I don't quite understand the mediated love part between the Trinity or your family example. Does it mean you love one thing because you love another? So in the family example you love your children because you love your wife and your wife loves your children? If im understanding correctly then an example of mediated love without direct love might be you love shopping only because your wife loves it and you love your wife.
@Josiah_Harder. Not exactly. The idea might exist in some existing literature, but none that Im directly aware of, so I understand the confusion. I don’t think you can have mediated love without direct love. Mediated love is simply another mode of love. A father can love his child in a direct sense, but if he abuses his wife, he is also being unloving to his son. On the other hand, if the husband loves his wife, that child receives the benefits of having service and spousal love demonstrated to him, but that aspect of live only exists because of the relationship between husband and wife. As I said in the video, some examples of mediated love in the Trinity are lack of favoritism/neglect and justice. For your example of loving shopping, I think thats primarily an example of direct love. The love of shopping only exists because it is a way the husband can show love to his wife, he mainly loves spending time with his wife in the ways she enjoys. I suppose you could also call that a mediated love, but only assuming you can say he “loves” shopping rather than enjoy the time with his wife. And again, you would still need 3 entities in order for mediated love to exist. Regardless, very astute point, thanks!
@ByTheWAYApologetics I won't even tackle the existence of the Trinity (see the 3 laws of logic which are thaught in any first class of any logic program), Trinity could only be three names of the same being, with each being attributed to a type of behavior. They wouldn't be 3 persons as in that they are individual rather it would be like observing person X and saying person X has 3 names Michael - for when X is hungry, Lucas - for when X is angry at a King because he didn't kill the animals, and Josiah - for when X likes to condoning slavery.
@meps8472. I’m not sure how a Trinity violates the three laws of logic you mentioned (which I assume are law of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle). The Trinity is one being, as you said, but not three names, which seems like a form of modalism. The Trinity is three persons, ie. centers of consciousness. A being with multiple centers of consciousness does not violate any laws of logic, maybe just our existing assumptions about consciousness. My video makes the point that if one can demonstrate that God exists, the Trinity is what follows.
@ByTheWAYApologetics 1. It's not modalism herecy, modalism is that god has 3 persons which he is at different times, what I have said that we made up trinity, by recognizing how 1 god acts, it's not a heresy to attribute a certain name for a certain form of behavior, as I said
@ByTheWAYApologetics Oh and also you're teleological argument as presented in the video is just plain wrong, constants don't need to be as they are for the universe to be ... if we wan't the universe as it is they need to be in the right relations. Among others Victor J. Stenger wrote about this in the The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
jesus is not the messiah jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies the bible says the messiah will gather the exiles in deuteronomy 30:3 isaiah 11:11-12 jeremiah 30:3, 32:37 ezekiel 11:17, 36:24 the bible says the messiah will rebuild the temple in isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20 ezekiel 37:26-27 malachi 3:4 zechariah 14:20-21 the bible says when the messiah comes there will be world peace and a complete end to war in micah 4:1-4 hoseah 2:20 isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18 the bible says the messiah will bring universal knowledge of god in zechariah: 3:98:23, 14:9, 16 isaiah 45:23, 66:23; jeremiah 31:33 ezekiel 38:23; psalm 86:9 zephaniah 3:9. jesus didn't do any of these things, so jesus can't be the messiah.
@Pomni740 Im not sure where you got this list, but I dont think it disproves Jesus at all. It does not consider the second coming of Jesus. You even cited verses that talk about “the last days” and “the new heavens and new earth.” Christian believe these things are coming in the future (some ancient Jews even reconciled it by hypothesizing two Messiahs), so it doesn’t affect Jesus’s status as Messiah. Im glad you atleast grant that the Old Testament does speak of a Messiah. Im sure you’re aware of the debates around Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and the like (which Id be happy to discuss with you). Either Jesus, understood as having two comings, is the prophesied Messiah, or there’s no Messiah at all. Even from the passages you cited, many of them do have their fulfillment from the first coming, such as Zechariah 3:9 and 8:20, where Israel’s guilt is cleared and more gentiles seek the God of Israel than Jews. Also is Jeremiah 31:33, where God prophecies the New Covenant where His law will be written on people’s hearts. Do you mean to say that a major point of Christian theology, instituted by Jesus Himself, is meant to disprove Jesus being the Messiah? Overall, the verses you cited are either not necessarily about Messiah (as are most of those under the gathering the exiles section), were fulfilled or are in the process if being fulfilled as Christianity spreads, or are answered by the second coming.
