|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 28, 2008 8:08:42 GMT -5
That's like saying "Prove God doesn't exist" which of course is makes no logical sense. You cannot prove a negative and lack of evidence is not evidence.[/I]
-Well, you don't have to prove it, because I believe in God even as an entity. Just not in a literal sense.
-Literal GOD has been contemplated by so may theologists, and frankly their simply isn't any solid proof to support it. I know you don't agree with the E.T. angle, but has way more weight than the traditional model. But, even then it's still conceptual IMO.[/I]
As a spiritual book, the bible is great I agree and it has done a lot of good in my life as well. I own one myself, and is a very good book. Furthermore, I do believe in miracles and a driving forces in life. I can vouche for that as well. But, none of things make the bible a history book. I don't see why it should matter, whether the good book is hostorical or not. It's just as good whether the events are historical or not?
The moment the book steps into the realm of fact and real historical events. Then it stops becoming a matter of faith, but a matter of facts. Whenever the Bible is tested as a historical book it just doesn't hold up to fact. [/I]
Sorry, but that is false. there is a lot of propaganda supporting them, but no real evidence to account for Biblical literalism. Prior to the formation of the Catholic church, there were tons of different conflicting Christian cults with completely different views on the religion and these cults were an even smaller part of Jewish cults which greatly differentiates from the Christian view. Orthodox Christianity did not exist until Catholicism.[/I]
Thank you
-Atom Ant Out[/I]
|
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 28, 2008 8:12:08 GMT -5
Well, I myself love different views as well. Which is why I've gotten where I'am. But, for me it has to make sense and I feel that my views do.
-Atom Ant Out[/I]
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy 
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Jan 28, 2008 9:00:52 GMT -5
Well, I myself love different views as well. Which is why I've gotten where I'am. But, for me it has to make sense and I feel that my views do.
-Atom Ant Out [/I][/quote]Oh of course, how do you feel about faith though? |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 28, 2008 9:15:45 GMT -5
Good question, I think Faith is important in any relationship and that includes ones personal relationship with GOD. Book of Jobs illustrates this point perfectly, even after all the tribulation Job remained Faithful in GOD. It takes alot of courage to be faithful when times are rough. But, with that said, I think it's also good to have your head in facts. It's not good too deny facts in order to propagate your faith otherwise it's just blind faith. Ultimately, Man most travel the middle ground like all things in life and balance Faith and Fact inorder to live a healthy life.
-Atom Ant Out[/i]
|
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 28, 2008 14:02:14 GMT -5
That's like saying "Prove God doesn't exist" which of course is makes no logical sense. You cannot prove a negative and lack of evidence is not evidence. [/I][/quote] There are some things that can be proven that they don't exist. Naturally, proving the null existence of just any ole god is not what I'm asking. Consider the Christian God with me for a little while. There is a load of criteria in the bible which, if disproven, could potentially disprove this particular God. [/I] [/quote] Fair enough, it is a good book (well, anthology if you want to be technical) even if it were a bunch of strictly metaphorical stories. But it also claims historocity. If it wasn't historical wouldn't that make the authors liars? Same thing with Jesus. He claims divinity. While he was a brilliant teacher, wouldn't that make him a liar? I believe the question matters for the same reason C.S. Lewis does: (this is a paraphrase) Christianity, if taken to be true is of infinite importance, and if taken to be false is of no importance.I disagree somewhat with the latter part, but the former remains true on the grounds that Christianity involves an eternal afterlife, determined by our relatively short time on Earth. [/I][/quote] That is a good point, but faith isn't a matter of simply believing whether a subject is true or false. I personally believe in God with no doubt in my mind right now. But it's another thing to obey his every command; to act on the beliefs. Here's a story to illustrate what I'm talking about: Ok, so there was this acrobat who had a pretty large following and he demonstrated his abilities by walking across a high wire over a canyon (very dangerous). Anyway, he asked his audience if they believed he could push a wheelbarrow across the high wire. They all shouted "yes" because they believed he could. And sure enough he did. Then he asked his audience if they believed he could push a wheelbarrow across a high wire with a person inside it. The same response came; they believed that he could. Then came his reply: "Can I get a volunteer?" Plenty of believers, but no volunteers. [/I][/quote] Well, I'm not a guru when it comes to arguing the historicity of the bible. It's not either of our expertises. So I'll leave you with a study from someone who knows a little bit more of what they're talking about here.Take particular note of the Archeological evidence, and historicity of Jesus sections. Near the end it talks about prophetic evidence, which personally I find to be one of the thicker backings for the reliability of the bible. Honestly, I didn't know about half this stuff until I looked it up on the website. ;D The author at times sounds biased, but the important part is that we focus on the cited information and not worry as much about the commentary. The important thing is that he's citing real sources. It never mentions the septuagint though, which I find to be very important when discussing translation issues. But you don't seem as concerned on translations as most are. It also doesn't talk about (in this article anyway) how the bible came to be the way we see it today. BUT, if you want, I can try to give you a summary with what meager Old Testament 101 knowledge I have today, or better yet, I'll find an article on it. |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 28, 2008 16:01:44 GMT -5
There are some things that can be proven that they don't exist. Naturally, proving the null existence of just any ole god is not what I'm asking. Consider the Christian God with me for a little while. There is a load of criteria in the bible which, if disproven, could potentially disprove this particular God. [/I] Fair enough, it is a good book (well, anthology if you want to be technical) even if it were a bunch of strictly metaphorical stories. But it also claims historocity. If it wasn't historical wouldn't that make the authors liars? Same thing with Jesus. He claims divinity. While he was a brilliant teacher, wouldn't that make him a liar?
