Studies that say NDEs are not real.

[B. W.]

And how many post has Kenny made so far on this forum and on this thread to speak his mind freely?

and folks think we haven't considered his views?

No; YOU haven ’t considered my views. If you had, you wouldn’t have made claims about me that you’ve made…. unless you’re just doing this out of anger.

This is your 1,348 post on this forum. That is empirical evidence of grace displayed to you to post your POV for folks to consider. Again, you have not backed up your POV with objective truth, only subjective based upon yourself. It is out of Chirst Jesus' love toward you thru me is why I bothered to respond, not anger.

I think K has it right, you are in someway mirroring your relationship with your father onto all Christians. You have a broken heart that needs mending. Only Jesus can mend this and he uses people to help with this and expose the wound so it can be cleansed and healed. Take the plunge and find Jesus ready to enter your life if you but open the door to your heart, John 3:16.

Fact of the matter, Kenny does not regard any alternative point of view, nor will he listen and try to learn from the others words here,

You’re wrong. I’ve had plenty of conversations with people on this forum some whom have caused me to change some of my views on various issues. Of course that has never happened with you; you’re too quick to insult.

That's good news. As I stated before, with loving compassion I spoke the truth in order to spiritually slap some sense into you because your inclination to insult the intelligence of many readers here. You often cite that only what you think should be the model for all to follow. That is great error because as you stated, you are not perfect. See the irony you pose to your own belief system?

nor does he make an effort to understand an opposing persons POV on this thread. We have and tried and tried to have an intelligent conversation but to o avail,

So you said my life is meaningless, that I was a nihilist and if I were honest with myself I would see it as true. And because I object, I refuse to consider an opposing POV? Is this an example of an opposing POV you expect me to listen to? If I were as offensive with you, would you take me seriously? Why should you expect any more from me? Tell you what; if you want me to respect your POV, respect mine. Ken

I stated that you as a militant atheist only believe in, hope for, and defend a state of nothingness after one dies. In other words, the Militant atheist camp has only nothing to believe in, hope for, and defend. In that, that is what you are doing. We do not force anyone to believe in Jesus nor do we hold a sword over anyone demanding allegiance or else. Christians offer the choice of God's grace to an individual to freely accept or reject. For this, many in society want Christianity destroyed.

Do you support and condone this destruction?

If so, then who is it really not listening and is not tolerant?

If not supporting, then why are you here since you do not appear to be willing to consider what others have said here concerning your eternal living state (living on and on after you die) you will discover true in due time?

Many here, were militant atheist or mild atheist or agnostic and found Jesus Christ and life. They know what they are talking about and responded to you according to the manner you responded to them.

If you are really open minded, then read Jac's book that the Links provided by himself and RickD link too - pages 93-96. Listen to others here and stop being so foolish.

Have a nice day
-
-
-

[Kenny]

BW
This is your 1,348 post on this forum. That is empirical evidence of grace displayed to you to post your POV for folks to consider. Again, you have not backed up your POV with objective truth, only subjective based upon yourself.
Ken
Most of my claims are backed up by logic and reason


BW
It is out of Chirst Jesus' love toward you thru me is why I bothered to respond, not anger.
Ken
If those insulting responses of yours is done out of what you call love, do me a favor and love someone else. With love like that, might as well have hate.


BW
I think K has it right, you are in someway mirroring your relationship with your father onto all Christians. You have a broken heart that needs mending.
Ken
If this is an attempt to offend me by bringing my father into this, it isn’t working. Though my father and I may disagree on religion and politics, when I look at the entirety of his life, where he came from and how he got to where he is now, I consider him one of the greatest persons alive. I have deep love and respect for the man.

BW
You often cite that only what you think should be the model for all to follow.
Ken
When have I ever said that?


BW
That is great error because as you stated, you are not perfect. See the irony you pose to your own belief system?
Ken
All I see is someone who doesn’t listen to what I say, misrepresenting my words.

BW
I stated that you as a militant atheist only believe in, hope for, and defend a state of nothingness after one dies. In other words, the Militant atheist camp has only nothing to believe in, hope for, and defend. In that, that is what you are doing. We do not force anyone to believe in Jesus nor do we hold a sword over anyone demanding allegiance or else. Christians offer the choice of God's grace to an individual to freely accept or reject. For this, many in society want Christianity destroyed.

