874 reputation
2823
bio website
location Sweden
age 25
visits member for 3 years, 1 month
seen Jun 10 at 11:56

I've got a bachelor's degree in Computer Science and Engineering and am employed as a software developer, working mainly with Android and apps. I have a wide range of interests, with computing and linguistics being the greatest.


Jan
11
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@MarcGravell I guess we disagree, then. Furthermore, I agree with you that society should not base it's instituted morals on something other than that which the majority of the people agrees with. I believe, however, that the laws of life (cause and effect in our lives) follow specific rules that our society has understood, in part. These rules are written in the Bible (by the creator and institutor of these very rules).
Jan
11
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@MarcGravell Science is not logic (logic is not science), it is logical. Science is the verification of facts (in a physical context). God's existence cannot not be proved by scientific arguments (afaik) but with logical arguments. I think we can agree on this. The main point I want to put forward is that the problem with atheism, or more accurately naturalism, is that it only recognizes the strictly verifiable knowledge and that it only recognizes what we can see and touch, an assertion that (in my opinion, of course) is invalid. I think you could agree on this.
Jan
11
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@MarcGravell I haven't said that either. I agree with you on that, but many atheists uses this as an argument against God's existence. They say: "We can never verify God's existence, thus he does not exist", dismissing the concept of God based on his scientific unverifiability. It's very tragic to see people fool themselves like this. Also, it is hypocrisy (to believe one unverifiable thing and dismissing another on the same ground).
Jan
11
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@MarcGravell As you say, what I just said does not prove the existence of any God and certainly not that it is the god of the Bible. But that was not my intention either. What I wanted to say is that scientific attempts to either disprove or prove the existence of God is futile. My assertion, however, is that the theist claim makes most sense. My second assertion is that the biblical claim makes most sense (In (very) short: Our world is broken and man is sinful. God loves us and has created for the purpose of a relation with him and if we accept Christ's sacrificial death, that is possible).
Jan
11
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
Also, science is only dealing with what is regular and recurring, therefore science can neither disprove nor prove miracles, since they are miracles and therefore not regular. That's why every attempt to scientifically disprove or prove miracles is just plain stupid. Furthermore, the atheist might say: "God does not exist in our material universe, thus there is no God". To say such a thing, one must assert that our material universe is the only there is. Such an assertion cannot be made, thus that claim is invalid.
Jan
11
comment Atheism is the default position. Isn't the burden of proof on the Christian to assert that God exists?
@Sklivvz As RCIX said, science only deals with that which is material. God is not material, so there's a dead end from start. It is true that for science, God does not exist in our material universe. In spite of that, I believe that God has created our material universe (among other things) and that he is able to and is interfering with our material universe.
Jan
4
awarded  Nice Question
Jan
1
asked Did God REALLY want to destroy the people of Israel?
Jan
1
accepted What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death?
Dec
28
asked What happened to Ananias and Sapphira after death?
Nov
30
comment What are the biblical arguments against the papacy and papal succession?
@sidran32 There's an article about that and the words that Jesus actually used when he said this: carm.org/is-peter-the-rock. Peter comes from the masculine "petros" and Jesus used the feminine "petra". "You are Petros and on this petra ..."
Nov
10
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
@GilbertLeBlanc Very interesting theory! What are your sources? But even if this is the case (which seems likely to me), this means that some could have been emasculated for some other devilish reason and still be excluded. Also, I don't really get why those of illegitimate birth, the bastards, should be excluded. They did not choose (?) to be conceived in that manner. And less, I do not get why even their descendants to the tenth generation should be excluded! I know that there are some reason for this, for God is just, but I'm having trouble to see it.
Nov
8
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
@GilbertLeBlanc Sorry, I was too unclear. I wasn't quoting you. My quote was supposed to be an implicit continuation of "because the LORD your God loves you".
Nov
4
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
@GilbertLeBlanc "... and I want you to do this out of trust"? I think that there must be some higher purpose than this for excluding these people from "the assembly of the LORD" whatever that means. It'll be interesting to see if the question at Biblical hermeneutics.SE generates any good answers.
Nov
4
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
@zipquincy That'd be great as a separate question. :)
Nov
4
comment What is the Roman Catholic view on Matthew 23:9?
As Jesus stated: yes. There's to much potential pride involved. If someone looks at you and call you some of those titles and you accept it, you will soon look at yourself as that title, which is a huge risk for pride. Jesus told us to humble ourselves and he even told us not to let other people exalt us. I don't think there's any great need for those titles and God already fulfills all of them. We don't need bishops and priests: The Holy Spirit is our teacher, instructor and doctor, the Father is our father and the Son is our savior.
Nov
3
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
I just posted a question on Biblical Hermeneutics referring to the same passage, asking about the meaning of "the assembly of the LORD".
Nov
3
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
@Richard Okay, you're right. Protestantism it is.
Nov
3
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
As you say, the commandments that God gave in Deuteronomy was meant for a specific context. That's why I think that i's especially important to understand the meaning and purpose of the commandments so that we can find some applicable general principle (if any). Therefore, I'm asking if there is any general principle in this one and if we can apply that particular principle in our own lives and congregations today. Perhaps I should extend my question.
Nov
3
comment “Those excluded from the Congregation”
@Richard My purpose is not to know how different denominations view this passage, but to get as good an answer as possible. Also, I do not (wish to) disqualify answers based on any particular doctrinal stance, but if I have to choose one I choose protestantism.