Yesuah is a complicated issue, because he's more of a archetypal character. He's constantly repeated in the bible and is more of a jewish historical archetype figure than an actual divine human. I think one of the biggest mistakes Christians do in bible study is leave out the Old Testament/ Tanankh. Because it offers alot of answers to these topics. Yes, Jesus was divine, but is this divine literal, something more or both?
I believe the best way to understand these book is to study their history and the history of the people who live during their inception. Etymology is also very important. [/I] I believe the question matters for the same reason C.S. Lewis does: (this is a paraphrase) Christianity, if taken to be true is of infinite importance, and if taken to be false is of no importance.I disagree somewhat with the latter part, but the former remains true on the grounds that Christianity involves an eternal afterlife, determined by our relatively short time on Earth.
Even if Christianity is not literally true, does that make it's teaching's worthless? If those teachings really bring out the best in us humans, does it matter where we go when we die? No one can say that they no for a fact will happen when we die. Whether it's reincarnation or an afterlife or whatever, we don't know for sure. So, we should focus on making the best and doing our best in this life. Because really, that's all us humans know.
Furthermore, It's a matter of Faith. . .even if we don't know what happens in the next life. We should have faith in ourselves and faith in the power that moves our world (God). Because it's through faith we bring out the best in us and besides isn't that what Christianity is about. . .Faith?
[/I] That is a good point, but faith isn't a matter of simply believing whether a subject is true or false. I personally believe in God with no doubt in my mind right now. But it's another thing to obey his every command; to act on the beliefs. Here's a story to illustrate what I'm talking about: Ok, so there was this acrobat who had a pretty large following and he demonstrated his abilities by walking across a high wire over a canyon (very dangerous). Anyway, he asked his audience if they believed he could push a wheelbarrow across the high wire. They all shouted "yes" because they believed he could. And sure enough he did. Then he asked his audience if they believed he could push a wheelbarrow across a high wire with a person inside it. The same response came; they believed that he could. Then came his reply: "Can I get a volunteer?" Plenty of believers, but no volunteers.  [/I] -Atom Ant Out |
|
|
|
Post by JACK-2 on Jan 28, 2008 16:16:57 GMT -5
Sites kinda cluttered, here's a better one for Archeology:
www.bib-arch.org/
And Historical Jesus:
www.jesusisreal.org/
[/I]
We could have a thread discussing/debating it. I believe this information is too big to be covered here.
-Atom Ant Out
[/I] |
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Jan 28, 2008 19:51:17 GMT -5
I still stand behind my main statement: God cannot exist in the form Christians, Muslims, Jews and many other religions represent him. I probably elaborated on this somewhere in the thread already, but I'll do it again just to raise the point and bash some opinions. That's what I'm here to do.
Christianity says every man has to accept God and believe to be saved. In addition to this, if you do not believe and out of your own free will simply refuse to believe in God, you are doomed for eternal damnation. However, the Creator is supposedly omnipotent and thus, omniscient. Before I go any further, I'll establish the concept of omniscience.
Being omniscient means you know everything, including why kids go coo-coo for Coco buffs. On a larger scale, this means God must know the rate of movement, position and status of every quark in existence. Some scientists have noted that there are between 10 ^ 72 and 10 ^ 87 particles in the universe. God knows what is happening with each and everyone of those. That is, however, not the main point here. Given his omniscience, he knows exactly what any given human being is going to do.
Expanding my argument to the domain of omniscience now. God is omnipotent and has created every man, right? He knows what they are going to do even before they are born, right? According to terms omniscience and omnipotence, this is the truth. So, if God actually exists, he has created billions of people knowing who are going to hell and who are not. Sounds pretty evil to me.
Even if I actually did believe in God, I could never worship him by any means. Any supreme being forcing people to go through eternal torment just for not accepting his ways and using his own free will to explore his possibilities has to be plain sadistic. I can't see anyone worshipping kids who burn ants with a magnifying glass. God and his people are the same, except on a larger and more absolute scale. There is absolutely no point whatsoever to follow the cult of a vengeful, selfish torturer now is there? I didn't think so.
