Total posts: 2,082
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
That's a lot of dissembling, let's see if we can get a finer point put on some of these.
Probably mostly based on their parental cultural background or their political leanings. Lefties tend to take a very broad understanding of killing. They seem to think euthanasia and abortion are fine - but reject capital punishment of criminals -although generally speaking they allow for police to wear guns to protect themselves- and for the army to use force to defend their country. On the right - they tend to support capital punishment and oppose abortion and euthanasia.
The 6th commandment says "Thou shalt not kill." That's all it says, right? And which one is biblically correct: the one who opposes abortion, or the one who supports capital punishment? Which one of these people is the commandment excepting, and how? You'll get no argument from me that here are plenty of good reasons to kill people, but I'm not supporting my position using a book of myths from thousands of years ago.
Is it lawful to abort babies if the state says yes?
Do you mean if the state has statute making the act legal? Then yes, it is lawful. That one's pretty simple, right? Legal and moral are not bound at the hip. It can be legal and immoral (laws that act as Jim Crow laws, for example), or moral and illegal (stealing food to feed your family when you have no more options and none of your prayers result in manna from heaven).
I know some Christians who are homosexual - and whom I expect to see in heaven. Even though I think it is clear that homosexuality is sinful and goes against the laws of God.
This sounds to me like a Christian who recognizes the actual words in the book (not the retrofit hemenautics, a semantic game invented well after the book was published in order to make the bible fit with the changing morals of society a little better) can be pretty uncomfortable, right? Good for you, I say, I'm glad you recognize it. But where in the bible is it found that you can get into heaven after living an entire life, unrepentant, as a homosexual, engaging unabashedly in homosexual acts even after church on Sunday? I hope you're right if there's a heaven, but the book says no. You can't get into heaven if you don't repent your sins. Why would your friends be an exception? Are you preaching to them about the error of their ways, praying for them to reform until your eyes cry blood? Why not?
Why do we include the OT in the bible if Christians don't care about it? And why do Christians, albeit a small portion of them, go around telling gay people they're going to burn in hell when they die and hold signs like god hates fags? They DO have a bible verse to back them up, you know. Do you? Something specific as the one about men laying with other men, stone them in the street. Did I miss the verse where Jesus said "Whoops, God got that one wrong and I'm here to tell you gays are just regular people too."
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
TL:DR. Skimmed it.
If god knew what humans would do, and didn't want to spend eternity punishing then for doing it (leaving aside how is it just if your great grandfather commits a crime, you also have to go to jail for it), put the tree there anyway, how did he not cause them to do it? I mean he has a plan for everything.
Please keep the sermons short. Address the questions, I get it, you're faithful, but my not following the religion you've chosen has nothing to do with me wanting to be god, that's stupid sounding and I don't even know what you think it means. I don't follow it because there's no reason to believe any of it is true, that it's an effective manual for living, or that it offers some sort of moral compass that ends up being miscalibrated. I've done just fine so far. Have you really considered how just your god is?
Let me ask you one last question: can anyone go to heaven if they don't know Jesus and accept him as their personal savior? Like can the nicest muslim child go to heaven if they go into st. Peter's office denying Jesus as his personal savior?
Created:
-->
@Tradesecret
Sorry, forgot to @ you.
Created:
God is not vindictive. He punishes justly and properly.
You mean like the condemnation of all humanity, for all time, because one human did something God knew he would do (eat the fruit)? It's literally the first punishment in the bible. Also, is it truly not only just, but SUPERjust, and SUPERmerciful, to have the only loophole in your system of punishment and redemption be to torture the only character claimed to be free of sin, in order to get rid of the sins of others? Is it JUST, let's say, for you to allow another person to accept punishment for a crime you committed? Is it not more merciful to simply say "Wow, I set up a flawed system here. I'm all powerful, so I'm just going to hit the reset button on all these sins, rather than torture the only innocent person on earth, who happens to also be me."
He could take a vindictive approach and simply wipe everyone out. The fact that he does not - is evidence he is not vindictive. Saying he is - just does not cut the mustard.
Well, didn't he do this though, drowning babies and animals in a 40 day flood? Why doesn't that "cut the mustard"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
When you kill or hit or assault or call others evil names then you are attacking the very image of God.