@ByTheWAYApologetics So you are saying that jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies, but he will come back and fulfill them? You could use that argument to say anyone is the messiah because if they don't fulfill the prophecies, you could just say they will come back and fulfill them.
@Pomni740 “Jesus didn’t fulfill the prophecies” isn’t a proper characterization. Jesus fulfilled many prophecies, including some you brought up, but not all of them in His first coming. That’s different from saying He didn’t fulfill any of them but will later. After having proved His credibility through signs and fulfillments of the suffering, serving role of the Messiah, we can trust He will return to fulfill the role of reigning Messiah. This is what Jesus teaches about Himself. Im curious what angle you are approaching this from. Are you using this as an internal critique? If so why do you disregard such a large part of the Christian worldview to do so? From a Jewish/Muslim perspective? If so then what would you say the fulfillment of these prophecies are/will be?
@ByTheWAYApologetics jesus did not fulfill any prophecies. Every prophecy that you think jesus fulfilled is just taken out of context and mistranslated and has nothing to do with jesus. jesus did not fulfill the prophecies that I mentioned. jesus did not bring world peace and a complete end to war. Universal knowledge of god means that everyone in the world will believe in god when the messiah comes that did not happen when jesus came. Gathering the exiles means that every exiled jew will return to israel when the messiah comes that did not happen when jesus came. And jesus did not rebuild the temple. jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies I listed, and every other "prophecy" you think jesus fulfilled is just mistranslated and taken out of context and has nothing to do with jesus. isaiah 53 is saying what kings of foreign nations will say in the end times when they realise that israel suffered because of their sins. isaiah 53 is not about jesus. And psalm 22 is about king david, not jesus. And doing miracles does not prove that you are the messiah because deuteronomy 13 says that false prophets can perform miracles in fact deuteronomy 13 says that anyone who changes the law is a false prophet even if they can perform miracles. Deuteronomy 13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
@Pomni740 I agree that Jesus has not yet fulfilled all the messianic promises, and that the lists of fulfilled prophecies ascribed to Jesus often gets more typological than directly prophetic. Where I do start to differ is that we shouldn’t expect Jesus to have fulfilled them all, because He said he wouldn’t. Jesus said He would return and bring about the rest of what you said. Also consider that Christianity is currently spreading across the world, we grow closer to those fulfillments because of Jesus. I think the reading of Isaiah 53 you presented has problems. It doesn’t make sense of why “the chastisement brought [them] peace” nor of why the other nations would say Israel was “stricken for the transgression of my people” I also don’t think there’s any event in David’s life that quite matches all the details of Psalm 22, even if we disregard “pierced,” as well as Jesus does, especially considering the universality of the ending. As for rebuilding the temple, Jesus’s “If you destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in 3 days” comes to mind. If we’re investigating whether someone fulfills prophecy, we should probably consider what they say about it. As for Dueteronomy 13, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” Also, the sign I was mainly referring to was the Resurrection, not Jesus’s miracles in general. Im still curious what your perspective on the Messianic passages is. Do you think they are prophecies without their fulfillment yet or that the Old Testament holds no water or something else?
Interesting but one reminder for you, we shouldn't believe soemthing simply because it could be proven or demonstrated, remember to put God and his word at the center:)
@legendsplayground7017 Agreed, we shouldn’t let the philosophical study of God overshadow our relationship with Him. But it’s also good to have our faiths founded upon a rigorous evidential base. This video is aimed at the question “Well why should I believe in your God as opposed to all the other ones?” We should because the Trinity simply fits the qualifications for God better than any other, faith and study of the Word flow from that belief.