I have even more examples to prove his biased nature. Every now and then some newspaper or a TV show talks about a man who can heal sick people. One legendary type of a healer is a religious man who manages to remove a tumor from someone's brain. You know, first x-ray shows that there is a tumor in the brain, but after this messenger of God lays his hands upon the head of the poor soul, the tumor just disappears. But why does this never happen to amputees? I bet they pray and many of them are epitomes of devoutness, yet no modern day healer has restored their limbs. Why is that? God hates amputees for some reason or what? So now he is racist too.
In short, even if the was a supreme being, my personal morals can't allow me to worship anyone who judges people to eternal damnation for making their own choices. No matter how many people you cure, even if you invented a reliable medice against AIDS, you are still going to hell if you don't recognize someone to be more worthy than you are. Hardly sounds fair to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by darthrevan on Jan 28, 2008 20:50:41 GMT -5
It is not like he preprogrammed people so that they will go to hell. It is still the person's own choice.
but he gives people thousands of opportunities to do the right thing, and those people have turned away from him. Bad kids should be punished. It is not like it is too hard to do the right thing, but those people have turned away.
So amputees is a race? He has plans for everyone. Are two legs necessary to live? He might decide that they don't need that leg. Many times I've seen amputees who feel happier after an accident. They have more respect for life. Sometimes, God seems to do severe things, to make us into better people.
If he is so evil, I don't see why he would sacrifice his only son for us. That sounds like some strong love to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 28, 2008 22:43:06 GMT -5
There are some things that can be proven that they don't exist. Naturally, proving the null existence of just any ole god is not what I'm asking. Consider the Christian God with me for a little while. There is a load of criteria in the bible which, if disproven, could potentially disprove this particular God. [/I][/quote] Sure. There are a number of conditions that the concept of the literal Christian God hinges on. For example, it was said that He caused the walls of Jerhico to collapse inward (which wasn't the orthodox way of knocking walls down back then.) If you were to find that the walls of Jerhico were collapsed outward, that would be a valid source of criticism. Does that make sense? [/i][/quote] Granted, not all the material in the bible is necessarily historical literature but the skeleton that constitutes it as a body is. Much of it is commentary; much of it poetry; and indeed there are many pieces of the text that should be recognized as metaphorical (the writers of the Hebrew language were not as concerned with minor details as we are today. That is reason for much discrepancy among Christians over minor verses.) Many of the events are pointed to as well by external sources besides the bible. However, as you said, they could simply be sources of inspiration. What do you think the divine providence was then? If it's not from a literal God, then why does the same interactive God make so many appearances in the bible as a divine force with power over matter? Why does he want to be known to us as a living entity? And if other Gods are essentially "GOD", why does he reject them? ...I'm sorry if that's just way too many questions for the moment. You don't have to answer each individual one, and I won't ask you to answer immediately. [/i][/quote] Well literal in the sense that he did miracles. I'm curious though. How do you interpret Jesus' message to humans if he only claims metaphorical divinity? He claims to be the Son of the living God on several occasions, and backs his claims with demonstrations of his power. Also, weren't the purpose of his miracles to show what he meant when he said he was God? Also could you elaborate on this a bit? [/I][/quote] Indeed, studying the historical events of the time is important, because we can see how the literature fits in with the people. The Torah is recognized by scholars today as brought into being by four different sources all of which were highly intertwined (Hence the Priestly creation story, and the Yahwistic creation story directly following it) save for the Dueteronomical source which more or less has its own book (self explanatory). Anyway, these books were accepted as canon first and were recognized as the word of God. All important things to know. The historical context of the literature is also important. Primarily the Exile which was the main underlying theme for just about the entire old testament. [/I][/quote] Yes it is. And your right, it's not worthless if it's not true. That's why I said I somewhat disagreed with the latter part of that statement. But if the notions about the afterlife are in fact literal, and not simply metaphorical, that implies that a true Christian religion is infinitely more important than a false one. Christianity would still be an effective religion even if it weren't true. In light of that, it's simply a matter of deciding how important it is to you where you spend the afterlife if there is one. Anyway, most things in the bible (the afterlife is actually a prime example of this) we have no direct evidence of. This is where faith comes in. And I might add, there are many kinds of faith. I do not think God calls people to follow him through blind faith (not "blind faith" in a literal sense just blind in the sense that there is no evidence). Rather he gives us evidence enough to establish a trust (which is the basis for the faith). Then, he is able to tell us other non-evident things and thus we have real reason to believe them. God has not shown me the afterlife. But because I believe his word, I believe it is there, and I believe it is relevant. That is a good point, but faith isn't a matter of simply believing whether a subject is true or false. I personally believe in God with no doubt in my mind right now. But it's another thing to obey his every command; to act on the beliefs. Here's a story to illustrate what I'm talking about: Ok, so there was this acrobat who had a pretty large following and he demonstrated his abilities by walking across a high wire over a canyon (very dangerous). Anyway, he asked his audience if they believed he could push a wheelbarrow across the high wire. They all shouted "yes" because they believed he could. And sure enough he did. Then he asked his audience if they believed he could push a wheelbarrow across a high wire with a person inside it. The same response came; they believed that he could. Then came his reply: "Can I get a volunteer?" Plenty of believers, but no volunteers. [/I] Do you think maybe people wouldn't need faith to get in the wheelbarrow if he demonstrated it enough times (Like with rocks instead of people )? -Atom Ant Out[/quote] |
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 28, 2008 22:50:57 GMT -5
Nicely put, that is great insight. Personally, I find that there are a lot of 'balances' like this that we should aim for, being imperfect entities. Such as ego vs. modesty and boldness vs. elegance. It's an oddly reoccurring theme when we inquire on human nature. [/I]
We could have a thread discussing/debating it. I believe this information is too big to be covered here.
