NationStates Jolt Archive

And who decided that Stics? Who decides that God's position has changed?

The Church, which again says it knows God's position, so either God's position changes with the Church's position or the Church does not actually know what God thinks.

The Catholic Church, which foolishly claims to have knowledge of God's intent. All I am trying to say is that saying that God says something like marriage is between a man and a woman is foolish because then you are essentially saying you know what God is thinking and if God exists he is such a superior being that would be impossible.

Actually..it is stated all throughout the Word of God that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Actually..it is stated all throughout the Word of God that marriage is between one man and one woman.

What Word of God are you referencing? The one that states that slavery is permissible? The one that was written by man and therefore again can have no actual idea of what God actually thinks?

BOth of you were arguing that God exists in a form which you claim to be knowledgable about, however one of you says logic cannot be used (in the form of a proof which can be applied to things other than Math), and the other says it can...
You have only taken a partial quote by the other poster, and without reference to what that poster was referring to, therefore I would not be able to comment on your post.

The Church, which again says it knows God's position, so either God's position changes with the Church's position or the Church does not actually know what God thinks.

The Church? Who says I believe what the Church says? And what church would that be? There are many churches.

The Church, which again says it knows God's position, so either God's position changes with the Church's position or the Church does not actually know what God thinks.
Come on Stics, do you honestly believe that God gives a damn about what the Church thinks? And how could the Church know what God thinks? Assuming God exists of course... :D

The Vatican is a tool of men to gain power through faith and dominate the masses through fear, nothing more...

You have only taken a partial quote by the other poster, and without reference to what that poster was referring to, therefore I would not be able to comment on your post.

Here's the full quotes:

there r some funny things about this forum...

mainly that the people who are all about logic don't follow it well...

because pretend there is no god...what do u win when we die...

you won't even be able to mock those who believe...so you win nothing...

but if there is a God...(which there is) what do u win...

pain and suffering...but it doesn't matter because u maintain that God isn't

good enough to recognize or worship in anyway, shape, or form...

so by not believing in God, you will win nothing after you die...

so why would you even choose to be agnostic/atheist in any situation...

doesn't logic suggest then that you would believe in God??



The issue as per the thread topic is:

"Do you have faith in God?"

My reply was fairly straightforward:

"I believe that God is a loving and caring God, and perhaps one day He will share His truths with me and others. Until then, I will give Him the benefit of the doubt and put my faith in Him. I certainly cannot put my faith in you."

You are the one that is trying to add your own "issues" into this thread.


Does anyone truly know the answer to your question? The problem you have is obvious. Even if the Bible is 100% totally false, it still would not prove that there is no God.


For you to argue by means of "proof by contradiction" then it logically follows that you would have to know certain truths? That might work in a mathematical exercize, but I do not see how it could work in regards to whether God exists or not.

Now reply: The first poster uses a structured proof to state we should believe God exists, the second states that proofs cannot be used in this case...

The Church? Who says I believe what the Church says? And what church would that be? There are many churches.

Take your pick, they all have changed over time, but I picked the Catholic Church because it is a prime example.

Take your pick, they all have changed over time, but I picked the Catholic Church because it is a prime example.

Ah then you have a problem with that selection! I am not Catholic.

Come on Stics, do you honestly believe that God gives a damn about what the Church thinks? And how could the Church know what God thinks? Assuming God exists of course... :D

The Vatican is a tool of men to gain power through faith and dominate the masses through fear, nothing more...

While the Vatican does wield power, it can be both good as well as misleading. It does do much to help those in the world that need it. But I do somewhat agree. ;)

Ah then you have a problem with that selection! I am not Catholic.

As I said, take your pick... What religion are you btw?

ok i got it someone get a bible! read the book of Job its probably in the nasb verison new american standard bible i think but whatever read job you will understand

As I said, take your pick... What religion are you btw?

My faith rests with the Lord Jesus. That's all that is needed.

While the Vatican does wield power, it can be both good as well as misleading. It does do much to help those in the world that need it. But I do somewhat agree. ;)
Too true.

ok i got it someone get a bible! read the book of Job its probably in the nasb verison new american standard bible i think but whatever read job you will understand

Could you elaborate a bit?

ok i got it someone get a bible! read the book of Job its probably in the nasb verison new american standard bible i think but whatever read job you will understand

The Book of Job is in all the Bibles.

And there are no possible naturalistic explanations to your experience? The only logical possibility is that a divine being "reawakened your spirit." Can't people's lives not be wrecks without divine intervention? If not, why are atheists not all miserable bums on the street? Or does God help them in life, only to punish them in death with eternal agony?
According to my interpretation of Jesus, faith is not the way to "salvation"; practice is. So, an atheist could be "saved" without believing, as long as he was a good person.

My faith rests with the Lord Jesus. That's all that is needed.

And yet your beliefs, your quoting of the bible, and your belief in Marriage as between a man and a woman are all very similar to the Catholic belief, and actually I do admire Jesus as a great teacher, as his message was perhaps the most admirable created by man before it was corrupted by other people's perspectives. This is why I believe that it is fine to believe that there is a God, and even perhaps to try and interpret what he is thinking, but it is not okay to impose it upon others or (for example) to try and save people, as you cannot really know that that is God's will.

According to my interpretation of Jesus, faith is not the way to "salvation"; practice is. So, an atheist could be "saved" without believing, as long as he was a good person.
Correct.

According to my interpretation of Jesus, faith is not the way to "salvation"; practice is. So, an atheist could be "saved" without believing, as long as he was a good person.

THANK YOU :D I also believe that a person should be judged by their character as opposed to their faith. Saying that if someone believes in Jesus you automatically get into Heaven is like giving yourself an excuse to sin as much as you want because you'll still get into heaven.

While the Vatican does wield power, it can be both good as well as misleading. It does do much to help those in the world that need it. But I do somewhat agree. ;)

For once...I agree and that is why i am not Catholic.

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?

If your friend was a good person then I would assume she will go to heaven. Though it is a loss for you, her friends, and her children, by the sounds of her life here on earth at least this way she does not experience any more pain.

Again I hope I am not angering you by suggesting this as I am not saying this is the reason why she was allowed to die (hey I'm not God so how would I know anyhow), just a possible reason as maybe she wanted to die at times? (again if you feel I am insensitive, sorry - just brainstorming really).

there r some funny things about this forum...

mainly that the people who are all about logic don't follow it well...

because pretend there is no god...what do u win when we die...

you won't even be able to mock those who believe...so you win nothing...

but if there is a God...(which there is) what do u win...

pain and suffering...but it doesn't matter because u maintain that God isn't

good enough to recognize or worship in anyway, shape, or form...

so by not believing in God, you will win nothing after you die...

so why would you even choose to be agnostic/atheist in any situation...

doesn't logic suggest then that you would believe in God??

Short answer: Atheists believe that God's nonexistence is truth, and value truth for its own sake.

Long answer: Read this. (http://myweb.cableone.net/silentdave/shades_of_pascal.htm)

For once...I agree and that is why i am not Catholic.

However you do believe (I assume) in the Bible?

Correct me if I'm wrong plz.

According to my interpretation of Jesus, faith is not the way to "salvation"; practice is. So, an atheist could be "saved" without believing, as long as he was a good person.

Actually you are incorrect. Unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. You are not saved unless you accept the Lord Savior Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior.

ok i got it someone get a bible! read the book of Job its probably in the nasb verison new american standard bible i think but whatever read job you will understand

Uh... actually I've read Job in the recent past. What about it? The issue of faith?

THANK YOU I also believe that a person should be judged by their character as opposed to their faith. Saying that if someone believes in Jesus you automatically get into Heaven is like giving yourself an excuse to sin as much as you want because you'll still get into heaven.

Ephesians 2:8-9 (New International Version)
"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

According to that, it is by faith alone that we are saved. Well?

However you do believe (I assume) in the Bible?

Correct me if I'm wrong plz.

Of course I believe in the Bible. I have just been the new testiment. A marvelous collection and it tells us the way to salvation.

Belief in God: Yes.
Why? Makes logical sense when you start from first principals. The question of evil can be tricky but less so when you don't elevate humans to the level of God.

While the Vatican does wield power, it can be both good as well as misleading. It does do much to help those in the world that need it. But I do somewhat agree.
Too true.
Unfortunately, the atrocities of the corrupted men that lived in the Vatican, have tainted the Catholic Church to the point that it will be very difficult for them to ever clean up their act, however charitable they may seem.

I know there are good people in the Catholic Church, but I do feel they have been seriously mislead and that the institution represents a paradox to what Jesus preached in his short life. Jesus would not accept a pope living like a king. When I look at the pope dressed with white garments and a gold cross hanging from his neck, I remember Jesus words:

Jesus said to Peter "when you were young, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go."

According to my interpretation of Jesus, faith is not the way to "salvation"; practice is. So, an atheist could be "saved" without believing, as long as he was a good person.

Really?

... that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.

At the VERY least, those verses suggest that belief in Jesus as Savior is a free pass into heaven, no matter how one acts on Earth. If they can be interpreted differently, then I have to wonder how the Word of God can be so misunderstood. Shouldn't the Word of God be utterly perfect?

EDIT: The Ephesians quote a few posts up is even better.

Actually you are incorrect. Unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. You are not saved unless you accept the Lord Savior Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior.

But again you presume to know how God decides who to send to Heaven and Hell? How can you know the intentions of such a far superior being?

At the VERY least, those verses suggest that belief in Jesus as Savior is a free pass into heaven, no matter how one acts on Earth. If they can be interpreted differently, then I have to wonder how the Word of God can be so misunderstood. Shouldn't the Word of God be utterly perfect?

If he were following merely the teachings of Jesus, and not the bible, his beliefs would be very close to that which he says he follows.

Unfortunately, the atrocities of the corrupted men that lived in the Vatican, have tainted the Catholic Church to the point that it will be very difficult for them to ever clean up their act, however charitable they may seem.
They are working hard nevertheless, and for that I commend them.

But again you presume to know how God decides who to send to Heaven and Hell? How can you know the intentions of such a far superior being?

For it is written "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son to die for us for whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life."

It is also written "Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven."

For it is written "For God so loved the world he gave his only begotten son to die for us for whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have ever lasting life."

It is also written "Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of heaven."

Again you quote a book written and translated by man (who being imperfect, could easily misinterpret God's Word). Indeed, how could the ideas of such a superior being be expressed in such an inferior language as our own?

They are working hard nevertheless, and for that I commend them.

But is working hard in a corrupt organization really commendable?

But is working hard in a corrupt organization really commendable?
Absolutely yes. It is no longer corrupt. It is on the path to ameliorating itself.

Absolutely yes. It is no longer corrupt. It is on the path to ameliorating itself.

How so?

How so?
Look at how it has changed over the course of time. It is not what once was. I am not of the belief that once something is broken it cannot be fixed. Too simplistic.

According to my interpretation of Jesus, faith is not the way to "salvation"; practice is. So, an atheist could be "saved" without believing, as long as he was a good person.
Ah, no. An atheist by definition doesn't believe he has to be saved, so Jesus won't bother. He wishes he could though.

Believing in Jesus, not as a person but as one's own personal Savio(u)r is the key to heaven. This is pointed out at many points in the Bible. However, that doesn't mean we should slack off. The Law (Old Testament) is there as a guideline for how we should try to live our lives. Obviously we can't live up to that, otherwise we wouldn't need a Savio(u)r would we? The Gospel is the key, but the rest shouldn't be ignored. Being a truly believing Christian bunghole (like George W. Bush :gundge: ) still gets you into heaven, but being a good Christian involves elements of both.

Again you quote a book written and translated by man (who being imperfect, could easily misinterpret God's Word). Indeed, how could the ideas of such a superior being be expressed in such an inferior language as our own?
That is why we must be careful not to simply take every word of the Bible literally-- some of it is metaphor, and all of it is imperfect translation of an imperfect rendition of God.

Look at how it has changed over the course of time. It is not what once was. I am not of the belief that once something is broken it cannot be fixed. Too simplistic.

I agree that almost everything can be fixed, and I also agree that it has improved greatly, however I believe that we do not see it as corrupt in the same way. To you, what seems corrupt about the church today?

Again you quote a book written and translated by man (who being imperfect, could easily misinterpret God's Word). Indeed, how could the ideas of such a superior being be expressed in such an inferior language as our own?

The first verse was said by Jesus himself. In Chapter 3 verse 36 of the Book of john, it is also written "And anyone who believes in God's Son has eternal life. Anyone who doesn't obey the Son will never experience eternal life but remains under God's angry judgment."

In John 3:3, Jesus said "I tell you the truth, unless you are born again, you cannot see the Kingdom of God. Verse 5, "I assure you, no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the Spirit."

I agree that almost everything can be fixed, and I also agree that it has improved greatly, however I believe that we do not see it as corrupt in the same way. To you, what seems corrupt about the church today?
Perhaps its excess rigidity and its insistence on certain issues. I do not regard the opulence of its main quarters, however, as corruption. I see it as the manifest glory of God.

Actually you are incorrect. Unless you are born again, you cannot see the kingdom of heaven. You are not saved unless you accept the Lord Savior Jesus as your Personal Lord and Savior.
"Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again."

Ah, no. An atheist by definition doesn't believe he has to be saved, so Jesus won't bother. He wishes he could though.

Believing in Jesus, not as a person but as one's own personal Savio(u)r is the key to heaven. This is pointed out at many points in the Bible. However, that doesn't mean we should slack off. The Law (Old Testament) is there as a guideline for how we should try to live our lives. Obviously we can't live up to that, otherwise we wouldn't need a Savio(u)r would we? The Gospel is the key, but the rest shouldn't be ignored. Being a truly believing Christian bunghole (like George W. Bush :gundge: ) still gets you into heaven, but being a good Christian involves elements of both.

But again, doesn't that mean that "truly believing" is just a way of saying, I'll get into heaven anyway so I can sin as much as I like?

"Congratulations to those who are alone and chosen, for you will find the kingdom. For you have come from it, and you will return there again."
The operative words being "and chosen." We are all chosen, but like any good politician we must accept the nomination.

That metaphor sucked.

But again, doesn't that mean that "truly believing" is just a way of saying, I'll get into heaven anyway so I can sin as much as I like?
Some people do take that easy way out. But in order to truly do God's work ("go and make disciples of all nations," "whatever you do unto the least of these my brothers," etc.) you won't do that anyway. That's why a really good Christian won't just take the backseat and nap into heaven.

The faith may be there, but the sign of the faith is in the actions.

Perhaps its excess rigidity and its insistence on certain issues. I do not regard the opulence of its main quarters, however, as corruption. I see it as the manifest glory of God.

So God's glory manifests itself in various forms of money? Sounds corrupt to me.

So God's glory manifests itself in various forms of money? Sounds corrupt to me.
I like the symbolism. And no, it shows the amount of love we have for God.

I like the symbolism. And no, it shows the amount of love we have for God.

So we show our love for God by devoting money to him, which:
a) is useless to him because he has little use for physical wealth
and
b) is what he suggests we give up in order to further ourselves on the path to heaven. Why would he want what he asks us to give up?

I do not regard the opulence of its main quarters, however, as corruption. I see it as the manifest glory of God.
Then you haven't listened to Jesus with your ears open...

So we show our love for God by devoting money to him, which:
a) is useless to him because he has little use for physical wealth
and
b) is what he suggests we give up in order to further ourselves on the path to heaven.
Humans like shiny things. It's a testament to other humans.

Humans like shiny things. It's a testament to other humans.

lol but not to God

But again, doesn't that mean that "truly believing" is just a way of saying, I'll get into heaven anyway so I can sin as much as I like?

As the apostle Paul once said "Of Course Not"

Then you haven't listened to Jesus with your ears open...
Oh for fuck's sake...first I must contend with atheists telling me what to believe, now other Christians? What do you care? Honestly.

So we show our love for God by devoting money to him, which:
a) is useless to him because he has little use for physical wealth
and
b) is what he suggests we give up in order to further ourselves on the path to heaven.
Where I come from, the money is for the church. As a nonprofit organization, it still needs to survive in the world by covering any necessary fees to keep the church running and bring people to Christ. Giving the money to God himself would be probably less useful than wiping one's ass with it.