Wow, how stupid do you have to be to say something like that?😂😂😂 I believe god doesn't exist because Jesus came down to me the other day and said you're all wrong, anyway it could be brought up that my claim doesn't hold any truth value since there is no evidence other than my word, but I will have faith in the almighty misinterpreted Jesus the mighty son of Odin, so I don't need evidence. 😉
@meps8472 hi, nice to meet you :) It's good to learn about the long history of debate about internalism and externalism on what we could trust, though, I don't think we could deduce a stand alone proof or general conclusion on the topic. Surely one could give reason on why he believes this rather than that and the point that one finds fascinating, though, that doesn't mean the reality is settled and straight away labelled the opposite as unhinged moron. (correct me if I've misunderstood you ) what you're doing is you assume there is a standard epistemology in which everyone should accept (empiricism?), why think that? I could tell by studying philosophy it really does humble us down, although we depart our ways in the end, but it's not really right to assume every people who doesn't follow your way has gone off track. Back to the question, I think what I was trying to say is soemthing different, I didn't say we couldn't do philosophy either. I'm trying to say where do we place our foundation? Where's our starting point? Surely there's no way people could found their foundation in philosophy, it's just chaotic, that's why you have people arguing we're all being biased and we all have the desire what to believe in the first place before we do philosophy. My question is why think our faculty is trustable at all? Why think our life is all about making ourself feel good? Get rich? And have high position in society? (worldly ideas) surely enough we all presupposed something, if you think there's an explanation for a particular state, then all you gotta do is have faith and do your scientific experiment? If you already think there's no explanation there really is no point in doing any experiment. What if you think it's not sure? And still gotta do some experiment? Then you again think there's an explanation that determines why. ( if you already presupposed there's no explanation then you why expect to find something?) same goes to materialism, if one thinks matter is all there is then there's no point in finding explanation in immaterial stuff. But why thinks that? Can we prove it? How do we prove everything that exists is matter? Surely we can't. One could do probabilistic reasoning, though, that isn't a knock down punch either(some people would also find the cumulative case for God is higher in probability). Because in materialism you've already set up the condition or restriction on what kind of explanation would be. The problem is where you put your foundation, in Christianity we teach the total depravity of human, our sinful nature has causes us to be self centered and we follow our own desire. Other religion teaches we could be good on our own, there's just some restriction we gotta remove on our own which is false. Christianity teaches we cannot do it alone without God, we as creatures are constantly depend on God. We need to humble ourselves down. Why think our opinion or this self is reliable? Why rely on our own in the first place? Christianity is the only one that teaches we human are depraved and have to repent and be renewed in our identity. What's good for us is not becoming rich or what have you, it's to have relationship with God, in relationship with man and woman and have dominion over nature through God. What's good for us depends on how God designed our end, it's to love one another, sacrifice for one another because God is the principle that there's anything at all, and there's nothing good besides God. God is just and we're sinful, he could condemn all of us because of our sins, the good news is he still loves us despite our sinful nature, he doesn't love us because of anything that's within us, it's his unconditional grace and love that he freely choose to grant us salvation, by sending his only begotten Son of God to suffer and pay for our sins, so we may be righteous. The fact that Christ has to die for our sins display his righteousness and his response towards sins, which shows he's righteous, on the other hand, his action of sacrificing Christ for us displays how much he would act to show his love for us. When one repents and accepted the Holy Spirit, one would have to constantly read the bible to have knowledge of God, and be transformed to be more like Christ, be sanctified. The bible is the message of God and we should incline on it. It's presupposed but it doesn't mean it doesn't hold any true value. Only contradictory claims or nonsense doesn't have any true value. Love your energy for replying bro, I genuinely care for you :) God bless.
