W T F

In case you’re wondering what @Alaskaair has been focusing on, it’s diversity & inclusion, making their planes gay, and having drag queen flight attendants.

If you’re on an Alaska plane, just pray their diversity hires don’t screw up and they’re putting this same energy into… pic.twitter.com/xg41yL9UYQ

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) January 11, 2024

Dr. @EithanHaim blows the whistle on Texas Children's Hospital: "I knew that it was my moral responsibility to expose what was happening to these children ... A month later, two federal agents arrived at my door."https://t.co/DvradAjGuE

— Christopher F. Rufo ⚔️ (@realchrisrufo) January 12, 2024

When the Feds showed up that confirms he was doing the right thing. It also confirms that the current regime is more corrupt & perverted than most people thought. We can only hope that justice will prevail, the guilty parties will be punished, & most important, children will be protected.

You should be in a mental institution...understood.

The minimum wage waiter didn't validate me - I'm going to throw a toddler tantrum for the world to see

After being called “sir,” she just gets up and walks out of the restaurant.

How would you handle this if you were the manager? pic.twitter.com/AHpiULZ0Co

— Dr. Jebra Faushay (@JebraFaushay) January 13, 2024

That is gross. He's a dude in a wig and a dress. Why do these freaks expect everyone else to go along with their lies and delusions???

historian said:

---

That is gross. He's a dude in a wig and a dress. Why do these freaks expect everyone else to go along with their lies and delusions???

---

Growing up, no one was able to tell them 'no' and make it stick.

Most likely. That's what bad parenting can do, although I am hesitant to blame it all on his parents. In the end, he's responsible for his own decisions & actions.

My deepest regret was insignificant much like most 15 year olds that did not cut up their bodies...

What was your deepest regret at 15 years old? pic.twitter.com/IqDe4ySaxH

— Chloe Cole ⭐️ (@ChoooCole) January 14, 2024

Very sad that young kids go through that. It's absolutely criminal that too many adults confuse them with lies about who they are or can become (hint: a boy cannot become a girl & vice versa). Many of these groomers are more than willing to push them into these idiotic & completely unnecessary surgeries even to the point of doing it behind the backs of their parents. Too many doctors and hospitals promote this sort of butchery because they make lots of money off of it. Too many evil politicians want to punish parents for trying to protect their children from this perversion.

Everything about is evil, trusted and even demonic.

This will just be like the rona lockdowns. In three years when all these stories about messed up kids and conversation therapy comes out, they LWNJ's promoting conversation therapy today will claim they never did and it was all Republicans.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Immediately after your question are the applicable passages from Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The existence of God is self-evident to everyone who opens their eyes and pays attention.

It might not be the job of science to disprove the supernatural but it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

---

The job of science is not disprove the supernatural (although as a happy by product science dismisses superstition and the supernatural). Historian, you are trying to use science to prove the supernatural. Science could give a pfft about the supernatural.

it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

Because supernatural entities (i.e. the "God" of conservatives) are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The realm of faith is not science but love as in God is love and You shall love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is purview of the Christian faith. Challenge me on the witness of love in our world but not superstition and the supernatural.
My faith stance stumps you because you want to engage in a nonsensical debate about the supernatural. I would invite you to consider and live into the love commandment and ways you and I can share the good news of Jesus Christ.
The invitation to love alongside me is somehow foreign to you but we are Christian brothers in the faith.

---

And here we go again with the same incoherent, contradictory nonsense where you repeatedly reject the supernatural but then espouse concepts that are completely supernatural.

Time and time again you've been shown this, but your response is either to pile even more incoherent, contradictory nonsense on top, or you choose not to respond all, completely ignoring people's questions that illustrate the fact.

But you've invited a challenge to your "witness of love", so here's a start:

Question: Is "love" a product of physics, or is it beyond physics?

---

Beyond physics. Love is here and now. For example Physics nor science can determine if you love your wife.

---

If it's beyond physics, then it's supernatural. That's what supernatural means.

So you DO believe in the supernatural, correct?

