LTAAT‎ > ‎

RSS Feed


A Letter from an Old Friend (Nate Elznic)

posted Aug 12, 2016, 6:28 AM by Carlos García   [ updated Aug 12, 2016, 6:28 AM ]

I received a letter from an old friend who coincidentally started a cult that (coincidentally) resulted in a lot of people walking away from God. Just so I can't be blamed for maligning what was said or fudging the words, I've posted a screen shot of the message at the end of this post. The following is my response in an open letter to Mr. Nate Elznic.


Mr Elznic,
I'm sorry to hear that you haven't changed a bit. In your letter you make the following accusation:
  1. That I'm a judgmental hypocrite
  2. I'm practicing Voodoo
It's interesting that your first notion is to attack my character as you have anyone else who you didn't like. Saul Alinsky wrote in his book "Rules for Rebels" that one should attack the character of others instead of dealing with the facts. Coincidentally, this book was dedicated to Satan. The same Satan that's referred to as the accuser of the brothers (the church) in Revelations 12. Are you sure that you and I are serving the same God? The same Jesus?

Still, I  haven't heard of any apologies to anyone you've hurt during your time as a Youth Pastor at Jubilee or the head Pastor of Fusion. I would like to see an actual apology rather than one of your "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies that you taught Master's Commission to use. 

All in all, I haven't thought about you, except when people you've hurt bring your name back into conversation. With so many still in the area, it's hard not to find a person who was negatively impacted under your leadership. This is why Jubilee offered to pay for counselling for those you hurt. 

I hope that you repent some day and reconcile with those you've hurt. 

Sincerely,
Carlos

 




Cologne Attacks and Dealing with Islam

posted Mar 14, 2016, 2:22 PM by Carlos García   [ updated Mar 14, 2016, 2:22 PM ]


Does Satan Rule Hell?

posted Mar 14, 2016, 2:21 PM by Carlos García   [ updated Mar 14, 2016, 2:21 PM ]


Does Jesus Judge?

posted Mar 14, 2016, 2:20 PM by Carlos García   [ updated Mar 14, 2016, 2:20 PM ]


When did Jehovah Die?

posted Mar 14, 2016, 2:19 PM by Carlos García   [ updated Mar 14, 2016, 2:19 PM ]


Are the 144,000 Really Jehovah's Witnesses?

posted Mar 14, 2016, 2:17 PM by Carlos García   [ updated Mar 14, 2016, 2:18 PM ]


Nate Elznic, Where is He Now?

posted Jul 15, 2015, 12:51 PM by Carlos García   [ updated Jul 27, 2016, 7:53 AM by Lessthan Amateurtheo ]

It's with great sorrow that I have heard news on Nate Elznic. Why, after 5+ years do I still write about him? 

Romans 16:17
Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

It's sad to see that such a great orator destroyed so many lives through manipulation. I've written in great detail on this topic and you're free to read what I've written. 

The problem here isn't just that Nate has destroyed lives, but that he did it from the pulpit. So many struggled and left their faith because of Nate's treachery. Some struggled with suicide, others sexuality. In the end, God does judge the preacher more harshly. (James 3:1)


But, that's not what this is about. This letter is an open warning to the churches in Colorado and anywhere else to where Nate may move. There's a long trail of bodies in this man's past. Please keep that in mind before granting him any authority. 

Chances are, Nate is already starting a church of his own. In starting it, he'll place himself at the head. Once head, he'll create a close circle of people. Those that come close then leave won't speak openly about him. Instead, they'll just fade away. 

The question is how many other people will have to suffer under this man. The same person who has made no attempts to reconcile with those he damaged. His statements were that those who left should come apologize to him. This is the constant message confirmed by the many that left Nate and apologized for not believing me. 


Additionally, it's public knowledge that Nate forclosed on his house.

Why is this important? Over the course of 3-4 years, Nate farmed out construction work to the many people he damaged. All of these people put their blood and sweat into the establishment of his family's home. Fueled by Nate's claims that there was a prophecy that they'd all be favored of God, it's pretty motivating to think that what you're doing is the will of the Almighty.  

Once established, Nate would become angry with the same people for not sweeping his floors and maintaining his yard. He would say they're lazy or unfaithful sons. He'd speak publicly about them when they weren't present, then play nice when he needed something from them. This is the Nate Elznic that we all learned to fear. Nate was feared so much to the point that people from whom he stole money have not yet received compensation. 

I especially have concern for Nate's children. The same children that he would emotionally abuse behind closed doors. He would tell us how Shekinah had a Jezebel spirit. How she would be manipulative. What kind of father says that about his own children? What type of father tells his crying daughter to stop crying because she's just being manipulative? I can think of at least 18 witnesses to situations like this. 

People make mistakes. Sadly, the unrepentant only leave justice for God. I hope some day that Nate will make amends with all those he's hurt. I'll believe it when I hear from them that he's made amends. Not the usual amends that Nate uses where he says "I'm sorry YOU feel that way" or something the similar, but the real amends of admitting his own hand in all that was done.  In the meantime, I see Nate as a wolf in sheep's clothing. He satiates his own appetite at the expense of others. 

While I will not take these posts down, I will certainly leave them as a warning to all who consider trust in Nate. But, should Nate repent and reconcile, I will make sure that the world knows. 

In the meantime, here is what the courts have had to say about Nathan Robert Elznic (aka: Nate Elznic, N8 Elznic)

DATE:                         8/31/2012 
DEFENDANT:             Nathan Robert Elznic 
DOB:                          5/8/1975 
CITY/RESIDENCE:     South Haven, MN 
AGENCY:                    Stearns County Sheriff's Office 
CONVICTION:             Assault in the Third Degree 
SENTENCE:               Offense Date: May 6, 2011. Stay of adjudication; 5 years probation; 30 days jail, may be served on electronic home monitoring, work release okay; pay $300 in court costs; pay $4,666.43 in restitution; complete an anger assessment and follow recommendations; no contact with victim; no threatening, assaultive or aggressive behavior; no same or similar violations during probation; remain law abiding; sign releases of information; follow rules of probation. Sentenced by Judge Scherer on August 31, 2012. 


May God grant his children a very separate path from the one he has walked.One that's firmly rooted in the truth of God and giving no room for unjust gain. 

May God also grab those who were hurt and bring them back in to His (God's) love. May their wounds be healed. May they receive their reconciliation to God.

Is Society Better With Pornography, Adultery, Abortion ,Divorce & Homosexuality

posted Oct 14, 2014, 10:01 AM by Carlos García

 Is Society Better With Pornography Adultery Abortion Divorce Homosexuality Accepted?
 
Short answer... NO

Long answer....


Pornography:

(Secular) Psychologists recommend that people who are disinterested in sex view pornography as a way to stimulate their sexual appetite. This sounds good in theory, until you look at the effects of viewing pornography.