-Atom Ant Out
[/I][/quote] yeah, I'll get to it... EVENTUALLY!!! Good stuff though. Your bringing some good points to the table. I like that. Sorry I didn't get to your post immediately btw. I had a game tonight. |
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 29, 2008 0:25:15 GMT -5
Before I start, I would like to make it clear that I have no intention of convincing anyone of what I believe through argumentation. That's just not how people come to believing. However, I will use logical argumentation to defend my faith. I still stand behind my main statement: God cannot exist in the form Christians, Muslims, Jews and many other religions represent him. I probably elaborated on this somewhere in the thread already, but I'll do it again just to raise the point and bash some opinions. That's what I'm here to do. Christianity says every man has to accept God and believe to be saved. In addition to this, if you do not believe and out of your own free will simply refuse to believe in God, you are doomed for eternal damnation. However, the Creator is supposedly omnipotent and thus, omniscient. Before I go any further, I'll establish the concept of omniscience. Being omniscient means you know everything, including why kids go coo-coo for Coco buffs. On a larger scale, this means God must know the rate of movement, position and status of every quark in existence. Some scientists have noted that there are between 10 ^ 72 and 10 ^ 87 particles in the universe. God knows what is happening with each and everyone of those. That is, however, not the main point here. Given his omniscience, he knows exactly what any given human being is going to do. Expanding my argument to the domain of omniscience now. God is omnipotent and has created every man, right? He knows what they are going to do even before they are born, right? According to terms omniscience and omnipotence, this is the truth. So, if God actually exists, he has created billions of people knowing who are going to hell and who are not. Sounds pretty evil to me. Ah, what you have just stumbled across sir is the classic predestination argument! Let me start by discussing the inevitable nature of heaven and hell within the context of the bible. In a natural state, before there was Jesus, sin could not exist in the presence of God. God is a perfect entity in every sense of the word and sin is the epitome of imperfection. Hence imperfect sin can not exist in the presence of a perfect God. BUT, through the blood Jesus Christ, entry into heaven is made possible even though we have sinned, not in the sense that we can bring our sin with us, but rather in the sense that Jesus' blood has cleansed us of it. Hence, it is possible to enter heaven simply by accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and baptism is understood to be the act of repentence and rebirth in the holy spirit. Now, with that being said, we'll move to the question of predestination. This is a bold intellectual subject for humans to undertake simply because it involves the nature of an infinitely complex entity to be inquired upon in human terms which is kind of absurd. BUT that doesn't mean I won't play along.  So your argument is proposed on the grounds that God is not only omniscient; he is bound to his omniscience which I would opt to disagree with. With regard to omnipotence I believe God --in his all-powerful nature-- has the ability to overpower fate and truly put our destinies in our own hands. That is my philosophical backing (he is capable of giving us free will because he is omnipotent); here are some key biblical reasons. A) God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the Earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
--Genesis 1:28 NIVThis is excerpt from the Priestly creation story, understood by many scholars to be influenced by the Babylonian creation story. One of the key ideas that distinguishes the two however is the idea of dominion given to man (as shown in the above passage). This "dominion" is emphasized as contrary to the Babylonian belief that humans were puppets to the creator (or in this case maker) Marduk. Completely subserviant to his will. The Christian God on the other hand had a clear agenda to give his people free will. Conclusion: it was in His agenda to give his people free will. B) ...another book was opened which was the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
--Revelation 20:12 NIVThe second point deals with Revelation. Here we take a viewpoint from the future. The book of life in this context is an account of all the people who can go to heaven. Notice how the above passage tells of how the contents of the books detailing the people's deeds are made: according to what they had done. This indicates that the deeds weren't recorded until after the deeds were committed. Conclusion: God fulfilled his agenda by giving people an initially blank book of life. To summarize: God wanted to give people free-will (expressed as dominion and contrasted to puppethood), He has the power to make this possible because he is omnipotent, and finally the book of life which ultimately determines the destination of souls is affirmed to be a product of people's actions rather than a precalculated formula. Therefore, in the context of the bible, God intentionally gave us free will. Now, in God's defense isn't it just a bit spiteful to call his Son a liar despite all that he's done? I mean you have to believe one or the other --liar or