14 Mar 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYet you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Why believe one miracle yet ridicule those who believe another?
people's gods shouldn't be taken literally as their holy books portray them. for example i may believe that the old testament God created the world, but who in their right mind would believe he did it in 7 days? people must adjust their faiths.
If you tell me more about what you do believe, I think I can almost certainly prove that your God does not exist.
an open minded priest told me once that he considered that one of the main reason Christians have the lent in easter and summer is to prevent them from getting sick.
He didn't know what he was talking about. The date of easter has a historical background that has nothing whatsoever to do with getting sick.
Don't get me started on eggs and bunnies!
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadfirst of all jeesus didnt die so that the bunny can get us colourful eggs. second of all, why cant lent have a connection with getting sick from eating old pork that has been also chewed on by rats and who knows what else? the historical date is one thing but just because jeesus died, that doesn't mean we must not eat meat for at least a month(or how long the easter lent is)
Yet you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Why believe one miracle yet ridicule those who believe another?
If you tell me more about what you do believe, I think I can almost certainly prove that your God does not exist.
[b]an open minded priest told me once that he considered that one of the main reason Christians have the lent in easter and summer ...[text shortened]... hat has nothing whatsoever to do with getting sick.
Don't get me started on eggs and bunnies!
second of all, i dont dismiss jesus's miracles, or any other miracle. they may or may not have happened. however i do dismiss the noah's flood in the sense that it wiped all life on earth and then noah and family multiplied as bunnies.
the bible was written by people and while some may have been writing what god dictated, some may have simply issued some laws to please a ruler's ego or for another reason.
just because the bible has some horror stories in it it doesn;t mean god doesnt exist
14 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"If you tell me more about what you do believe, I think I can almost certainly prove that your God does not exist."
Yet you believe Jesus rose from the dead? Why believe one miracle yet ridicule those who believe another?
If you tell me more about what you do believe, I think I can almost certainly prove that your God does not exist.
[b]an open minded priest told me once that he considered that one of the main reason Christians have the lent in easter and summer hat has nothing whatsoever to do with getting sick.
Don't get me started on eggs and bunnies!
i provoke anyone to try and use logic to prove that.
almost any argument against the christian or jew god is bases on the fact the the bible(even though it was writtine for ignorant cavemen) is held by atheists as some sort of scientific paper
EDIT sorry about the bold letters, i am too lazy to look what happened
14 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziSo basically you are saying the bible should not be taken as a rational text at all?
"If you tell me more about what you do believe, I think I can almost certainly prove that your God does not exist."
i provoke anyone to try and use logic to prove that.
almost any argument against the christian or jew god is bases on the fact the the bible(even though it was writtine for ignorant cavemen) is held by atheists as some sort of scientific paper
EDIT sorry about the bold letters, i am too lazy to look what happened
How exactly do you choose what to or what not to believe?
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneacting kindly to others will benefit them the same way regardless of the motivation - i don't understand how you can disagree with this. to spell it out even more: the same action will have the same effect, regardless of the underlying causes. this, i hope is simple science, a belief in coherency in the universe will satisfy this.
You're going to have to explain how it "makes no difference to the effect on others". I don't know that I can disagree more.
Just because it is "normal" to start off that way is irrelevant. It's also "normal" to start off being ignorant. It's also "normal" to start off having little control over ones emotions.
what i want to know, is what do you actually mean by acting altruistically? saying that the human body is in some way able to fulfil an objectively "moral" task implies some form of creation in a moral framework.
the concept of morals, in my opinion, is derived from the ability to empathise with others. what is good and what is bad is deemed so as a direct implication of how you would feel in that other person's position, with the emphasis on continuing life (no murder / don't kill babies / respecting the dead (as conceptual life) / not stealing / maintaining a stable society), and distracting us from the fact that we are merely mortal (religion / "good" poetry / philosophy etc.). All "moral" values i can think of can be linked to this (my explanation above is fairly brief, but it is simple enough a theory to be able to elucidate yourself) - and so concepts of good and bad become empirically explicable. relying on empathy however, they all relate to oneself - since we can't escape our own subjectivity. how then, is it possible to be "selfless"?