1) The pornographic images become the stimulation.
This creates a disassociation of sex with your partner (preferably, Spouse). Now, instead of associating arousal with your partner, you're now needing multiple sources to get arouse. The desensitization makes it harder for a person to be satisfied with their partner and leads to sexual dissatisfaction in the relationship. 

2) Pornography is tied to a history of abuses
Many women featured in pornography have been sexually abused at some point in their life. Instead of seeing value in their self for other reasons, their value becomes locked in sex and sex appeal. This creates an unhealthy individual who will perpetuate the notion that porn is OK so they can feel ok with their self. 

Coincidentally, porn has also been linked to the sex traffic industry. The higher the demand for porn, the more sex trafficking thrives. 


Adultery

Adultery is a huge contributor to breakdown in the family unit. Humans were designed to be faithful to just one partner their entire life. "the man must leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife" is referenced several places in the Bible. Men and women were designed to have a life-long, monogamous relationship. The moment you deviate from that, sex is no longer sacred. There's a breakdown of trust that occurs. 

When a husband and wife can't trust each other, it weakens the bond. I've seen many "open" marriages end in divorce over stuff like this. 

Furthermore, like porn, when there is adultery, it creates a disassociation of sex from the spouse. Thus, I can get sexual fulfilment with that person if my spouse isn't willing to provide it for me. This places unhealthy expectations on the spouse to perform. These expectations then subjugate the spouse, removing the equal-opposite relationship that men and women should have. While it is true that the man is the head of the house, many verses prescribe how the woman is not his slave but his helper. Thus, the two are equal but different. 


Abortion

In the old testament, Molech worship was common. They'd throw their children into the fires built to worship Molech. Most worshippers of Molech lived sexually promiscuous lifestyles. In the modern day, abortion is framed as being about women's reproductive freedom. In some campaigns, it's just simply called sexual freedom. 

So, you have a few things happening here:

1) A life is taken. 
At conception, the child has a unique set of DNA from the mother. The pro-life movement can provide quite a few other facts that contribute to the argument of the "fetus" being human, so lets move on. 

From a judiciary point, if you harm a woman who's pregnant and kill her unborn child and you're charged with murder. There's a disconnect of convenience which allows circumstances to determine if the fetus is human or not. 

Also, society does not have a point of humanity. Some say as soon as the child is born, some say in the womb, and some say after 3 years old (as infanticide is legal in some European countries). The grey lines between when a person is human and under what circumstances leaves room for anything to be done to the unborn according to the individual's moral compass. 

This breeds a further problem. Since the unborn are not considered human 100% of the time, their freedoms may be infringed upon for any reason. If a doctor wanted to genetically manipulate a fetus for whatever experimentation, he/she could since it's just "tissue" according to the pro-abortion team. But, I digress.

2) A Womb Disturbed
There are studies that show that post-abortion women have a harder time conceiving. Thus, when a woman wants to have a child, her body isn't prepared to carry the child full term and may abort it or not nurture it as it was meant to. 

3) Removed Sexual Consequences
A consequence of sex is children. As Christians, we love children and consider them a gift from God. When you remove the sexual consequence of children from the factor, then people are encouraged to be very promiscuous. The more promiscuous a person is, the harder it is for them to have a monogamous sex life once they're married. Sex becomes void of intimacy and meaning by being reduced to a casual activity. The same bond that was meant to strengthen a marriage is now as useful as a cordless drill with an old battery. 


Divorce

Divorce is biblically only allowed in cases of adultery. But, there's a larger issue here in society. 

1) Mommy State = Subsidized Divorce
In the US, 89% of divorces filed end in favor of the woman. THus, you have women getting paid to divorce their husbands. Prior to child support laws, women would stick with their husbands until either he left or she decided that she just couldn't take it anymore. I'm not saying that this was ideal, but there was more incentive to work it out. Some marriages (especially in my family) lasted because there was no easy out. 

I have several friends who were divorced by choice of the woman. In a friends and my cases, our ex-wives found someone else that they chose to sleep with. Before the bed was cold, we were served papers. After being thrust into a lifestyle of living hand-to-mouth, it was hard. But, where was the repercussions for their actions? The courts didn't care. My lawyer explained to me that no matter how she cheats in the relationship, there's nothing that can be done against her. 

So, why is this important? Subsidizing divorce makes the decision less weighty. If you know that you can burn someone and get a win-fall for it, why not? 

2) Family Issues
Divorce hurts families. One of my kids blamed their self for the divorce. My child told me that things would've been different if they hadn't provided secret updates to mom on what dad did or didn't do. While this is the mother encouraging unhealthy behavior, the fact that it lead to the child's parents divorcing still plagues my child to this day.

3) Father Issues
Where are the fathers in this day? 1 out of every 3 children has a father today. Fathers are the ones that set expectations for authority. A strong, loving father increases a child's success rate in life. Through divorce, fathers are being removed from their children's lives. This breeds children who have lowered respect for law and order. In the end, children who are much more likely to be criminals.

4) Trust Issues
Can you really trust someone who just threw their last relationship away for you? What guarantee do you have that they'll be faithful to you? If the person you're pursuing simply divorced their last spouse, how do you know they won't divorce you? 

Divorce (like breaking up with someone you're dating) gets easier every time. The first is devastating, but each time after that it's just a legal process that you've traversed before. I have a family member who's on their 4th marriage. Each time, they've been less emotionally involved in the divorce. 

Building trust is hard in life, but when you've been burned, it's much harder to trust again. From personal experience, I have to separate the actions of my current wife from past experiences of my ex-wife. Circumstances may be similar, but they are different people. 


Homosexuality

Homosexuality is a huge issue. It's much larger than the secular world wants to admit. Homosexuality breeds all sorts of societal problems.

1) Gender Identity
Growing up in this fast-paced world is already difficult. Homosexuals challenge people to question yet one more aspect of their self. Are you the right gender? Quick clarification, sex is what parts you have, but gender is now defined as whether you identify as masculine or feminine. By not being sure of who you are as a person, others can project an identity on to you. 

Funny story, but the psychology community still considers homosexuality to be a gender identification disorder. This hasn't been removed from the books. 

2) Promiscuity
With gay marriage being passed in states, we'll see the numbers start to show. The traditional homosexual relationship is one of multiple partners and bed hopping. History has shown that the homosexual life style seldom produces monogamous couples. 

3) Disease
The US CDC forbids homosexuals from donating body fluids. A glance on their website, and people practicing same-sex relationships are at minimum 11% more likely to be carriers for STD's than promiscuous heterosexuals. 

4) Protected Class/Uber Rights
If you have read the news, there are several cases where small business owners have rejected business from homosexuals due to religious reasons. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree with the business owner. The fact is that almost all of them have lost the court battles. This means that a person who holds religious views (specifically those against homosexuality) can be forced to cater to the homosexual community. THis produces an infringement upon individual rights in favor of minority rights. 