As the apostle Paul once said "Of Course Not"

and Why Not?

lol but not to God
Seeing as we live among humans, and we are trying to get more to follow God, it would make sense to use tactics which appeal to them.

So we show our love for God by devoting money to him, which:
a) is useless to him because he has little use for physical wealth
and
b) is what he suggests we give up in order to further ourselves on the path to heaven. Why would he want what he asks us to give up?

isn't it a form of showing our love/devotion toward him?? and wouldn't that matter??

Where I come from, the money is for the church. As a nonprofit organization, it still needs to survive in the world by covering any necessary fees to keep the church running and bring people to Christ. Giving the money to God himself would be probably less useful than wiping one's ass with it.

But as we already have discussed, the Church cannot possibly know that it is promoting what God wants, as God is a superior being and therefore it stands to reason we cannot even comprehend his desires, or intentions. I do however approve of its aid, however even that is slightly corrupted, as they do not simply help people, they try to change their religion as well.

isn't it a form of showing our love/devotion toward him?? and wouldn't that matter??

But if money doesn't matter to you (as God suggests it shouldn't) then is it really showing love or devotion?

The operative words being "and chosen." We are all chosen, but like any good politician we must accept the nomination.
Is it you doing the nominations? I though God did them, not you... Don't judge...

But if money doesn't matter to you (as God suggests it shouldn't) then is it really showing love or devotion?

sure...if money means nothing to you...but doesn't money often mean something to people...because it is the means of obtaining anything needed to survive??

But as we already have discussed, the Church cannot possibly know that it is promoting what God wants, as God is a superior being and therefore it stands to reason we cannot even comprehend his desires, or intentions. I do however approve of its aid, however even that is slightly corrupted, as they do not simply help people, they try to change their religion as well.
Granted, we can't know "exactly" what God wants. But we have a pretty good idea through the Bible. Our translations may not be exactly accurate, but all of them give the general idea that we should do our best to bring nonbelievers to Christ.

It doesn't directly help people, that's what the Salvation Army and similar charities are for. Offerings mostly pay people's salaries and cover upkeep costs. But even that's pretty important, since without those you wouldn't have much of a church, now would you? ;)

That isn't evidence. Major religions accepting the existence of a person doesnt' prove anything. Provide accurate historical evidence from an unbiased source that can be critically examined pertaining to the existence of Jesus.

Considering that to you, "unbiased" means "anything against religion," can't do it because "unbiased" in your terms means "anything fitting to my viewpoint."

And Contemplatina, I disagree with you. NOT everyone is chosen. And again, I disagree with you. There is no "easy way out." Those who continuously fall into sin and reject God were never chosen at all.

Is it you doing the nominations? I though God did them, not you... Don't judge...

I think he meant we were chosen by God, but we must choose to accept his help.

Man... I have to go soon, but I will return tomorrow if I can.

Is it you doing the nominations? I though God did them, not you... Don't judge...
When did I say God doesn't do the nominations? Everybody has been nominated, they only need to accept. Don't judge me as judgmental.

Considering that to you, "unbiased" means "anything against religion," can't do it because "unbiased" in your terms means "anything fitting to my viewpoint."

And Contemplatina, I disagree with you. NOT everyone is chosen. And again, I disagree with you. There is no "easy way out." Those who continuously fall into sin and reject God were never chosen at all.

So you believe in Predetermination?

When did I say God doesn't do the nominations? Everybody has been nominated, they only need to accept. Don't judge me as judgmental.

Lol, I judge you to be judging me as judgemental.

But as we already have discussed, the Church cannot possibly know that it is promoting what God wants, as God is a superior being and therefore it stands to reason we cannot even comprehend his desires, or intentions.

THANK YOU! *pats you on the back* That goes for every mortal, too, not just the organized Roman church.

I do however approve of its aid, however even that is slightly corrupted, as they do not simply help people, they try to change their religion as well.

I have no problem with either, except for the fact its Romanism. :p

And Contemplatina, I disagree with you. NOT everyone is chosen. And again, I disagree with you. There is no "easy way out." Those who continuously fall into sin and reject God were never chosen at all.
That's my interpretation. I don't know for sure if it's right. We never really know. That's just what I believe, and you're free to disagree with me.

So you believe in Predetermination?

Correct. I am a Calvinist.

Slightly liberal (compared to my colleagues), but a Calvinist all the same.

Oh for fuck's sake...first I must contend with atheists telling me what to believe, now other Christians? What do you care? Honestly.
How can anyone think that Jesus teachings are compatible with Cardinals and Popes living in opulence, wearing silk and gold while children die of hunger is WAY OVER my head...

That's my interpretation. I don't know for sure if it's right. We never really know. That's just what I believe, and you're free to disagree with me.

See, I am perfectly capable of agreeing with this argument because you aren't trying to impose your belief on others, and you admit that you can only really guess at God's intention.

That's my interpretation. I don't know for sure if it's right. We never really know. That's just what I believe, and you're free to disagree with me.

Well, that's what I believe is right. :)

:eek: You're turning Calvinist! :)

k...this is a very complicated answer. i beleive there is a god, but i don't beleive that the christian god is the only/real god. i hope on the other that i am wrong since i love a lot of christians.
i personally had a lot of mental issues with christianity that i couldn't ever work out. these led to 8 years of being suicidal and about 16 of being confused. i tried really hard to follow it, but since i'm bisexual, and naturally drawn to feminine worship, it didn't fit for me.
at age 16 i finally got it worked out by changing religion *to Sumerian* and then stealing the ideas that i liked from most of the other religions. lol

How can anyone think that Jesus teachings are compatible with Cardinals and Popes living in opulence, wearing silk and gold while children die of hunger is WAY OVER my head...
Perhaps then I'll institute Capitalism as my god.

How can anyone think that Jesus teachings are compatible with Cardinals and Popes living in opulence, wearing silk and gold while children die of hunger is WAY OVER my head...

Tradition. Granted, I can't fault them for that -- it does look nice -- but how many people go to the Roman faith because it's flashy, not for the message?

And on that argument -- I'm a free-market kinda guy, so I can't help you on it. :)

k...this is a very complicated answer. i beleive there is a god, but i don't beleive that the christian god is the only/real god. i hope on the other that i am wrong since i love a lot of christians.
i personally had a lot of mental issues with christianity that i couldn't ever work out. these led to 8 years of being suicidal and about 16 of being confused. i tried really hard to follow it, but since i'm bisexual, and naturally drawn to feminine worship, it didn't fit for me.
at age 16 i finally got it worked out by changing religion *to Sumerian* and then stealing the ideas that i liked from most of the other religions. lol

lol so ur Agnostic Sumerian?

Tradition. Granted, I can't fault them for that -- it does look nice -- but how many people go to the Roman faith because it's flashy, not for the message?

And on that argument -- I'm a free-market kinda guy, so I can't help you on it. :)
My sentiments exactly.

Perhaps then I'll institute Capitalism as my god.
Perhaps you already have...

K Guys, I gtg for necessary functions such as sleep but I will return in the morning...

So you believe in Predetermination?

He's a calvinist :P

With regard to proof of the existence of Allaah, it is obvious to anyone who ponders the matter, and there is no need for a lengthy discussion. When we ponder the matter, we find out that it is divided into three categories: instinctive evidence, tangible evidence and shar’i evidence.
1 – Instinctive evidence:
The instinctive evidence that God exists is the strongest of all evidence for those who are not led astray by the devils. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“So set you (O Muhammad) your face towards the religion (of pure Islamic Monotheism) Haneef (worship none but Allaah Alone). Allaah’s Fitrah (i.e. Allaah’s Islamic Monotheism) with which He has created mankind” [al-Room 30:30]
Man’s sound nature (fitrah) testifies to the existence of God and man cannot turn away from that unless the devils mislead him; whoever is misled by the devils may not recognize this evidence.”
Every person feels inside himself that he has a Lord and Creator, and he feels that he is in need of Him; if some major calamity befalls him he turns his hands, eyes and heart towards the heavens, seeking help from his Lord.

2 – Tangible evidence:
This refers to the things that exist in this universe; we see around us things that exist, such as trees, rocks, mankind, the earth, the heavens, seas, rivers…
If it is asked: these things are so many – who created them and is taking care of them?
The answer is that if these things came into being by accident, spontaneously and with no cause, then there is no one who knows how they were created, and that is one possibility. But there is another possibility, which is that these things created themselves and are taking care of themselves. And there is a third possibility, which is that there is Someone Who created them. When we look at these three possibilities, we find that the first and the second are impossible. If we reject the first and the second, then the third must be the one which is correct, which is that these things have a Creator who created them, and that Creator is Allaah. This is what is stated in the Qur’aan, where Allaah says:
“Were they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief” [al-Toor 52:35]
Moreover, when were these mighty things created? For all these years, who is it that has decreed that they should remain in this world and has granted them the means of abiding?
The answer is, it is Allaah who has given to each thing that which is suited to it and will guarantee its survival. Do you not see the beautiful green plants; when Allaah cuts off their water supply, can they live? No, rather they become dry stalks. If you ponder all things you will find that they are dependent upon Allaah. Were it not for Allaah, nothing would remain.
And Allaah has created everything to do that for which it is suited. So camels, for example, are for riding. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
Do they not see that We have created for them of what Our Hands have created, the cattle, so that they are their owners. And We have subdued them unto them so that some of them they have for riding and some they eat” [Yaa-Seen 36:71-72]
Look at the camel and how Allaah has created it strong, with a strong back, so that it can be used for riding and it is able to endure harsh conditions which other animals cannot bear.
If you look at other creatures you will find that they are suited to the purposes for which they were created. Glory be to Allaah.
Examples of tangible evidence include the following:
When calamities befall people this points to the existence of the Creator, for example, when they call upon Allaah and Allaah responds to their prayer; this points to the existence of Allaah.

3 – Shar’i evidence:
All divinely-revealed laws point to existence of Allaah. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:

“All the divinely-revealed laws point to the existence of the Creator and to the perfect nature of His knowledge, wisdom and mercy, because these laws must have been prescribed by someone, and that Lawgiver is Allaah.”

With regard to your question: why did Allaah create us?

The answer is: so that we would worship Him, thank Him and remember Him, and do that which He has commanded us. You know that among mankind there are kaafirs and there are Muslims. This is because Allaah wants to test His slaves as to whether they will worship Him or worship others. That is after Allaah has showed the way to everyone. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Who has created death and life that He may test you which of you is best in deed” [al-Mulk 67:2]

“And I (Allaah) created not the jinn and mankind except that they should worship Me (Alone)” [al-Dhaariyaat 51:56]

We ask Allaah to enable us and you to do that which He loves and is pleased with, and to do more da’wah and work for the sake of His religion. May Allaah send blessings and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad.

There is a lot about such subjects @ this friendly website:

http://63.175.194.25/index.php?ln=eng

Check it!!![/SIZE]

Perhaps you already have...
Maybe I am right in that then.

No!

I just heard perhaps the saddest thing ever. This guy's wife died in the earthquake that happened a couple days ago in Indonesia and these were his comments

"I couldn't help my wife ... I was trying to rescue my children, one with a broken leg, and then the house collapsed," he said. "I have to accept this as our destiny, as God's will."

Can you believe that? When will man learn to face the facts and challenge things rather than just be content with "It's god;s will". The tsunami in 2004, the hottest year ever in 2005, The most devastating hurricane ever in 2005, and a freak earthquake that kills almost 4000 people in 2006; we cannot deny the facts any more. Global warming is real and action needs to be taken.

No!

I just heard perhaps the saddest thing ever. This guy's wife died in the earthquake that happened a couple days ago in Indonesia and these were his comments

"I couldn't help my wife ... I was trying to rescue my children, one with a broken leg, and then the house collapsed," he said. "I have to accept this as our destiny, as God's will."

Can you believe that? When will man learn to face the facts and challenge things rather than just be content with "It's god;s will". The tsunami in 2004, the hottest year ever in 2005, The most devastating hurricane ever in 2005, and a freak earthquake that kills almost 4000 people in 2006; we cannot deny the facts any more. Global warming is real and action needs to be taken.

How is a Tsunami and an Earthquake attached to Global Warming? They are not Taslan. That has to be the worst argument I have ever heard. The man, unfortunately, is right.

we cannot deny the facts any more. Global warming is real and action needs to be taken.

Where the hell did that come from? :confused:

1 – Instinctive evidence:
The instinctive evidence that God exists is the strongest of all evidence for those who are not led astray by the devils. Hence Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
“So set you (O Muhammad) your face towards the religion (of pure Islamic Monotheism) Haneef (worship none but Allaah Alone). Allaah’s Fitrah (i.e. Allaah’s Islamic Monotheism) with which He has created mankind” [al-Room 30:30]
Man’s sound nature (fitrah) testifies to the existence of God and man cannot turn away from that unless the devils mislead him; whoever is misled by the devils may not recognize this evidence.”
Every person feels inside himself that he has a Lord and Creator, and he feels that he is in need of Him; if some major calamity befalls him he turns his hands, eyes and heart towards the heavens, seeking help from his Lord.

This is a totally illegitimate argument. It in effect argues that one must accept this argument as the truth, without debate, or else one has merely been deceived by the Devil. However, for such an argument to be proposed, one must have an incontrovertible basis for their argument (such a person arguing that their skin is in fact their skin, not somebody else's parrots feathers). This argument has no such basis. Instead it merely functions as a "we win, you lose" proposition, effectively proclaiming that something is the truth and that all other opinions are incorrect.

Furthermore, the secondary part of the argument breaks apart under psychological examination. The claim that most people feel they have a creator neglects the large number of people who in fact do not, an increasingly large number in Western culture. This is the first major flaw. However, on a more psychological note, the second part of this argument is totally flawed, as it attributes humankind's tendenancy to look to a "God" figure for salvation during catastrophe as a proof of that "God"'s existence. Arguably, this is a totally inappropriate conclusion. Instead, it can and probably should be argued that humankind's tendency to look to a "God" figure during catastrophe has more to do with self-preservation, where one knows that one is incapable of saving oneself, and hopes for something all-powerful to do it. The other half is the common unknown. If man does not know what affects him, he assumes it is supernatural and asks for supernatural help in return. As almost every calamity imaginable is natural, supernatural help is totally unnecessary, but is called upon due to personal weakness, and inability to help oneself (such as when one becomes sick with an incurable disease).


2 – Tangible evidence:
This refers to the things that exist in this universe; we see around us things that exist, such as trees, rocks, mankind, the earth, the heavens, seas, rivers…
If it is asked: these things are so many – who created them and is taking care of them?
The answer is that if these things came into being by accident, spontaneously and with no cause, then there is no one who knows how they were created, and that is one possibility. But there is another possibility, which is that these things created themselves and are taking care of themselves. And there is a third possibility, which is that there is Someone Who created them. When we look at these three possibilities, we find that the first and the second are impossible. If we reject the first and the second, then the third must be the one which is correct, which is that these things have a Creator who created them, and that Creator is Allaah. This is what is stated in the Qur’aan, where Allaah says:
“Were they created by nothing? Or were they themselves the creators? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay, but they have no firm Belief” [al-Toor 52:35]

This argument is totally falicious. It in effect argues: You have three options. For no reason whatsoever you shall throw away two of them, and accept the third although it has no more evidence than the other two options. It is built upon multiple logical fallacies. First of all, it argues that for things to exist they need a function or a reason. Arguably, this is a total cop out to reality. There is no basis for proof that anything has a true function or reason to exist. If one believes existential dogma, then in reality nothing does have any external or a priori function or reason d'etre, but instead is meaningless. It is humanity's duty to accept this meaninglessness, and assign our own meaning to our lives. Secondly, this argument necessitates the existence of a "caretaker". However, if one looks at nature, it is basically a self-sustaining cycle, although far from a perfect one. Mankind, and other factors, are more than capable of destroying the natural cycle (just look at global warming), however, nature is still resilient in that everything still strives to live. If you kill off a million species, numberous others will later evolve to fill the new niches that have emerged for them. If every burrowing animal went extinct, eventually new burrowing animals would evolve as animals sought new food sources and protection, gradually evolving into a new species of burrowing animal, totally unrelated to the previously existing ones, but filling the same niche.