savior-- otherwise you're simply ignorant. And I think Jesus has been pretty successful at making himself known to the people of the world. As for those who are living in ignorance right now, that is because Christians aren't rising up to the command and stepping out of their comfort zones. But back to the main point. After God has made the ultimate sacrifice, do you think he appreciates His son being called a liar. In the story of Jesus' crucifixion, God's powerful response (The Earthquake; the alter splitting in two) came quickly after Jesus death. This essentially affirms His allegiance to Jesus so that all the people would know, showing that He is the father and Jesus was indeed the Son. Look at it this way, if your friend (assuming you don't have a son?) went to a prison and offered all of them bail, then they turned on him and killed him, wouldn't you be a bit peeved? OK that being established, it is also important to recognize heaven as a gift not something that humans deserve. Furthermore, the rejection of Jesus Christ is the rejection of God's gift of salvation. As to the rest of your post, I believe you are addressing the "problem of pain." Personally I suggest we go with one argument at a time, so I'll put this one on hold. Unless of course you feel they are intertwined. As for the amputee thing... And one of them struck the slave of the high priest and cut off his right ear. But Jesus answered and said, "Stop! No more of this." And He touched his ear and healed him. (Luke 22:50-51) |
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Jan 30, 2008 19:00:59 GMT -5
Sorry, I've only got a moment, but I'll answer to whatever I can.
Garyuu: Sure, amputees are not a race. If you want to argue about semantics, I'll call God a discriminating entity rather than a racist. Anything else? And even if he gives people opportunities, he knows how they are going to comply. Or is he not omniscient?
Da Masta: I'll give you better answers when I have the time, but one thing caugh my eye already now. So you are using the Bible as a historical evidence to prove that Jesus healed someone's ear? Fascinating, so suddenly you are able to know what is intended to be metaphorical and what is intended to be true in a book that is full of metaphors and such? Not bad at all, but why has there not been a single case like that during the last, what, 100 years when our technology has been sufficient to actually get some sounds pieces of evidence? Kinda weird tumors and everything that is not visible to mere eye can be healed nowadays by some random wonderworker wannabes, but nothing visible can be done. I call BS.
Moreover, I think God's great sacrifice, getting his son killed, just proves his evil nature. He couldn't merely change things, but he had to make his son go through all kinds of bad things and eventually get killed. If an officer tells a man to crawl through a minefield, stab himself several times and get shot to save mankind, would you call that officer a hero? Hell you would.
|
|
|
|
Post by darthrevan on Jan 30, 2008 19:56:15 GMT -5
The sacrifice of Jesus was not evil. Remember, that Jesus is also God at the same time. He also chose for himself to sacrifice himself. I wouldn't call that evil.
God is not the only being that is effecting the world. Satan is also doing his duty work. He can do terrible things to people, making people lose their legs for example. He will do things like this, to get people to lose their faith. God, doesn't ignore those people, but they have another force that is in conflict with them.
That does not say anything about God. You are just proving that those "wonder worker wannabes" are fake. They are. The are doing these "miracles" for fame, and not for God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 30, 2008 23:13:24 GMT -5
cool beans man, take your time.
It's silly to think that an anthology composed over the course of a thousand years --give or take-- would all be written in the same style. Exhibited within this "anthology" (meaning a compilation of books) several of the books may have different literary forms (historical, poetic, dramatic, apocalyptic, etc.). Quite often, these forms are fairly easy to distinguish even for a casual reader; other times we leave it to the criticism of the experts, the scholars. As in the case of Luke, this was definitely a personal account, and therefore should be recognized as a real event-guided story with Luke as it's author. In other words he didn't design the plot, he merely documented the main events of his journey (of course with his own commentary).
There are indeed numerous intended metaphors in the bible (I don't think I was clear on that with AA's post). The vagueness of these literary devices are perfect for instilling thought in the reader rather than just laying down facts. However, the bible is not just one big book of Revalation (apocalyptic literature found at the end of the bible). A large majority of the books are intended to be recognized as real events that actually happened.
As to the question of using the bible as historical evidence. Yes I am doing that, but your argument works within the context of the bible to prove that God is indeed evil if I'm not mistaken. I hope you're not telling me I can't use biblical evidence to the contrary.
I'm afraid I don't quite understand your question. Are you asking science to make us a time machine? Or are you talking about new big findings? We found the Dead Sea Scrolls during the 20th century...