So, long answer... there are many horrible things that have been born from Pornography, Adultery, Abortion ,Divorce & Homosexuality in society. While you can't legislate morality, you can discourage these actions by providing information as to their detriment in society. In the end, each will choose their own god, but not all will choose God. 

Free Will or DNA (Discussion Transcript)

posted Oct 7, 2014, 6:32 AM by Carlos García   [ updated Oct 7, 2014, 9:12 AM ]

There was an interesting discussion between Richard Dawkins and David Quinn. This started an interesting exchange that we've chosen to share. 



Our Opening Statement
Dawkins consistently dodges free will in this mini-debate. Why? If we are all the product of our genes and environment, doesn't that mean that our thought processes are varied, but predetermined. 

Example: A child's father beats him, so he beats his child.

If Dawkin's is right, then the child who was originally beaten has no choice but to beat his child. 

However, if there's an intangible that provides free will, then the child who is beaten has a choice of whether he'd beat his child. 

Daily, we punish people for breaking laws, but if people are preprogrammed, then why do we spend time trying to reform (reprogram) these people? 



Their Response
Dawkins has not much interest in free will because he is primarily concerned about the existance of god that has nothing to do with free will. Criticizing Dawkins for not adressing free will instead of adressing his arguments, that is the dodging.



Our Response
If there is no God and no supernatural, then from where do you get free will? 

Consider the argument. 

The naturalist says:
  • consciousness is the result of a mindless process. 
  • there is no spiritual/supernatural

So, if the human mind is the result of a mindless process, how did we get a complex thinking machine from a mass of chemicals? Consider that attempting to simulate the evolution of humanity is counterproductive because you'd put intelligence into your experiments to prove that intelligence isn't needed to produce a mind. 

Furthermore, you're asserting that a mindless, unguided process can and will lead to the produce of a mind. Something unorganized and unguided will create something that is sophisticated enough to bring order and guidance to a being. This line of thinking is the equivalent of finding a temple overrun with vines in the middle of a jungle and concluding that the vines created the temple. 

So, what's this have to do with free will? If our minds are the result of a mindless, unguided chemical process, then the result should be a fully determined being that is (from birth) set on a path. Thus, the murderer is programmed to murder. The arsonist is programmed to burn things. In the end, everyone is preconditioned for their behavior pattern and so we cannot deem one person to be in the moral wrong.

If there is a supernatural, then there's a transcendent essence in humanity that allows humans to imagine something greater than what it is. This would explain how technology advances based on the dreams and aspirations of humans. It would also explain how a person who is preconditioned toward alcoholism can choose a different path that goes against his/her genetic makeup. 




Their Response
"If there is no God and no supernatural, then from where do you get free will?"

Sounds to me like you're saying you don't like the idea of not being free will therefore god. Which is an obvious fallacy.

"So, if the human mind is the result of a mindless process, how did we get a complex thinking machine from a mass of chemicals? Consider that attempting to simulate the evolution of humanity is counterproductive because you'd put intelligence into your experiments to prove that intelligence isn't needed to produce a mind."

We get a complex brain from evolution. We don't need to simulate evolution to see this we only have to look at anthropological evidence. And even if a simulation was provided as proof there being an intelligence behind it would not invalidate it given that the initial conditions of the simulation are naturalistic.

"Furthermore, you're asserting that a mindless, unguided process can and will lead to the produce of a mind. Something unorganized and unguided will create something that is sophisticated enough to bring order and guidance to a being. This line of thinking is the equivalent of finding a temple overrun with vines in the middle of a jungle and concluding that the vines created the temple."

What a strange analogy, we know that evolutions has mechanisms that can create complex intelligence (or mind if you prefer). Vines don't have machanisms to produce a temple. And btw an analogy by definition is never proof of anything.

"So, what's this have to do with free will? If our minds are the result of a mindless, unguided chemical process, then the result should be a fully determined being that is (from birth) set on a path. Thus, the murderer is programmed to murder. The arsonist is programmed to burn things. In the end, everyone is preconditioned for their behavior pattern and so we cannot deem one person to be in the moral wrong."

There being no morality is irrelevant to the question if there is free will. So what if the conclusion of there not having free will is that there is no morality, that still doesn't prove the truth of free will.

"If there is a supernatural, then there's a transcendent essence in humanity that allows humans to imagine something greater than what it is. This would explain how technology advances based on the dreams and aspirations of humans. It would also explain how a person who is preconditioned toward alcoholism can choose a different path that goes against his/her genetic makeup. "

It doesn't logically follow that if there is a supernatural then there is a transcendance essence in humanity. There could be a supernatural (assuming you mean god) and humans could still be mindless machines. And the technology and alcoholism thing don't require a transcendent essence either, another proposition that doesn't follow.

I only debunked your arguments for fun, it still has no bearing on the truth of god question, like Dawkins said free will is a complicated question best answered by qualified people but there are arguments for it like the unpredictability of quantum physics and the plasticity of the brain, none of them require god. And btw, one sure way of eliminating free will is postulating an omniscient omnipotent god because then it would be ultimately responsible for everything.


Our Response
"Sounds to me like you're saying you don't like the idea of not being free will therefore god. Which is an obvious fallacy."

Make a case for your assertion.

"We get a complex brain from evolution. We don't need to simulate evolution to see this we only have to look at anthropological evidence. And even if a simulation was provided as proof there being an intelligence behind it would not invalidate it given that the initial conditions of the simulation are naturalistic."

If we don't need to simulate the environment and can only look at the evidence, then the hypothesis is a matter of the observer's subjective observations. Thus, if an observer is predisposed to believe there is no supernatural, the observer will conclude a naturalistic explanation. Interestingly enough, the naturalist is missing a tool in his/her toolbox. By denying the plausibility of the supernatural,the naturalist denies a plausible cause for the universe, consciousness, and so forth. 

At this point, you'll cite Occam's razor, but consider that the prime mover argument (that even Dawkins holds to) shows that the universe cannot have an infinite past. Thus, there must be an uncaused cause that started the universe. 


"There being no morality is irrelevant to the question if there is free will. So what if the conclusion of there not having free will is that there is no morality, that still doesn't prove the truth of free will."

On the contrary, if there is no free will, there is no morality. Morality is defined as the beliefs of what is right and wrong. Free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong regardless of prior circumstances. So, if there is no free will, then a person would not have the ability to choose between right and wrong. Thus, the person predisposed toward violence has no choice but to perpetuate violence against others. Their actions cannot be deemed right or wrong since they are acting upon their predisposition as set by DNA.



"It doesn't logically follow that if there is a supernatural then there is a transcendance essence in humanity. There could be a supernatural (assuming you mean god) and humans could still be mindless machines. And the technology and alcoholism thing don't require a transcendent essence either, another proposition that doesn't follow."