Moreover, when were these mighty things created? For all these years, who is it that has decreed that they should remain in this world and has granted them the means of abiding?
The answer is, it is Allaah who has given to each thing that which is suited to it and will guarantee its survival. Do you not see the beautiful green plants; when Allaah cuts off their water supply, can they live? No, rather they become dry stalks. If you ponder all things you will find that they are dependent upon Allaah. Were it not for Allaah, nothing would remain.
And Allaah has created everything to do that for which it is suited. So camels, for example, are for riding. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
Do they not see that We have created for them of what Our Hands have created, the cattle, so that they are their owners. And We have subdued them unto them so that some of them they have for riding and some they eat” [Yaa-Seen 36:71-72]
Look at the camel and how Allaah has created it strong, with a strong back, so that it can be used for riding and it is able to endure harsh conditions which other animals cannot bear.
If you look at other creatures you will find that they are suited to the purposes for which they were created. Glory be to Allaah.
Examples of tangible evidence include the following:
When calamities befall people this points to the existence of the Creator, for example, when they call upon Allaah and Allaah responds to their prayer; this points to the existence of Allaah.

This is also a totally falacious argument, based on most of the same logical fallacies. However, it is even worse. First of all, it attributes natural cycles as being acts of God. If a plant loses its water supply, God didn't make that happen. Either precipitation patterns didn't bring enough rain (and this would happen due to nature cycles of evaporation, wind, and other factors), or another external factor changed the current of the water supply. Either way, it was a natural cycle that happened due to random chance (although not totally random, the abundance of factors however makes it impossible at present to guess these types of things in advance).

Perhaps the silliest of the arguments offered is that of the camel. Species like the Camel have well drawn out evolutionary bases. The Camel slowly evolved to be suited to the desert, and to need less water to be able to handle that environment. That's how natural selection works, God didn't just put camels on earth. Furthermore, if Camels are such perfection, why did American camels (which were once in wide abundance) go extinct? Evolution has a far wider and more accurate set of evidence about why animals fit their environments than some "God made them like that" argument ever could. Does God make moths change color depending upon the amount of pollution on trees? No, other animals eating the white moths when their isn't pollution, and eating the brown ones when there is pollution, is what causes the color to change.


3 – Shar’i evidence:
All divinely-revealed laws point to existence of Allaah. Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen said:

“All the divinely-revealed laws point to the existence of the Creator and to the perfect nature of His knowledge, wisdom and mercy, because these laws must have been prescribed by someone, and that Lawgiver is Allaah.”

This is a totally unproveable argument. It argues that some laws are "divinely revealed" and that (SURPRISE!) these laws must thereby be created by a divine figure. Unfortunately, it cannot prove that any law is divine. Instead the argument hinges on the logical fallacy that certain laws must be accepted as divine without evidence. There is no tangible evidence that anyone has ever actually spoken to, or had anything revealed by, a supernatural being. The tangible evidence does not exist, all that does is belief and hear-say, none of which is applicable in a logical argument.



With regard to your question: why did Allaah create us?

The answer is: so that we would worship Him, thank Him and remember Him, and do that which He has commanded us. You know that among mankind there are kaafirs and there are Muslims. This is because Allaah wants to test His slaves as to whether they will worship Him or worship others. That is after Allaah has showed the way to everyone.

This is ultimately the stupidest thing about most organized religion. I'm going to leave off my largely philosophic and scientific arguments that I have been making, and make a few personal remarks as I feel the situation justifies that decision. According to the statement you have made, a Creator made humanity, and existence, so that it could worship him. It then decided that that was not enough, and put forward some hare brained set of rules and demanded that everyone follow them. These rules in many cases are totally illogical, and some are just plain stupid. It furthermore dictates that any other belief, including those that predate the "correct" beliefs by thousands of years, are incorrect. Then, to top off the cake it argues that "Allah has showed the way to everyone". However, this argument is totally falacious as many cultures do not have any basis for Islamic belief (where would an Australian Bushman for instance have an opportunity to learn about Islam? How about a Pacific Islander on a island with only a couple hundred inhabitents?). Ultimately, this argument falls under the broad spectrum of what I like to call "Chosen People's Self Righteous Stupidity". (I do not imply Jews only when I say Chosen People, I mean all groups who believe that they alone are right). Anyone who demands that their beliefs alone are right, and all others wrong, must be able to prove that they are correct without making any claims that need an either supernatural, divine, or a priori basis. When you use a basis like that, your entire argument becomes trash as it is no longer truth based on evidence. Frankly put, it's a load of horse dung. So are your arguments.

How is a Tsunami and an Earthquake attached to Global Warming? They are not Taslan. That has to be the worst argument I have ever heard. The man, unfortunately, is right.
Why is the man right? Isn't it just as supportable, perhaps even more so, to take the existentialist viewpoint and recognize that those events were totally meaningless and random (not meaningless as in they didn't matter, but meaningless in that served no a priori purpose)? Couldn't it be argued that the man should have accepted this meaninglessness as the only way to truly come to grips with what happened? Couldn't this understand that these things happened naturally due to explainable phenomenon, and that there was no purpose? Isn't it just as valid an argument that this man would have just as much peace accepting the meaninglessness of what happened, and applying his own personal meaning to what happened as the peace gained by merely claiming that the events that transpired had some a priori reasoning?

Holy shit. I last posted in this thread like a month ago. on page 50 something. but to see this thread at over 223 pages is ridiculous. I'm not trying to be a bitch and say who's right or wrong or whatever, but the final standing is that people will believe what they believe to be true. I know people who don't believe in a "God" I know people who are true believers of "God" but no matter how much a topic is argued, people will always have an opinion. What I will say may or may not have any impact on people. I just wanted to say that this is getting a little out of hand over personal opinions.

Kisses.

Why is the man right? Isn't it just as supportable, perhaps even more so, to take the existentialist viewpoint and recognize that those events were totally meaningless and random (not meaningless as in they didn't matter, but meaningless in that served no a priori purpose)?

Earthquakes are a natural phenonenom. They occur randomly along known and unknown fault lines. We say its random for we cannot predict where they will occur.

Couldn't it be argued that the man should have accepted this meaninglessness as the only way to truly come to grips with what happened?

Umm no.

Couldn't this understand that these things happened naturally due to explainable phenomenon, and that there was no purpose?

I think you don't have a purpose but God does have a purpose for everything.

Isn't it just as valid an argument that this man would have just as much peace accepting the meaninglessness of what happened, and applying his own personal meaning to what happened as the peace gained by merely claiming that the events that transpired had some a priori reasoning?

Do you have a meaning to this meaningless post or are you going to belittle a man's faith?

24hr CVS pharmacy']Holy shit. I last posted in this thread like a month ago. on page 50 something. but to see this thread at over 223 pages is ridiculous. I'm not trying to be a bitch and say who's right or wrong or whatever, but the final standing is that people will believe what they believe to be true. I know people who don't believe in a "God" I know people who are true believers of "God" but no matter how much a topic is argued, people will always have an opinion. What I will say may or may not have any impact on people. I just wanted to say that this is getting a little out of hand over personal opinions.

Kisses.

Heh. Hypocritical of me, as I participated, but I agree.

Oh, and your name is awesome. :)

Why is the man right? Isn't it just as supportable, perhaps even more so, to take the existentialist viewpoint and recognize that those events were totally meaningless and random (not meaningless as in they didn't matter, but meaningless in that served no a priori purpose)? Couldn't it be argued that the man should have accepted this meaninglessness as the only way to truly come to grips with what happened? Couldn't this understand that these things happened naturally due to explainable phenomenon, and that there was no purpose? Isn't it just as valid an argument that this man would have just as much peace accepting the meaninglessness of what happened, and applying his own personal meaning to what happened as the peace gained by merely claiming that the events that transpired had some a priori reasoning?


Are you a nihilist?

Heh. Hypocritical of me, as I participated, but I agree.

Oh, and your name is awesome. :)

Yes yes. I participated too...but I never thought that the arguing would continue like this.


Thank you on the name comment. I am a former employee. I hated that place.

You asked, a gazillion pages ago, why God, if god exsists, would allow something to happen to such a good person. I dont know this lady and im sure she will be missed. My response is Christianity based because it is what iam and know. God does not 'let' bad things happen to good people. Because he created us with freewill sometimes he can't do anything. The reason bad things happen to good people is that Adam sinned. Most people dont know this but God was generous. He gave Adam and Eve the whole WORLD. Adam and Eve sinned. In doing so, they handed over control of their world to Satan. Conclusively, everything on the world is satan's, knowingly or in ignorance, good or bad, unless Satan has been paid. God sent Jesus to do the paying. Again, I dont know if your friend was a Christian or not but if she wasn't... PLEASE I beg you dont blame God. He gave us his best and if she wasnt his hands were tied so that he couldn't.

Earthquakes are a natural phenonenom. They occur randomly along known and unknown fault lines. We say its random for we cannot predict where they will occur.

Exactly. Earthquakes are a natural phenomenon. They are not divinely created in any way. When I say random, I do not mean that the earthquake itself is random. It isn't, it's a result of natural processes. However, there is no way that this person could ever know that the earthquake was going to happen, for them it was totally random. It's like a person who becomes sick, it is hypothetically possible to know they will get sick beforehand (such as if they eat a chicken known to have bird-flu), however, for that person the event is most likely totally random. Thereby, in this case the acceptance would have to be for a random event, even if naturally occuring.


Umm no.

Almost every philosopher from 1935 to today would disagree with you. The religious crowd uses Biblical or Koranic quotes, I'll use existential. Let's refer to the Myth of Sisyphus. For those of you unfamiliar with the original story, Sisyphus was the man in Greek mythology who was condemned to an eternity of pushing a rock up a hill, having it roll back down, and then having to do the same thing again.
"All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is a thing Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols. In the universe suddenly restored to its silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. There is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his efforts will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is, but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable. For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that slight pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which become his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

In this case, the man could have accepted that this happened without any divine plan, or reasoning, and come to terms with that "absurdity" as Camus would have put it.


I think you don't have a purpose but God does have a purpose for everything.

Actually this is totally incorrect. I do have a purpose for everything: The purpose I give it. If I see a pretty flower, I do not deduce that God gave it the purpose of amusing me. Instead I decide that it's purpose of species preservation made it pretty, as thereby it might attract more bees and thereby spread pollen more effectively. If I see a hunting dog, I do not deduce that God gave it the purpose of hunting. Instead I see evolution making that dog a more effective hunter so that it can carve at a niche for survival. My purpose is what I give. I do not have to look to any divine source to understand things, I recognize that they have no a priori reason, and thereby I see them as I decide to.

If you are incapable of giving a purpose to your own life, then fine, look to God. I however will continue to believe that is a cop out due to weakness.


Do you have a meaning to this meaningless post or are you going to belittle a man's faith?
The fact that you see no meaning to my post just shows that you are entirely close-minded. You fail to recognize the possibility of looking at the world in any way but one of faith. You fail to recognize the possibility that ultimately the world has no a priori reason to be. You fail to acknoledge that I propose an alternative, a liberation for man where he himself recognizes that there is no external reason to things, and thereby gives them an internal meaning, which is significantly more powerful. You fail to see the liberation in confronting reality, accepting it, and looking up the world as it exists, without a prior meaning or supernatural power.

Yep tremalkier! you rather belittle a man's faith. God lets things happen for a reason.

You're right, I chose the wrong word there. My fault.

Because that's what He wanted? I don't know why He did this. If I could explain everything He does, then there wouldn't be a trinity, 'cause I'd be there, too.

Well, the Pharoah had to be convinced somehow. Again, if I could explain everything, I'd be God, too.

Well, the fact that you don't understand these things and are willing to go along with them means you can be convinced to go along with a terrible thing, as long as "God wills it". Thats why you're dangerous. People like you are on the news every day.


No, it is your inability to comprehend the fact that God thinks on a higher level than you do. It is your own arrogance that is getting in the way, to think that you would be so high of a being as to be able to understand and think like God!

So, then, you don't understand that its religion that ascribes this thought or that to God, you that is trying to define its nature?


THIS is why I never venture into a religious debate with non-Christians, because they cannot comprehend, due to their inherent arrogance, that something might possibly be able to think on a higher plane than them!


You just happen to think that his "higher thoughts", including his commandments, rules, and teachings, are something that you understand.

Interesting that this "higher plane" that can't be understood still allows you to reference God however you want...


All of this is God's creation, he has a right to do what He damn well pleases with it! He has a plan for all of us, and simply because you may not understand why someone had to die doesn't make it wrong. It simple means that you cannot think on the same plane as God -- and no human can! (Other than Jesus)

Then I guess since we're both human, neither of us understands. Even if that were true, do you know the word for a person who obeys without understanding?


Define willing. It's unfortunate that they had to die, but it is of His plan, of which I am not educated of, because I, being human hence fallen, could not understand! Again, it stems from your arrogance.

Oh, my version of Christianity? Then what's your "correct" version of Christianity, hmm?

I don't personally believe any version of Christianity is correct, but the biblically literalist position is the most dangerous, just as fundamentalist sects of many other religions are the most dangerous.

Just remember, by your own words, you are not "educated" of "God's Plan", so you can't really say its right or true. Unless you're still chosing the wrong words...

Are you a nihilist?
Not at all. In fact, I've derided nihilist dogma on many occasions, possibly even on this board. Hell, I'm not even truly an existentialist (which is what I've largely been arguing in favor of in this particular thread/argument). I'm just opposing those who put all their faith in a priori or divine meaning and reject the possibility an alternative.

As has been pointed out for 220+ pages of bickering here, and as one person stated outright in this past page, no consensus or agreement will be reached on the existence or nature of a higher power.

The fact is, such a consensus shouldn't have to be reached. I believe in a Creator, and I have my own theories, both spiritual and scientific, as to why I believe. My spiritual theories are backed up by mostly unimperical evidence, so I won't go into great detail on them... My scientific theories are based on findings in the fields of quantum physics, findings that Taoists have been telling the world about for some two and a half millennia, now, give or take a century or two... I consider myself deeply spiritual, and devout in my beliefs.

My wife, however, is a very content agnostic. She doesn't believe in an afterlife, she doesn't believe in a higher power, and believes that all has happened by chance. Her views tell her that life is pointless if it doesn't end, and so she can't accept the idea of an afterlife. She has said, however, that if she saw evidence that such existed, she could learn to cope with it.

The two of us have agreed that such beliefs don't matter to us. Other people couldn't live with someone who had such differing views from their own. Whichever way you lean in that regard...remember that Christ taught that we must love and honor our fellow man as we love ourselves. That includes respecting others' beliefs, if we expect them to respect ours.

Tolerance, compassion, and love... These are, in my opinion, the Creator, for they are the ideals that all the major prophets spoke of throughout the history of the Judeo-Islamic-Christian religions. They are the main ideals of the core of many pagan and atheist religions. They are the central focus of most eastern religions.

No matter what faith you prescribe to, to follow these ideals is to be one with the Creator. Let that be enough, and accept that another man's views on religion, no matter how different from your own they may be, no matter how ignorant they may seem, are still just as valid as your own.

Thats why you're dangerous.

:D

I don't need to respond to the rest of your post. This just made my day. I don't care anymore. Belittle my points, I'm too tired for an intelligent response. You just called me "dangerous." That's hillarious. :D

Thank you, Saint Curie, Thank you. :)

Yep tremalkier! you rather belittle a man's faith. God lets things happen for a reason.
Forget it, I won't bother with the philosophic arguments, I'll stoop to your level and go strictly on a personal argument (as you are either incapable of a logical and philosophic debate, which I think is highly probable, or possibly you simply do not understand what I'm saying, and I think this is also highly probable).