@@legendsplayground7017 Bro are you in a sect? Is this some copy pasta I don't know about?😂😂😂😂 There is something we call experience from which we learn, have you ever heard about it? You wrote a gazillion words and really saind nothing. Btw I highly doubt you read any real philosophy works in your life. I don't know what are you arguing for you haven't defined anything. 'Christianity we teach the total depravity of human, our sinful nature has causes us to be self centered and we follow our own desire.' No there is this thing called biology and anthropology which explains why even individuals living in cooperative societies don't commit themselves fully to the group. 'epistemology in which everyone should accept (empiricism?), why think that?' Because we only learn through experience. 'How do we prove everything that exists is matter? Surely we can't.' By interaction with an object and experiencing new information. 'Christianity is the only one that teaches we human are depraved and have to repent and be renewed in our identity. ' Okay and? So what about you wanting to blame yourself fo imaginary crimes of other people, I have nothing against it. 'The fact that Christ has to die for our sins display his righteousness and his response towards sins' No, he died because he was tried for heresy, not because he wanted to die. 'My question is why think our faculty is trustable at all?' Because it can be tested and verified. 'Why think our life is all about making ourself feel good?' Who said that? 'then all you gotta do is have faith and do your scientific experiment?' No, you see in science you don't have to have faith but you have to have a brain though. Wow, this is some real delulu stuff.
Bruh as in you don’t agree (in which case, please elaborate), or bruh as in Believe in the Redeemer who Upholds Hope (in which case I hope you appreciate the corny acronym)?
@ByTheWAYApologetics can you tell me the page of any hoooooly book where god explains quantum physics for mere mortals, with number, laws and proves and evidence? Bc you know best minds of humanity struggle with quantum physics for a century already. Maybe hoooly books will help?
@sirex9244 I don’t think that’s a fair expectation. It’s almost like asking why Abraham Lincoln didn’t talk about 9-11 in the Gettysburg address. We cant divorce a text from its purpose and audience. Neither the Bible nor the Gettysburg address were trying to talk to a 21st century audience. The Bible was addressed to ancient/1st century Jews, so it would give evidence most relevant to them, ie. miracles and prophecy. Since you seem to be interested in a holy book having foreknowledge, then I would look to prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament, two of which I made shorts on.
![How God is Both One and Three at the Same Time [Animated Explainer]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eAvYmE2YYIU/mqdefault.jpg)
I don't quite understand the mediated love part between the Trinity or your family example. Does it mean you love one thing because you love another? So in the family example you love your children because you love your wife and your wife loves your children? If im understanding correctly then an example of mediated love without direct love might be you love shopping only because your wife loves it and you love your wife.
@Josiah_Harder. Not exactly. The idea might exist in some existing literature, but none that Im directly aware of, so I understand the confusion. I don’t think you can have mediated love without direct love. Mediated love is simply another mode of love. A father can love his child in a direct sense, but if he abuses his wife, he is also being unloving to his son. On the other hand, if the husband loves his wife, that child receives the benefits of having service and spousal love demonstrated to him, but that aspect of live only exists because of the relationship between husband and wife. As I said in the video, some examples of mediated love in the Trinity are lack of favoritism/neglect and justice.
For your example of loving shopping, I think thats primarily an example of direct love. The love of shopping only exists because it is a way the husband can show love to his wife, he mainly loves spending time with his wife in the ways she enjoys. I suppose you could also call that a mediated love, but only assuming you can say he “loves” shopping rather than enjoy the time with his wife. And again, you would still need 3 entities in order for mediated love to exist. Regardless, very astute point, thanks!
@ByTheWAYApologetics I won't even tackle the existence of the Trinity (see the 3 laws of logic which are thaught in any first class of any logic program), Trinity could only be three names of the same being, with each being attributed to a type of behavior. They wouldn't be 3 persons as in that they are individual rather it would be like observing person X and saying person X has 3 names Michael - for when X is hungry, Lucas - for when X is angry at a King because he didn't kill the animals, and Josiah - for when X likes to condoning slavery.
@meps8472. I’m not sure how a Trinity violates the three laws of logic you mentioned (which I assume are law of identity, noncontradiction, and excluded middle). The Trinity is one being, as you said, but not three names, which seems like a form of modalism. The Trinity is three persons, ie. centers of consciousness. A being with multiple centers of consciousness does not violate any laws of logic, maybe just our existing assumptions about consciousness. My video makes the point that if one can demonstrate that God exists, the Trinity is what follows.