So, what you're saying is that we can program a robot, stick it in a room with paper and crayons, and it will begin to dream or produce art. The transcendent nature of humanity can be explained by our ability to act contrary to DNA. Again, with the morality argument, if humanity does not have free will, then humans cannot be expected to act against natural urges. In the animal kingdom, we don't claim a snake is immoral because it kills to eat. In animals, there is no morality. All animals act upon DNA and preprogrammed behaviour. 

So, if you choose to respond, I'd expect an explanation of how evolution can produce free will and morality in a species. This is especially problematic in evolution because you're assuming that small changes over time will produce a creature with a completely different family (taxonomy). 


"I only debunked your arguments for fun, it still has no bearing on the truth of god question, like Dawkins said free will is a complicated question best answered by qualified people "


Wow, I'm not sure if you're making an indirect ad hominem in your last paragraph or giving yourself a argumentum ad lapidem. Truth is that you haven't debunked anything nor fully interacted with the claims made. 


"but there are arguments for it like the unpredictability of quantum physics and the plasticity of the brain, none of them require god. And btw, one sure way of eliminating free will is postulating an omniscient omnipotent god because then it would be ultimately responsible for everything."


I find it interesting that in your view, you presuppose that an omniscient, omnipotent god would control everything. Based on your assumption, you're correct, there would be no free will if such a god deemed it. Your argument is a straw man because it fails to consider the will of such a being. Suppose God (being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) desired to make a creature with which He can have a relationship. The creature would have to have free will. Otherwise, it could have no better relationship with the creator as a toaster would with you. Being free to reject is the very essence of free will. 


Their Response

"Make a case for your assertion."

I did.

"If we don't need to simulate the environment and can only look at the evidence, then the hypothesis is a matter of the observer's subjective observations. Thus, if an observer is predisposed to believe there is no supernatural, the observer will conclude a naturalistic explanation. Interestingly enough, the naturalist is missing a tool in his/her toolbox. By denying the plausibility of the supernatural,the naturalist denies a plausible cause for the universe, consciousness, and so forth."

That's not how science works, scientists extrapolate from the evidence they don't make up evidence to fit their ideas (those that do are just frauds and they get find out) the whole scientific process couldn't function without this intellectual honesty and if there was evidence for the "supernatural" it would just become part of the "natural". Supernatural is just another word for something you don't have any evidence for.

"At this point, you'll cite Occam's razor, but consider that the prime mover argument (that even Dawkins holds to) shows that the universe cannot have an infinite past. Thus, there must be an uncaused cause that started the universe."

Dawkins most certainly does not hold that argument. And even if he did he would be wrong. Do you even look at the other side? because that argument has been so easily refuted time and time again. First, if you say that there must be a first cause, where did god come from? It doesn't make any sense that you start with something complex rather than simple, everything else in nature comes from something simple (edit : or if you rather, everything complex can only be explained by breaking it down in simpler things). Second, it's an argument from ignorance fallacy, because even if you can prove that there must be a first cause (which hasn't been proved) it still in no way justifies for you to call it god it would just mean that there's more to understand. But even then, this argument isn't supported by cosmology, because at T=0 the notion of time breaks down so you can't postulate that there must be a first cause, no matter how much your human intuition tells you to.

"On the contrary, if there is no free will, there is no morality. Morality is defined as the beliefs of what is right and wrong. Free will is the ability to choose between right and wrong regardless of prior circumstances. So, if there is no free will, then a person would not have the ability to choose between right and wrong. Thus, the person predisposed toward violence has no choice but to perpetuate violence against others. Their actions cannot be deemed right or wrong since they are acting upon their predisposition as set by DNA."

Did you even read what I said? I said it doesn't matter if the conclusion of there not having free will is that there's no morality, that still doesn't prove in any way that free will is true.

"So, what you're saying is that we can program a robot, stick it in a room with paper and crayons, and it will begin to dream or produce art."

Given that said robot had an intelligence rivaling our own, I don't see why not.

"The transcendent nature of humanity can be explained by our ability to act contrary to DNA."

Begging the question fallacy, you are assuming in your premise that transcendence exists. And saying "act contrary to DNA" doesn't make any sense, DNA is the blueprint for our genetic make up it doesn't control us.

"Again, with the morality argument, if humanity does not have free will, then humans cannot be expected to act against natural urges. In the animal kingdom, we don't claim a snake is immoral because it kills to eat. In animals, there is no morality. All animals act upon DNA and preprogrammed behaviour."

Again, that doesn't mean free will is true it just means there would be no morality if free will was false.

"So, if you choose to respond, I'd expect an explanation of how evolution can produce free will and morality in a species. This is especially problematic in evolution because you're assuming that small changes over time will produce a creature with a completely different family (taxonomy)."

You are an incredibly confused person, not only do you make all these logical fallacies and doing all these red herrings you can't even keep track of the fact that you're the one arguing for free will not me and like I said I'm just debunking your arguments for fun I have no particular position on free will I just said that even if there was free will, this would in no way prove god. Keep in mind that the argument you posed was "If there is no God and no supernatural, then from where do you get free will?" (which is another begging the question fallacy btw). In other words you think free will exists and that it comes from god. To this you have 2 things to do, #1 prove that free will is true and #2 prove that free will links to god (edit: 3 and prove that god exists of course), which you have failed to do.

"Wow, I'm not sure if you're making an indirect ad hominem in your last paragraph or giving yourself a argumentum ad lapidem. Truth is that you haven't debunked anything nor fully interacted with the claims made."

Read again.

"I find it interesting that in your view, you presuppose that an omniscient, omnipotent god would control everything. Based on your assumption, you're correct, there would be no free will if such a god deemed it. Your argument is a straw man because it fails to consider the will of such a being. Suppose God (being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent) desired to make a creature with which He can have a relationship. The creature would have to have free will. Otherwise, it could have no better relationship with the creator as a toaster would with you. Being free to reject is the very essence of free will."

It's not a straw man, god would still be the one who decides how much "free will" you have. But even if your argument was true you still have to demonstrate that god exists and that free will exists.?


Our Response

What you've failed to acknowledge is that scientists create hypothesis from the data they believe is true. There's a large amount of subjection when dealing with information that's not reproducible. Thus, when scienstists look at fossils, if they are naturalists, they generally hold to evolution. As a radical from the norm, Robbert Bakker proposed that there are only one third of the dinosaurs that we've observed in the fossil record. He proposed that some of the other dinosaurs observed were merely different stages of life. Thus, the protoceratops was a hatchling that would grow into a torosaurus and finally mature to a triceratops. 

Should Robbert Bakker's hypothesis be accepted, it would remove a large number of "transitional fossils" from the evolutionist's set of evidence. Currently, Bakker's hypothesis has been rejected. Regarding Bakker himself, he is an evolutionist, not a creationist.

This is one major case that shows a strong bias being used to keep the God hypothesis out of science. 