How am I belittling this man's faith? Where did I ever say, at all, "This man shouldn't do this. What he is doing is wrong. He shouldn't believe in God. He shouldn't care that his family has had a catastrophe occur". Nowhere. I have belittled no one. Never have I condemned his decisions. The only way one could deduce that I had, is if one decided that my proposition that he could have done something else, i.e. the proposition of an alternative reaction, was inherently a criticism of his actual reaction. This by itself implies a biased judge, which I think you probably are. Ultimately, I don't see much wrong with this man's reaction on a personal level. I think it is the most common human reaction, if a calamity occurs which you cannot understand, then the easiest way to cope is to simply apply a supernatural reasoning. I cannot say there is anything wrong with that on a personal level. However, philosophically (and hopefully you can understand this, though it would appear that your mental capacity for doing so is...rather small), I do disagree with this approach as a general rule. I think there is an alternative to looking solely to God, or other external forces, as a means of justifying actions. In my alternative, some things do not happen for a reason. In fact, almost nothing happens for a reason unless that reason was put forward by an intelligent human being (such as me currently thinking, "hmm, your argument is a bunch of BS. I'm going to call you out and show your logorrhea for what it is"). When an earthquake happens, there is no reason for it. It just happens due to natural causes. If a person dies of old age, it isn't because God made it happen, it's because they died of natural causes. The fact that it requires much mental strength to understand that not everything has a purpose is beyond many people, you for one. However, if one is capable of understand there isn't a reason behind everything, one is capable of deciding one's own reason for it, and if one does that, that brings about a great deal more peace because you have made your own reason, not just accepted an external one.

Does anyone truly know the answer to your question? The problem you have is obvious. Even if the Bible is 100% totally false, it still would not prove that there is no God.

You have the weakest testimony of any "Christian" I've ever encountered.

You honestly can't even answer as to whether you believe the Bible to be literally true?

Second, again, I will explain that I'm not trying to prove that there is no God, I'm seeking to show that according to the bible, he has done horrible things, so if the bible is true, he is guilty of those things. Period.

The fact that you don't understand how that is relevant to "faith in God" is typical of you.

Please understand that you've now repeatedly and blatantly run away from the question "Is the Bible True?"

Real powerful faith you've got there...


For you to argue by means of "proof by contradiction" then it logically follows that you would have to know certain truths?

Actually, no, CanuckHeaven, much of propositional logic addresses the internal soundness of a premise itself, based on the premise itself.

If the Bible is true, your God did monstrous things.

I'm assuming no truth, just demonstrating to you what the Bible itself says. If the bible is not true, the statement is not true.

I ask again, (and if God is real, I bet he's listening),

Corneliu, is the Bible true?


That might work in a mathematical exercize, but I do not see how it could work in regards to whether God exists or not.

Again (and again), there has been no argument presenting that there is no God. Only that if the Bible is literally true, God has done vile things. Please address how you reconcile your faith in God with that.

Criminy, a "Christian" who can't even give a straight answer as to whether he believes the Bible to be true or not...

*snip*

Listen to the way you framed your argument. From this side of the computer screen, it sounded like you were belittling this man's right to say that this was, unfortunately, God's will and that he has to live with it for his family were among the 4000 that were killed in the Indonesian Earthquake. You tried to turn that around and said that it was meaningless. You constantly continued to use the word meaningless in your post where I said you were belittling the man's faith.

My scientific theories are based on findings in the fields of quantum physics, findings that Taoists have been telling the world about for some two and a half millennia, now, give or take a century or two...
I won't go into the rest of your points, which I think are largely good and well intentioned (although I do disagree, obviously as I am arguing in this thread, that one cannot or should not argue in a topic like this), I do have to point out that this made me scratch my head. I've studied quantum physics, in a pretty good deal of depth. I don't think I understand them, then again, nobody does (as a quantum physicist once said "only a handful of people in the world are capable of truly understanding quantum physics, and they're probably insane"). However, from what I do know, there is almost no connection whatsoever between quantum and Taoism. I've also done a lot of philosophic study in my time, and although I never focused on Taoism I have touched upon it. I fail to see what scientific connection you saw between the two, because I frankly don't see any. Quantum is largely an explanation of how nature works at the smallest scale, and how the math and physics work themselves out. Taoism...well, it has nothing to do with energy shells of atoms at very least.

Here's the full quotes:

Now reply: The first poster uses a structured proof to state we should believe God exists, the second states that proofs cannot be used in this case...

Hey, Stics, sorry to jump in, but you should have some background.

The first thing you quoted there was a variation of something called "Pascal's Wager", which is very flawed line of reasoning (see the thread "Pascal's Wager, wherein many, many people demonstrated the fallacies of Pascal's Wager", including false dilemma and non-sequitur).

Even most religious people don't consider it sound reasoning.

However, CanuckHeaven has said he supports Pascal's Wager (run a search for the "Pascal's Wager" thread. Its huge, but CanuckHeaven supports the Wager several times. He just refuses to address the several ways in which its shown to be a fallacy).

:D

I don't need to respond to the rest of your post. This just made my day. I don't care anymore. Belittle my points, I'm too tired for an intelligent response. You just called me "dangerous." That's hillarious. :D
Join the club. He called me "dangerous" in another thread, even though he really knows nothing about me. He is addicted to labelling people.

Join the club. He called me "dangerous" in another thread, even though he really knows nothing about me. He is addicted to labelling people.

Ain't that the sad and sorry truth :(

Listen to the way you framed your argument. From this side of the computer screen, it sounded like you were belittling this man's right to say that this was, unfortunately, God's will and that he has to live with it for his family were among the 4000 that were killed in the Indonesian Earthquake. You tried to turn that around and said that it was meaningless. You constantly continued to use the word meaningless in your post where I said you were belittling the man's faith.
Meaningless:Having no meaning or significance.

To say that one could accept an event as meaningless is not belittling a man who chooses to feel otherwise. I never said his feelings were meaningless, I never said his decision was meaningless. I said that the man could have accepted the event as meaningless (although meaningless does not perfectly describe what the idea that I am trying to say. Perhaps reasonless, or purposeless, but neither of those are actual words to the best of my knowledge), and applied his own internal meaning to events instead of applying an a priori reason to them. I was not belittling his faith. I think his faith is righteous in its own fashion. However, I was proposing that there was an alternative reaction to the one he made. I was making an overarching philosophic argument using this man as more of a hypothetical than anything else. I was presenting a general argument. This thread is ultimately about faith in God. What I was arguing, was that in general there in an alternative to how one can react to calamity, which many have said must be accepted as divine with man thereby looking to God for help and reason. I was arguing that one can look in the face on what happened, and deem there was no a priori basis for what happened. Recognize it just happened. Accept them, and apply one's own meaning to the event that transpired, understanding it had no external purpose but giving it an internal reason/meaning instead.

I was not saying what the man did was wrong. I was arguing there was an alternative reaction he could have had, and argued that that was ultimately more beneficial.

Join the club. He called me "dangerous" in another thread, even though he really knows nothing about me. He is addicted to labelling people.

Well, let's see, I label your willingness to justify horrible things for religion dangerous,

and

you feel I'm going to hell for not believing what you believe.

My label isn't really any worse than yours.

Can you reply to the actual discussion now, or will you pull a Derscon and say that fatigue precludes "intelligent" response?

I notice you both seem to find lots of reasons not to answer...

Saint Curie, I'd love to find out more about your beliefs sometime...I didn't even realise you were Christian. Seems you're also open-minded about it. :)

Ain't that the sad and sorry truth :(

Corneliu, anyone can go back through this thread and see that you're somebody who says he's a history major, but doesn't understand the problem with his own statement "Who am I to question orders"....

Corneliu, anyone can go back through this thread and see that you're somebody who says he's a history major, but doesn't understand the problem with his own statement "Who am I to question orders"....

Do not start that again! Actually go ahead and start that. I'll promise you thought that I will ignore it for it has no bearing on this thread and has something to do with earthly wars.

Saint Curie, I'd love to find out more about your beliefs sometime...I didn't even realise you were Christian. Seems you're also open-minded about it. :)

I haven't been a Christian for many years.

I believe that religion (including the religions responsible for translating, editing, adding to and removing from the bible) has horribly damaged and interfered with the teachings of Jesus.

To me, anyone taking a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible, (and who thus believes that the horrible massacres ordered by God therein are in fact what God wants) is dangerous, as they believe religion can justify the butchery of children, women, etc.

Now, I don't think Jesus was some kind of Messiah, I think he was a decent man with good ideas that have been twisted into "Believe what I say, or burn".

Do not start that again! Actually go ahead and start that. I'll promise you thought that I will ignore it for it has no bearing on this thread and has something to do with earthly wars.

Of course you'll ignore, you can't cope with it any other way.

Others might not ignore it, and will see your mentality for what it is.

*snip*
Hmm, fair enough. I'm glad you can still see the good in Jesus though. Even apart from his divinity, he was exemplar.

Of course you'll ignore, you can't cope with it any other way.

Others might not ignore it, and will see your mentality for what it is.

I'm not going to give in to what I want to say to this. For some unknown reason, people want to try and pick a fight with me. So far, Satan is no 0-3 in that regard.

I haven't been a Christian for many years.

I believe that religion (including the religions responsible for translating, editing, adding to and removing from the bible) has horribly damaged and interfered with the teachings of Jesus.

To me, anyone taking a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible, (and who thus believes that the horrible massacres ordered by God therein are in fact what God wants) is dangerous, as they believe religion can justify the butchery of children, women, etc.

Now, I don't think Jesus was some kind of Messiah, I think he was a decent man with good ideas that have been twisted into "Believe what I say, or burn".
Although I agree with your overall points regarding Christianity (I think much to most of Christian dogma has little to do with Christ, and much to do with Paul), I would like to ask you a hypothetical.

What are your beliefs on the Gospel of Judas? That Gospel, one of the most reviled and heavily critiqued of antiquity, was recently rediscovered. In that Gospel, Judas alone truly understood Christ, and was acting under Christ's guidance when he "betrayed" Christ to the Romans.

I'm not going to give in to what I want to say to this. For some unknown reason, people want to try and pick a fight with me. So far, Satan is no 0-3 in that regard.

Let me get this straight.

You object to me "labelling" people as dangerous, yet you say my discussion with you puts me on the side of Satan?


Do you.. maybe see a little hypocrisy in that?

Let me get this straight.

You object to me "labelling" people as dangerous, yet you say my discussion with you puts me on the side of Satan?


Do you.. maybe see a little hypocrisy in that?

Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah who came to earth to die for our sins?

Although I agree with your overall points regarding Christianity (I think much to most of Christian dogma has little to do with Christ, and much to do with Paul), I would like to ask you a hypothetical.

What are your beliefs on the Gospel of Judas? That Gospel, one of the most reviled and heavily critiqued of antiquity, was recently rediscovered. In that Gospel, Judas alone truly understood Christ, and was acting under Christ's guidance when he "betrayed" Christ to the Romans.

Haven't read that one. I've studied enough history to know that documents decline greatly in assumable veracity over time (and sharply with translation).

As a result, I wouldn't be inclined to put great stock in any scripture (although some don't seem to understand how one can use scripture to respond to people who think scripture is true, to illustrate its contradictions or characteristics of God that would have to be true if the scripture were true).

Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah who came to earth to die for our sins?

No I don't. I said so above.

I believe a just entity does not punish one for the actions of others, even a volunteer.

But then, a just entity doesn't slaughter children to get at a political figure. So you can see where the idea of a just God is difficult to reconcile with the Bible, even before the "messiah".

(nice dodge of the point, by the way).

So, I ask again.

Why is it wrong for me to point out a mindset I consider dangerous, but you can imply I'm on the side of the "Devil"?

No I don't. I said so above.

Then I feel sorry fo ryou Saint Curie.

:D

I don't need to respond to the rest of your post. This just made my day. I don't care anymore. Belittle my points, I'm too tired for an intelligent response. You just called me "dangerous." That's hillarious. :D

Thank you, Saint Curie, Thank you. :)

And I explained why I consider you dangerous. If you feel its not correct, respond with why. If you are fatigued now, I can wait.

Then I feel sorry fo ryou Saint Curie.

Ah, the feigned, conceited pity of the self-righteous, as sincere as a whore's kiss and easier yet to find...

Ah, the feigned, conceited pity of the self-righteous, as sincere as a whore's kiss and easier yet to find...

Despite the fact that I was genuine when I said that I felt sorry for you.

Despite the fact that I was genuine when I said that I felt sorry for you.

Is there any part of you that sees how unoriginal (and disingenuous) it is to say that anybody who disagrees with you must be pitied (which implies a lesser state)?

EDIT: Well, I'm off, I'll try to stop back later. Corneliu, save your pity and spend some time developing your capacity for a cogent, structured argument.

Is there any part of you that sees how unoriginal (and disingenuous) it is to say that anybody who disagrees with you must be pitied (which implies a lesser state)?

I feel sorry for everyone.

Well, since you don't believe the fact I'm tired as hell, I'll see if I can toss something together while browsing google video.

Well, the fact that you don't understand these things and are willing to go along with them means you can be convinced to go along with a terrible thing, as long as "God wills it". Thats why you're dangerous. People like you are on the news every day.

Wheee. I'm dangerous because I think that maybe bad things happen for a reason. Yay! I'm a dangerous menace to society! Woohoo!


So, then, you don't understand that its religion that ascribes this thought or that to God, you that is trying to define its nature?

Is that even a sentence? Reword that. Seriously. Remember, I'm tired. :)

You just happen to think that his "higher thoughts", including his commandments, rules, and teachings, are something that you understand.

Entirely? No, not really.

Interesting that this "higher plane" that can't be understood still allows you to reference God however you want...

So because that I cannot understand the total nature of God, I am not allowed to reference Him?


Then I guess since we're both human, neither of us understands. Even if that were true, do you know the word for a person who obeys without understanding?

I'm sure you'll tell me.


I don't personally believe any version of Christianity is correct, but the biblically literalist position is the most dangerous, just as fundamentalist sects of many other religions are the most dangerous.

Yay, I'm dangerous!

ust remember, by your own words, you are not "educated" of "God's Plan", so you can't really say its right or true. Unless you're still chosing the wrong words...

You're partially right. I do not know God's Plan. But I can say it's right, because it is God, whom is omnipotent and -present.

Then I feel sorry fo ryou Saint Curie.
Why should you care for Jesus? I haven't sinned, nor will I follow a book telling me what genitals to like and dislike. If something is telling me to act a certain way, or stress me about getting into "heaven".. I'll tell em to screw off.

You should follow your morals and live your own life.

Oh, and it's a waste of money :p

Oh, and it's a waste of money :p

Not really. :D

Why should you care for Jesus? I haven't sinned, nor will I follow a book telling me what genitals to like and dislike. If something is telling me to act a certain way, or stress me about getting into "heaven".. I'll tell em to screw off.

You should follow your morals and live your own life.

Oh, and it's a waste of money :p
Wow. That's the most sense you've made since I've known you. *applauds for Ruffy*

btw, got any more joints? :p

Not really. :D
:eek:

Aye?

Wow. That's the most sense you've made since I've known you. *applauds for Ruffy*

btw, got any more joints? :p
:D

*hands La Dame LeSpam a joint*

:fluffle:

I feel sorry for everyone.


The more you pity us, the more contemptuous we feel towards God.

You have the weakest testimony of any "Christian" I've ever encountered.

You honestly can't even answer as to whether you believe the Bible to be literally true?
So now you will attack my degree of faith based on an assumption that I asked you to imply? What would your reply be if I tell you that I only believe the parts of the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's benevolence?

Second, again, I will explain that I'm not trying to prove that there is no God, I'm seeking to show that according to the bible, he has done horrible things, so if the bible is true, he is guilty of those things. Period.
So in essence, you are really challenging the people who have faith in God? You don't want them to believe in God because you believe that the Bible is 100% true, and that God is a "monster"?

The fact that you don't understand how that is relevant to "faith in God" is typical of you.
How do you know what is "relevant" to in my faith in God?

Please understand that you've now repeatedly and blatantly run away from the question "Is the Bible True?"
I haven't run away at all. I am challenging you to prove that God is a "monster". You have held up the Bible to be 100% true to support your argument against Him. Now I ask you for your facts.

Real powerful faith you've got there...
Actually it is a very powerful faith and it is something that perhaps your logical mind cannot understand?

Actually, no, CanuckHeaven, much of propositional logic addresses the internal soundness of a premise itself, based on the premise itself.
And what conclusion have you drawn from "proof by contradiction", in regards to God and/or the Bible?

