|
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 titanneeded and would suffice. as there are a bunch of them, i will say, methinks the philosopher doth protest too much. all that aside. i am glad for you and jd (and the other theists) that you are able to find solace and meaning for life though your spiritual beliefs. seriously. i do not have an issue with it. my problems arise when christian people try to impose their mythologically based ethical belief system on the whole country, claiming that their system is the 'one true way' and that the rest of us are going to hell. this bothers me. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 01-Oct-06, 11:19 |
are you guys.. a) capable of incarnating himself into human form and then allowing himself to be crucified by a bunch of sadists. To prove a point??!! What? That its better to be nice than nasty? Couldn't he have just waited a while and talked to you clever guys? Appear on CNN or something? b)Master of the Universe but doesn't actually do anything apart from sit and watch it unfold. Is He jerking off to the suffering in Somalia? Come on boys. What is the Christian message? Be nice to your neighbour,don't kill anyone, don't screw around and don't steal. Well, sorry but I could have worked that out for myself. It's called living in society. I don't need fairy tales about "miracles" to make me behave myself. It comes natural. If I do something wrong I feel like a real shit. Is that God? Bull s**t. You can call it God. I call it good manners. Hey I've got two dogs.Maybe I should build an ark because its pissing down where I live. Sorry they are both male. Homosexuals aren't allowed are they? And jdh the reason i'm a bit late to the party is that I thought it was a joke thread. It took me a while to realise you guys were for real. Now I just find you frightening. Is that the message? Thunderbolts and lightning. Very, very frightening indeed. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jeff mythologically based ethical belief system on the whole country, claiming that their system is the 'one true way' and that the rest of us are going to hell.*** I do not think most Christian are interested in imposing any beliefs - you will find a loud and vocal minority here, but unrepresentitive of the majority of Christians. forcing belief is completely contrary to God and free-will theology Christs have no choice but to claim Jesus Christ is the only way . . . "I am the way the truth and the life, no man cometh unto the father but through me" It is nothing personal and you are free to choose otherwise. Destruction of those who are not interested in Christ at the end of this age isn't so much about punishing, but rather the natural consequence of the choices of those who are not interested in Christ. Would you be interested in Heaven given all the "rules" you seem hate? Those "rules" are God's perfect world and will never cease to be. Would you want to go? |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 01-Oct-06, 11:33 |
by the.. Would I be sentenced to an eternity in Hell, as a happily married man, for saying that her mind is pretty cute? Am I covetting(!) her brain? Do thoughts like that still count even though its in cyber space? A couple of Hail Marys and a quick Lords prayer should solve the problem surely? Or I can prostrate myself and shout "God is great" a few times towards the West. Is that as good as the prayers? Ok i'll stop eating for a few hours. At least I have the choice you zealots. (I wanted to say morons but didn't want to offend anyone). |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar theology, but I know you are not interested God isn't "jerking off" about anything that has happened here. Freewill and the natural consequences that arise from chosing rebellion instead of God lead to what you see in todays world. Manners? The moral argument, while "proving" nothing, is interesting. where did you get your "manners"? would it be ok if my manners said it was already to kill you or steal from your home? Christ died for homosexuals and God loves homosexuals. All who accept Jesus Christ are welcome into the Kingdom of God homosexual or not. Frightening? I can understand that. Although I think we'd actually get along if we were to watch some sports or have a pint. From my experience posting with you I think: I am a sort of antithesis in beliefs to yourelf. Some people are scared by what they do not understand. BTW, you can obviously say what you like, but I would say you do not need to use such disparaging language to make your points. is this the "manners" of which you speak |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 01-Oct-06, 11:42 |
jdh.. Isn't that something to do with your beliefs? The most important things in life are you and your family. If you have those you really don't need any outside help. And sod the afterlife. You have it all right now. Heaven is right in your sitting room. |
|||||||||||||||
|
titanforlife 01-Oct-06, 11:45 |
Jeff... Not if you use inductive reasoning (i.e. Sherlock Holmes used inductive reasoning in his cases). I think your approaching this issue from a purely deductive reasoning or nothing stand point. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar convinced she's been making futile attempts. Your post clearly shows you understand nothing of the Gospel. No wonder you are so upset by Christianity . . . Wanted to say "morons" but didn't? But you did say it didn't you. Don't want to offend? To late, but I'm sure you know that, making that last statement not only makes you rude but disingenuous as well. More of those "manners"? |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 01-Oct-06, 11:58 |