Your understanding of Dawkins is lacking. In the "Expelled" documentary, Dawkins (on film) stated that there's no possibility of the Christian God. Shortly after, Dawkins suggests that there may be a possibility of another deity. Shortly after, Dawkins suggests that aliens were the prime mover.

Regarding your disapproval of the first cause (prime mover), there are three accepted possible origins of the universe. 

1) Self Created
2) Eternally Existent
3) Externally Created

The self created argument falls upon itself because the universe cannot be its own cause. For this to pass, the universe would have to have existed before itself or outside of itself. If the universe existed outside of itself, then there would be a supernatural since we could not detect the universe from which our universe came. 

For the universe to be eternally existent, it would exist in one of two states. If a constant state, then you'd require an outside force to start the events in motion which caused the universe to begin the creation of life. This would lead to a supernatural, since in a constant state, inertia would come into play, preventing the universe from changing. 

If the universe was eternal, but in a constant state of flux, then there should be evidence that the universe was in disorder at one point. There should also be evidence that the universe could simply fall apart at any moment. Assuming you're an atheist, you postulate that the earth is over 1 billion years old. Based on that assumption, what are the chances that the universe could remain stable for that length of time if it started in constant flux? 

If the universe was created by an external source, then that source would have the ability to finely tune the universe to remain stable and support life. Whatever outside force created the universe could be considered "god". Whether this is sentient or not, this outside force would have to be more powerful than the universe and have some manner of intelligence to finely tune all forces for stability. 
 

 When you dismissed the existence of morality proving free will, you're failing to deal with a very large question. The question of evil is huge. In nature, there is no evil. All creatures do as they're programmed by their DNA. So, the snake eating the rabbit is not a malicious act of evil. 
 
 However, if someone came up to you and stabbed you in the chest, would that be evil? Would it be wrong? If DNA pulls the strings and we dance to its music, then there's nothing wrong with any atrocity committed. That said, universally, there are certain morals that every society holds. 
 
 1) Do not kill your own
 2) Do not steal from your own
 3) Do not oppress your own
 
The "your own" is added because any deviation from these is justified by saying the target wasn't akin to the one committing the act. Thus, in the early 1900's eugenics movement, people who were less than what was deemed human in society were infringed upon greatly. Mass sterilizations without consent on people of lower IQ's or with deformities and other undesirable traits. 
 
Was this evil? 

Look again at the 3 basic morals of a society.Can people choose to go against them? In today's society, we've seen horrible atrocities. A major one that was on the news some time ago was Ariel Castro. He held women in his basement to rape them as often as he pleased. There were children born from this, some of which he killed. If there is no morality, then what Ariel did was OK. But more interesting, if there is no morality then Ariel Castro could not be tried. He merely did according to what his DNA told him was right. 

Would you say that Ariel could be tried for his crime? if so, by what standard? 

You say I'm begging the question when I assert that our transcendent nature explains our ability to go contrary to our DNA yet you fail to provide a counter point. We have studies showing that humans are predisposed to certain behaviours. Again, with the original example. 

A child of an alcoholic parent has a 60-70% chance of being an alcoholic their self. Native Americans who drink suffer from alcoholism worse than most other races. So, if it's in the DNA to be predisposed toward something, then a human acting upon it must have something that allows them to overrule their natural urges. If a person can overrule their natural urges, they then have free will (as they're not bound to them).

It's interesting how you start more ad hominem when you refer to me as a confused person. Truth is that you haven't debunked anything. 

When a discussion/debate is held, each party must present evidence for their claim. I claim the positive that there is A) God and B) Free Will. To debunk an argument, you must prove the opposite is true. If A = False, then !A = True, but A cannot be both false and true. So, if there is no God, then provide evidence for your negative assertion. If there is no free will, then provide an argument that is logically consistent with your actions explaining why you have chosen to continue this interaction. 


Lets define "Free Will"

According to Mirriam Webster:
1:  voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2:  freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Do you disagree with this definition? If so, provide another universally agreed upon definition of Free Will. 

But lets look at it. For a human to have free will, he/she would be able to act independently of the supernatural. When you assert that the measure of free will is based on how much God gives them, you're making an assumption that free will isn't free. You're then moving into a limited free will, which isn't free. Sounds like a red herring to me. 

Either way, your arguments seem to be against the existence of free will. So, you either must respond because there's an outside force compelling you to respond or you choose to respond because you have free will. Please state which one it is in your response... I'm curious. 


Their Response

About your point on science :

If it's true that anthropological science is more subjective than others, but there is no disagreement about the truth of evolution, just about specific aspects of it.

About your point on dinosaurs :

Do you really think that scientists who spent their life studying this don't take into account the "stages of life". And you said his hypothesis was rejected anyway so that's the end of it I guess, if there's a point to make here that will invalidate transitional fossils it will have to be accepted by at least a large number of qualified experts not just 1 guy before I bother looking at it.

About your point on Dawkins :

You're either misrepresenting him on purpose or too dumb to understand his position, because it's clear if you've ever heard him talk or watch his documentaries that he specifically said that there always is the possibility of the christian god, just that it's extremely unlikely, on par with fairies. As for aliens being the prime mover, he said that was a possibility not that that's what he believed, again, you're just lying about this, not that I'd expect intellectual honesty from a theist.

About your point on the Prime mover :

You've just ignored my counter argument and reworded your claim, so there's no reason why I should respond, go back and read what I said.

About your point on the problem of evil :

You have failed to demonstrate how your problem of evil validates free will, sorry to be laconic about this but there's not much more to say about it because it's completely irrelevant to the free will question.

About the transcendent and DNA point :

Again, life experience and rational thought or even irrational in the case of Muslims who don't drink alcohol because of their religion's dogma can easily explain why someone predisposed to alcoholism would not consume, none of that requires transcendence and most certainly does not prove free will.

"It's interesting how you start more ad hominem when you refer to me as a confused person. Truth is that you haven't debunked anything.

When a discussion/debate is held, each party must present evidence for their claim. I claim the positive that there is A) God and B) Free Will. To debunk an argument, you must prove the opposite is true. If A = False, then !A = True, but A cannot be both false and true. So, if there is no God, then provide evidence for your negative assertion. If there is no free will, then provide an argument that is logically consistent with your actions explaining why you have chosen to continue this interaction. "

You can say all you want that I haven't debunked all I can say is read again, I'm happy to clear any confusion but ignoring my counter arguments won't get you anywhere. And you clearly don't understand the burden of proof, I don't have to prove the opposite, I just have to poke holes in your arguments. I suggest you go read on the burden of proof it seems a necessary prerequisite to partake in philosophical discussion.

About your definition of free will :

Okay, let's say I agree on your definition, I wasn't stating that free will isn't free, I was stating that free will isn't free when you have a god. Yes, if free will is given by god then it's not really free will because god is omnipotent and omniscient therefore controls everything, this breaks both your points in your definition. And if you call that a red herring, I would point out that you're the one that brought god in the free will question and I was only responding to that.