If the Bible is true, your God did monstrous things.
The problem with your logic here is that for your results to have any meaning to you at all, the Bible would have to be 100% true for you to make the claim that God is a "monster". You have zero tolerance in your equation. You cannot possibly draw a definite conclusion using improbable parameters.

I'm assuming no truth, just demonstrating to you what the Bible itself says. If the bible is not true, the statement is not true.
You are "assuming no truth" for the mere fact that no one can claim that they know the Truth.

I ask again, (and if God is real, I bet he's listening),

Corneliu, is the Bible true?
As if he really knows the Truth.

Again (and again), there has been no argument presenting that there is no God. Only that if the Bible is literally true, God has done vile things. Please address how you reconcile your faith in God with that.
Since you cannot prove that the Bible is "literally true", your premise that God is a "monster" remains unsubstantiated. You have accomplished very little in this debate.

As I stated earlier, I have faith in God, and I certainly have no cause to judge Him on something that He may or may not have done.

Well, let's see, I label your willingness to justify horrible things for religion dangerous,
Wrong label my friend. Point me to one post that I demonstrate a "willingness to justify horrible things for religion"

and

you feel I'm going to hell for not believing what you believe.
Where did I say that you are going to hell? Another wrong label.

My label isn't really any worse than yours.
Well to be honest with you, I haven't slapped a label on you, other than it appears that you are agnostic and not atheist.

Certainly your suggestion that I am "dangerous" and a "fanatic" is quite laughable.

Can you reply to the actual discussion now, or will you pull a Derscon and say that fatigue precludes "intelligent" response?

I notice you both seem to find lots of reasons not to answer...
I have been responding. Perhaps you don't like my answers?

:eek:

Aye?

It's only a waste if your Catholic, where you have to donate money. "Peter's Pence," or whatever. Protestant churches "highly recommmend" it, but it's not necessary.

And I don't go to church.

It's only a waste if your Catholic, where you have to donate money. "Peter's Pence," or whatever. Protestant churches "highly recommmend" it, but it's not necessary.

And I don't go to church.
Ahh

The problem with your logic here is that for your results to have any meaning to you at all, the Bible would have to be 100% true for you to make the claim that God is a "monster". You have zero tolerance in your equation. You cannot possibly draw a definite conclusion using improbable parameters.
Saint Curie is not trying to set up a premise or conclusion, rather, (he? she?) is trying to shoot down a position which has not yet been taken by anybody here (at least not that I've seen, I don't have time to read all several thousand posts).

So now you will attack my degree of faith based on an assumption that I asked you to imply? What would your reply be if I tell you that I only believe the parts of the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's benevolence?

EDIT: [I see in later posts that you evidently don't "only believe parts"of the bible, or are at least not truly giving this reply. I wish you'd state your position. Do you only believe parts of the bible? You've said use of proof by contradiction is "illogical" and not applicable here, so its reasonable for me to assume you aren't using it.]

Now we're getting somewhere. You say that you only believe PARTS of the bible. Had you done that earlier, we could have progressed much faster.

May I ask which parts of the bible you believe are false? (I happen to belive that all of the supernatural parts and most of the historical parts are unsupported and dubious).


So in essence, you are really challenging the people who have faith in God? You don't want them to believe in God because you believe that the Bible is 100% true, and that God is a "monster"?

Again, I don't believe the bible is true, and god is only a monster if the bible is true. Now that you admit that you believe in only parts of the bible, we don't have to include any part that you will admit to believing is false.

So, you say you believe only the parts that show God to be benevolent. How did the false parts get into the bible?


I haven't run away at all. I am challenging you to prove that God is a "monster". You have held up the Bible to be 100% true to support your argument against Him. Now I ask you for your facts.


Again (and this is the sixth time or more, so please let it sink in), there is no proof that God is a monster other than the bible, and if you believe some or all of the bible to be false (as I believe the Bible to be largely false, as I have repeatedly said), then God need not be painted as a monster.

Now that you have said that you consider only parts of the bible to be true, we can move onto to which parts are false, and how you distinguish between the true and false parts.

Do you really just include those parts that support what you want to believe?
That is to say, exclude evidence based on whether or not it supports your conclusion?


And what conclusion have you drawn from "proof by contradiction", in regards to God and/or the Bible?

As has been explained half a dozen times, the conclusion is that if the bible is true, God is a monster. I don't personally believe the bible is true, but if it were, God is vile. But again, you've finally admitted that you believe only parts are true, so as long as parts of the bible are not true (i.e. false), God need not be a monster. Get it?


The problem with your logic here is that for your results to have any meaning to you at all, the Bible would have to be 100% true for you to make the claim that God is a "monster". You have zero tolerance in your equation. You cannot possibly draw a definite conclusion using improbable parameters.


And again, now that you've said the Bible isn't 100% true (you've said only parts are true), then we can examine how you decide which scripture to believe in and which to ignore.

Since you have trouble getting it, I will repeat for you that I don't believe the Bible to be true. I only pointed out that if it were true, God would be a monster. But we now agree that the bible is not completely true, so we don't have to follow the implication.


You are "assuming no truth" for the mere fact that no one can claim that they know the Truth.

Thus, when asked if Jesus is the Truth, you must say you don't know.


As if he really knows the Truth.

Corneliu has just as much factual basis for his beliefs as any other religion. I happen to believe that is none.

Funny how you say that nobody can know the Truth, yet you know his is not the Truth. How do you know that if you don't know the Truth?


Since you cannot prove that the Bible is "literally true", your premise that God is a "monster" remains unsubstantiated. You have accomplished very little in this debate.

Well, you've evidently not examined or reviewed the debate thus far, since you've missed the fact that I don't believe the bible is true. I've simply pointed out that if the Bible is true, the God described therein has done horrible things. Please, please try to understand.


As I stated earlier, I have faith in God, and I certainly have no cause to judge Him on something that He may or may not have done.

May or may not have; because the Bible is such dubious evidence (which I agree it is).

And once you understand that parts of the bible are false (and you've admitted you believe only parts are true), you understand why all the parts you do believe in are equally dubious. Get it?

Well, since you don't believe the fact I'm tired as hell, I'll see if I can toss something together while browsing google video.

Wheee. I'm dangerous because I think that maybe bad things happen for a reason. Yay! I'm a dangerous menace to society! Woohoo!

Is that even a sentence? Reword that. Seriously. Remember, I'm tired. :)

Entirely? No, not really.

So because that I cannot understand the total nature of God, I am not allowed to reference Him?

I'm sure you'll tell me.

Yay, I'm dangerous!

You're partially right. I do not know God's Plan. But I can say it's right, because it is God, whom is omnipotent and -present.

Right, so the parts that agree with you can be understood, anything else is "above the human plane".

Seriously, Derscon, you've established adequately that you are in fact too tired to make a cogent response. I told you I'd wait, and I will. We all have real lives, and if you're too tired for any real discourse, you should get some rest. The thread will be here tomorrow or the day after or whenever you get a chance.

In the meantime, you should understand that evading those aspects of religion that are negative by saying "we just don't understand, but let's obey anyway" is precisely why I consider your mentality dangerous.

So, you say you believe only the parts that show God to be benevolent. How did the false parts get into the bible?

Are you serious? The fact that it was written by humans doesn't answer your question? Unless you're assuming that humans are perfect and all-knowing, then you know very well the answer to that question.

And by the way, "false" is not really a correct way to describe it. Parts, such as the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit, never have happened in a factual or historical sense, but that story, for example, exemplifies the relationship between God and Man. It is symbolic, not historical-- indeed it has much more value as a metaphor than as a simple fact.

In the meantime, you should understand that evading those aspects of religion that are negative by saying "we just don't understand, but let's obey anyway" is precisely why I consider your mentality dangerous.
I thought he was saying that he obeyed the parts which weren't negative... so why is it a problem if he obeys the positive parts, the ones about loving your neighbor and so on?

And by the way, religion is not a "mentality". Dogmatic, blind, unquestioning faith is, however, and it is found in scientists as often as preachers. The scientific establishment rarely accepts something that disagrees with them, at least not for many years. Why? because of an entrenched assumption that they are right, have proven themselves to be right, and need not re-examine their correctness because they already know that they are right.

Instead of trying to disprove everything that someone says, try listening to what they say (and try to avoid arguing with them in your head, either). Don't listen for the errors or contradictions or whatever else. Just try to listen and understand what someone is trying to say.

Wrong label my friend. Point me to one post that I demonstrate a "willingness to justify horrible things for religion"

Where did I say that you are going to hell? Another wrong label.

Well to be honest with you, I haven't slapped a label on you, other than it appears that you are agnostic and not atheist.

Certainly your suggestion that I am "dangerous" and a "fanatic" is quite laughable.

I have been responding. Perhaps you don't like my answers?

Now that you actually have answered, that you believe in only parts of the bible,


What would your reply be if I tell you that I only believe the parts of the Bible that clearly demonstrate God's benevolence?

we can then examine which parts you consider false and why.

But because your statement leaves room for backpedalling, I will directly ask again:

CanuckHeaven, do you believe the bible to be inerrantly true, or do you believe that parts are false?

The Bible can't be inerrantly true-- there are multiple Creation stories which contradict each other, if only slightly.

Are you serious? The fact that it was written by humans doesn't answer your question?

Anglachel, I'm employing something similar to the Socratic Method. I'm interested in CanuckHeaven's views (although yours are certainly welcome), and I want to know his opinion on how they got in.

As to your suggestion that it was written by humans, you're preaching to the choir.

I will clarify again: I don't believe the bible is true, I don't believe in any particular God.

But when somebody uses the Bible to support or define their beliefs, the bible becomes fair game to question. He now says parts are false, and I want to know which parts are false and why, and which parts he considers true.


Unless you're assuming that humans are perfect and all-knowing, then you know very well the answer to that question.

I know my answer. But sometimes in a discussion, we ask the other person about their beliefs, even if we suspect its different from our own.


And by the way, "false" is not really a correct way to describe it. Parts, such as the Garden of Eden and the forbidden fruit, never have happened in a factual or historical sense, but that story, for example, exemplifies the relationship between God and Man. It is symbolic, not historical-- indeed it has much more value as a metaphor than as a simple fact.

I have no problem with a metaphorical interpretation of the bible for contemplative or philosophical consideration, and in fact scripture from most religions finds its positive uses from that kind of assessment.

Just be mindful that everyone picks and chooses which parts are "factual" and which are "metaphorical", and such an arbitrary dynamic greatly limits the use of the bible for those who want to see it as literal or unilateral truth (and there are such people on this forum).

Just be mindful that everyone picks and chooses which parts are "factual" and which are "metaphorical", and such an arbitrary dynamic greatly limits the use of the bible for those who want to see it as literal or unilateral truth (and there are such people on this forum).

I'm just saying, you're not going to win over Bible literalists with logic.

I thought he was saying that he obeyed the parts which weren't negative... so why is it a problem if he obeys the positive parts, the ones about loving your neighbor and so on?

Picking and choosing which parts to obey and ignore is just as bad,[EDIT: Not because the bible is true, which I believe it isn't, but because such arbitrary and capricious use of any source is problematic] .


I have no problem with obeying the positive aspects of any religion, but if you want to use scripture to establish your position as doctrinally true, you can no more pick and choose than you can defend yourself from Tuesday's crime by pointing out that you didn't rob a bank on Monday or Wednesday.

If he believes the Bible is true, including the ones with horrible things done by God, and he worships and obeys that God, he has to take responsibility for any part which he considers true.


And by the way, religion is not a "mentality". Dogmatic, blind, unquestioning faith is, however, and it is found in scientists as often as preachers.

There are several kinds of religious (and non-religious) mentalities. You can call them something else if you prefer.


The scientific establishment rarely accepts something that disagrees with them, at least not for many years. Why? because of an entrenched assumption that they are right, have proven themselves to be right, and need not re-examine their correctness because they already know that they are right.

Oh, really? This week I'll be in a position to talk with several dozen researchers from various disciplines, from all over the world. I've spoken with several over the phone last week, and most of them have taken exactly the opposite position, cautioning that we must continually and rigorously challenge our own scientific ideas. Many are even religious.

I'm sorry for whatever aspect of the "scientific establishment" you work with, if they are truly as you describe. Maybe I've just had good luck encountering dozens (and probably EDIT: hundreds, by now) that are nothing like you describe.


Instead of trying to disprove everything that someone says, try listening to what they say (and try to avoid arguing with them in your head, either). Don't listen for the errors or contradictions or whatever else. Just try to listen and understand what someone is trying to say.

I'm sorry, but in good conscience, I can't do that part in bold. Be your way, I'll be mine.

You should also consider that to find errors and contradictions, you have to listen and understand to begin with.

I'm just saying, you're not going to win over Bible literalists with logic.

You've actually said a great deal more than that, and I've responded to it.

If you would like to amend your statements to exclude anything other than "you're not going to win over Bible literalists with logic", that's fine.

Until then, that's not what you're "just saying".

You've actually said a great deal more than that, and I've responded to it.

If you would like to amend your statements to exclude anything other than "you're not going to win over Bible literalists with logic", that's fine.

Until then, that's not what you're "just saying".
No, it's not what I'm "just saying". I didn't mean that to signify that that is the entirety of what I am communicating or that "You won't win over Bible literalists with logic" was the only thing I said, rather, I was using the "just saying" in a more idiomatic way. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, something more along the lines of "In my humble opinion, logic isn't likely to win over Bible literalists."


Oh, really? This week I'll be in a position to talk with several dozen researchers from various disciplines, from all over the world. I've spoken with several over the phone last week, and most of them have taken exactly the opposite position, cautioning that we must continually and rigorously challenge our own scientific ideas. Many are even religious.

I'm sorry for whatever aspect of the "scientific establishment" you work with, if they are truly as you describe. Maybe I've just had good luck encountering dozens (and probably dozens, by now) that are nothing like you describe.

Researchers, now, they generally do have very open minds, and I'm not saying that I've personally had bad experiences with scientists-- I love science and find it to be a quite beautiful thing-- it's just that if you look at history, most of the scientific acheivements which we now consider to be monumental were scoffed at at the time, or else ignored.

I'm sorry, but in good conscience, I can't do that. Be your way, I'll be mine.

Why not? You are, in this manner, demonstrating the unwillingness to listen to other ideas that I was talking about. I doubt that you'll take this to heart, but I hope you will. Try assuming a different worldview for a second. And it doesn't have to be a religious one, merely one in which science does not circumscribe the entirety of knowledge.

your poll has no option for "i think so, but not in the way that most people do..."

but the title of this thread is misleading, belief is very different from faith.

i hold faith in nothing, but i believe many things.

Please elaborate, Bob.

on which part?

No, it's not what I'm "just saying". I didn't mean that to signify that that is the entirety of what I am communicating or that "You won't win over Bible literalists with logic" was the only thing I said, rather, I was using the "just saying" in a more idiomatic way. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, something more along the lines of "In my humble opinion, logic isn't likely to win over Bible literalists."

Reasonable, but in my experience, showing the relationship between logic and biblical literalists that you've described is important so that people can consider them accordingly.

I don't know where you're from, but in my country, biblical literalists are attacking gays, women, and even science (even though science really in no way harms or disproves religion).

To contend with them, in the context of free speech, is necessary.


Researchers, now, they generally do have very open minds,

I think we're having a language problem again, if its on my part, my apologies. The researchers I refer to are all scientists.


and I'm not saying that I've personally had bad experiences with scientists-- I love science and find it to be a quite beautiful thing--

If your experience with scientists lead you to believe they are as you previously described, I would not call those experiences good, but again, you are entitled to you interpretation.


it's just that if you look at history, most of the scientific acheivements which we now consider to be monumental were scoffed at at the time, or else ignored.

And the fact that those rogues and rebels are now enshrined for their mutiny against conventional thought is some indication that the traits of the scientific establishment might not be as you described them, in the long run.
The fact is, even scientists I work with today have stressed that orthodoxy (of doctrine, rather than method) is a bane to science.


Why not? You are, in this manner, demonstrating the unwillingness to listen to other ideas that I was talking about.

Which ideas?