@ByTheWAYApologetics 1. It's not modalism herecy, modalism is that god has 3 persons which he is at different times, what I have said that we made up trinity, by recognizing how 1 god acts, it's not a heresy to attribute a certain name for a certain form of behavior, as I said
@ByTheWAYApologetics Oh and also you're teleological argument as presented in the video is just plain wrong, constants don't need to be as they are for the universe to be ... if we wan't the universe as it is they need to be in the right relations. Among others Victor J. Stenger wrote about this in the The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning.
jesus is not the messiah jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies the bible says the messiah will gather the exiles in deuteronomy 30:3 isaiah 11:11-12 jeremiah 30:3, 32:37 ezekiel 11:17, 36:24 the bible says the messiah will rebuild the temple in isaiah 2:2-3, 56:6-7, 60:7, 66:20 ezekiel 37:26-27 malachi 3:4 zechariah 14:20-21 the bible says when the messiah comes there will be world peace and a complete end to war in micah 4:1-4 hoseah 2:20 isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18 the bible says the messiah will bring universal knowledge of god in zechariah: 3:9 8:23, 14:9, 16 isaiah 45:23, 66:23; jeremiah 31:33 ezekiel 38:23; psalm 86:9 zephaniah 3:9. jesus didn't do any of these things, so jesus can't be the messiah.
@Pomni740 Im not sure where you got this list, but I dont think it disproves Jesus at all. It does not consider the second coming of Jesus. You even cited verses that talk about “the last days” and “the new heavens and new earth.” Christian believe these things are coming in the future (some ancient Jews even reconciled it by hypothesizing two Messiahs), so it doesn’t affect Jesus’s status as Messiah. Im glad you atleast grant that the Old Testament does speak of a Messiah. Im sure you’re aware of the debates around Isaiah 53, Psalm 22, and the like (which Id be happy to discuss with you). Either Jesus, understood as having two comings, is the prophesied Messiah, or there’s no Messiah at all.
Even from the passages you cited, many of them do have their fulfillment from the first coming, such as Zechariah 3:9 and 8:20, where Israel’s guilt is cleared and more gentiles seek the God of Israel than Jews. Also is Jeremiah 31:33, where God prophecies the New Covenant where His law will be written on people’s hearts. Do you mean to say that a major point of Christian theology, instituted by Jesus Himself, is meant to disprove Jesus being the Messiah? Overall, the verses you cited are either not necessarily about Messiah (as are most of those under the gathering the exiles section), were fulfilled or are in the process if being fulfilled as Christianity spreads, or are answered by the second coming.
@ByTheWAYApologetics So you are saying that jesus didn't fulfill the prophecies, but he will come back and fulfill them? You could use that argument to say anyone is the messiah because if they don't fulfill the prophecies, you could just say they will come back and fulfill them.
@Pomni740 “Jesus didn’t fulfill the prophecies” isn’t a proper characterization. Jesus fulfilled many prophecies, including some you brought up, but not all of them in His first coming. That’s different from saying He didn’t fulfill any of them but will later. After having proved His credibility through signs and fulfillments of the suffering, serving role of the Messiah, we can trust He will return to fulfill the role of reigning Messiah. This is what Jesus teaches about Himself.
Im curious what angle you are approaching this from. Are you using this as an internal critique? If so why do you disregard such a large part of the Christian worldview to do so? From a Jewish/Muslim perspective? If so then what would you say the fulfillment of these prophecies are/will be?
@ByTheWAYApologetics jesus did not fulfill any prophecies. Every prophecy that you think jesus fulfilled is just taken out of context and mistranslated and has nothing to do with jesus. jesus did not fulfill the prophecies that I mentioned. jesus did not bring world peace and a complete end to war. Universal knowledge of god means that everyone in the world will believe in god when the messiah comes that did not happen when jesus came. Gathering the exiles means that every exiled jew will return to israel when the messiah comes that did not happen when jesus came. And jesus did not rebuild the temple. jesus did not fulfill any of the prophecies I listed, and every other "prophecy" you think jesus fulfilled is just mistranslated and taken out of context and has nothing to do with jesus. isaiah 53 is saying what kings of foreign nations will say in the end times when they realise that israel suffered because of their sins. isaiah 53 is not about jesus. And psalm 22 is about king david, not jesus. And doing miracles does not prove that you are the messiah because deuteronomy 13 says that false prophets can perform miracles in fact deuteronomy 13 says that anyone who changes the law is a false prophet even if they can perform miracles. Deuteronomy 13:1 Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it.