About your question on my position on free will :

You guessed right, I would be leaning towards not having free will but I'm not prepared to make a case for it and I'm not very well versed in the subject. Like I said I was just refuting your argument since burden of proof doesn't require me to prove the opposite I see no reason to.?



Our Response:


The problem with evolution is that there isn't sufficient evidence for it. We see stasis in all creatures. They just poof into existence, then are gone. We've never dug up enough transitional phases to show a gradual progression. At this point, the best argument an evolutionist has is falling back on the absence of evidence. 

The other issue with the evolutionary view is that we have found several instances of polystrate fossils. How can the geological column be penetrated by something, if it takes millions of years between layers? Is it possible that the geologic column is wrong? 

Consider also fossilization. In a 1994 study, scientists were able to fossilize shrimp in about a month. If this can be done, what about larger creatures? 

Furthing the issues with evolution, why have there been dinosaur bones found with soft-tissue? In 2005, a juvenile T-Rex leg was found to have soft tissue still in tact. The ultimate assessment by these scientists was that soft tissue can last over 3 billion years, but it doesn't explain another issue. 

Look at anthropoligic evidence for dinosaurs and humans co-existing.  The Acambaro Mexico figures look like dinosaurs. Those date back to the 1600's. The legend of Saint George and the dragon tells of George fighting a creature resembling a Stegosaurus. Saint Martha and the dragon depicts an Ankylosaurus being led into the village to be slaughtered. There are plenty of dragon tales from people all over the world. In each, the dragon descriptions match what we refer to as Dinosaurs. Since the first dinosaur wasn't dug up until the 1800's, how could ancient people describe these creatures in ways that match what we've observed in fossils?

So, when given a wider array of information, the notion of millions to billions of years of evolution seems to have overlooked other factors that could sway against the plausibility of evolution.

But, science doesn't care about history... right?


Regarding the point about Dawkins, I don't understand your need for ad hominem attacks. Generally that's a sign of a person who is weak in their arguments. Oh well...

Since the camera doesn't lie, watch the Expelled interview with Dawkins before replying. Everything I've asserted was actually said by Richard Dawkins. 

Regarding the prime mover, it's OK if you can't interact with what I've written. It happens eventually. 

In my previous statement, I expounded on the evidence for the prime mover. If you don't wish to interact with the expounded explanation, that's your choice since you have free will... right =p


Your not understanding the problem of evil and how morality equates to free will shows me that you either don't understand the issue or haven't read what I wrote. Please reread my response. 

Reading your take on Muslims, you still seem to be confused about how free will allows people to overrule their natural predilections. Please reread all my statements on free will and how a sense of morality demonstrates the existance of free will. 

When you say that you don't HAVE TO PROVE THE OPPOSITE, you clearly are taking a lazy approach. I claim the positive that there is a God. I have presented evidence. You have not provided a counter argument. There's no slacking on this one. Consider also that atheists constitute about 12-15% of the world's population. So, in the grand scheme of things, you are a minority. Perhaps I shouldn't have to prove there isn't a God but rather you should have to prove there is one. 

Considering that you haven't disproven the existence of God, it seems that you are unable to.  


You're logic doesn't follow. You're making the assumption that an omnipotent and omniscent being must be in control of everything. What you're not taking into consideration is if the omniscent, omnipotent being wants to control everything. Remember, that free will is void of influence by a deity or circumstances. 

So, when you postulate that the existence of God doesn't allow for free you fail to recongnize the potential and the will to act. A further illustration. I could go to the store and buy milk, but do I want to? The potential is there, but the desire is not. 

In your argument you falsely represent the nature of God. 

You state that you do not believe we have free will, yet your actions show otherwise. So far, you've continued this conversation. Is there some external force complelling you to do so? If you don't believe in the supernatural, then you must obviously be connected to a machine that's forcing you to type contentious responses. If this isn't the case, why do you keep responding? Why do you choose to to continue down this path? 

Their Response

About your points on evolution :

Just because we don't have the full picture does not invalidate evolution, it' still the best explanation. About polystrate fossils : that was investigated and determined to be caused by flooding rivers, do a short research before presenting such arguments please it would save me some time. About shrimp fossilization : I fail to see what the time to fossilize something have to do to question evolution, you'll have to expand on that. About humans co-existing with dinosaurs: If you really believe that you're nuts and if the pathetic reason you gave me can convince you then you're incredibly gullible. If that's the extent of the evidence you need to believe such a thing when faced with the massive amount of evidence against it then there's not much I can say to you except that your evidentiairy requirements are insufficient. It should be clear to you that the extrapolation you gave me is far fetched.

About Dawkins :

I have just watched that interview, and as I suspected, you are lying. Dawkins says that he finds the probability of a god to be in the 99% against, not that there's no possiblity, and about aliens, he clearly poses a hypothesis, never said that this is what he believed to be true. You sir / ma'am, are a liar. And it's not an ad hominem, because I'm giving you reasons why you are lying.

About prime mover :

I have interacted, I have given you a counter-argument, you have chosen to ignore it. You can expound your supposed evidence all you want, until you counter my rebuttal your argument stands invalidated.

About problem of evil and morality :

Again, you have failed to demonstrate how this proves free will, all you have said is that you don't like the idea of no morality, and expanded on that with your problem of evil, therefore you think there is free will. That is a fallacy. It's as if I said I won the Nobel prize because think it would be nice if it were so.

About Muslims and overriding natural predilections :

Again, you are ignoring my counter argument, I have given you reasons why none of this requires transcendence and how it does not prove free will in any way, until you address this, this argument is also invalidated. But since I know you will try and ignore this as well, let me make it clear : people override their "DNA" as you say, with life experience and using their brains to think, this does not in any way infer free will, just because you do something contrary to your genes, does not mean it's not deterministic, the brain itself, that allows you to make this decisions could also be deterministic, it does not require transcendence or free will. You must use other arguments to justify this.

"When you say that you don't HAVE TO PROVE THE OPPOSITE, you clearly are taking a lazy approach. I claim the positive that there is a God. I have presented evidence. You have not provided a counter argument. There's no slacking on this one. Consider also that atheists constitute about 12-15% of the world's population. So, in the grand scheme of things, you are a minority. Perhaps I shouldn't have to prove there isn't a God but rather you should have to prove there is one.

Considering that you haven't disproven the existence of God, it seems that you are unable to.  "

Again you claim I have provided no counter argument, this is clearly your tactic to win this debate and it's a sad one. There's not much I can do in this context except to tell you to go back and read what I said, if you persist on refusing to do so, I'm gonna have to end this discussion. And again you don't understand the burden of proof, you can call it lazy if you want, I don't care, I'm not required to. And being in a minority in no way shifts the burden of proof. Of course I can't prove the non existence of god, it's a non falsifiable hypothesis, which is why it can never be considered as a serious claim.