When referring to perception, it's probably best not to use the naked eye as the only source for quality evidence. BTW I have just heard that a man named Dr. Brain was first to bring up the concept of amputees. He proposed that, if you could get a million Christians to pray for an amputee patient, then God should heal him. Otherwise God does not exist. Aside from the innumerable fallacies and scriptural contradictions this proposition makes, the experiment itself was never actually conducted.
On top of that, Dr. Brain is now incognito in regards to that study at the moment. The reasons are of course unknown.
I don't have to tell you how easy it is to twist the words and context of a text so as to derive from it any message you please. So I'm just curious: Are you joking? or do I really need to give you a summarized plot of the entire gospel with biblical references so there's no confusion?
|
|
|
|
Post by darthrevan on Jan 30, 2008 23:34:58 GMT -5
If they did that experiment of course the the amputee wouldn't be healed, and people will use that to prove that God doesn't exist. They will ignore the fact that the Bible says not to test God.
Luke 4:12
Jesus answered, "It says: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test'"
|
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Jan 31, 2008 20:45:22 GMT -5
Gosh, another quick visit. This week's been darn busy even though I'm unemployed, I wonder what is it going to be like if I ever get a job. I'll again address whatever I can in some 10 minutes which is already running. Sorry about this, try to bear with me.
By Garyuu
This is another thing I have never agreed with. If God loved people so much, why would he let Satan lure them to the path of sin considering that he could stop it very easily given his limitless power. In case you are going to answer that it would limit our free will, I'll just give a new direct question. How exactly would removing Satan limit our free will? That is like saying that killing Hitler removed free will since we cannot become his supporters anymore.
By Da Masta
What I meant was, that it is weird that miracles like reattaching someone's ear has not happened during the last hundred years so that we would have been able to catch it on a video or anything. They quite simply happened when there was no way of proving what happened, which again makes it easier for people to jump to the Christian bandwagon. My point being, I consider Christianity a hoax that expanded during time to achieve its ridiculous proportions.
By the way, never heard of this Doctor Brain guy before. I found out about the existence of that argument after I had brought it up at one of our philosophy classes. We further formulated the argument with my friend who happens to be a devout Christian, but likes discussing anything involving politics or philosophy. Didn't surprise me to find out someone had thought of this before, kind of an easy example to elaborate a difficult argument.
If I may ask, what kind of Christians are you all? Catholic, protestant or something else? Pretty much everyone in Finland is Lutheran...
Edit: It seems I messed up with those quotes. They don't work the same way that they do at other boards I'm relatively active on.
|
|
|
|
Post by darthrevan on Jan 31, 2008 22:16:20 GMT -5
He never lets Satan lure people away from him. He doesn't just set back and watch. He might let Satan tempt us. This provides an opportunity to do the right thing. God likes it when we chose to do things for him instead of Satan. Satan put up a real fight when right before he left heaven. So, he isn't some weak guy that God is letting loose. Satan is really powerful.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Jan 31, 2008 22:54:21 GMT -5
Do you mind if I throw my two cents on this? God's love is not defined as flatly as just making everyone happy. Think about a father/child relationship. A good father doesn't just let his kid do whatever he wants. He punishes him as he sees fit. I'll explain the problem of evil later, too many unfinished topics are just stacking up... But for the record, Hitler is not a master of fallen angels, he did evil yes. But he isn't responsible for tempting the world. Would a video tape be all it took to make you believe? You will find, people have an outstanding ability to deny even things that they've physically seen. If you have reason to believe that something can't happen, and you see it happen, it doesn't take much to tell yourself that you were just "seeing things." I can vouch for this myself. You know, I have this theory about craziness. My hypothesis is that, no matter what you believe unless you don't know any facts, all substantiations regarding the veracity/mendacity of Christianity will always involve some form of "craziness." That's why I tend to look down on the use of words like "absurd," "ridiculous," "crazy," etc., etc coming from any end. Granted, it's a bit more excusable when it can be disproven or at least marked off as unevident. But the fact still remains, the idea of a literal God is indeed crazy, and every attempt to tell of how Christianity is a hoax involves at least one wild assertion. Let's at least admit that we're on the same level here. That's fine too. But just because your conclusion wasn't directly collaborated doesn't mean it's a good argument. garyuu and I actually go to the same church (sort of). It's protestant, technically, but the only thing that makes us protestant is the fact that we're non-Catholic Christians. We go to a Church of Christ which is non-denominational and doesn't have a creed, unlike most churches. Gosh, another quick visit. This week's been darn busy even though I'm unemployed, I wonder what is it going to be like if I ever get a job. I'll again address whatever I can in some 10 minutes which is already running. Sorry about this, try to bear with me. Well you sure type fast enough. I wish I had taken a word processing class in high school. I type pretty slow. Anyway, don't worry about this thread too much. Nobody's gonna start shouting "victory!" if you leave for a week. Take it easy.  |
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Feb 1, 2008 18:47:59 GMT -5
Father/child relationship? Perhaps my relationship with my Dad was somehow distorted, but he actually taught me the difference between good and evil. God, on the other hand, neglects millions of people around the world all the time. Go to Sudan and ask that 4-year-old little kiddo suffering from malaria whether he picked God or not. I bet he'll tell you he has never heard of this God you speak of. Oh well, to hell with him, he is a heathen anyways.