I doubt that you'll take this to heart, but I hope you will. Try assuming a different worldview for a second. And it doesn't have to be a religious one, merely one in which science does not circumscribe the entirety of knowledge.

You are yet again making erroneous assumptions about me.

It is my belief, stated often, that science is a tool for exploring the testable, natural world, and is limited to things for which evidence and examination are possible. Anything outside that set could still exist, it just can't be explored through science. So, please don't assume that I think science includes all knowledge.


And why do you assume that I don't explore those alternative worldviews that I find compelling, even religious ones?

How do you know that a book on Theravada Buddhism isn't sitting on my desk right now, and that I haven't been looking at their worldview for 3 days

Please stop assuming things, Anglachel. There's no need, because you can ask.

Everyone reads the bible and can interpret its words to however they want.
And THAT's
the TRUTH.
Thank you. *bows*

...except of course, for the fact that not everyone reads the bible.

And THAT's
the TRUTH.
Thank you. *bows*

...except of course, for the fact that not everyone reads the bible.

Straughn, give me your thoughts on this.

If somebody said they only believe in the parts of the Bible that demonstrate God's benevolence, can it be inferred from that that they only believe parts of the bible?

And from that, can it be inferred that if only parts are true, some parts are not true?

I don't know where you're from, but in my country, biblical literalists are attacking gays, women, and even science (even though science really in no way harms or disproves religion).

To contend with them, in the context of free speech, is necessary.
I come from the United States. And believe me, I understand what is being done by Bible literalists-- but I don't know how much good it will do for someone who is not religious themselves to try to argue them out of that belief. They will likely see it as an attack, to be opposed and never listened to because it's Satan talking.

The distinction I was making was between researchers and the scientific establishment (meaning the old fogeys, to put it concisely).

If your experience with scientists lead you to believe they are as you previously described, I would not call those experiences good, but I again, you are entitled to you interpretation.
To clarify, those assumptions of mine about some members of the scientific establishment do not come, for the most part, from personal experience. As such, it may well be a stereotype or prejudice that I have set up, but rather I think of it as a thing that is true of society in general-- it takes a long time before old ideas will make way for new. (and by the next generation, the new ideas sometimes take the place of the old)

Which ideas?
Hmm, I'm not very good at wording things online. I guess this is too much like conversation, and I assume that you can hear the stresses and emphasis in my voice. I was talking about the unwillingness, not the ideas. And it may well be that I am wrong on the matter of the unwillingness. But from what I took your above post ("I'm sorry, but in good conscience, I can't do that part in bold. Be your way, I'll be mine.") to mean, the unwillingness is there, to some degree.

Anglachel, you've repeatedly made baseless assumptions about my "worldview".

Why should I consider yours over anybody else's?

And why do you assume that I don't explore those alternative worldviews that I find compelling, even religious ones?

How do you know that a book on Theravada Buddhism isn't sitting on my desk right now, and that I haven't been looking at their worldview for 3 days?

Please stop assuming things, Anglachel. There's no need, because you can ask.
Stop assuming things? I'm human. It's what I do. But I'll try. And I admit that I have made assumptions about you, assumptions which are based on a number of things-- largely the views you have expressed on this forum (which I then extrapolate to try to form an at least semi-accurate picture of what you believe), but also things like some of what I've seen from other people arguing against religion (Note to anyone reading this: the RLA does not like religion AT ALL).

Is there a book on Therevada Buddhism sitting on your desk right now, and have you been looking at that world view? Have you been listening to it or looking at it?
------------------------


I don't know what country you come from, but where I live, it's 1:30 AM and I'm going to church tomorrow. Toodle-oo! (and by the way, thank you for a very interesting discussion. I'll be back tomorrow night. Please don't think I'm trying to escape, I'm just rather "tired and shagged out after a prolonged squawk", as John Cleese would say)

The distinction I was making was between researchers and the scientific establishment (meaning the old fogeys, to put it concisely).

Yes, I've met a few of those, fortunately not majorative. Although sometimes they make Department Head, and then they do much damage...



Hmm, I'm not very good at wording things online. I guess this is too much like conversation, and I assume that you can hear the stresses and emphasis in my voice. I was talking about the unwillingness, not the ideas. And it may well be that I am wrong on the matter of the unwillingness.

My apologies if I took it wrong, and for whatever unwillingness is there. When you've had some rest, we can address whatever ideas you refer to.


Stop assuming things? I'm human. It's what I do. But I'll try. And I admit that I have made assumptions about you, assumptions which are based on a number of things-- largely the views you have expressed on this forum (which I then extrapolate to try to form an at least semi-accurate picture of what you believe), but also things like some of what I've seen from other people arguing against religion (Note to anyone reading this: the RLA does not like religion AT ALL).

Well, a time not so long ago, I really did dislike religion. Fortunately, people on this forum like Jocabia and Dempubliscents have demonstrated to me a very admirable example of a positive religious mentality.


Is there a book on Therevada Buddhism sitting on your desk right now, and have you been looking at that world view? Have you been listening to it or looking at it?

Yes there is. I've been reading it and considering and examining its ideas (which is often difficult since many aspects of Buddhism are highly dependent on practical experience, only some of which can be done within a limited time, but I've explored the meditative practices within practical limits).

Now, I still look for error and contradiction, as a matter of personal inclination and habit, but I am sufficiently intrigued by some of its ideas to not consider the time wasted.


I don't know what country you come from, but where I live, it's 1:30 AM and I'm going to church tomorrow. Toodle-oo! (and by the way, thank you for a very interesting discussion. I'll be back tomorrow night. Please don't think I'm trying to escape, I'm just rather "tired and shagged out after a prolonged squawk", as John Cleese would say)

No problem, real life should always be a priority. Have a restorative rest and enjoy your church services.

Straughn, give me your thoughts on this.

If somebody said they only believe in the parts of the Bible that demonstrate God's benevolence, can it be inferred from that that they only believe parts of the bible?

And from that, can it be inferred that if only parts are true, some parts are not true?
I don't think you can infer that only some parts are true, because those parts are what people believe. Truth is independent of belief...

I don't think you can infer that only some parts are true, because those parts are what people believe. Truth is independent of belief...

Can someone believe something to be true?

EDIT: Sorry, to clarify, I should further ask if a person's beliefs can be either more or less consistent with any particular truth.

I'm essentially dealing in the area of propositional logic, wherein taking any particular statement to be true can be used to demonstrate what statements are thus also true if the first is true.

Such as "p implies q" doesn't mean that p or q is true or false, but rather if q is not true, p must be false.

Straughn, give me your thoughts on this.

If somebody said they only believe in the parts of the Bible that demonstrate God's benevolence, can it be inferred from that that they only believe parts of the bible?I think that can be a fair assessment in most circumstances. I'm saying this from my personal experience in reading it and how i reacted.

And from that, can it be inferred that if only parts are true, some parts are not true?Well, being true and being believed aren't on same par in a lot of circumstances - especially if your crux is "faith".

I think that can be a fair assessment in most circumstances. I'm saying this from my personal experience in reading it and how i reacted.

Well, being true and being believed aren't on same par in a lot of circumstances - especially if your crux is "faith".

Rigth, sorry, I should clarify.

So, if Joe believes Book A to be only partially true, it can be inferred that he thus believes part to be false. As to the books actual veracity, it is not addressed by the statement.

Hmm, fair enough. I'm glad you can still see the good in Jesus though. Even apart from his divinity, he was exemplar.
I thought he was an anti-Capitalist, anti-establishment, anti-wealth... How is that exemplar for you?...

Rigth, sorry, I should clarify.

So, if Joe believes Book A to be only partially true, it can be inferred that he thus believes part to be false...
Not exactly, I'm afraid. :D You can pick on the parts which you "feel" to be true and leave other parts, without labelling them as "false".

That's what I do. I only read Jesus sayings for "truths" and even then I give some room for inconsistencies due to translations and editing. Those parts I find "strange" and don't sound plausible (the Apocalypse is a great example) I don't necessarily read as "false", but as the metaphors they probably are.

Of course, I believe there may be stuff in the bible that is "false", but what the heck, it's a 1800 years book which was created by an angry bishop. After all, the guy chose four gospels because it was one for each direction of the wind and corner of the earth. This is a guy that sent people to burn at the stake...

Not exactly, I'm afraid. :D You can pick on the parts which you "feel" to be true and leave other parts, without labelling them as "false".


"Feel" to be true? Well, okay, but everybody can "feel" differently.
For propositional logic, sometimes the Boolean premise of "anything not true is false" is used. How about this. Do you believe that parts of the Bible are from God, and others aren't? Are any of the orders or laws attributed to God not from God?


That's what I do. I only read Jesus sayings for "truths" and even then I give some room for inconsistencies due to translations and editing. Those parts I find "strange" and don't sound plausible (the Apocalypse is a great example) I don't necessarily read as "false", but as the metaphors they probably are.


That sounds quite a bit less absolutist than some, which is good. You respect the right of each person to choose which parts are strange or implausible, even if that's all of it? And their choice is not less valid than yours?


Of course, I believe there may be stuff in the bible that is "false", but what the heck, it's a 1800 years book which was created by an angry bishop. After all, the guy chose four gospels because it was one for each direction of the wind and corner of the earth. This is a guy that sent people to burn at the stake...

And yet, some take it as truth, including some very vile things. That's my issue on this thread.

Not exactly, I'm afraid. :D You can pick on the parts which you "feel" to be true and leave other parts, without labelling them as "false".

That's what I do. I only read Jesus sayings for "truths" and even then I give some room for inconsistencies due to translations and editing. Those parts I find "strange" and don't sound plausible (the Apocalypse is a great example) I don't necessarily read as "false", but as the metaphors they probably are.

Of course, I believe there may be stuff in the bible that is "false", but what the heck, it's a 1800 years book which was created by an angry bishop. After all, the guy chose four gospels because it was one for each direction of the wind and corner of the earth. This is a guy that sent people to burn at the stake...

You can't pick and choose what is and may or may not be truth. You need valid logical arguments for communicating truth. Remeber truth is absolute. It is the same for any observer in any universe. So in order to get something this absolute, the process for finding it requires rather abundant constraints.

You need valid logical arguments for communicating truth.

An interesting claim.

So in order to get something this absolute, the process for finding it requires rather abundant constraints.

Could not the necessary abundant constraints be found in non-logical forms?

An interesting claim.



Could not the necessary abundant constraints be found in non-logical forms?

Not really. I doubt it then that you've ever attempted a formal proof. Don't like mathematics very much?

Of course, I believe there may be stuff in the bible that is "false", but what the heck, it's a 1800 years book which was created by an angry bishop. After all, the guy chose four gospels because it was one for each direction of the wind and corner of the earth. This is a guy that sent people to burn at the stake...

The bible was not created by an angry bishop. It was not even created by one individual. The bible grew from the collected writings of the apostles and was shaped by usage, tradition, and eventually a series of councils, most notably the councils of Rome and Trent. No one individual created the bible.

Not really. I doubt it then that you've ever attempted a formal proof. Don't like mathematics very much?

I've done proofs in both mathematics and logic classes. I don't like them because they're rather boring.

I just find your insistence that logic is the only path to truth no better than a Christian's insistence on the Bible as the only path to truth.

I've done proofs in both mathematics and logic classes. I don't like them because they're rather boring.

I just find your insistence that logic is the only path to truth no better than a Christian's insistence on the Bible as the only path to truth.

Truth, by definition, is a consequence of logic. You have Premise 1, Presmise 2, perform logical steps to get consequence 1, IF Premise 1 and 2 are correct THEN consequence 1 is TRUTH. No other way to find to truth.

You can't pick and choose what is and may or may not be truth.
Why not? Maybe you only say that because you want to be able to challenge God's existence, based on the statement that "either the full contents of the bible are true or false". Anyone thinking that is really narrow-minded...

You need valid logical arguments for communicating truth. Remeber truth is absolute.
Hence why I look in the bible for the teachings which are logical... Those that I do not understand its logic, I leave behind because:

1. Maybe I have not reached a stage to understand their logic.
2. Maybe they are metaphorical (not logic).
3. Maybe they are men's false interpretations of God (thus prone to lack of logic)

It is the same for any observer in any universe. So in order to get something this absolute, the process for finding it requires rather abundant constraints.
Precisely. I am adding my personal constraints, not following blindly the constraints that were created by men over 1800 years. Particularly when I know that some of those men were far from being "saints"...

Why not? Maybe you only say that because you want to be able to challenge God's existence, based on the statement that "either the full contents of the bible are true or false". Anyone thinking that is really narrow-minded...


Hence why I look in the bible for the teachings which are logical... Those that I do not understand its logic, I leave behind because:

1. Maybe I have not reached a stage to understand their logic.
2. Maybe they are metaphorical (not logic).
3. Maybe they are men's false interpretations of God (thus prone to lack of logic)


Precisely. I am adding my personal constraints, not following blindly the constraints that were created by men over 1800 years. Particularly when I know that some of those men were far from being "saints"...

You don't blindley follow it. You learn it for yourself. It's not like you just trust what they say. The thing about truth is that anyone who want's to prove it can.

One of the premises you use in your so called "logical" interpretaion of the bible is "What's in the bible is historically accurate." This premise isn't self-evident. It is open to much debate. Thus any logical deduction is not truth because it has not been shown that a premise is correct.

Truth, by definition, is a consequence of logic. You have Premise 1, Presmise 2, perform logical steps to get consequence 1, IF Premise 1 and 2 are correct THEN consequence 1 is TRUTH. No other way to find to truth.

And Truth, by definition, from the perspective of many Christians is the set of all statements found in the Bible. And there is no other way to find truth.

So what?

And Truth, by definition, from the perspective of many Christians is the set of all statements found in the Bible. And there is no other way to find truth.

So what?
Well, they're skipping the crucial point of using logic for their deductions instead of just supplementations of premise.

perform logical steps to get consequence

And Truth, by definition, from the perspective of many Christians is the set of all statements found in the Bible. And there is no other way to find truth.

So what?
Isn't that... you know... totally ridiculous in concept?

What is true is what is on paper?

If that were the case, Lawyers, not priests, would be God's representatives on earth.

... Actually, that makes quite a bit of sense...

The bible was not created by an angry bishop. It was not even created by one individual. The bible grew from the collected writings of the apostles and was shaped by usage, tradition, and eventually a series of councils, most notably the councils of Rome and Trent. No one individual created the bible.
I didn't say written you LazyHippy :D (nice name) I said created. Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now canonical Gospels as divinely-inspired. He is the brains behind the compilation of the bible, the selection of the gospels and the definition of orthodoxy.

He also wrote a couple of nice books of his own, full of divinely-inspired love to give to mankind:
On the Detection and Overthrow of the So-Called Gnosis.
Since one volume wasn't enough, he wrote 5.

Against Heresies
Also a very nice gift for children up to 6 years old.

And Truth, by definition, from the perspective of many Christians is the set of all statements found in the Bible. And there is no other way to find truth.

So what?


See what you've done is taken a word "truth" and you've given it your own meaning. You can't do that. There is a universally agreed upon meaning for truth which can't be changed. The word you are after is 'faith'. You feel that what is in the bible is what the rest of us consider 'truth' but you can't prove it yet. That is faith. Not truth.

i believe there is something big, friendly and nontangable that loves us and wishes us well. i neither know nor care whether it is infallable, one or many, or whether it created us or anything else. i only know what i have persoanaly felt the existence of.

if it has given us rocks and trees and air and water, i don't see how that makes it responsible for what we have done with them (collectively) that is killing ourselves (individualy and quite possibly collectively as well).

but i do believe that putting trying to impress each other ahead of the real and relatively harmless gratifications of creating and exploring, is the real cause of totaly needless human suffering.

it's not about sex, money or even sainthood. it is about the kind of world we all have to live in.

there is nothing suffering has to exist in order to balance. it exists because we put other things ahead of the avoidance of creating it.

it isn't about how 'god' feels about anything that causes suffering. it is what we are doing ourselves, to ourselves. entierly and completely by our own collective hands.

=^^=
.../\...

One of the premises you use in your so called "logical" interpretaion of the bible is "What's in the bible is historically accurate."
The only thing I really need to believe to be historically accurate in the bible is that Jesus existed, nothing else.