Well.. God has a son (who is also God) that comes to Earth and performs some miracles (none of which have been recreated in modern times) upsets the ruling classes and gets himself (deliberately) arrested. He is then crucified after horrible torture and his main message seems to be to forgive his tormentors. (For they know not what they do). He rises from the dead three days later, ascends into "heaven" and what? Lots of people believe this to be a good enough tale from which to build a whole belief system. Can't you believe the principles i.e. be nice to each other without the prop of the story? Surely the Ascension is an allegory for the fact that good will come from bad? Are we so base that we have to have it spelled out for us? |
|||||||||||||||
|
titanforlife 01-Oct-06, 12:23 |
Jay... The article deals with the questions you and many sceptics are asking; so if your truly interested in learning about what Christians believe about Jesus and the Scriptures I chanllenge you to read it. www.leaderu.com" target="_blank">-> www.leaderu.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
jaymar 01-Oct-06, 12:36 |
come on.. I'm being facetious and you have leapt into the pulpit and got on your high horse. Of course I know nothing of Christianity. I was born and raised a roman catholic. Up to being able to think for myself it was the be all and end all. The priests punished us and the nuns tortured us. All in the name of God. Don't think this is some great revelation. Its just that I grew up. I questioned the miracles, the resurrection and the whole set up. Believe me my friend, you are misguided and I am not the devil. It is all just a story. You are a bag of chemicals and when your time comes you will disappear. Enjoy the moment. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 12:43 |
Mission Accomplished... |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 12:45 |
pawntificator Fun. << I can never tell if I'm being brilliant or mad. >> Whichever you are, good job to you as well. I like the way you engage this debate. << Alex is not technically saying the bible was number one and Ayn Rand was number two. Although if she was, she would be rising from her grave right now. >> True enough. It was late, and I was a little brain fried from editing out literally half of my responses to Alex's posts for the sake of brevity. (!) << Anyhow, I want to stop people from causing divisions between themselves based on their beliefs, because I believe that we all perceive a state of mind in which we are right and holy, and while the specific mind patterns may vary, I can't see the difference between the essence of our beliefs. >> For the most part, I agree with you. Where I disagree is the dividing line where secular values based on common sense and reason are buried under religious dogma for no other reason than "God said so." (See also, the whole homosexuality thing.) Oh, and that whole killing other people because they don't believe in God ver. 3.11, Return to the Madrassa needs to be challenged, too. Fiercely, even. << And the reson I try to ratoinalize the bible from my point of view is not to con ince you that you are wrong, but to show you why you shouldn't condemn me based on the logic of pure thought. >> Could you clarify this for me? "Rationalize" can mean to different things. One would be to provide a reasonable context or explanation for something, and the other would be to pretend that something is reasonable when you know that it isn't. It seems like you do a little of both when it comes to the Bible, which is unusual... although not unheard of. I did a little of both when I was a theist, too. << Except no one noticed or thought to share the experience until 50 years later. Take a deep breath and think clearly about this for just a moment. One small miracle. Think. >> *applause* << While I am against religion as a means to explain scientific phenomena, I am not against science as a means to explain religious phenomena. Religion points the way, science follows and tries to figure it out. >> That sums up my position pretty well, too. Religion = intuitive understanding, science = testing that understanding and seeing if our intuition is trustworthy. << Good job kem, you got us all posting like crazy, trying to beat the way you do it 'back home." I checked out the circus or whatever that was. Too different. I retreated into the cave. >> Thank you, thank you. I fully intend for this to be the longest thread in the history of the gameknot clubs. God knows we've still only brushed the surface on this debate. As far as CM goes, thanks for stopping by. Since you have a profile there, allow me to link you to one of the more amusing threads, started by fellow GameKnot member de_bengel. forums.delphiforums.com" target="_blank">-> forums.delphiforums.com Good stuff. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Jaymar - sin is death. All have fallen because we cannot not sin and deserve death by the very nature of the law. Christ's death - that is the death of God himself - paid the death penalty for all past, preset, future. Theologically speaing there is not a single action you can do that the blood of Christ cannot atone for. There is no other action that needs to occur, except to accept this payment for what it is. You can be right with God, right now. That is the gospel. That is the point. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Jaymar high horse.