@Pomni740 I agree that Jesus has not yet fulfilled all the messianic promises, and that the lists of fulfilled prophecies ascribed to Jesus often gets more typological than directly prophetic. Where I do start to differ is that we shouldn’t expect Jesus to have fulfilled them all, because He said he wouldn’t. Jesus said He would return and bring about the rest of what you said. Also consider that Christianity is currently spreading across the world, we grow closer to those fulfillments because of Jesus.
I think the reading of Isaiah 53 you presented has problems. It doesn’t make sense of why “the chastisement brought [them] peace” nor of why the other nations would say Israel was “stricken for the transgression of my people”
I also don’t think there’s any event in David’s life that quite matches all the details of Psalm 22, even if we disregard “pierced,” as well as Jesus does, especially considering the universality of the ending.
As for rebuilding the temple, Jesus’s “If you destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in 3 days” comes to mind. If we’re investigating whether someone fulfills prophecy, we should probably consider what they say about it. As for Dueteronomy 13, “I have not come to abolish the Law, but to fulfill it.” Also, the sign I was mainly referring to was the Resurrection, not Jesus’s miracles in general.
Im still curious what your perspective on the Messianic passages is. Do you think they are prophecies without their fulfillment yet or that the Old Testament holds no water or something else?
Interesting but one reminder for you, we shouldn't believe soemthing simply because it could be proven or demonstrated, remember to put God and his word at the center:)
@legendsplayground7017 Agreed, we shouldn’t let the philosophical study of God overshadow our relationship with Him. But it’s also good to have our faiths founded upon a rigorous evidential base. This video is aimed at the question “Well why should I believe in your God as opposed to all the other ones?” We should because the Trinity simply fits the qualifications for God better than any other, faith and study of the Word flow from that belief.
Wow, how stupid do you have to be to say something like that?😂😂😂
I believe god doesn't exist because Jesus came down to me the other day and said you're all wrong, anyway it could be brought up that my claim doesn't hold any truth value since there is no evidence other than my word, but I will have faith in the almighty misinterpreted Jesus the mighty son of Odin, so I don't need evidence. 😉
@meps8472 hi, nice to meet you :) It's good to learn about the long history of debate about internalism and externalism on what we could trust, though, I don't think we could deduce a stand alone proof or general conclusion on the topic. Surely one could give reason on why he believes this rather than that and the point that one finds fascinating, though, that doesn't mean the reality is settled and straight away labelled the opposite as unhinged moron. (correct me if I've misunderstood you ) what you're doing is you assume there is a standard epistemology in which everyone should accept (empiricism?), why think that? I could tell by studying philosophy it really does humble us down, although we depart our ways in the end, but it's not really right to assume every people who doesn't follow your way has gone off track. Back to the question, I think what I was trying to say is soemthing different, I didn't say we couldn't do philosophy either. I'm trying to say where do we place our foundation? Where's our starting point? Surely there's no way people could found their foundation in philosophy, it's just chaotic, that's why you have people arguing we're all being biased and we all have the desire what to believe in the first place before we do philosophy. My question is why think our faculty is trustable at all? Why think our life is all about making ourself feel good? Get rich? And have high position in society? (worldly ideas) surely enough we all presupposed something, if you think there's an explanation for a particular state, then all you gotta do is have faith and do your scientific experiment? If you already think there's no explanation there really is no point in doing any experiment. What if you think it's not sure? And still gotta do some experiment? Then you again think there's an explanation that determines why. ( if you already presupposed there's no explanation then you why expect to find something?) same goes to materialism, if one thinks matter is all there is then there's no point in finding explanation in immaterial stuff. But why thinks that? Can we prove it? How do we prove everything that exists is matter? Surely we can't. One could do probabilistic reasoning, though, that isn't a knock down punch either(some people would also find the cumulative case for God is higher in probability). Because in materialism you've already set up the condition or restriction on