So what is the answer? According to Jesus, should we ever kill another person? What verse unequivocally supports your position, and why do so many Christians disagree (doesn't matter which side you take, Christians barely agree on anything)?
Laws about slavery - in the OT and even in the NT are obviously not so relevant in a world where slavery is apparently outlawed. Yet the principles remain and can be applied to lots of things - employment law, bank mortgages, property laws.
The book has laws about what clothes to wear and what you should eat and which day of the week you can work (Christians largely ignore the sabbath). Why do you think it needed to use "slavery" as a way to comment on bank mortgages and employment laws? Please connect these dots. "Buy only foreign slaves" means what in the parlance of property title law, do you think? Why communicate this message in a way that makes certain people able to use this holy book to support the most disgusting abridgment to human rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
But it's not really a very clear statement. (I wish an atheist could clear this up).
I tried to clear it up and you said I was putting words in your mouth or whatever. I don't know what antagonist you're referring to specifically, but it's plain that Christians who read their bible ignore the unsavory bits they don't like (stoning gays in the streets) in favor of the warm and fuzzy bits that tend to be preached from the pulpit. Whether you like it or not, the god of love and forgiveness commands his followers to commit genocide in the bible. There are indeed instructions for purchasing foreign slaves and bequeathing them to your progeny as if they were furniture. It's not opinion. The words exist in the same text as John 3:16, right? These things are in there, and Christians for the most part do not try to square these notions in any real way with their assertion that god is just love and loving, not jealous and angry, as he is often described in the bibles. Hence, it's not that Christians don't read the bible ever or at all. It's that they ignore as many passages as they acknowledge as fact and true.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Your questions ARE fluff and boring.
So, the question is, why are we here?
Don't really know what this means, but I'm sure if it's as grand as you make it out to be, I don't know. I'm not sure there is a 'why.' This is not a claim I make. It's a claim YOU make.
....and what best explains our existence?
Again, not sure what you're asking me to explain. I don't think something that is undemonstrable, like an additional space time continuum, does, but I'm looking forward to you showing that it's there, and your Nobel prize speech.
Do we come from a necessary Being who is intelligent, mindful, purposeful, reasoning, like us, or do we somehow derive our existence from blind indifferent, purposeless chance happenstance?
Can you show me this being, or demonstrate its existence, so I can make the assessment based on evidence and not a guess and a wish? Are you sure these are the only two choices?
Now, the reason that you seek meaning and purpose, I say, is because you were created for a purpose and you never achieve that purpose unless you find God
I don't seek it. I make it. I decide what my life should mean and what it should be.
You assume that either the universe is old
I interpret the evidence and conclude that the universe is old. I don't assume it. And I'm open to any new evidence so I can re-assess my position. Do you have any evidence it isn't old? What's "old" mean to you, anyway?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Do you think things exist that have no explanation for their existence???
What's the explanation for your god's existence? Does it have one? And does any other something share this explanation?
Am I not allowed to investigate your belief system and reason for your statements?
Sure, ask away, but even if my argument is wrong, that doesn't make your argument right. Certainly doesn't make it sound. You use this trick a lot, asking me if X is more reasonable than Y, when neither X nor Y are dependent on each other. It also doesn't mean "more reasonable" = "true." Demonstrably true is all that matters, and to date you have not grasped this concept. A book making a claim isn't evidence for the claim itself, especially when you juxtapose how young the book is compared to all of time itself, if god were real why would he wait so long to write a book about it, why would it make it so insanely difficult to verify its existence if it cared about the inhabitants of this planet? There's no reason to believe whatever this entity might be is your god, if it's there, either. You admit you suppose it is, then when asked "why is Vishnu wrong" you basically say "because the bible says so" or "my way makes more sense to me" without acknowledging that it makes LESS sense to the majority of humanity on earth.
Make your argument independent of what you imagine my argument is. All I'm saying is I don't believe in anything supernatural, in any different space time continuum, because none of that has been demonstrated to be true.
Do you leave the world a "better place" if there is no ultimate reason for it to be better, and what do you mean by better?
I don't need a cookie to do my best to do the right thing. I mean a better place to live for my kids, which means teaching my kids to be good people, good leaders, good examples and good members of their very diverse community. All without having to think "I sure hope Jesus lets me in to his house when all this is over." People like you are disturbing,because it seems like you feel if there was some way to prove Jesus wasn't real, you would immediately go out on some crime spree because there's no afterlife.