And no, a videotape wouldn't make me believe. However, I find it strange that a book actually make people believe in miracles. You know, the Vedas are even older and incorporate a lot of miracles, spirits, gods and whatnot, yet those books don't seem to convince you. I must ask you, what makes the Bible more true than all the other books claiming to state the word of a higher power? The fact that it is more popular? If you go by that, then Hindus were right already before the Bible was written since they were more popular back then.
I think I see your point with the church. I've never understood the bad blood between all Christian churches (well, I do understand, it was originally about power). They should get along, after all, people come to church to look for the same thing, relief. No need to fight about who can deliver the relief the best.
Type fast? I just dilate time flow and quite literally create time to answer. Hah, comments like that are what you get from reading quantum physics with insufficient pre-knowledge.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Feb 3, 2008 12:30:47 GMT -5
Father/child relationship? Perhaps my relationship with my Dad was somehow distorted, but he actually taught me the difference between good and evil. God, on the other hand, neglects millions of people around the world all the time. Your perception of the word "neglect" could easily be very different from His. Besides, he calls us to minister to other people's needs. World hunger is partly a result of human imperfection in regards to caring for one another. "Heathen"? Are you trying to antagonize me? I really don't mind sarcasm that much, but leave your stereotypes about pharisaic Christians out of this. I don't conform to that image, and most don't. There have been many "missionaries" who were more concerned about hammering the Word into suffering people than living it. In the bible, this act is preached against. I'm not arguing against other religions right now. Just defending the bible. Let's leave that for another thread. But on another note, after all my posts about why I believe the bible is a valid piece of historical text, you say I'm giving the bible authority simply because it's old and popular? Like I said it's not a book, it's an anthology whose books are recognized as accounts of real events unless otherwise stated (Jesus disclaims factual truth in his parables). Furthermore scholars all know that it was created over the course of a very long time and we can give an approximate date or time period when each book was made. There is also tons of archaeological evidence. That's really only the tip of the iceberg though. Essentially, if you believe the things they teach you in history about about ancient china and other civilizations of ages past, you are believing on the same grounds which you would believe that the bible is based off of historical events. The only thing keeping you from believing the bible is true therefore, is because it contains accounts of unrealistic phenomena, because that clearly indicates that the authors are lying. Am I wrong? Would you be more likely to believe the bible was true if it contained nothing as a mention to miracles or divine interaction? And I have another question... Do you have a reason for believing that miracles can't happen? It's not like everybody's at each other's throats, but church's have a knack for splitting over trivial things. You see it happen more in free countries like here. I believe the true colors of the church shine the brightest when the church lives under a government which is hostile toward it. People put aside there differences and come together from their similarities. heh, you mean "foreknowledge"? |
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Feb 3, 2008 14:10:11 GMT -5
Yeah, I meant foreknowledge. Work all day and no play makes Jack a dull boy and causes Tshern to mistype stuff.
It probably is different from his, but what makes my opinion less right? The problem with religions is the dogma, you either accept the dogma or you don't. To me, freedom is a lot more important than letting anykind of being own me.
My point was that his relatively short stay on Earth doesn't matter that much, since he'll be staying in Hell until the end of time. Some 40 years, no matter how you suffer, hardly compares to that. Too bad he never got to choose God, because no one told him about his religion. I guess ignorance isn't bliss.
Then again there has been huge inaccuracies in the book as well. When did Jesus live and so forth. Kind of undermines its credibility. If the miracles like dividing a sea in two, walking on water and turning water to wine actually happened, why don't those things happen anymore?
Funny you should mention the tip of the iceberg, since you could probably make a house size of an iceberg from all the known pieces of wood originating from the cross Jesus was crucified to.
Mixing religion and government is never good. I think there's way too much religious speech in the American politics. For example all that In God we trust-stuff seems incredibly discriminating to me, especially since only, what, 52% of your population are Protestants and some 20% Roman Catholic. Moreover, Christianity might be the single largest religion around, but Christians still are in minority in the world.
By the way, I managed to get my hands on an English version of the Bible for a few days. I've got a deeply religious Scottish friend and I convinced him to borrow it to me. I have used some of these excerpts before in another arguments, so it didn't take long for me to find these little babies again. Let us see what God has told us in a book that it is of his making and illustrates his word:
This one's from Exodus, chapter 21:
So God is okay with people teaching slaves to show a little respect. Not really an aspect I am looking for in an omnipotent, loving Father.
