Jay

Human thought runs in a fixed order - Recognition comes first. John 10 - BBQ Principle.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

The BBQ Principle isn’t a system, It’s the floor everything else stands on.

Group debates don’t change the order, they just add noise on top of it.

Everyone still has to notice something before they argue about it, panels, forums, crosstalk, it’s all interpretation piled on the same first step.

And that’s why the boundary shows up even clearer in chaos, the second you point back to recognition, everyone drops to the same ground floor.

You cut through the noise because every person, on every side, is already moving through the same sequence:

recognize.. interpret... respond.

Crowds don’t escape it, they just forget the ground they’re standing on.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@McClureShawn Find the thread.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@God_Questioner Why assume God’s goal is just to make His existence impossible to doubt? Knowing God exists and wanting God are two different things. Christianity has never confused the two, even the demons believe God exists.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@hookskat You haven't really explained Christian testimony, you've decided what Christians must be thinking, assumed you're right, and then used that assumption to explain why they tell these stories. You're basically proving your own point with something you made up.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

You say you don't know Dolly's heart, then write an entire sermon hovering over her grave, critique her theology, fine.

But the moment "I don't know" becomes a verdict, you've stopped defending the Gospel and started claiming knowledge you explicitly admit you don't have.

Christ is the judge, recognition comes before judgment.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@hookskat "Self righteous" would be claiming you know who deserves heaven, she didn't.

And you invented Dolly's damnation yourself, then got offended at the Christian for it.

That's impressive.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@God_Questioner Evolution can explain why we believe certain things help us survive, it can't tell you why those things are objectively morally good.

And if you're appealing to "independent rational truths" to get objectivity, what makes those truths objectively binding? 🤔

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@ToriatheistTori You just returned the straw man wearing a different hat....

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@DavidReilly007 There's a difference between saying you don't believe in an afterlife and saying you know there isn't one. You kind of slipped from one into the other without noticing.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@hookskat You called his argument a "silly game," but somehow wrote an entire post explaining why you won't answer it.

If the rules are rigged, show which rule is wrong, otherwise, you're criticizing the debate because you don't like where the argument leads.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@JodyBerndt "Most pro life people lack higher education" is a measurable claim. So where's the data?

And biology tells us what an embryo or fetus is, it doesn't tell us what moral rights humans ought to have, you need philosophy for that part.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@Guardians_Bane "Atheism only answers one question." Ok, fine, then atheism alone can't answer any of the other questions atheists routinely invoke it to answer.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

Christianity literally preserved stories of its own followers doubting, questioning, arguing and demanding evidence.

Thomas demanded evidence of the Resurrection, and the Bereans were praised for checking what they were taught.

Maybe what you escaped was a bad religious environment, that doesn't make your experience a definition of Christianity.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@hookskat Wait... so supernatural beings mentioned in someone else's religious account are evidence against it, but demons are available when you need them to explain away the evidence? 🤔

@DrFrankTurek

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@hookskat "The Bible mentions other gods" is not evidence that the Bible affirms their existence as actual gods.

It mentions false gods precisely to condemn their worship.

Youve confused "the text refers to X" with "the text teaches X is real."

So that's a category error.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@GaryTheAlien44 @MentallyNathan ?

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@GaryTheAlien44 @MentallyNathan You keep saying I'm misrepresenting your argument, perfect, represent it yourself.

State the argument clearly enough that i can't possibly misrepresent it.

You've spent more time explaining why I don't understand your argument than you've spent actually making it.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@McClureShawn Timeless means without succession, and God doesn't learn, decide, then act, His knowledge and will are one eternal act whose effects unfold in time.

So asking when that act occurs simply assumes the very thing classical theism denies.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

@colonelkurtz99 You don't have to believe the Handmaid's Tale is becoming reality to recognize that some people seem determined to make the comparison less ridiculous than it used to be.

[Jay @bbqchips221]

You say science can be rediscovered, fine.
You say religion depends on historical evidence, fine.

Now explain the part in between....

Why does the possible disappearance of evidence make the thing described by that evidence false?

Don't tell me i'm dense, don't tell me i don't understand science, just explain that one step, that's the step i've been asking for all night.