---

Premise 1 -- We have laws of nature and physics. True
Apparently You think it is God. therefore your conclusion is
Conclusion: A supernatural God created the laws and physics

---

What and why is their origin? Again, prove that God created these laws and physics. Your proof is the Bible? Who says your supernatural is correct as opposed say to the Toltecs

---

---

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

---

Who knows?

---

I didn't ask who knows. I asked what you believe.

---

I answered "Who knows?" is my answer. Do you know? I believe that Science is working on that one.

A "Christian" who doesn't believe in God or that Jesus Christ is the risen Son if God is not a Christian. Those are fundamentals that actually define what it means to be a Christian.

As I said before, I think he might be a troll. At the very least, he's lying to us and maybe to himself. Either way, we can only pray for him. Jesus still loved him and died for his sins as much as for mine.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Immediately after your question are the applicable passages from Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The existence of God is self-evident to everyone who opens their eyes and pays attention.

It might not be the job of science to disprove the supernatural but it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

---

The job of science is not disprove the supernatural (although as a happy by product science dismisses superstition and the supernatural). Historian, you are trying to use science to prove the supernatural. Science could give a pfft about the supernatural.

it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

Because supernatural entities (i.e. the "God" of conservatives) are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The realm of faith is not science but love as in God is love and You shall love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is purview of the Christian faith. Challenge me on the witness of love in our world but not superstition and the supernatural.
My faith stance stumps you because you want to engage in a nonsensical debate about the supernatural. I would invite you to consider and live into the love commandment and ways you and I can share the good news of Jesus Christ.
The invitation to love alongside me is somehow foreign to you but we are Christian brothers in the faith.

---

And here we go again with the same incoherent, contradictory nonsense where you repeatedly reject the supernatural but then espouse concepts that are completely supernatural.

Time and time again you've been shown this, but your response is either to pile even more incoherent, contradictory nonsense on top, or you choose not to respond all, completely ignoring people's questions that illustrate the fact.

But you've invited a challenge to your "witness of love", so here's a start:

Question: Is "love" a product of physics, or is it beyond physics?

---

Beyond physics. Love is here and now. For example Physics nor science can determine if you love your wife.

---

If it's beyond physics, then it's supernatural. That's what supernatural means.

So you DO believe in the supernatural, correct?

---

Premise 1 -- We have laws of nature and physics. True
Apparently You think it is God. therefore your conclusion is
Conclusion: A supernatural God created the laws and physics

---

What and why is their origin? Again, prove that God created these laws and physics. Your proof is the Bible? Who says your supernatural is correct as opposed say to the Toltecs

---

---

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

---

Who knows?

---

I didn't ask who knows. I asked what you believe.

---

I answered "Who knows?" is my answer. Do you know? I believe that Science is working on that one.

---

You have no view on whether the universe had a beginning. How convenient for you.

You claim to be a Christian.
You claim that there is no supernatural.
For Christianity to be real, the supernatural must be a reality.
"What is your proof in the modern world?".
Therefore you claim to not believe that which you claim to believe.
Your brain appears to be broken.

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Immediately after your question are the applicable passages from Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The existence of God is self-evident to everyone who opens their eyes and pays attention.

It might not be the job of science to disprove the supernatural but it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

---

The job of science is not disprove the supernatural (although as a happy by product science dismisses superstition and the supernatural). Historian, you are trying to use science to prove the supernatural. Science could give a pfft about the supernatural.

it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

Because supernatural entities (i.e. the "God" of conservatives) are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The realm of faith is not science but love as in God is love and You shall love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is purview of the Christian faith. Challenge me on the witness of love in our world but not superstition and the supernatural.
My faith stance stumps you because you want to engage in a nonsensical debate about the supernatural. I would invite you to consider and live into the love commandment and ways you and I can share the good news of Jesus Christ.
The invitation to love alongside me is somehow foreign to you but we are Christian brothers in the faith.

---

And here we go again with the same incoherent, contradictory nonsense where you repeatedly reject the supernatural but then espouse concepts that are completely supernatural.