I hope you appreciate that the inability to avoid subjectivity is an accepted truth - and is the basis of my own as well as most other's philosophies. it is the ultimate ignorance - the one ignorance no amount of thinking or maturing will ever get us out of.
as an example, if you are not convinced - can you explain the colour yellow to a blind person? - our consciousness is, again in my own opinion, a word we use to describe an entity which perceives - consciousness is the inverse of perception, if you like. we are, like it or not, permanently trapped within our own subjectivity.
so i would have to disagree with you that the ability to act "selflessly" comes with maturity - i do not believe that it is ever truly possible.
14 Mar 08
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
... you are still only human, and so are trapped within a highly limiting neural framework.
Right. And you are suggesting that such limitations can be temporarily suspended while non-existence and its ramifications are considered.
no i can not imagine non existence, but i can think about whether i can imagine non existence or not, and consider its ramifications for this argument.
OK, so by which process have you decided which parts of the bible to believe literally and which parts to take poetically?
Hermeneutics and isagogics are tricky things. Those parts which are intended as literal, we ought to take as such. Likewise with the remaining categories of thought and/or expression.
What I asked was how do you differentiate between the categories - i didn't ask for a repetition of the question.
Do you accept the subjectivity of your faith?
I accept the subjectivity of my thoughts as they relate to my faith.
so you believe that your subjectivity is grappling with objectivity, and the two are connected how? by your subjectivity, of course - cue the next question ...
If you do, does that remove meaning, reducing it to a postmodern approach - in which case you're more or less an atheist and there is no point in me arguing with your beliefs?
Which beliefs are those, exactly?
you explain that to me - i think you're probably are a christian, if not then you're playing a terrible devil's advocate.
Or are you a literalist in which case you threw logic out the window a long time ago and results again in there being no point in me arguing with you about your beliefs?
Do you literally take yourself seriously?
if you're so unwilling to be straight with me, i'll assume from a previous post that you're not a literalist. and in answer to your question, i don't have enough faith in my mind to take myself seriously. how can i? it's just a mishmash of chemicals.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by Zahlanzizahlanzi, i used to share your opinion, and i still brand myself a christian of sorts - however, believing in inherent goodness within a set of beliefs does not constitute belief in the religion. it is a far nobler thing to do, in my opinion, to be able to see what is good and bad in the world by your own thinking. accepting independence of thought is accepting responsibility for ones actions, when you do good things, you're good because you are good ... not because you're conforming to a objective morality beyond your reach.
yup. only they are not really copies. more like entirely different persons sharing a common DNA. we are shaped by our past choices. different choices mean different persons.
i don't want to press this issue, as i am aware that you have your own reasons for belief - it is just that i identify with your position, as someone who once thought the same. it is very liberating to let go and lead yourself rather than be led. people would criticise you for "straying from the right path" - but to be independent and righteous takes a far stronger person than any follower.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by cpbrownno i can not imagine non existence, but i can think about whether i can imagine non existence or not, and consider its ramifications for this argument.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
... you are still only human, and so are trapped within a highly limiting neural framework.
Right. And you are suggesting that such limitations can be temporarily suspended while non-existence and its ramifications are considered.
no i can not imagine non existence, but i can think about whether i can imagine non ...[text shortened]... ith in my mind to take myself seriously. how can i? it's just a mishmash of chemicals.[/b]
The point that you are missing is fairly basic. Were God to create only those who choose His system, wouldn't there be some naysayer in the crowd who dismisses the whole experiment on account of pointlessness?
What I asked was how do you differentiate between the categories - i didn't ask for a repetition of the question.
Then I probably shouldn't repeat my response that you clearly missed. Hermeneutics and isagogics. More specifically, I am keen on the ICE system of interpretation. You?
you explain that to me - i think you're probably are a christian, if not then you're playing a terrible devil's advocate.
Was there a question in there somewhere?
i don't have enough faith in my mind to take myself seriously. how can i? it's just a mishmash of chemicals.
Do you know that, or is it just the chemicals talking?
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe point that you are missing is fairly basic. Were God to create only those who choose His system, wouldn't there be some naysayer in the crowd who dismisses the whole experiment on account of pointlessnes
[b]no i can not imagine non existence, but i can think about whether i can imagine non existence or not, and consider its ramifications for this argument.
