No one is losing track of anything. You start with the evidence of Christ, his birth, death and resurrection. You observe how the eyewitness testimonies say he viewed Old Testament prophecy and law. Christ is the basis for all true Christian belief then his response to my thoughts and prayers confirms the validity of the premise: He lives. He is God and He has a law for me to observe and that law is written on my heart.

>4.Insisting the potential objectivity of God is the same as the ACTUAL objectivity of God is the first clue the believer has fallen into the hole he dug for himself.

I recognize that but you have misunderstood the author's claims. He is admitting his own presuppositions whereas the naturalist often claims he has none! His own presuppositions are based on the empirical data at hand: scriptural testimony, gelogical testimony and we can even add the testimony of the science of physics.

>Atheism is belief just as religion is belief. THERE MUST BE DATA to confirm one's logic for a person to KNOW something. If one must rely on metaphor, analogy and authority to bolster one's claims the foundational belief is supposition.

Atheism is impossible, since you would have be God to know there is no God! LOL

>Presupposition is when you lose track of your suppositions before you begin linking your chain (of facts or metaphors.)

Welcome to the club!

Rex

8

The Bible Fraud

by sammielee24 in

has anyone read the bible fraud?

it looked like an interesting read and just wondered if any of you read it and what you thought of it.

Rex

Crackpot stuff, he dredged up the old research from "Holy Blood: Holy Grail", which was an eighties 'Da Vinci Code'.

Rex