Time and time again you've been shown this, but your response is either to pile even more incoherent, contradictory nonsense on top, or you choose not to respond all, completely ignoring people's questions that illustrate the fact.

But you've invited a challenge to your "witness of love", so here's a start:

Question: Is "love" a product of physics, or is it beyond physics?

---

Beyond physics. Love is here and now. For example Physics nor science can determine if you love your wife.

---

If it's beyond physics, then it's supernatural. That's what supernatural means.

So you DO believe in the supernatural, correct?

---

Premise 1 -- We have laws of nature and physics. True
Apparently You think it is God. therefore your conclusion is
Conclusion: A supernatural God created the laws and physics

---

What and why is their origin? Again, prove that God created these laws and physics. Your proof is the Bible? Who says your supernatural is correct as opposed say to the Toltecs

---

---

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

---

Who knows?

---

I didn't ask who knows. I asked what you believe.

---

I answered "Who knows?" is my answer. Do you know? I believe that Science is working on that one.

---

You have no view on whether the universe had a beginning. How convenient for you.

You claim to be a Christian.
You claim that there is no supernatural.
For Christianity to be real, the supernatural must be a reality.
"What is your proof in the modern world?".
Therefore you claim to not believe that which you claim to believe.
Your brain appears to be broken.

---

---

What is my proof that in the modern world?
My "proof" in ALL worlds is that Christianity is contingent on God coming to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

THE INCARNATION IS A SUPERNATURAL EVENT.

One can choose to believe that the Incarnation is real or one can choose to believe that there is no supernatural, but one cannot, in any world, modern or otherwise, do both.

Let's get down to basics. Educate us on your beliefs in these areas:

1. Who, or what, is GOD in your belief? Is he a REAL intelligent being with personhood and not just a product of our imagination?

2. If he is real, then what is his nature, according to your belief? In other words, is his substance comprised only of atoms and molecules which are subject to the laws of physics, or is he beyond physics?

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Immediately after your question are the applicable passages from Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The existence of God is self-evident to everyone who opens their eyes and pays attention.

It might not be the job of science to disprove the supernatural but it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

---

The job of science is not disprove the supernatural (although as a happy by product science dismisses superstition and the supernatural). Historian, you are trying to use science to prove the supernatural. Science could give a pfft about the supernatural.

it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

Because supernatural entities (i.e. the "God" of conservatives) are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The realm of faith is not science but love as in God is love and You shall love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is purview of the Christian faith. Challenge me on the witness of love in our world but not superstition and the supernatural.
My faith stance stumps you because you want to engage in a nonsensical debate about the supernatural. I would invite you to consider and live into the love commandment and ways you and I can share the good news of Jesus Christ.
The invitation to love alongside me is somehow foreign to you but we are Christian brothers in the faith.

---

And here we go again with the same incoherent, contradictory nonsense where you repeatedly reject the supernatural but then espouse concepts that are completely supernatural.

Time and time again you've been shown this, but your response is either to pile even more incoherent, contradictory nonsense on top, or you choose not to respond all, completely ignoring people's questions that illustrate the fact.

But you've invited a challenge to your "witness of love", so here's a start:

Question: Is "love" a product of physics, or is it beyond physics?

---

Beyond physics. Love is here and now. For example Physics nor science can determine if you love your wife.

---

If it's beyond physics, then it's supernatural. That's what supernatural means.

So you DO believe in the supernatural, correct?

---

Premise 1 -- We have laws of nature and physics. True
Apparently You think it is God. therefore your conclusion is
Conclusion: A supernatural God created the laws and physics

---

What and why is their origin? Again, prove that God created these laws and physics. Your proof is the Bible? Who says your supernatural is correct as opposed say to the Toltecs

---

---

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

---

Who knows?

---

I didn't ask who knows. I asked what you believe.

---

I answered "Who knows?" is my answer. Do you know? I believe that Science is working on that one.

---

You have no view on whether the universe had a beginning. How convenient for you.

