Christian-Muslim violence avoided in Nigeria - Page 3

Beetree wrote: You are her whipping boy only, there is no other purpose for her postings, IMHO.  That will never change.

 

Beetree, hear me out…GSDtravels argue that faith takes over where reason leaves off. This is not so with me or Christian faith. Reason requires a foundation, which only the Bible can provide. There are only 2 choices, either we try to reason our way to the truth of the Bible or we reason from the truth of the Bible. The first choice attempts to arrive at belief, without justification for the tools of reasoning, the second takes the Bible as the foundation for truth and the justification for all reasoning. Faith is not without reason. Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason. In fact faith is demanded by reason. Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it. Professed unbelievers example like GSDtravels: say that she uses reason as her starting point and not faith. We must ask though, what is her reason for trusting reason? The thing is, she doesn’t have a reason for trusting reason; she has a 'blind faith' in reason. Everyone starts from faith. The question is not whether we start from faith but whether we will place that faith in God or in man. The faith of the professed unbeliever would be the same example as GSDtravels, she cannot give a reason for reason. Christian faith on the other hand is the basis for all knowledge. The Bible teaches that (Colossians 2:3) "All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ." and that (Proverbs 1:7)"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Christian faith is not blind; rather it is the pre-condition for rational thought. I hope this is clear my dear Beetree!

Shtal

LOL

I guess I asked for that!

Shtal, I really don't care how Travels sees the world. And not to be rude, but I would appreciate it if you did not address your preachings to my name, as I know it is a device to do what you feel compelled to do. By now, I figure that is something that will never change for you.  Truth is, I usually don't read many of your lengthy preachings. I just have an aversion to people's actions that I feel revel in tearing down another person, with hateful assertions that are repeated in post after post. 

That is too bad, I think, because I actually always liked Travels for the most part. Just not that part. 

I do think you should try not to look for angles in every thread for a reason to preach. It does get annoying to me, too. When you start your own threads for that purpose, it is better, and the ungod-ly triumvirate can never resist them, either. 

I hope your Sunday is as lovely and beautiful as mine. Have a nice day!

 

 

Thanks Beetree, I had beautiful Sunday Church. But now when I come to this forum I have to deal with old fart moons......lol.....:)

shtal preaching on this thread to, if he searches long enough he will find someone mentally ill enough to beleive his loony tunes.

 

the only choices you need to worry about are which doctor and which meds you should be on. your twisted attempt at theology is idiotic.

You refuted yourself vk4; my answer is completely legitimate in regards directed at GSDtravels, because it is exactly what epistemology involves at its outset. In your attempt here to dismiss my answer, you thusly propose an arbitrary principle of epistemology that is not inherent to it and in effect denies the fundamental purpose for and about epistemology itself, and therefore refute yourself. You contradict the very purpose for which you posted your remark; if epistemological justification is irrelevant and so easily dismissed as you say. Moreover, if a "justified, true belief" is falsifiable, then it follows logically that it cannot be true! This violates the Law of Non-Contradiction. Truth cannot be falsifiable because it is itself true and not untrue (A cannot be not -A). Furthermore, you present a straw-man of presuppositional apologetics and thereby also discredit you postulate. One last thing; I will leave you alone and I expect the same in return, just please leave my name out in your remarks when you post or have conversation with someone. Thank you. Shtal.

no i didn't refute myself, you confused and deluded yourself, i "thusly propose" (lol) you do not even understand what you just posted, mainly cos it is just obfuscation, and you don not have that vocab or literacy level  to make something so senseless reasonably well written.

 

"moreover" you truth is -A and -A in fact -A all the way through, thusly moreover.

 

as for presuppositional apologetics...lol

 

just show us some evidence, oh thats right you have none but you have ....thusly epsistemological moreover presuppositonal aplologetics

 

lol