And I don't care about the prophesy, and you've said you don't either, so why keep bringing it up?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Not only this, but even without Leibniz, I believe that the material universe has a beginning (when we speak of beginnings we speak in relation to time) and God does not begin since He is eternal, existing outside the space/time continuum.
Does anything else exist outside of this space time continuum? Can a different spacetime be demonstrated?
You disbelieve in God because you think you are the final court of appeal.
I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in elves. There's no real evidence I can verify independently.
Created:
-->
@skittlez09
Sorry, wrong poster! :)
Created:
-->
@skittlez09
the biblical definition of God speaks of Him as an eternal being. I am not SP that, the Bible says as much. Thus, it boils down to who you place your ultimate authority in. You added "except this one thing," and yes, the parentheisis are mine. I added that. Here is my statement and the highlighted text above is your addition.
Your addition of (begins to exist) implies that you don't think god began to exist and therefore doesn't need an explanation according to the premise itself. You mean to tell me you didn't put this in here as a way to keep the door ajar for an eternal something? Maybe I misread. But I didn't, because you then say "the bible says god's eternal." As usual, claim as evidence. "The bible says this" doesn't support that being true, you know that already.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I can't do that to your satisfaction, only my own.
I know. The rest of it is all dissembling totry and avoid this point: you cannot do it to anyone's satisfaction but your own. The rest of your wall of text is kind of moot from there.
Just as you special plead that God does not exist or is not reasonable to believe?
Do you know hat special pleading is? I know I've explained it to you before. "Everything that begins to exist has a beginning, except this one thing." The bold is special pleading and really the central pillar to your argument. How do I do this, analogous to what you think I believe? Where is the "except" that would denote special pleading?
He exists outside of space/time continuum.
Please show me how. Alternatively, show me something ELSE that exists outside of the space time continuum. No one even heard of Jesus until 2000 years ago, and God maybe 3000 or 4000 years prior to that, using even the most generous of the dating techniques and assuming all the writings were fact (like that global flood!). How's that support this theory that they exist outside of space and time?
1. Everything that (begins to) exists has an explanation for its existence.Can you show me something that exists that has no explanation for its existence?
This is a shift in the burden of proof. I'm not making the claim that everything that exists (why is the parenthetical there, is that yours or his?) has an explanation for its existence. That's your problem. I'd say cool, now let's see something that exists but somehow never began to exist and we'll talk!
Then why exist
What's your answer? Is it Jesus? That doesn't make any sense either. I don't know "why"I exist, but I know I'm going to die someday and I want to leave the world a better place for the people who come after me, in some small way, even if I'm not remembered in fifty years. It's pretty straightforward.
Can you make sense of the universe? It appears not:
You've repeatedly demonstrated you can't either, except I'm not hte one saying "I can make sense of this unsolvable problem, just by saying Jesus did it this way and therefore it makes sense."
I'm happy to converse but you can keep the walls of text, they're boring and I don't have all that time.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
For example, the moral code that humans follow,
Is different by society, by era, and by geographical location. This variation does not suggest any single "source." Why would it change at all?
as well as the thirst for justice innate in our species.
The desire to be treated fairly is not exclusive to humans. Why would a god put this desire in monkeys or dogs, exactly?
Consider biogenesis,
Your quote is arguing from incredulity it seems to me. It also doesn't support any single one character. Can you advance the ball on how abiogenesis happened without invoking magic or special pleading? My answer to how it happened is I don't know, I don't really care. All I know is I can see life developing in unimaginable numbers of forms, most of which are not mentioned in any holy text, I can see evidence of life forms becoming MORE complex not less (a good design is the opposite: from complex to simple, any engineer will tell you that and it's part of why Apple is the biggest company on earth). I cannot see similar evidence of a timeless superbeing that somehow didn't need a beginning. Certainly not any specific entity, either. Adding this being to the mix without demonstrating it's there at all countermands Occum's Razor. The simplest explanation does not include magic unseeable superpower, I'm sorry. You're getting to the part where you sensibly go, "I don't know," then you're saying "but it's probably this" for no reason you've included, other than "well how ELSE would it have happened?" which you support with your quote and some fuzzy math. I get it, it's highly improbable for it to have happened, but it only needs to have happened ONCE in 14 billion years (which is a number that is impossible to comprehend) on a playing field that is literally UNIMAGINABLY large.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
OK, then please demonstrate conclusively something eists outside of space and time. Then demonstrate that something is the god of the bible. It shouldn't be hard. I didn't make any argument at all. I'm just saying that "Everything that exists has a cause, except this one thing that exists outside of space and time" is not a sound argument. It's special pleading and undemonstrated.