You claim to be a Christian.
You claim that there is no supernatural.
For Christianity to be real, the supernatural must be a reality.
"What is your proof in the modern world?".
Therefore you claim to not believe that which you claim to believe.
Your brain appears to be broken.

---

---

Buddy, when are you going to drop the charade and stop pretending you are Christian? You're no more Christian than my Hindu neighbor.

Time to stop deceiving yourself. Your beliefs are incompatible with the belief in the God of scripture.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Immediately after your question are the applicable passages from Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The existence of God is self-evident to everyone who opens their eyes and pays attention.

It might not be the job of science to disprove the supernatural but it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

---

The job of science is not disprove the supernatural (although as a happy by product science dismisses superstition and the supernatural). Historian, you are trying to use science to prove the supernatural. Science could give a pfft about the supernatural.

it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

Because supernatural entities (i.e. the "God" of conservatives) are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The realm of faith is not science but love as in God is love and You shall love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is purview of the Christian faith. Challenge me on the witness of love in our world but not superstition and the supernatural.
My faith stance stumps you because you want to engage in a nonsensical debate about the supernatural. I would invite you to consider and live into the love commandment and ways you and I can share the good news of Jesus Christ.
The invitation to love alongside me is somehow foreign to you but we are Christian brothers in the faith.

---

And here we go again with the same incoherent, contradictory nonsense where you repeatedly reject the supernatural but then espouse concepts that are completely supernatural.

Time and time again you've been shown this, but your response is either to pile even more incoherent, contradictory nonsense on top, or you choose not to respond all, completely ignoring people's questions that illustrate the fact.

But you've invited a challenge to your "witness of love", so here's a start:

Question: Is "love" a product of physics, or is it beyond physics?

---

Beyond physics. Love is here and now. For example Physics nor science can determine if you love your wife.

---

If it's beyond physics, then it's supernatural. That's what supernatural means.

So you DO believe in the supernatural, correct?

---

Premise 1 -- We have laws of nature and physics. True
Apparently You think it is God. therefore your conclusion is
Conclusion: A supernatural God created the laws and physics

---

What and why is their origin? Again, prove that God created these laws and physics. Your proof is the Bible? Who says your supernatural is correct as opposed say to the Toltecs

---

---

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

---

Who knows?

---

I didn't ask who knows. I asked what you believe.

---

I answered "Who knows?" is my answer. Do you know? I believe that Science is working on that one.

---

You have no view on whether the universe had a beginning. How convenient for you.

You claim to be a Christian.
You claim that there is no supernatural.
For Christianity to be real, the supernatural must be a reality.
"What is your proof in the modern world?".
Therefore you claim to not believe that which you claim to believe.
Your brain appears to be broken.

---

---

What is my proof that in the modern world?
My "proof" in ALL worlds is that Christianity is contingent on God coming to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

THE INCARNATION IS A SUPERNATURAL EVENT.

One can choose to believe that the Incarnation is real or one can choose to believe that there is no supernatural, but one cannot, in any world, modern or otherwise, do both.

---

So your proof is the Bible?
Why should anyone believe superstition? The supernatural is superstition.

There is traditional theism and process theism. They overlap in the notion that God is one God characterized as love and grace. A further notion is that God is relational, communal, and social.

Would you not agree to this overlap?

Again, the another overlap God, who is considered exists as a social and relational being in dynamic interaction with humans. God is something as opposed to nothing. That "something" is the overwhelming witness of scripture that the nature of God is grace and love.



It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

In the words of someone eerily the mental counterpart to Waco, that's "malarkey"!!

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"? Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

Waco1947 said:

---

There is traditional theism and process theism. They overlap in the notion that God is one God characterized as love and grace. A further notion is that God is relational, communal, and social.

Would you not agree to this overlap?

Again, the another overlap God, who is considered exists as a social and relational being in dynamic interaction with humans. God is something as opposed to nothing. That "something" is the overwhelming witness of scripture that the nature of God is grace and love.

---

I agree that God is relational and in dynamic interaction with humans.

Question: HOW does he do this? In what way? Explain.