Well, they're skipping the crucial point of using logic for their deductions instead of just supplementations of premise.

Again with the reliance on logic. Reminds me of Evangelical Christians I've met that when asked to give a reason as to why they think the Bible is the only source of truth, they just ignore the essential question and continue to insist that truth is only found in the Bible.

Paradigmatic assumptions have that affect, it seems.

The only thing I really need to believe to be historically accurate in the bible is that Jesus existed, nothing else.


How do you know that what is written that jesus said was actually what jesus said?

See what you've done is taken a word "truth" and you've given it your own meaning. You can't do that. There is a universally agreed upon meaning for truth which can't be changed. The word you are after is 'faith'. You feel that what is in the bible is what the rest of us consider 'truth' but you can't prove it yet. That is faith. Not truth.

It's not a universally agreed-upon meaning if some folks (like some Evagelical Christians) don't agree with it, now is it? And even if it were, aren't you just basing your understanding of truth on what is essentially an ad populum fallacy? "Look ma, everybody agrees that truth is a consequence of logic, so it must be true!" I'm not impressed.

And even if it were, aren't you just basing your understanding of truth on what is essentially an ad populum fallacy?
xD

Intentional or not, that had me in hysterics for some time.

How the hell can you use logical fallacies if you refuse to accept that truth derives from logical principles?

:D

It's not a universally agreed-upon meaning if some folks (like some Evagelical Christians) don't agree with it, now is it? And even if it were, aren't you just basing your understanding of truth on what is essentially an ad populum fallacy? "Look ma, everybody agrees that truth is a consequence of logic, so it must be true!" I'm not impressed.

Allow me to show you why truth is only achieved through logic.
Proof can be achieved through logic. That is a fact. You propose that truth can also be achieved through non-logical means.

Let's assume that you can achieve truth by non-logical methods.

What methods are open to a human for analysing truth? Logic. We already know that. And feeling. A person can "know" that something is truth without having to use logic.

You know that God exists. You know that it is truth.

But I know for a fact, using your method, that God doesn't exist.

If you're method is true, ie truth can be achieved without logic, then:
You know that it is truth that God does exist
I know that it is truth that God doesn't exist.


Here is a contradiction. Your assertion leads to two contradictory things being true. This is impossible. Hence your original premise, "logic isn't the only way to find truth" is incorrect.

xD

Intentional or not, that had me in hysterics for some time.

How the hell can you use logical fallacies if you refuse to accept that truth derives from logical principles?

:D

Heh. I could see how that would be pretty funny.

Though the truth is ;) that I don't refuse to accept that truth is derived from logical principles. Truth could be derived from any number of sources, as far as I'm concerned. In my opinion, truth can be found much like anything else in life. It can be sitting right in front of you, or waiting in a place you'll never look. You might stumble upon it be accident one day. You may even find a system that helps you search for it effectively.

Allow me to show you why truth is only achieved through logic.
Proof can be achieved through logic. That is a fact. You propose that truth can also be achieved through non-logical means.

Let's assume that you can achieve truth by non-logical methods.

What methods are open to a human for analysing truth? Logic. We already know that. And feeling. A person can "know" that something is truth without having to use logic.

You know that God exists. You know that it is truth.

But I know for a fact, using your method, that God doesn't exist.

If you're method is true, ie truth can be achieved without logic, then:
You know that it is truth that God does exist
I know that it is truth that God doesn't exist.


Here is a contradiction. Your assertion leads to two contradictory things being true. This is impossible. Hence your original premise, "logic isn't the only way to find truth" is incorrect.Prwned.

You ROCK. Good trump, mon amis. :)

Prwned.

You ROCK. Good trump, mon amis. :)


:fluffle:

Proof by counter-example is a wonderful tool.

"Feel" to be true? Well, okay, but everybody can "feel" differently.
For propositional logic, sometimes the Boolean premise of "anything not true is false" is used. How about this. Do you believe that parts of the Bible are from God, and others aren't? Are any of the orders or laws attributed to God not from God?
The bible was written by men. Scientists today still make mistakes when they interpret hard data. How could men NOT make mistakes, 2000 years ago, while trying to interpret something as subjective as God? I accept that some are true and some are false, just don't ask me which. :D Ask God, if He exists of course...

Personally, sometimes the issue is not so much with the "laws" but with the "punishment". I mean with this that I accept adultery as morally wrong but, for me, punishing adultery with death is ridiculous and more likely to be a "law" of men trying to interpret the law of "God", than the law of God.

That sounds quite a bit less absolutist than some, which is good. You respect the right of each person to choose which parts are strange or implausible, even if that's all of it? And their choice is not less valid than yours?
Well, I don't just pick the bits that I like. It's not that simple. let's say that my basic contraint is Jesus is supposed to be the last living testimony of God, so I mainly look for his words (in the bible and the gnostic gospels), because I trust that Jesus would never be unfair. If in doubt, he would not condemn. I've never read the Old testament, only snippets. I think it's lunacy to read it literally in the 21st century, from an historical perspective. I respect those who do, even if I don't think it's wrong telling people that maybe they should be reading it less literally. I don't think think it matters to me whether their choice is more or less valid, because I'll most likely never find out.

And yet, some take it as truth, including some very vile things. That's my issue on this thread.
Religion - like any rethorical tool - can be dangerous in the wrong hands. I mean, even some pop bands say very vile things...

I don't normally agree with you Commie Catholics, but well played.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

I don't normally agree with you Commie Catholics, but well played.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

Thank you very much. :fluffle:

Allow me to show you why truth is only achieved through logic.

Certainly. I hope this is better than your last attempt. You seem like an intelligent enough fellow to give it a fair shake.

Proof can be achieved through logic. That is a fact. You propose that truth can also be achieved through non-logical means.

Let's assume that you can achieve truth by non-logical methods.

What methods are open to a human for analysing truth? Logic. We already know that. And feeling. A person can "know" that something is truth without having to use logic.

Have you ever taken the time to analyse logic, look for its strengths and weaknesses as a method for demonstrating truth?

You know that God exists. You know that it is truth.

But I know for a fact, using your method, that God doesn't exist.

If you're method is true, ie truth can be achieved without logic, then:
You know that it is truth that God does exist
I know that it is truth that God doesn't exist.


Here is a contradiction. Your assertion leads to two contradictory things being true. This is impossible. Hence your original premise, "logic isn't the only way to find truth" is incorrect.

Using logic as a weapon against an opponent who doesn't necessarily believe that logic is the only source of truth seems a poor strategem. Even if you do manage to demonstrate that the logical consequences of my belief violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, what of it?

Nonetheless...

I'm curious as to why you think this is a contradiction.

To demonstrate very obviously, let's say my name is Bob and your name is Joe.

Bob knows that it is truth that God does exist
Joe knows that it is truth that God doesn't exist.

I'm not quite sure why you see that the fact that Bob knows that God does exist somehow contradicts the fact that Joe know that God does not exist. It seems quite possible that two different entities could have different sets of knowledge. And even if they were the same person, many people hold contradictory beliefs in their own mind.

The contradiction you're looking for is this:

The statement "God exists" is true.
The statement "God exists" is false.

Unfortunately, neither of those statements exist in my belief system, which makes it rather difficult to assault in this manner. My view is more like this:

The statement "God exists" could be true and could be found to be true using either logical or non-logical forms.

The statement "God exists" could be false and could be found to be false using either logical or non-logical forms.

:fluffle:

Proof by counter-example is a wonderful tool.

That it is. But try not to count your chickens before they're hatched.

The God of the Bible, (JHWH or JHVH, usually translated to Jehovah or Jahveh) is not the ruler of this world. The bible points out that the ruler of this world is Satan, for now. Satan is ruling the world to answer to the questions arisen in eden: "Can humans live without god?", "Can we rule ourselves?", "Can we ourselves say what is wrong and what is right?", "Is Satan's ruling better than that of god?"

Even god's son Jesus (or Jesua/Jehosua) said that satan is the ruler of this world to his followers.

It is wrong to blame god for the problems humans or satan's world has created. God let us rule ourselves to give a clear answer to the questions arisen in eden.
After Harmageddon Satan is to be taken away (John 12:31). Jahveh is the only person in the universum that has the power to resurrect those that please him or those that had no chance of hearing the word, and humans can live in a paradise.

My english is really bad so it is good to read these proofs from your bible.

Who is responsible:
Proverbs 29:2; 28:28
2Corinthians 4:4; 1John 5:19; John 12:31
Revelation 12:9, 12
Revelation 20:1-3; 21:3, 4

Why is it allowed:
Job 1:11, 12
Romans 9:17; Proverbs 27:11
John 12:31
Romans 2:6, 7; Revelation 21:3-5

Why it takes so long?
Matthew 24:24, 37-39
2Peter 3:9 Isaiah 30:18
Luke 21:36; 1Thessalonians 5:4
Isaiah 2:2-4; Zephaniah 2:3

Allow me to show you why truth is only achieved through logic. Proof can be achieved through logic. That is a fact. You propose that truth can also be achieved through non-logical means.
Let's assume that you can achieve truth by non-logical methods.
What methods are open to a human for analysing truth? Logic. We already know that. And feeling. A person can "know" that something is truth without having to use logic.

You know that God exists. You know that it is truth.
But I know for a fact, using your method, that God doesn't exist.

If you're method is true, ie truth can be achieved without logic, then:

You know that it is truth that God does exist
I know that it is truth that God doesn't exist.

Here is a contradiction. Your assertion leads to two contradictory things being true. This is impossible. Hence your original premise, "logic isn't the only way to find truth" is incorrect.
I think you are mixing two concepts:

1. Being truth
2. Finding truth

You make it sound like only logic can find truth but truths exist before logic finds them. Logic isn't the only way to find truth. If anything, it's the best way we have to confirm truths. Some scientific theories are only held as true until some other theory replaces it. Still, the replaced theory was found through logic. If so, how could it be true one minute and false another? Logic changes as new information arrives.

A bit like wormholes. They are theory... Not necessarily true or false, until we are able to confirm them...

That it is. But try not to count your chickens before they're hatched.
*laughs at the chicken/egg duality issue*
:p

you ever taken the time to analyse logic, look for its strengths and weaknesses as a method for demonstrating truth?


I do it every day. It has no weaknesses for demonstrating truth seeing as it is the ONLY way to demonstrate truth.



Using logic as a weapon against an opponent who doesn't necessarily believe that logic is the only source of truth seems a poor strategem. Even if you do manage to demonstrate that the logical consequences of my belief violate the Law of Non-Contradiction, what of it?


Truth is absolute. Logic is ONE WAY of finding it. By assuming that there is a different way and reaching a contradiction, you can prove that there are NO other ways. Because it is a proof, this is absolute truth, like it or not.



Nonetheless...

I'm curious as to why you think this is a contradiction.

To demonstrate very obviously, let's say my name is Bob and your name is Joe.

Bob knows that it is truth that God does exist
Joe knows that it is truth that God doesn't exist.

I'm not quite sure why you see that the fact that Bob knows that God does exist somehow contradicts the fact that Joe know that God does not exist. It seems quite possible that two different entities could have different sets of knowledge. And even if they were the same person, many people hold contradictory beliefs in their own mind.

The contradiction you're looking for is this:

The statement "God exists" is true.
The statement "God exists" is false.

Unfortunately, neither of those statements exist in my belief system, which makes it rather difficult to assault in this manner. My view is more like this:

The statement "God exists" could be true and could be found to be true using either logical or non-logical forms.

The statement "God exists" could be false and could be found to be false using either logical or non-logical forms.


The point is that using your method of finding truth, one person can find that "God exists" is truth. This is absolute. God can not possible not exist if it is truth that he does exist. Truth remains truth irrespective of whether a person knows it. But if two people discover two truths that are contradictory, they aren't truths.

I think you are mixing two concepts:

1. Being truth
2. Finding truth

You make it sound like only logic can find truth but truths exist before logic finds them. Logic isn't the only way to find truth. If anything, it's the best way we have to confirm truths. Some scientific theories are only held as true until some other theory replaces it. Still, the replaced theory was found through logic. If so, how could it be true one minute and false another? Logic changes as new information arrives. If you don't have any new information on God, then you cannot say it doesn't exist.

A bit like wormholes. They are theory... Not necessarily true or false, until we are able to confirm them...

You're confusing fact and truth. A scientific consequence is a fact, prone to change. It is not 'truth' because the original premises on which a theory is based cannot be confirmed with 100% certainty.

You're confusing fact and truth. A scientific consequence is a fact, prone to change. It is not 'truth' because the original premises on which a theory is based cannot be confirmed with 100% certainty.
Basically, what you are saying is that even logic cannot confirm 100% certainty, ever. Logic cannot certify an absolute truth.

You know that God exists. You know that it is truth.
That is technically what they call revelation. You have the truth revealed to you, by a very neat meta-logical trick. By believing in God, God reveals the truth about God to you...

But I know for a fact, using your method, that God doesn't exist.
That's because you don't have faith bro. In this case faith is a prerequisite for understanding; without faith you can only guess guess at the content of the book, while those other bastards take the short-cut and has it revealed to them. Of course what you really should do is believe in the existense of the book, read it thereby recognizing God, then you'll get the revelation to really understand ... and so on.

You argument is good, but doesn't hold water because you do not have access to the same set of data - so logically you are arguing against green because of sunday. It's one of the great problems that existentialists like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche ponder.

If you have faith you'll understand. I have faith in the FSM, and he has revealed the mysteries the midget onto me. But I'm not going to share - you'll have to have faith yourselves, otherwise it's like using a cheat code...

Basically, what you are saying is that even logic cannot confirm 100% certainty, ever. Logic cannot certify an absolute truth.


Except for in mathematics. In mathematics you define a set of axioms. Which lead to truth. But any logic involving a derivation based on a premise that is an observation cannot be claimed as absolute truth, no.

If you have faith you'll understand. I have faith in the FSM, and he has revealed the mysteries the midget onto me. But I'm not going to share - you'll have to have faith yourselves, otherwise it's like using a cheat code...
Who's FSM?... :D

That is technically what they call revelation. You have the truth revealed to you, by a very neat meta-logical trick. By believing in God, God reveals the truth about God to you...


That's because you don't have faith bro. In this case faith is a prerequisite for understanding; without faith you can only guess guess at the content of the book, while those other bastards take the short-cut and has it revealed to them. Of course what you really should do is believe in the existense of the book, read it thereby recognizing God, then you'll get the revelation to really understand ... and so on.

You argument is good, but doesn't hold water because you do not have access to the same set of data - so logically you are arguing against green because of sunday. It's one of the great problems that existentialists like Kierkegaard and Nietzsche ponder.

If you have faith you'll understand. I have faith in the FSM, and he has revealed the mysteries the midget onto me. But I'm not going to share - you'll have to have faith yourselves, otherwise it's like using a cheat code...


Argument still holds. If two people who have faith have been revealed two different truths the contrdiction is still reached.

Question 1: right.

Question 2: right.
Corny's answer #1: wrong.
Corny's answer #2: wrong.

Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Mark 6:5
And he could there do no mighty work.

Hebrews 6:18
It was impossible for God to lie.

Argument still holds. If two people who have faith have been revealed two different truths the contrdiction is still reached.
Two people cannot be revealed two contradicting truths; they can only interpret two pieces of contradicting information as true.

Two people cannot be revealed two contradicting truths; they can only interpret two pieces of contradicting information as true.

Which means that one of them is wrong. Because both interpretations can't be truth. So logic is the only accurate tool we have left to find which is true and which isn't.

That's because Bush isn't turning us into a dictatorship :rolleyes:
You haven't been paying attention.
And just 'cuz it's ALWAYS worth it ...

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." —Washington, D.C., Dec. 19, 2000
Obviously enough time has passed since that quote for him to have begun implemeting what he needed to implement.

Which means that one of them is wrong. Because both interpretations can't be truth.
Or that both of them are wrong because both interpretations can't be truth... It's a possibility.

So logic is the only accurate tool we have left to find which is true and which isn't.
Not to find which is true. To comfirm if there may be some truth in them. Problem is, as we've seen, logic depends on the information provided and we have no information from God. We only have information written by men about God. This is why logic doesn't work with matters of faith.