About free will and omnipotent god :

It can never be called free will if a god gave it do you, regardless of if it intervenes or not, you only act within the confines of what this god dictates.

About your last paragraph :

That's not an argument for free will, you're just saying I have no reason to do what I'm doing. And yes, the "external force", the "machine" you mention would be my brain.


Our Final Response

In your opinion, evolution is the best explanation. Then again, you ignore the evidences for a creator, thus creating an argument from ignorance. Besides, Darwin himself said if the transitional fossils couldn't be found, then his theory would be debunked. 

Regarding humans and dinosaurs, your opening is ad hominem. I'm guessing that this is argumentum ad lapidem as well since you refuse to interact with the argument by providing evidence to disprove the evidence provided. 

About the prime mover, argumentum ad lapidem. I've read back and you are using the achilles method of argumentation, but not satisfying the burden of proof. In a debate/discussion, the person proposing the negative must provide proof of said negative. It is how a debate works. 


About morality, you haven't provided evidence that morality doesn't exist, so I'll make this very simple.

Is it wrong to kill another person? 


About Muslims and natural predilections, I have reread your arguments. You have failed to show that people cannot override their natural predilections. I have provided evidence for the overriding of natural tendencies, but you have not. Also, to be able to go against your natural tendencies means you have to have something that is able to override nature. Propose evidence that we can examine that disproves this. 

You're saying that you have provided evidence, but yet, after reading through the argument, I can find only places where you say things like "no, it doesn't work that way" or "you're stupid". You use more ad hominem than reason and calling out fallacies to ignore evidence presented. It's not about winning a debate, but rather obtaining evidence and understanding from both sides. 


You also postulate that it can never be free will if God gave it to you. Yet, you're failed to make a case for this. You're assumption is that free will is limited. If free will is limited, it is limited to the realm of your control. This does not infringe upon it being free will. 




""That's not an argument for free will, you're just saying I have no reason to do what I'm doing. And yes, the "external force", the "machine" you mention would be my brain.""

Wow... I don't know what to say here. If your brain is driving you to respond to this thread, then you are choosing to respond. Thus, you're acting on free will. You've made a very illogical claim

For someone who claims to be very logical, the sum of your arguments fail to show thought and understanding. I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself should be able to interact with what's put forth as evidence beyond the ad hominem or saying that it doesn't work that way without providing evidence. 

This will be my last response, pending your addressing the evidence provided beyond ad hominem and argumentum ad lapidem remarks. I'd like to say that this has been a debate, but it's about as annoying as the time that Eric Hovind debated Beth (don't remember her last name). During that debate, Eric put forth the question of where she got her standard of truth. Beth would not answer the question and wanted to move forward without addressing a key argument. Several arguments have been put forth that you have not addressed. 

So, in closing, I thank you for your time.

Their final response

"In your opinion, evolution is the best explanation. Then again, you ignore the evidences for a creator, thus creating an argument from ignorance. Besides, Darwin himself said if the transitional fossils couldn't be found, then his theory would be debunked. "

You don't understand what an argument from ignorance is. And there isn't any evidence for a creator. And transitional fossils were found.

"Regarding humans and dinosaurs, your opening is ad hominem. I'm guessing that this is argumentum ad lapidem as well since you refuse to interact with the argument by providing evidence to disprove the evidence provided. "

Your "evidence" was myths and stories, so I'm rejecting your argument on its face if you consider the absurdity of weighing this versus the mountains of evidence for evolution.

"About the prime mover, argumentum ad lapidem. I've read back and you are using the achilles method of argumentation, but not satisfying the burden of proof. In a debate/discussion, the person proposing the negative must provide proof of said negative. It is how a debate works. "

Once again you don't understand the burden of proof, you're just trying to justify ways not to address my counter argument, pathetic.

"About morality, you haven't provided evidence that morality doesn't exist, so I'll make this very simple.

Is it wrong to kill another person?"

Please explain why it's necessary for me to provide evidence that morality doesn't exist, you're not making any sense.

"About Muslims and natural predilections, I have reread your arguments. You have failed to show that people cannot override their natural predilections. I have provided evidence for the overriding of natural tendencies, but you have not. Also, to be able to go against your natural tendencies means you have to have something that is able to override nature. Propose evidence that we can examine that disproves this. "

Another attempt to shift the burden of proof, this is getting tiresome, and you once again ignored everything I said. I have given my counter-argument twice, I will not again.

"You're saying that you have provided evidence, but yet, after reading through the argument, I can find only places where you say things like "no, it doesn't work that way" or "you're stupid". You use more ad hominem than reason and calling out fallacies to ignore evidence presented. It's not about winning a debate, but rather obtaining evidence and understanding from both sides. "

It's not my job to provide evidence, and saying I'm using fallacies to ignore your evidence is laughable. In other words you don't care if your argument makes no sense as long as in your mind you've provided evidence. I don't think you're qualified to debate with me. Oh and you don't understand what an ad hominem is, when I attack your person, I do it after debunking what you say, so it's not unjustified. And I'm only doing it because you arrogantly bypass everything I say and pretend you win the argument while in reality you don't even understand my counter points or the ridiculousness of your evidence and fallacies you make.

"You also postulate that it can never be free will if God gave it to you. Yet, you're failed to make a case for this. You're assumption is that free will is limited. If free will is limited, it is limited to the realm of your control. This does not infringe upon it being free will. "

So in other words you think caged dogs have free will because they're free to do whatever they like inside their cage, alright.

"Wow... I don't know what to say here. If your brain is driving you to respond to this thread, then you are choosing to respond. Thus, you're acting on free will. You've made a very illogical claim"

That's it, you've solved free will, I can choose to respond therefore free will! Seriously, you didn't even read what I said. The brain itself could be deterministic. Even if I choose to make decisions they could still be fully material and dependent on a deterministic brain. And it's the last time I'm rewording this for you.

"For someone who claims to be very logical, the sum of your arguments fail to show thought and understanding. I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself should be able to interact with what's put forth as evidence beyond the ad hominem or saying that it doesn't work that way without providing evidence. "

So after making a streak of insults you portrait my arguments as "it doesn't work that way" and claim I'm relying on ad hominems. Now you should know why I don't talk to you with respect.

"This will be my last response, pending your addressing the evidence provided beyond ad hominem and argumentum ad lapidem remarks. I'd like to say that this has been a debate, but it's about as annoying as the time that Eric Hovind debated Beth (don't remember her last name). During that debate, Eric put forth the question of where she got her standard of truth. Beth would not answer the question and wanted to move forward without addressing a key argument. Several arguments have been put forth that you have not addressed.

So, in closing, I thank you for your time."

Sayonara, hopefully other people see this debate and your position will humiliate them into becoming free thinkers for fear of being associated with the likes of you.?