The point that you are missing is fairly basic. Were God to create only those who choose His system, wouldn't there be some naysayer in the crowd who dismisses the whole experiment on account of po ...[text shortened]... ust a mishmash of chemicals.[/b]
Do you know that, or is it just the chemicals talking?[/b]
So the torture of millions of souls is justified because it provides God with a point? This seems fairly sadistic. If God cannot create without condemning people to hell, then how I can't see how creation at all is justified.
The whole experiment still seems pointless. Now it seems morally repulsive as well.
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by Jake EllisonTwo things: what is your sense of morality base upon; and what is the risk in creating another?
[b]The point that you are missing is fairly basic. Were God to create only those who choose His system, wouldn't there be some naysayer in the crowd who dismisses the whole experiment on account of pointlessnes
So the torture of millions of souls is justified because it provides God with a point? This seems fairly sadistic. If God cannot create ...[text shortened]... ified.
The whole experiment still seems pointless. Now it seems morally repulsive as well.[/b]
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI suppose I view morality in terms relative to human experience. As fundamental principles I don't believe in morality at all. The assumption of a God assumes moral fundamentals. I would argue that God seems to go against what is generally assumed right within human cultures.
Two things: what is your sense of morality base upon; and what is the risk in creating another?
What is the risk in creating another what?
14 Mar 08
4 edits
Originally posted by cpbrownI'm not sure where you've gone with this last post.
acting kindly to others will benefit them the same way regardless of the motivation - i don't understand how you can disagree with this. to spell it out even more: the same action will have the same effect, regardless of the underlying causes. this, i hope is simple science, a belief in coherency in the universe will satisfy this.
what i want to know, is elflessly" comes with maturity - i do not believe that it is ever truly possible.
JE and I were discussing overcoming selfishness when you chimed in with: "But may i ask, why is it a bad thing to be 'selfish' anyway if it is a) normal and b) makes no difference to the effect on others?"
Selfish people don't often act kindly to others. Even when they do, they often do so in order to manipulate them. So I don't see how you can say it doesn't make a difference to the effect on others. That and they infrequently help others anyway.
How about using proper capitalization? Or are you too self-centered to bother? Do you not care about the effect on readers of your posts? 🙂
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy no respones? Did you miss my reply to your post?
Be not deceived: God is not mocked. Whatseover a man sows, so shall he reap.
Doesn't sound much like impunity to me. Try 1 John 1:9 sometime. You might find it illuminating.
First of all, are you saying that you believe that 1 John 1:9 supercedes the words of Jesus?
Second of all, look at that verses that precede it. The only way that 1:9 makes sense in that context is that it is speaking of sins committed prior to coming to true repentance and overcoming sin. If you continue to sin, you are "walking in darkness". 1 John 1:8-10 are aimed towards those who have overcome sin, but believe that they have never sinned. Sins committed prior to overcoming sin are what need to be confessed and cleansed.
Also, earlier you said:
"Once a person accepts the grace provision of God, their name cannot be blotted out, regardless of what happens following such acceptance."
Now you say:
"Be not deceived: God is not mocked. Whatseover a man sows, so shall he reap."
These statements appear to be at odds. How do you reconcile the two?
14 Mar 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneHow do you reconcile the fact that you have not overcome sin yourself and do not believe Jesus was who he said he was NOR in the Holy Spirit but still think you can preach to Christians anyway?
Why no respones? Did you miss my reply to your post?
[b]First of all, are you saying that you believe that 1 John 1:9 supercedes the words of Jesus?
Second of all, look at that verses that precede it. The only way that 1:9 makes sense in that context is that it is speaking of sins committed prior to coming to true repentance and overcoming sin. If ...[text shortened]... l he reap."
These statements appear to be at odds. How do you reconcile the two?
[/b]
What exactly do you know about cleansing from sins or overcoming sin anyway? Do tell us all.
14 Mar 08
5 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIt's remarkable how you post so many distortions, half-truths and outright lies without reservation. You say you worship the God of Truth. Why don't your posts reflect that?
How do you reconcile the fact that you have not overcome sin yourself and do not believe Jesus was who he said he was NOR in the Holy Spirit but still think you can preach to Christians anyway?
What exactly do you know about cleansing from sins or overcoming sin anyway? Do tell us all.
You should really follow the words of Jesus. It can only make you a better person. Today's as good a day as any to begin.