*** I am not sure what you mean. Do you expect perfection? I am human being and prone to my own defects of character, whcih will never leave me, but can definitely be moderated by spiritual living. If you were being facetious, I did not see that. Much of nonverbal communication is lost over text only forums like this. I do not think I jumped onto a pulpit or a high horse, but responded to you as I thought was appropriate. I may have been wrong, it's happened before and will happen again (although if you tell me wife, I'll deny, deny, deny) ***Of course I know nothing of Christianity. I was born and raised a roman catholic. Up to being able to think for myself it was the be all and end all. The priests punished us and the nuns tortured us. All in the name of God*** That's a horrible way to have been brought up - that was wrong. Abuse is abuse, and so much worse when justified in the name of God. I can see where much of your animosity towards Christianity come from (I know you have many other reasons as well, but the angry tone is what I'm commenting on) ***Believe me my friend, you are misguided and I am not the devil. It is all just a story. You are a bag of chemicals and when your time comes you will disappear.*** Misguided? Why because *you* say so? I've never thought you were the devil or even close. As rabid atheists go, you pale in comparisan. I would never place so much significance in your skepticism as to label you the "devil" - you are a nonissue for me here. If it was "just a story" it would not be the single largest religious following in the world. If there was not something there that spoke to the transcendental part of the human spirit, Christ would have wet the way of other religions. You may still make the argument that it is a story, but it's powerful and not aknowedge that is a bit dishonest. I am a "bag of chemicals" but a bag that has managed to come to together to be life, to reason, to love, and to know God. The idea that this particular bag of chemicals came together out of the choas is incredulous to me and I'm sure my position is to you. ***Enjoy the moment.*** I do I most certainly do. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 13:57 |
Leo Scientists do not always reason to the nonexistence of the postulated entity, but this is largely because belief is seductive, and popular. It is not reason that they are following when they accept the teachings of any religion as authoritative, it is intuition. I have a very real problem with the assertion that intuitive analysis (faith) is the same as rational analysis (logic). Faith is not scientific. It can be the Aha! moment, but it must be tested before it becomes logical. Religion... at least the kinds that rely on an external force that acts upon us... is not logical. It fails the test too many times to be taken seriously. << We must have an adequate understanding of what an object's existence entails before we can argue for or against its existence. >> Well, yes. << Positive existentials do not have an advantage over negative existentials in this sense. >> War das auf Englisch geschrieben? Sorry. Please define "negative existentials." That's not a concept I'm familiar with. << According to the principle of indifference, when we don't have any evidence favoring any of a set of alternatives over the others, we should count each alternative equally likely. >> Okay. We need to do some definitions here, clearly. Leo, is your entity y omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent? Does your entity y protect the righteous and punish the wicked? If all five of those characteristics are ascribed to God, then the evidence favoring the set of alternatives that states y does not exist is far more prevalent than the evidence favoring the set of alternatives in favor of y. << To continue, It is not a principle observed in scientific research. >> Doch! Evidence is very much a part of scientific research. Pretending that there is no evidence that contradicts a theory does not make that evidence vanish in a puff of wishful thinking. << For example, scientists do not deny the existence of, say, tachyons (faster-than-light particles) even without proof of their existence. >> That's a very weak analogy. www.fallacyfiles.org" target="_blank">-> www.fallacyfiles.org A is like B B has property P Therefore, B has property P Tachyons are like God Scientists do not maintain that tachyons do not exist Therefore, scientists do not maintain that God does not exist. The link between tachyons and God is extremely weak, Leo. One is a particle that theoretically could exist, although we have no evidence for it. It "does" nothing else. God, on the other hand, is a metaphysical construct that that has an influence over every single person on the planet and can be contacted in prayer. Evidence for that sort of construct, if we take it seriously, should be all over the place, and *consistent*. The fact that the "evidence" is largely arbitrary dependent on what century and what part of the globe you were born in is strong evidence *against* its existence. << Scientists frequently observe the " behaviour " of matter and come up with nothing more than a educated " guess " as to the cause of such behaviour. It remains the " best guess " until further research proves the theory right or wrong. >> Yes, and that really is the point. When we observe the behavior of God, it makes no sense. Why should He deliberately encorage so much confusion and slaughter in His name? It contradicts the theory. << I deliberately left myself open comparing it to faith, but I did point out that faith is different in that scientists are continually questioning their " guesses " or