Do you support and condone this destruction?
Ken
Most of my family, friends, and loved ones are Christian. Why would I want to destroy something they hold so dearly? Such a foolish question.

BW
If so, then who is it really not listening and is not tolerant?
Ken
Judging from the questions you are asking, you don’t listen very well and your hatred for me is not very tolerant.

BW
If not supporting, then why are you here since you do not appear to be willing to consider what others have said here concerning your eternal living state
Ken
Oh great! The “why are you here question” again? I just answered that question a few days ago on this thread! C’mon! Keep up!


BW
If you are really open minded, then read Jac's book that the Links provided by himself and RickD link too - pages 93-96. Listen to others here and stop being so foolish.

Have a nice day

Ken
Still on that book things huh? Okay let me explain since initially it didn’t involve you.
I was discussing with someone who said for me to do the right thing is meaningless; because right has no meaning without God.
In an attempt to understand why he would make such an (IMO) absurd statement, I attempted to understand how he is defining right; thus I asked the question/scenario
“if X is good, is it good because God says it is good or is it good regardless of what God says”

Now the only reason I asked that question was because I was trying to understand how this person is defining “good” the actual question/scenario was of no interest to me. Then of course everybody and their mother (including you) “dog piled” in pointing to this book insisting if I read those pages my question will be answered. The book would not have answered the question I was interested in because all I wanted to know was how this person was defining “good” okay? So enough with the book.

Ken

[RickD]

Ken
Most of my claims are backed up by logic and reason

I choked on my granola bar when I read this!

Thanks Kenny. I needed a good rofl!

[Kenny]

Ken
Most of my claims are backed up by logic and reason

I choked on my granola bar when I read this!

Thanks Kenny. I needed a good rofl!

Think that's funny, try reading some of the stuff you've been known to put down! Clear your mouth before reading though; I'd rather you choke over your own words than a granola bar

Ken

[RickD]

Ken
Most of my claims are backed up by logic and reason

I choked on my granola bar when I read this!

Thanks Kenny. I needed a good rofl!

Think that's funny, try reading some of the stuff you've been known to put down! Clear your mouth before reading though; I'd rather you choke over your own words than a granola bar

Ken

I know you are, but what am I....

[Byblos]

Most of my claims are backed up by logic and reason

You mean in your opinion, right? Because from where most of us are sitting you're as reasonable and as rational as a 4-sided triangle. In my opinion, of course.

[Nicki]

Play nicely, kids!

Rick
So, all decisions of what's good, are alike. Which ultimately makes them meaningless.
Ken
Actually what people determine as good often differs from person to person.

Ken

I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaninglessness lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

Further to the question of the origin of morals, I think the answer is closer to option 1 than option 2 - God is certainly not under a higher moral standard himself. However, he doesn't actively decide what's right and wrong but rather morals come from his unchanging nature.

[RickD]

Nicki wrote:
I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaningless lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

Yes Nicki. This is the simple truth which can be understood by simple logic and reason. Which Kenny says his claims are backed by.

[Byblos]

Nicki wrote:
I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaningless lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

Yes Nicki. This is the simple truth which can be understood by simple logic and reason. Which Kenny says his claims are backed by.

In your opinion.

[RickD]

Nicki wrote:
I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaningless lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

Yes Nicki. This is the simple truth which can be understood by simple logic and reason. Which Kenny says his claims are backed by.

In your opinion.

Of course. Would illogic have it any other way?

[Byblos]

This so-called discussion with kenny reminded me of a blog post Ed Feser wrote some time ago. Although the blog addresses radical skepticism in general, I thought it'd make a great read considering some of the points kenny raised particularly with respect to subjective vs. objective reality. One paragraph struck me as especially poignant (the skeptic having claimed that reality as we know it is nothing but an illusion inside the matrix):

So, the skeptic’s position is ultimately incoherent. But rhetorically he has an advantage. With every move you try to make, he can simply refuse to concede the assumptions you need in order to make it, leaving you constantly scrambling to find new footing. He will in the process be undermining his own position too, because his skepticism is so radical it takes down everything, including what he needs in order to make his position intelligible. But it will be harder to see this at first, because he is playing offense and you are playing defense. It falsely seems that you are the one making all the controversial assumptions whereas he is assuming nothing. Hence, while your position is in fact rationally superior, it is the skeptic’s position that will, perversely, appear to be rationally superior. People bizarrely give him the benefit of the doubt and put the burden of proof on you.