Who's FSM?... :D
Say this with me ... RAmen.

Or that both of them are wrong because both interpretations can't be truth... It's a possibility.


Not to find which is true. To comfirm if there may be some truth in them. Problem is, as we've seen, logic depends on the information provided and we have no information from God. We only have information written by men about God. This is why logic doesn't work with matters of faith.


Which means that matters of faith cannt be claimed by anyone to be truth.

Say this with me ... RAmen.
Is this one of those jokes that only native english speakers understand? :D

Which means that matters of faith cannt be claimed by anyone to be truth.
Nor false...

God doesn't turn his back on people ...
Except, of course, when he deluges the entire planet because they were so inferior IN HIS OWN CREATION that they weren't worth mercy.
Love, diluvian style.
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/637.gif

Is this one of those jokes that only native english speakers understand? :D
No, it's one of those elusive "truths" everyone's going on about here that apparently, only pirates and their descendants understand. :)

Nor false...

Unless a person takes two conflicting points on faith. Then logic can be used to show that one of the points must be false.

If Jesus returned today, I think we all should line up to say "Shame on you, you pathetic excuse for a Son of God. That bullshit stunt you pulled back in the day has lead to the violent deaths of more humans than the bubonic plague (which, incidently, you could have fucking gotten off your ass to fix, thank you very much), and you haven't lifted a bloody finger to do anything about it. I hope you enjoyed your grandstanding, you little punk, because it's been giving little kids nightmares for two millenia. With the connections you've got, you might actually have been able to do some good around here, but instead you decided to go sloth around in Heaven instead of getting your hands a bit dirty. Sod off."
Oh, MEGA*FLUFFLE*!!!!!!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/love/641.gif

Don't be angry with Jesus, cause its not like you can kick his ass.
No .... leave that up to Chuck Norris - that's his department.

No .... leave that up to Chuck Norris - that's his department.


Maybe if Chuck Norris and Steven Segal teamed up against Jesus?

Non-scriptural.

Nice hypothesis, but I'm not convinced you can justify an idea of battery-powered-Satan...
Wasn't that Saddam Hussein's pleasure appendage in "South Park: Bigger, Longer, & Uncut"?

Maybe if Chuck Norris and Steven Segal teamed up against Jesus?
At an oil refinery! WooT!
I think Segal would be happy with sloppy seconds, and the tag-team aspect of it would be largely for show. Unless it turned pornographic.

buy a Bible and you can read it too.
Buy it for what it's worth - the price of a Gideon special in the drawer of the motel where you covet your neighbor's wife or hubby.
On the sabbath, garnished with graven images like little crucifixes (whew! almost said "lark's vomit")

You've got to have faith.
George Michael, stand back!
*rotates hips, shakes butt*
*makes his way towards the bathroom stall*

There are NO CONTRADICTIONS in the Bible. There are no inconsistencies either and it is most assuredly is not stupid.
You must have the wrong book. Seriously. Or you've never read it, or you are outright LYING. :(

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Get through all that and get back after you've learned a little bit about the topic.

Only Jesus has the authority to judge and He will Judge all of us.
Too late - his "authority" has been revoked. And that was accomplished rather simply by extracting the sliver of gullibility that is the whole crutch of judeo-christianity from the general vincinity of the t'aint.
Guess he'll have to go back to his soapbox on the 'skirts o' town.

No, it's one of those elusive "truths" everyone's going on about here that apparently, only pirates and their descendants understand. :)
AaaaahhhhRRRR.... :D

AaaaahhhhRRRR.... :D
Yaay!!!
The transubstantiation part and the vestiges part were the two best of the Gospel, IMNSHO.
:D

Too late - his "authority" has been revoked.
Yes... only to be replaced by courts of men, who are clearly much fairer than Jesus would have ever been, according to existing accounts... :(

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?

Yes.

In the end, it's a judgement a person makes. Evidence is presented for and against, and an individual judges that evidence.

I think a lot of people look for god to exist as black & white and be definitively provable. Or they'd like god to be controllable so that we can prove he exists by experiment.

However, for most things that I can't exert experimental control over - personal relationships, history, the organizations I belong to, making decisions is only possible by weighing the limited data available.

I've said that I believe, and here's the data I based my judgement on. I've got first the testimony of parents, grandparents, other ancestors and peers. The counter-evidence to that is that I've been raised in an enlightened society and am somehow better at decision making than all those that have come before me. This may be true, but I doubt it.

Secondly, I have a book. It's trustworthiness has been attacked in the past, but most experts (again, I'm relying on the testimony of experts) now agree it has survived with almost no change in meaning for about 3,000 years. There are older books (the Bhagavad-Gita is one); this one, however, has been subjected to far more scrutiny and far more people with motive to manipulate it's text, and it has resisted change.

I have the contents of this book - simple rules for living in peace with others, and countless case studies of how to deal with those rules in various situations. Certainly, I've found no other ancient text to have as many practical examples of how to live out a set of teachings. Most religions provide a text that contains rules for living, but I've found no collection of rules and their explanations as compelling and practical as those in this book.

Thirdly, I have a culture that are the primary characters of this book. They still exist as a culture, their language has evolved but remains intact, and they still hold to the god of this book and provide even more living examples and case studies of living by those rules in their own history, which has been a difficult history. There are other cultures, still ancient and alive, but they have (to my knowledge) mostly continued in isolation, not scattered from their homeland and threatened with extinction as many times as the Hebrew culture has been.

Finally, I have internal promises made in this book, relayed by this still living culture, that I believe were lived up to. But that would get into why I'm a chritstian, and this is a question of why I believe in god.

Additionally, there's forensic evidence in terms of artifacts still being argued by experts that supports that this cultures' histories are true and accurate.

So in the balance I find four categories of information that I have decided are trustworthy. And all of these sources of information agree that there is a god. In my own judgement, I am insufficiently wise to dispute these sources, but even if I were, I agree with the god that's been described to me and prefer that path. This preference on my part has not stopped me from challenging and exploring my beliefs.

Thanks for asking.

Judges 1:19
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Mark 6:5
And he could there do no mighty work.

Hebrews 6:18
It was impossible for God to lie.

Please use the correct context and/or translation. :)

Judges 1:19
ADONAI was with Y'hudah, and they took possession of the hillcountry, because they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, since they had iron chariots.

The above text mentions nothing about God driving out the inhabitants of the valley, only that He was with Judah. You have obviously read a mistranslation.

Mark 6:5
So he could do no miracles there, other than lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.

Again you should probably read the verse in context with the rest of the chapter. Jesus went to his home town where he went to teach in the synagogue. Verse 3 says that the people took offense to him. Verse 6 says 'He was amazed at their lack of trust.' That strikes a tone here too for some reason..

Hebrews 6:18
so that through two unchangable things, in neither of which God could lie, we, who have fled to take a firm hold on the hope set before us, would be strongly encouraged.

Obviously there's more to that in the preceeding verses, but since you only quoted verse 18, I thought I'd just type it out in it's correct context for you. ;)

You must have the wrong book. Seriously. Or you've never read it, or you are outright LYING. :(

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

Get through all that and get back after you've learned a little bit about the topic.


That's a really good sight.

Unless a person takes two conflicting points on faith. Then logic can be used to show that one of the points must be false.
Still, logic will be lacking the vital information to confirm if they are in fact "true" or "false". With matters of faith, this is always the case...

All human religions could be "completely" wrong about God and - yet - God could exist....

That's a really good sight.

Yes it is indeed... Something I will look into with more time. However, inconsistencies in the bible do not disprove God, they only prove that the apostles did not agree on all things (surprise, surprise).

From the site, about Jesus telling his apostles about what they should take with them in their mission to spread the word:

Matthew 10:10:
Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purse, Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves.

Luke 9:3:
And he said unto them, Take nothing for your journey, neither staves, nor scrip, neither bread, neither money; neither have two coats apiece.

Mark 6:8-9:
And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse: But be shod with sandals.
I'm not 100% sure about this but I believe there is a theory that the Gospel of Matthew may have been written using Mark and Luke as sources. These 3 gospels are very similar in content. So we have a 2 vs 1 opinion, but the second of the two may have been written based on the first.

However, these inconsistencies don't disprove Jesus, only that the apostles could not agree on certain things. Maybe the author of Mark had a problem with his leg or old age and needed a staff to walk long distances, so he thought it was silly generalising about that... Maybe he liked the authority that a staff implies... We just don't know.

When such contradictions occur, it is up to the reader to decipher what Jesus may have meant with "don't take a staff". Could he mean that a limp person should not use walking aids? I doubt it. I think he meant that a staff should not be used as a symbol of authority, like it is used today by religious people...

I didn't read all 233 pages so i don't know if this was addressed. Most people believe in an omni-potent being,most people believe that their religion is the "true" religion. So if i want to worship Rama, or vishnu, or someone else other than "God", what right does a Christian (using this monotheistic religion, no biase) have to tell me "You're a sinner for worshipping so-and-so, not god. I pray for you in hopes that you will be saved" (This may not happen all the time but anyway...). A christian may see Islam or Judaism as wrong (depending which bible you read/what you were taught/etc) although they are the same. So whatever religion you follow, you have a chance to get into their version of paradise, not just heaven. No religion is the "true" religion, we can follow whatever/whoever we want. (Oh and mentioned earlier, why does God have to be a guy? Can't there be a heavenly mother?) Im done my rant for now

THANK YOU :D I also believe that a person should be judged by their character as opposed to their faith. Saying that if someone believes in Jesus you automatically get into Heaven is like giving yourself an excuse to sin as much as you want because you'll still get into heaven.

If you believe truly with all your heart in our Lord, Jesus Christ you're not going to want to sin.

If you believe truly with all your heart in our Lord, Jesus Christ you're not going to want to sin.


The most amount of horseshit Ive ever seen in so few words.

Because your ears are closed you do not hear. With your eyes shut, you do not see. I cannot force it upon people. All I can do is to spread the Word of God.

If you do not accept Christ, I will grieve but I know that I have done my best to show you that God loves you.

And we necessarily have to accept Christ why? There ARE other people out there we can accept (see my previous post)

Picking and choosing which parts to obey and ignore is just as bad,[EDIT: Not because the bible is true, which I believe it isn't, but because such arbitrary and capricious use of any source is problematic] .
So now you are going to contradict what you stated to Europa Maxima?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11032629&postcount=2859

So if i want to worship Rama, or vishnu, or someone else other than "God", what right does a Christian (using this monotheistic religion, no biase) have to tell me "You're a sinner for worshipping so-and-so, not god. I pray for you in hopes that you will be saved" (This may not happen all the time but anyway...).
Unfortunately, free speech gives us the right to say certain things that would be better left unsaid... Not that I find anything wrong about hoping for you to be saved. Of course, in the wrong mouth, this may sound extremely pretentious.

A christian may see Islam or Judaism as wrong (depending which bible you read/what you were taught/etc) although they are the same. So whatever religion you follow, you have a chance to get into their version of paradise, not just heaven. No religion is the "true" religion, we can follow whatever/whoever we want.
I like to believe that the only true religion is practice (with or without preaching) of values such as kindness, tolerance, love, fairness and - most important - humility. No one is absolutely right or wrong about anything...

(Oh and mentioned earlier, why does God have to be a guy? Can't there be a heavenly mother?) Im done my rant for now
:D If God exists, it must be both a guy and woman... or none of them... or either of them...

The most amount of horseshit Ive ever seen in so few words.

Ah, the intellectual argument.

Unfortunately, free speech gives us the right to say certain things that would be better left unsaid... Not that I find anything wrong about hoping for you to be saved. Of course, in the wrong mouth, this may sound extremely pretentious.


I like to believe that the only true religion is practice (with or without preaching) of values such as kindness, tolerance, love, fairness and - most important - humility. No one is absolutely right or wrong about anything...


:D If God exists, it must be both a guy and woman... or none of them... or either of them...

Saved from....?

I like the idea of tolerance and love, but let it not have a god and call it a religion. Lets just have it anyway.

And yes that must mean that god's a transsexual:p or not.

Ah, the intellectual argument.


Indeed sir.


If you are attempting to insinuate that true belief or faith in anything, results in a lack of the desire to "sin", I call that pure horseshit.
By that rationale there wouldnt be a large number of children who have been preyed upon by thier pastors, whos faith Im sure you wouldnt question.
Im sure the Crusaders were some devout bastards as well.

If anything, history would tell us that religious fervor goes hand in hand with murder, rape, all sorts of debauchery.

The desire to commit "sin" is the nature of man.
Nothing can, or will ever completely take that away, our own brains wont allow it.
Not even "God".

Nobody wants to commit sins, they are tempted to by Satan.

If there were to be a god, humans in general would never be able to comprehend it. It's ridiculous for any person to be so vain as to think they are of equal intelligence of a divine being to be able to understand them....
it is of greater vanity that man puts god in his image instead of vice versa.

And following the novel of the Bible is just fantasy.

Nobody wants to commit sins, they are tempted to by Satan.


For your own sake of argument, I implore you to back that up with evidence that isn't written in some ancient, mangled, opinionated text.
If science at all exists in your community, that is.

If you believe truly with all your heart in our Lord, Jesus Christ you're not going to want to sin.
The most amount of horseshit Ive ever seen in so few words.
At first sight maybe but there's more than meets the eye. I think what he meant is that if you truly see Jesus for what he was, not how the church tries to paint God, and you become like him, you are less likely to sin intentionally. Remember that most sins imply some sort of psychological or physical damage to another person.

I agree with that. I really agree with that. Prophets like Jesus and Buddha were, first an foremost, men who were "super-human" in their ability to control natural desires and cravings. Why is meditation so powerful in reducing stress and anxiety? Because you force yourself to control cravings... Those cravings are usually the motive behind "sin". If you can control the cravings, you are less likely to "sin". Reduce the need of the brain for certain things, through prayer, sports, mediation or abstinence and you'll end up not needing those things. It's basic neurobiology applied to daily life.

Religion is only one way to get there.

At first sight maybe but there's more than meets the eye. I think what he meant is that if you truly see Jesus for what he was, not how the church tries to paint God, and you become like him, you are less likely to sin intentionally. Remember that most sins imply some sort of psychological or physical damage to another person.

I agree with that. I really agree with that. Prophets like Jesus and Buddha were, first an foremost, men who were "super-human" in their ability to control natural desires and cravings. Why is meditation so powerful in reducing stress and anxiety? Because you force yourself to control cravings... Those cravings are usually the motive behind "sin". If you can control the cravings, you are less likely to "sin". Reduce the need of the brain for certain things, through prayer, sports, mediation or abstinence and you'll end up not needing those things. It's basic neurobiology applied to daily life.

Religion is only one way to get there.


If that were true, then why has no one ever achieved this blissful state?

Since no one is completely innocent, and every single person has at least ONE thing they have done, or even thought of doing that is immoral, it would readily appear that the religion thing really, really isnt working.

With a zero success rate, I would say its a failure.

Saved from....?
God knows what... :D

I like the idea of tolerance and love, but let it not have a god and call it a religion. Lets just have it anyway.
Maybe why Jesus was a preacher instead of a priest...

And yes that must mean that god's a transsexual:p or not.
ROFL I can imagine God now as a transsexual... maybe you mean hermaphrodite? :D

If that were true, then why has no one ever achieved this blissful state?

Since no one is completely innocent, and every single person has at least ONE thing they have done, or even thought of doing that is immoral, it would readily appear that the religion thing really, really isnt working.

With a zero success rate, I would say its a failure.


Well said.
Though one could argue that you only find this nirvana in heaven... seems as if this god only blesses us with death rather than reward us in life.

Nobody wants to commit sins, they are tempted to by Satan.


So its satan that makes a man want to nail someone eles wife?

It was Satan who ordered the death of millions in Auschwitz?

Or, is that a weak exscuse to shift the spiritual blame away from themselves, unto an entity that doesnt exist?

"It was me...I didnt want to rape that woman...it must have been SATAN!"

Nonsense.

Unless in a blind rage where someone truly isnt aware of what theyre doing, people know full well when they sin, and will likely repeat it often.
How on earth is that not "wanting to sin"?