what kind of explanation would be. The problem is where you put your foundation, in Christianity we teach the total depravity of human, our sinful nature has causes us to be self centered and we follow our own desire. Other religion teaches we could be good on our own, there's just some restriction we gotta remove on our own which is false. Christianity teaches we cannot do it alone without God, we as creatures are constantly depend on God. We need to humble ourselves down. Why think our opinion or this self is reliable? Why rely on our own in the first place? Christianity is the only one that teaches we human are depraved and have to repent and be renewed in our identity. What's good for us is not becoming rich or what have you, it's to have relationship with God, in relationship with man and woman and have dominion over nature through God. What's good for us depends on how God designed our end, it's to love one another, sacrifice for one another because God is the principle that there's anything at all, and there's nothing good besides God. God is just and we're sinful, he could condemn all of us because of our sins, the good news is he still loves us despite our sinful nature, he doesn't love us because of anything that's within us, it's his unconditional grace and love that he freely choose to grant us salvation, by sending his only begotten Son of God to suffer and pay for our sins, so we may be righteous. The fact that Christ has to die for our sins display his righteousness and his response towards sins, which shows he's righteous, on the other hand, his action of sacrificing Christ for us displays how much he would act to show his love for us. When one repents and accepted the Holy Spirit, one would have to constantly read the bible to have knowledge of God, and be transformed to be more like Christ, be sanctified. The bible is the message of God and we should incline on it. It's presupposed but it doesn't mean it doesn't hold any true value. Only contradictory claims or nonsense doesn't have any true value. Love your energy for replying bro, I genuinely care for you :) God bless.
@@legendsplayground7017 Bro are you in a sect? Is this some copy pasta I don't know about?😂😂😂😂 There is something we call experience from which we learn, have you ever heard about it? You wrote a gazillion words and really saind nothing. Btw I highly doubt you read any real philosophy works in your life. I don't know what are you arguing for you haven't defined anything.
'Christianity we teach the total depravity of human, our sinful nature has causes us to be self centered and we follow our own desire.' No there is this thing called biology and anthropology which explains why even individuals living in cooperative societies don't commit themselves fully to the group.
'epistemology in which everyone should accept (empiricism?), why think that?' Because we only learn through experience.
'How do we prove everything that exists is matter? Surely we can't.' By interaction with an object and experiencing new information.
'Christianity is the only one that teaches we human are depraved and have to repent and be renewed in our identity. ' Okay and? So what about you wanting to blame yourself fo imaginary crimes of other people, I have nothing against it.
'The fact that Christ has to die for our sins display his righteousness and his response towards sins' No, he died because he was tried for heresy, not because he wanted to die.
'My question is why think our faculty is trustable at all?' Because it can be tested and verified.
'Why think our life is all about making ourself feel good?' Who said that?
'then all you gotta do is have faith and do your scientific experiment?' No, you see in science you don't have to have faith but you have to have a brain though.
Wow, this is some real delulu stuff.
One word
Bruh
Bruh as in you don’t agree (in which case, please elaborate), or bruh as in Believe in the Redeemer who Upholds Hope (in which case I hope you appreciate the corny acronym)?
@ByTheWAYApologetics so much crying from bruh?
@ByTheWAYApologetics can you tell me the page of any hoooooly book where god explains quantum physics for mere mortals, with number, laws and proves and evidence? Bc you know best minds of humanity struggle with quantum physics for a century already.
Maybe hoooly books will help?
@sirex9244 I don’t think that’s a fair expectation. It’s almost like asking why Abraham Lincoln didn’t talk about 9-11 in the Gettysburg address. We cant divorce a text from its purpose and audience. Neither the Bible nor the Gettysburg address were trying to talk to a 21st century audience. The Bible was addressed to ancient/1st century Jews, so it would give evidence most relevant to them, ie. miracles and prophecy. Since you seem to be interested in a holy book having foreknowledge, then I would look to prophecies of Jesus in the Old Testament, two of which I made shorts on.
@ByTheWAYApologetics page number
meaningless