Anyway, here it is: Marriage and the Matrix. Happy reading.

[Kenny]

Play nicely, kids!

Rick
So, all decisions of what's good, are alike. Which ultimately makes them meaningless.
Ken
Actually what people determine as good often differs from person to person.

Ken

I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaninglessness lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

True! If there were no higher standard. But as I've said before, in the secular world the higher standard is the law. When a society of people agree on a list of standards, (laws) that becomes the higher standard than the individual standards each person has, and they will put a system in place to enforce those higher standards. After all, what good is having a higher standard if it isn't enforced?
History and present day teaches us when people attempt to impose God's standards on a society (theocracy) it never seems to turn out right.

Ken

[RickD]

Play nicely, kids!

Rick
So, all decisions of what's good, are alike. Which ultimately makes them meaningless.
Ken
Actually what people determine as good often differs from person to person.

Ken

I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaninglessness lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

True! If there were no higher standard. But as I've said before, in the secular world the higher standard is the law. When a society of people agree on a list of standards, (laws) that becomes the higher standard than the individual standards each person has, and they will put a system in place to enforce those higher standards. After all, what good is having a higher standard if it isn't enforced?
History and present day teaches us when people attempt to impose God's standards on a society (theocracy) it never seems to turn out right.

Ken

I know what you mean Ken. When we try to impose God's standards on society, it never turns out right. Like the laws that punish murder, theft, etc.

It's a good thing for us, that lawmakers don't pay attention to God's standards when it comes to that!

[Kenny]

Play nicely, kids!

Rick
So, all decisions of what's good, are alike. Which ultimately makes them meaningless.
Ken
Actually what people determine as good often differs from person to person.

Ken

I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaninglessness lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

True! If there were no higher standard. But as I've said before, in the secular world the higher standard is the law. When a society of people agree on a list of standards, (laws) that becomes the higher standard than the individual standards each person has, and they will put a system in place to enforce those higher standards. After all, what good is having a higher standard if it isn't enforced?
History and present day teaches us when people attempt to impose God's standards on a society (theocracy) it never seems to turn out right.

Ken

I know what you mean Ken. When we try to impose God's standards on society, it never turns out right. Like the laws that punish murder, theft, etc.

It's a good thing for us, that lawmakers don't pay attention to God's standards when it comes to that!

You obviously don't know what I mean. How many theocracies exist today? How many in the past? How many would you feel comfortable living under? Sharia law is the most popular theocracy of today; I know you wouldn't be too happy living under that theocracy; and not because they punish murder, theft, etc either. How many theocracies from the past do you know of that you would feel comfortable living under?

Ken

[RickD]

Play nicely, kids!

Rick
So, all decisions of what's good, are alike. Which ultimately makes them meaningless.
Ken
Actually what people determine as good often differs from person to person.

Ken

I think the point here was that individual humans' opinions of good and bad are alike not in their details but in their nature - your, my or anyone else's opinions are just as valid as each other, so the meaninglessness lies in no one being able to be said to be right in their moral views, if there's no higher standard.

True! If there were no higher standard. But as I've said before, in the secular world the higher standard is the law. When a society of people agree on a list of standards, (laws) that becomes the higher standard than the individual standards each person has, and they will put a system in place to enforce those higher standards. After all, what good is having a higher standard if it isn't enforced?
History and present day teaches us when people attempt to impose God's standards on a society (theocracy) it never seems to turn out right.

Ken

I know what you mean Ken. When we try to impose God's standards on society, it never turns out right. Like the laws that punish murder, theft, etc.

It's a good thing for us, that lawmakers don't pay attention to God's standards when it comes to that!

You obviously don't know what I mean. How many theocracies exist today? How many in the past? How many would you feel comfortable living under? Sharia law is the most popular theocracy of today; I know you wouldn't be too happy living under that theocracy; and not because they punish murder, theft, etc either. How many theocracies from the past do you know of that you would feel comfortable living under?

Ken

If I were alive at that time, only one. The only true theocracy.
People living in countries living under sharia law aren't living in a true theocracy.