theories. >> Yes. They *test* those guesses and those theories against observable evidence, and discard them when the evidence does not support them. Religion doesn't work that way. << However, this was all part of the discussion concerning a " cause " for everything that we could call God, as opposed to a spontaneous change in existence...something I now call Kop's theory >> I'll call it that, too. It's elegant. I like it. << In other words it was all about " burden of proof " and of course " Occam's razor "..you still have not convinced me that the most popular scientific theories for existence and the cause thereof are any " simpler " or plausible than the theory of a God. >> This is because you still have not answered my question. Given x = kop's existence and y = Leo's God, is: y > x x > y or x is a union of y? My argument hinges upon your response, and I've asked you this a couple of times. You're forgiven for the first few dodges, but I really want an answer this time. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 14:40 |
jdh << You are right that the gospels were written between 50-70 AD, but there were no smug or powerful men. >> Whether or not the men that put the gospels together were smug or powerful is largely irrelevant, in my opinion. The point is, they were men. Not Gods. They were fallible, and their gospels contradicted each other, just as many of the books of the OT contradict each other. There is no reason why modern day man should discard rational arguments about the nature of ethics and morality in favor of what men, smug and powerful or weak and powerless, had to say about a beloved mentor's teachings two thousand years ago. <<The idea that 1)the Bible was arbitrarily put together by the books that the Roman Catholi Church wanted and 2) the bible was rewritten and edited to say what the Christ Church wanted it to say might possibly be the biggest myth brought up in this thread. >> The scholars disagree with you. At least the ones that are honest about their research. See also: The Council of Nicea and the early history of the Church. www.infidels.org" target="_blank">-> www.infidels.org << It's a popular misconception, but one that is not based in reason or logic - so I would suppose if reason or logic were so important to the skeptic, I would also imagine they would abondon that line of argumentation. >> So let's look at the reason and logic behind the idea of the Bible as a compilation of works written after the fact and edited by many, many authors. It took the Church 1600 years to come up with a canon they all agreed on. Marcion started the whole affair in the second century, gathering up the epistles, but the Gospel of Judas, the Acts of Tecla, the Shepherd of Hermas, Barnabus, the Apoclypse of Peter, and no small number of other "non-authoritative" works didn't make it past Eusebias' watchful eye. en.wikipedia.org" target="_blank">-> en.wikipedia.org . I'm puzzled by your refusal to accept that in 1,600 years, texts which were disputed could not have possibly been modified to conform to one person or another's vision of what they were supposed to say. The Dark Ages weren't called the Dark Ages because of their glimmering transparency when it came to power and the way it was wielded, and the Church held much of that power. To maintain that those monks in the towers following orders would not have made a single misinterpretaion (intentionally or even unintentionally) in their many, many transcriptions of stories that did not necessarily agree with each other... I just don't see how you can make that argument. Human error and hubris together should not be underestimated. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 14:57 |
titanforlife Two questions: 1) How (specifically) is atheism dangerous and harmful to humanity? 2) Do you think it takes faith not to believe in Santa Claus? <<I'm not saying that all athiests are evil, I know many who are kind, loving, and compassionate and do many good things to help allivate suffering in the world.>> Oh, well then that's okay then, I guess. << However I ask the question, have we an illustration of evolutionary ethics in action? The answer is yes, several, Most notably in Nazi Germany and Communist Russia and China. >> I speak German, and I can tell you that God was invoked quite often (and skillfully) in Hitler's rhetoric. It was not atheism that drove Stalin to commit acts of brutality, it was meglomaniacal conceit combined with a truly staggering lack of empathy for human suffering. Atheism is no more a cause of these traits than red hair is. (Speaking of which, water_lily, where are you?) << Years ago Adam Sedwick, the Cambridge geologist and colleague of Darwin, commented on Darwin's Origin of the Species, "It is a dish of rank materialism cleverly cooked up...And why is it done? For no other reason except to make us independent of a creator." He predicted that Darwin's ideas would herald a new era of brutality. >> If you stacked up all the bodies killed in the name of God and Country (twin forces that behave rather similarly in their ability to get True Believers to do anything for the sake of an ideology and the propoganda to support it), you would find that the pile would be slightly higher than the bodies killed in the name of Science and Reason. Unpopular ideas are always met with fear. << I admit that Christians haven't alway lived rightly and have done things in the name of Christ that are horrible, but they are acting contrary to the way that their worldview teaches them to live. >> My argument isn't with Christ's teachings. It's with the belief that everything is all right because God is on our side. There is no more powerful placebo a propogandist could use to inspire a populace to quit thinking and trust unconditionally in the status quo. This is dangerous. << When naturalists/materialist act in brutality they are just living out the natural consequences of their belief system. >> Quatsch. Utter and total balogna. Please demonstrate to me how my belief system has the natural consequence of brutality. The myth that atheists have no ethics because all ethics must be sourced in God is beyond idiotic. You may continue to believe this if it makes you feel better about your faith, but please keep in mind that it is a vicious slander that directly contradicts your earlier statement about atheists who are kind and loving people with a history of good works and a love for humanity. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kem reeling motion with hands*] I do realize you were busy with others, but honestly, my money would have been on yesterday; this morning for sure. I began to think you were ignoring me - my feelings were hurt Truth is I've had this discussion many, many, many times. I find it fatiguing, and I knew getting into this, especially with you could be tedious and tiring. I avoided this as long as possible, but saw my colleagues floundering horribly. The best argument for God was given by Leo - who is actually a skeptic! Maybe believes in a animistic type of "god" but nothing further. So here I am. It's like being at the bottom of the trail and knowing the top is 20 miles away uphill. I will have this discussion with you, even though I have refused before. However, because of your proclivity to long posts, I'd like to chew on this one bite at a time. Three long posts of cut and paste response like you gave to alex makes me want to claw out my eyes. It's not your fault I find this annoying, but I do. I can appreciate and accept that this is the way you are - long posts are as natural to you as breathing. I know you are very thoughtful about such matters. Drives me crazy though, so I figure if we take small bites we can have this discussion without driving me crazy and without you needing to give me a treatese and still honoring your style. Also you are busy and so am I, so you'll have to ocassionally be patient with my responses and I'll be patient with yours. |
|||||||||||||||
|
lets start here . . . contradict each other.*** lets look at the contradictions - ball's in your court |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 15:11 |
jaymar Your use of the past tense amuses me, and no, it's not wasted. I have a good time with it, and that's what matters. Others got past my "Faith" barrier, and it was a strong one. They did it in exactly the same way that you see me doing it right now... by patiently and relentlessly forcing me to think. << Would I be sentenced to an eternity in Hell, as a happily married man, for saying that her mind is pretty cute? Am I covetting(!) her brain? >> *smooch* right back atcha, babe. << Do thoughts like that still count even though its in cyber space? >> Yep. << A couple of Hail Marys and a quick Lords prayer should solve the problem surely? Or I can prostrate myself and shout "God is great" a few times towards the West. Is that as good as the prayers? Ok i'll stop eating for a few hours. >> Your wife might get mad about that... oh, wait. Darn. I slipped again. << At least I have the choice you zealots. (I wanted to say morons but didn't want to offend anyone). >> Cute. Relax, jaymar. We're 10% of the population in the US, and theists aren't used to hearing atheists speak up articulately and carefully. These sorts of conversations take time, and mocking people just makes them assume that you aren't listening to them. I'd much rather listen to the responses and subject them to sustained criticism, just to see what kind of responses we get. I fully expect this thread to go to 2,000 posts before we're done with it, assuming we get the kind of forum wide participation that this topic deserves, but it won't get there if people walk away in a huff. It's been my experience that theists tend to do that when they don't know how to respond to challenges that they haven't faced before. I'd rather not give them any excuse to make that response justifiable. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 15:27 |
jdh Let's start with the discrepencies in the resurrection story. (I'll give credit where credit is due to Cosmo on CM for this. He brought it up first, I'm repeating it because it's a rather telling point that the single most important event in the entire Christian myth is filled with contradictions in the supposedly inerrant source material.) Read through the story from Easter morning to the assention: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and I Corinthians 15:3-8. Don't leave out a single detail from these separate accounts, and give a narrative of the *exact* events, detailing the *exact* order in which everything happened. After that, we can look at the synoptic problem, and then we can move on to things like grace vs. works if you want to. We should look at the whole caravans of camels in a time in history when camels were not domesticated, and the fact that the archeological record of Jerusalem shows that it was a minor city of shepherds in the time of David and Solomon, not a great center of commerce with a standing army, and certainly not a center of trade that would have access to the types of riches described in the Bible. There's a few more here, if you'd like to check them out. www.skepticsannotatedbible.com" target="_blank">-> www.skepticsannotatedbible.com Ball's in your court. |