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. For in him all the whole fullness of Deity dwells bodily, and in Him you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority." Colossians 2:8-10

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

historian said:

---

Immediately after your question are the applicable passages from Psalm 19 and Romans 1. The existence of God is self-evident to everyone who opens their eyes and pays attention.

It might not be the job of science to disprove the supernatural but it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

---

The job of science is not disprove the supernatural (although as a happy by product science dismisses superstition and the supernatural). Historian, you are trying to use science to prove the supernatural. Science could give a pfft about the supernatural.

it is the job of real science to prove their own theories or "assertions". If those assertions are contrary to God's word then any attempts to prove them are the same thing as disproving the supernatural.

Because supernatural entities (i.e. the "God" of conservatives) are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

The realm of faith is not science but love as in God is love and You shall love God and your neighbor as yourself. This is purview of the Christian faith. Challenge me on the witness of love in our world but not superstition and the supernatural.
My faith stance stumps you because you want to engage in a nonsensical debate about the supernatural. I would invite you to consider and live into the love commandment and ways you and I can share the good news of Jesus Christ.
The invitation to love alongside me is somehow foreign to you but we are Christian brothers in the faith.

---

And here we go again with the same incoherent, contradictory nonsense where you repeatedly reject the supernatural but then espouse concepts that are completely supernatural.

Time and time again you've been shown this, but your response is either to pile even more incoherent, contradictory nonsense on top, or you choose not to respond all, completely ignoring people's questions that illustrate the fact.

But you've invited a challenge to your "witness of love", so here's a start:

Question: Is "love" a product of physics, or is it beyond physics?

---

Beyond physics. Love is here and now. For example Physics nor science can determine if you love your wife.

---

If it's beyond physics, then it's supernatural. That's what supernatural means.

So you DO believe in the supernatural, correct?

---

Premise 1 -- We have laws of nature and physics. True
Apparently You think it is God. therefore your conclusion is
Conclusion: A supernatural God created the laws and physics

---

What and why is their origin? Again, prove that God created these laws and physics. Your proof is the Bible? Who says your supernatural is correct as opposed say to the Toltecs

---

---

Do you believe that the universe had a beginning?

---

Who knows?

---

I didn't ask who knows. I asked what you believe.

---

I answered "Who knows?" is my answer. Do you know? I believe that Science is working on that one.

---

You have no view on whether the universe had a beginning. How convenient for you.

You claim to be a Christian.
You claim that there is no supernatural.
For Christianity to be real, the supernatural must be a reality.
"What is your proof in the modern world?".
Therefore you claim to not believe that which you claim to believe.
Your brain appears to be broken.

---

---

What is my proof that in the modern world?
My "proof" in ALL worlds is that Christianity is contingent on God coming to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth.

THE INCARNATION IS A SUPERNATURAL EVENT.

One can choose to believe that the Incarnation is real or one can choose to believe that there is no supernatural, but one cannot, in any world, modern or otherwise, do both.

---

So your proof is the Bible?
Why should anyone believe superstition? The supernatural is superstition.

---

When it's comes to discussions about what a Christian is, the Bible is a pretty important source.

Why do you believe "superstition?"

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"?

I said, "in the realm of the natural there is no such thing as the supernatural." My understanding of the the natural is the that things and humans exist and science acts upon these entities. Humans. also, interact with the natural.
The "natural" is first and foremost science.
1. The natural is physics, biology, and chemistry
2. The natural is Entities like rock, dirt, tectonic plates, oceans, etc. Science acts on these.
3. The natural are beings who have a beginning date and expiration date, i.e. animals, fish, etc
4. Human beings who share some characteristics of sentient beings but have consciousness. I know yesterday, now, and tomorrow. We are of a different order - create language, writing.

Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

---

Thank you for your question and civility
At any rate more tomorrow

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"?