Leviticus, chapter 22
God also thinks people can be born to be slaves. Luckily for us slavery is abolished, it would suck to be born just to serve a rich man as a slave.
Peter 3:7
So women are now weaker? If that was not enough, I've got a lot of stuff about God being a misogynist. In spite of this all God's anti-female statements, we still have female leaders, women can speak freely in churches and, heck, Finland even has a female President right now. I seem to recall that all the pain women have when they labor a baby are because of Eve's sins. Hardly seems fair to me. Are we acting against the will of God when we try to make females equal regardless of stuff like this:
Ephesians 5:22-24
I have more, but it takes some time to sort them out and find them from the book. So many pages....
And about miracles. I am a Pics or didn't happen-kind of a man, I need evidence. Altering molecules, using telekinesis or anything like that usually greatly violates laws of physics. Creating food for thousands of people is not exactly anything Newton would be condoning in his works.
|
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Feb 3, 2008 18:25:03 GMT -5
I think God said he would greatly multiply the pain, there was pain in labor before though. Just thought I'd add that in.
|
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Feb 3, 2008 19:10:29 GMT -5
I think God said he would greatly multiply the pain, there was pain in labor before though. Just thought I'd add that in. Kinda sick considering the punishment men got was the nagging women to about the pain caused by laboring a child. Relatively unbalanced. |
|
Magic attack
Head Advisor
The guy everyone loves.
Posts: 542
|
Post by Magic attack on Feb 3, 2008 19:13:35 GMT -5
I would also like to add that slavery, while being outlawed in most countries, still exists today. I know that most of the press and many government leaders like to neglect commenting on it, but there are people out there being forced to work against their will.
|
|
tshern
C-Tier
The pinnacle of creation
Posts: 107
|
Post by tshern on Feb 3, 2008 20:14:04 GMT -5
Sure it does. So do murders, robberies and jaywalking. However, it seems God's main niche seems to deal with slavery.
|
|
Magic attack
Head Advisor
The guy everyone loves.
Posts: 542
|
Post by Magic attack on Feb 3, 2008 20:54:47 GMT -5
I don't recall the Jaywalking Commandment. |
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Feb 3, 2008 22:07:37 GMT -5
Yeah, I meant foreknowledge. Work all day and no play makes Jack a dull boy and causes Tshern to mistype stuff. It probably is different from his, but what makes my opinion less right? The problem with religions is the dogma, you either accept the dogma or you don't. To me, freedom is a lot more important than letting anykind of being own me. Less right in the sense that he's omniscient, and we're not. The Christian faith doesn't call for strict adherence to specific dogma in order to be saved. I admit that I'm a sinner, I am baptized in the Holy Spirit, and I recognize Jesus as the true Son of God. Task wise, is that too much to ask? Regarding the freedom thing, remind me to make a thread on that, Paul talks about it in either 1 or 2 Corinthians... So since most books about George Washington don't talk about how bad of shape his teeth were in makes them inaccurate? They'd be inaccurate if they said his teeth were excellent, but they don't. Granted, it's an exaggeration, but do you see my point? It would be inaccurate if different accounts said that he lived at different times, but instead they simply don't feel the need to talk about what "year" it was. Faith. God doesn't get all up in our faces because he wants us to have faith. Same with miracles. That and he already did them. It just depends whether you believe the history. ¿Que? Okay.. Any text without a context is a pretext. You gave me chapters but I need verses for two of those. Also it's necessary to examine the intent of the speaker, and the culture of that time, where it was, what was going on. Also, sometimes specific English words don't quite express the original Hebrew's meaning. Before you jump on anything, you have to come to grounds with all the possible interpretations and understandings, THEN you can make an objective judgement. I'll explain these, as some are in stark contrast with today's cultural values, however I mainly want some verses. Then I'll do them all at once. And what version bible do you have? If he believed that there was an omnipotent God, I don't see why he wouldn't. And the concept of a God is philosophically irrefutable. For the record, I'm the same way though (no evidence/logic = groundess theory). I struggled with this question "is there a God?" years ago. But God made himself evident to me. There is a certain point when things stop being coincidences. (not that I expect to convert you or anything, I'm just saying.) But seriously, is evidence all about things that you can directly percieve? Does it take more than a history book to make you believe the holocaust happened? |
|
|
|
Post by Dja Majista on Feb 3, 2008 22:09:40 GMT -5
I don't recall the Jaywalking Commandment.
--2 Opinions 4:27 |
|
The Big Daddy C-Master
Big Daddy
Living life to the fullest, and it feels great.
I'm still here... for now...
Posts: 26,387
|
Post by The Big Daddy C-Master on Feb 4, 2008 1:53:09 GMT -5
I think God said he would greatly multiply the pain, there was pain in labor before though. Just thought I'd add that in. Kinda sick considering the punishment men got was the nagging women to about the pain caused by laboring a child. Relatively unbalanced. Poor men... |
|
[/I]