|||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 15:48 |
Why is it suprising that four different people gave four different accounts of the resurrection story? I really want to know why this casts doubt on what happened. |
|||||||||||||||
|
kem |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 15:55 |
jdh (I cut most of the backquotes to make this easier on your eyes) I'll try to make this fun. << I avoided this as long as possible, but saw my colleagues floundering horribly. >> That tends to happen. Frequently, even. <<So here I am. It's like being at the bottom of the trail and knowing the top is 20 miles away uphill. >> Fortunately, I've got lift tickets. Hop a seat next to me (assuming your significant other doesn't mind), and let's discuss. I promise not to get fresh with you, unless you wear your bikini. I'll recognize that you've had this debate before and not bore you with the details, unless you specifically challenge me on the details (as you did in the previous post). Fair enough? Out of curiosity, just so I can ask closed ended questions, are you a biblical literalist? Do you go in for Young Earth Creationism and 600 year old men having kids? Or are you more of a liberal Christian? |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 16:02 |
Blech... it's 165 verses, and if you haven't noticed the inconsistencies in them before, I'm going to guess that you haven't read the Bible very recently. You're busy, I'm busy. If you don't want to type it all up, but you do want to be honest about this, reading 165 verses that have to do with the foundation of your faith shouldn't really be all that difficult. If you see no contradictions in any of them after reading them, let me know. I'll bore you with them in text. If you see the same contradictions, you get where I'm coming from. It's a problem because the Bible is supposed to be the inerrant word of God, not just a bunch of stories. Personally, I'm not at all surprised by the different versions of the story, but I also challenge the notion of Biblical perfection... which brings us back to the question of exactly how much of a literalist you are. Do you believe that every word in the Bible is the True Word of God and represents his perfect and immutable message to humanity? Or are you somewhere in between, following a more liberal approach to "Truth"? |
|||||||||||||||
|
kementari 01-Oct-06, 16:03 |
alex |
|||||||||||||||
|
kem bore me with the details, so I know what we're talking about, details and definitions are important to the discussion i'm more a literalsit, you'd call me a literalist at least, if the context requires more creative interpretation I aknowledge there may be differences in how that text can be viewed, but off the top of my head I cannot think of one. lets see to summarize might be helpful, I believe in a recent (within 20,000-10,000 years [not dogmatic about 6000 years ago]) literal 6 day creation of life on earth - the universe, I do not see as needed to have been created in 6 days, but my God could have done it. I believe in literal flood, noah, the ark, the aimals, the whole sheebang. 900 year old people - yep. Jesus was God. You'll have fun. And I know you're wearing your mittens over your claws. There's lots to talk about, but one bite ata time please. it will meader for some time, but i dont think you will mind |
|||||||||||||||
|
alexwilson 01-Oct-06, 16:15 |
Kem I think the Bible is inspired by God rather than the literal word of God. |
|||||||||||||||
|
leo_london 01-Oct-06, 18:16 |
Kem.. >This is because you still have not answered my question. Given x = kop's existence and y = Leo's God, is: y > x x > y or x is a union of y? My argument hinges upon your response, and I've asked you this a couple of times. You're forgiven for the first few dodges, but I really want an answer this time.< How have I " dodged " the question ? We had already agreed in the argument for the necessity of existence. I have speculated that a change in the nature of existence was " caused " by a God. This God would need to be eternal, therefore x would be a union of y. Kop's theory requires a change without cause in a infinite existence of nothingness, I speculate on a the co-existence of such a cause. Your question " Does your entity y protect the righteous and punish the wicked? " is just clouding the issue. You know I am not talking about any sort of " entity " that protects, punishes, rewards, needs our praise or glorification...in other words its not a God in religious terms. The same applies to your statement about a metaphysical construct that that has an influence over every single person on the planet and can be contacted in prayer. I might go further, as jdh suggested, in a belief of a " animistic type " of God..one that is omnipresent and that everything is part of God. Therefore, celebrate and worship life and the positive element that created life. Insomuch as " my God " has any characteristics it is as a positive energy that turned a meaningless nothingness into a wonderous somethingness. I may come back to defend some of our Christian friends though ( not that they need my help )..I think you have been tough on the bible as a piece of work that did try to explain mans place in the universal scheme of things. Some of the thoughts and ideas expressed in the bible were ahead of their time.. even the creation story, bearing in mind it was written some 2,500 years ago, contains some uncannily accurate references..for the time. |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