I said, "in the realm of the natural there is no such thing as the supernatural." My understanding of the the natural is the that things and humans exist and science acts upon these entities. Humans. also, interact with the natural.
The "natural" is first and foremost science.
1. The natural is physics, biology, and chemistry
2. The natural is Entities like rock, dirt, tectonic plates, oceans, etc. Science acts on these.
3. The natural are beings who have a beginning date and expiration date, i.e. animals, fish, etc
4. Human beings who share some characteristics of sentient beings but have consciousness. I know yesterday, now, and tomorrow. We are of a different order - create language, writing.

Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

---

Thank you for your question and civility
At any rate more tomorrow

---

So in your belief, is God natural or is he beyond/outside the natural?

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"?

I said, "in the realm of the natural there is no such thing as the supernatural." My understanding of the the natural is the that things and humans exist and science acts upon these entities. Humans. also, interact with the natural.
The "natural" is first and foremost science.
1. The natural is physics, biology, and chemistry
2. The natural is Entities like rock, dirt, tectonic plates, oceans, etc. Science acts on these.
3. The natural are beings who have a beginning date and expiration date, i.e. animals, fish, etc
4. Human beings who share some characteristics of sentient beings but have consciousness. I know yesterday, now, and tomorrow. We are of a different order - create language, writing.

Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

---

Thank you for your question and civility
At any rate more tomorrow

---

Still waiting for your answer. Why is this question so difficult for you? Is God natural or is he outside the natural?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

..... said:

---

.......

It is not possible, in process metaphysics, to conceive God's activity as a "supernatural" intervention into the "natural" order of events. Process theists usually regard the distinction between the supernatural and the natural as a by-product of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo. In process thought, there is no such thing as a realm of the natural in contrast to that which is supernatural. On the other hand, if "the natural" is defined more neutrally as "what is in the nature of things," then process metaphysics characterizes the natural as the creative activity of actual entities.

---

If you don't believe that there's a distinction between the natural and the supernatural, what exactly do you mean when you say you don't believe in the supernatural, that it is just a "superstition"?

I said, "in the realm of the natural there is no such thing as the supernatural." My understanding of the the natural is the that things and humans exist and science acts upon these entities. Humans. also, interact with the natural.
The "natural" is first and foremost science.
1. The natural is physics, biology, and chemistry
2. The natural is Entities like rock, dirt, tectonic plates, oceans, etc. Science acts on these.
3. The natural are beings who have a beginning date and expiration date, i.e. animals, fish, etc
4. Human beings who share some characteristics of sentient beings but have consciousness. I know yesterday, now, and tomorrow. We are of a different order - create language, writing.

Obviously, you ARE making such a distinction in order to say that you don't believe in it. What, then, is your definition of "supernatural" in this sense, that makes you think it is a superstition?

---

Thank you for your question and civility
At any rate more tomorrow

---

So in your belief, is God natural or is he beyond/outside the natural?

---

Natural but ,as in all things, what's the definition of natural? I go with the dictionary
of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.

DC When it's comes to discussions about what a Christian is, the Bible is a pretty important source. Yes, a very important source, especially, the gospels,

Why do you believe "superstition?" Were the Toltecs superstitious? The Navajos? Why is the Christian superstition the only one? Why are these others wrong?

Waco1947 said:

---

DC When it's comes to discussions about what a Christian is, the Bible is a pretty important source. Yes, a very important source, especially, the gospels,

Why do you believe "superstition?" Were the Toltecs superstitious? The Navajos? Why is the Christian superstition the only one? Why are these others wrong?

---

You say you are a Christian.

Being a Christian requires believing in God.

I do not classify belief in God as "superstition," but you appear to do so.

So, from your own perspective, why do you believe superstition?

If you are in fact philosophically a materialist, "a person who supports the theory that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications," then you need to stop pretending to be a Christian if you want to be consistent.

When you answer the question I asked you, I would be more than happy to discuss why I believe the Christian view to be correct.

When comes to understanding what it means to be a Christian, the Bible is the ONLY source.

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6

"For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 8:38-39

"Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:9-11

"Then I heard what seemed to be the voice of a great multitude, like the roar of many waters and like the sound of mighty peals of thunder, crying out, 'Hallelujah! For the Lord our God the Almighty reigns.'" Revelation 19:6