Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm
So where is your definition?
Dude, I'm using the word "just" in its ordinary sense. If at your age you still don't know what that word means, then I can recommend a browse through an online dictionary or two.
Here are some relevant quotes from the Bible, also using that word (or, rather, a variant of it: "justice"):
"For the LORD is a God of justice." --Excerpted from
Isaiah 30:18
"For I, the LORD, love justice" --Excerpted from
Isaiah 61:8
"The LORD loves righteousness and justice; the earth is full of his unfailing love." --
Psalms 33:5
All you need to do is apply the meaning of the word in those quotes to its use in my argument.
See? It's not that hard.
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Thu Sep 29, 2022 2:44 pm
I don't know whether or not your premise is "true."
It's clear from the Biblical quotes above that on a Christian view, it
is true.
OF COURSE 'it' is true. And, what is JUST AS OBVIOUS is that 'your interpretation' is NOT true.
'you', "harry baird", seem to think or BELIEVE that 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION of 'things' is the ONLY WAY to LOOK AT and SEE 'things'. Which, is even MORE LAUGHABLE than what occurs at first glance.
Is there absolutely ANY KNOWN WAY that one could SHOW and REVEAL to 'you' that what 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION IS could be wrong?
Or, are 'you' just that CLOSED that 'you' ACTUALLY Truly BELIEVE that 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION of the words in the bible is the ONLY True and Right WAY to LOOK AT and SEE them?
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am
The first two premises in the argument assume a Christian view so as to show that they lead to a contradiction.
As I continually SAY and POINT OUT, 'assuming' does NOT mean being accurate AT ALL. And, as can be CLEARLY RECOGNIZED and SEEN, the 'first two premises' could be ABSOLUTELY, or even PARTLY Wrong and/or Incorrect. So, once again, it is ALWAYS BETTER, in discussions like this, if one NEVER 'assumes' absolutely ANY thing.
And, if, and WHEN, one seeks out and obtains CLARITY FIRST, then thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth CAN and DOES come to light, and relatively VERY QUICKLY I will add.
Also, and by the way, so-called "christians", "themselves", do NOT even KNOW what 'a "christian" view" IS, EXACTLY. So, the CHANCES of 'you' ASSUMING the Right view would be close enough to being ZERO, we might as well just say IS ZERO.
And, because 'you' could NOT even provide a definition for the word "christian", which would be IN AGREEMENT and would be ACCEPTED here by most, let alone EVERY one, ASSUMING 'you' somehow would KNOW what these so-called, NOT YET AGREED UPON and ACCEPT "christian's" views of 'things' would be EXACTLY, would also be close enough to being ZERO as well.
Harry Baird wrote: ↑Fri Sep 30, 2022 2:58 am
So, are there any other premises you want to challenge, or are you now willing to concede
the argument?
Your so-called 'premises' are NOT true. Therefore, your so-called 'argument' is NOT sound.
However, and unfortunately for 'you' "harry baird", 'you' are NOT OPEN to SEEING and UNDERSTANDING this Fact.
And this is BECAUSE 'you' ACTUALLY BELIEVE that 'your' OWN INTERPRETATION of the words in the bible are EXACTLY is and what was MEANT and INTENDED. Which, considering the amount of DISAGREEMENT SHOWN here by "others", SHOWS and REVEALS just how Truly IDIOTIC 'your' ASSUMPTIONS, BELIEFS, and so-called 'arguments' are here.
The reasons WHY "immanuel can" will NOT ACCEPT 'your' OWN INTERPRETATIONS and DEFINITIONS of the words and terms in the bible are BECAUSE they are NOT of "immanuel can's" views, of which "immanuel can" also CLAIMS to be a "christian", AND BECAUSE "immanuel can" although being ABLE to RECOGNIZE and SEE the ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTIONS in 'your' CLAIMS "immanuel can" is in NO WAY ABLE to FIX UP NOR Correct 'your' OWN MISTAKES and Wrong INTERPRETATIONS.