Post Mortem Thoughts:

I'm very disappointed with how this discourse progressed. The person failed to provide evidence nor answer the questions. The number of assaults on my intelligence seemed to be the best arguments this person could provide. In the end, I had hoped for more interaction with the evidences provided. The philosophic arguments and real world studies show that there is free will. I think that's been proven through out this discourse. 

Sadly, most people will say what's necessary and try to shift the burden of proof to avoid the existence of God. In the end, nature itself does show the existence of God. Also, had God not given us free will, we would not be free to love Him. 

The Body Is the Temple, So I Don't Need Church (Discussion Transcript)

posted Sep 26, 2014, 6:48 AM by Carlos García   [ updated Oct 7, 2014, 9:11 AM ]

The following is part of a longer conversation. To adequately address this, the issue is that the person in question believed that we didn't need to attend nor be part of a church. They set the following challenge:


The question was simple, but I'll help you out since you seem lost

Ephesians 2:20-22
Acts 20:28
1 Corinthians 3:17
Ephesians 2:19-22
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

This list can go on and on. These 5 examples all point to 1 thing. YOU are the holy temple, not some place of brick and mortar. It's nice to have such a place to go to but "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" Matthew 18:20?



The following is our response:



Ephesians 2:20-22
Ephesians 2:19-22 (not sure if you intentionally overlapped these)
This passage recounts how the saints are fit together into a holy temple. It references the fact that the body is the temple as stated by Jesus when he referred to the temple being destroyed then rebuilt in 3 days. 

Still, in context, this is about the assembling/bringing together of members on one accord for the building of what's referred to as the body of Christ (basically, the larger church as a whole). In this allegory, Paul speaks of pieces being touched together, not separated. This is something that's later spoken of in Hebrews 10:25 where forsaking the assembling of the saints is forbidden. 

You also bring up 1 Corinthinas 6:19-20 which is further writing on the subject. But, in context of 1 Corinthians 6, there's text preceding this passage that forbids Christians from fornication (which there's evidence Corinth was a hub for sexual sins).

Acts 20:28
In this passage, Paul (with Luke recording) is addressing the overseers of the church. (Pastors to use the modern vernacular). He's telling them to feed the church. This may be a reference to how Christ said that man shall not live by bread alone,but every word that comes from the mouth of God.(Deut 8:3 & Matt 4:4). 

In this case, the church overseers should be sure to preach the word of God and ensure that the people have access to sound teaching. This passage in Acts is followed by the warning that "wolves" will come to cause division in the church. Furthermore, people from the church will start causing divisions as well by teaching things that aren't in line with God's word. 



1 Corinthians 3:17
Keep in mind that 1 Corinthians deals more on sexuality faux pas than any other book in the Bible. This is because the church of Corinth was a sex hub.That said, 1 Corinthians 3 is where Paul is affirming that the Spirit of God dwells within the believer. This is another reference to the teaching of Christ that the body is a temple made for the dwelling of God's Spirit. 


It seems like you are making a case that each person is his/her own church. That we don't need to go to church every Sunday. Matthew 12:43-45 & Luke 11:24-26 both recount Jesus' teaching that if a demon (unclean spirit) is cast out of a person and nothing takes its place in that person, then 7 more demons (unclean spirits) will enter to that person making them worse off. If you contrast this against the verses you offered, it's plausible that a person may have been healed of spiritual affliction, but their body will be the house (or temple, by extension) for whatever foul spirit takes over after they fail to replace the demonic with the Spirit of God. 


Something else to keep in mind is that verse in Hebrews (10:25). We're not to forsake the assembling. This means that people are connected to one another. In Acts 2:42, the early church is described as people coming together to hear the gospel ("apostle's doctrine"), fellowship (interaction with other believers), food ("breaking of bread"), and prayer.

Consider also the letter of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Tarjan. In this letter, Pliny describes the Christians as having gathered on a certain day which they believed holy, eating together, and worshipping Jesus as if he was a god. Pliny's letter is extra-biblical, but never the less, confirms what's happening in Acts. 

So, when a person says that they don't need the church, I find that it's usually based in an offence. Scripture prescribes and requires that we gather together to worship God.



Their Response

Again, you are re-iterating the very basic point I have made. You're killing me guy...

You are the holy temple, the representation of Christ. 

Why do you feel the need to give some lesson here that is not needed? 

Please go somewhere of people who want to learn, need to learn, and don't have an understanding. You're preaching to someone who knows this pretty well and you're falling on deaf ears here

You are truthfully sounding like a broken record, but trying to add additional info that is not referring to the subject matter at hand...


Our Response

You're point is still very unclear. Your words sound like you are saying that we DON'T need the church. I have provided evidence showing that we DO need the church. SO far, you haven't interacted with any of the evidence provided. So, be very clear as to what you're saying?

Does a person need to attend the church?



Their Response

Good God, you're about as dense as someone  mentally disabled. @ least they are understandable for their condition.

There is no true need for brick and mortar... 

One more time...

YOU ARE THE HOLY TEMPLE, THE BODY OF CHRIST, THE REPRESENTATION OF JESUS HIMSELF.

If you insist on having some brick and mortar place, so be it, but that ISN'T THE CHURCH!!?


Our Response

You're very wrong. There is a need for a meeting place. It doesn't have to be brick and mortar. Some villages only have a tent. Never the less, the term ecclesia means a calling out and coming together. It implies that people are coming out of their homes and coming together in a designated place. 

So, I'd like to hear which verses specifically state that you do NOT need to come together to be the church? I have provided verses indicating that's the church. Please interact with those. 


Their Response

 Dear lord... I'm done talking w/ you... You are intentionally attempting to manipulate the main point so you can have some sort of victory here. You sound like the overzealous Atheists who try so hard to discredit the word of God


Our Response

 The problem is that you haven't made your point clear. You complained that your girlfriend was at a church that shunned her for not wearing the right clothes. You then start on the point that we are the temple. 
 
 Thoughout your argument, you have failed to interact with the verses provided as evidence that the Bible clearly requires believers to regularly assemble to worship God. Extra Biblical sources were provided as evidence that this was the practice of the early church. 
 
 If you're done, that is your call, but I'm curious what your real point is? If it's that we're the temple, scripture clearly indicates that we are temples that are not made with hands (Acts 7:48). If you're furthering the point to say that because of this we do not need to attend church regularly, then you should interact with the verses previously provided that state we should. You should also provide verses that create counter evidence to the compulsion for church attendance. 


The final response from the other person was a series of ad hominem attacks. When a person attacks another person's character and personhood, it's a sign that they have no intelligible evidence to refute claims. Their last statement was an I'm done with this remark. I had hoped that this conversation would go further because I was legitimately interested in what the other party had to say. Alas, c'este la vie. 


The bottom line is that scripture supports that we must be connected to a church body as well as living sanctified lifestyles.  Both are important. 

1-10 of 57

Comments