Leibing's thinking jumps to a specific conclusion from premise 1 that is entirely unearned: a specific character. What is the explanation for the existence of this being? It is "it didn't have a beginning"? Why doesn't this same exception potentially apply to the universe itself, exclusive of god or gods?
Let me guess, is it because "math works," because "these books say so," or "because how else would it work?"
Why does anything exist?
You know very well I have answered this: I don't know and I'm not sure it matters. You're the one who claims all the answers with the "makes sense of the universe" baloney, which you never show actually making sense in any way that I understand the phrase.
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
- Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
- The universe began to exist.
- Therefore, the universe has a cause.
In order for the universe to have a cause, then, there must have been an uncaused first cause (a cause outside of time and space).
You see the problem here, right? Your conclusion not only assumes there's something outside of time and space, but your first premise says everything has a cause and therefore cannot logically lead to a conclusion hinged on something having no cause. It's contradictory. And even if it were right, there's no connective tissue between this 'something' and any specific god.
Created:
Posted in:
Ok, then maybe I misunderstood you. Do you agree with the following?
We only have five senses. Most forms of complex wildlife have different versions of these same senses, nothing extra, just different versions of the same senses. There is no verifiable 'sixth' sense.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
Another thing is that the meaning of Separation of Church and State tends to change. To the founding fathers, it meant not giving precedence of one religion (or denomination) over another. This lead to holding Sunday morning church services on capitol grounds allowing ministers from different denominations to take turns preaching the sermon. Today, this means remove all Christian influence and artifacts off government, and public property. So who's to say what really is a constitutional move since it's apparently adaptable to contemporary opinion?
What percentage of the US population in, say, 1800, were non-Christians? How many hindu reps in congress were there? Was ther a sizable Jewish population in colonial Georgia? My point is the country changes and that document has to change with it. The founding fathers also called black people 3/5 of a person. Those denominations were CHRISTIAN denominations. When you place a ten commandments monument on the grounds of a federal courthouse that has to try a Christian against a Muslim in front of Christian judge, yes, you are creating an environment of some preference (not to mention the ten commandments have absolutely nothing to do with any sensible law in about six of the ten...once you get past don't steal, don't kill, everyhting else is mind control).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
As it happens, the vampire bat can sense the location of blood vessels anywhere in the body of a victim. It is merely fictitious legend that a bat turned humanoid vampire always goes for the neck of a victim. Look it all up; I readily tire of doing it for you.
It wasn't the science that escaped me, it was your charcterization. Turns out bats have infrared sensors in their lips, which function like pain receptor cells in our tongues that do things like sense hot peppers and hot temperatures. So again, just a different version of the same five senses, touch. Nothing supernatural. Listen, there's no reason to be such an asshole, I'm just saying you've done nothing to demonstrate anything beyond the five senses in any animal, humans included.
Yeah, I already read your point, which still ignores that even with our tech, we do not do the sensing, which is key to making use of senses, those that we have. We merely interpret the data produced by artificial sensors, but I repeat myself.
Can we make an artifical sensor for this 'sixth' or 'extra' sense, or can we create something that detects faith? If not, why not? When we can do ALL this other stuff to make our hearing better than a bat's, our vision better than an owl's...
You've spent sixty years in the practice and can't convince a SINGLE person about the truth of your claims, or demonstrate their veracity? And you still believe them to be true? Are you sure I'm the one who's pathetic? I don't get why you're being such a dick.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
We can generally sense gross directional capability. Very gross. In animals with the capability, they sense, without sight, exact location, typically of prey. That's very different from our hearing.
But it is in fact still HEARING. It's just doing so more sensitively and with greater precision than we do. A dog's sense of smell isn't a sixth sense because it's better than ours. It's just smell.
I note you do not equate the sense of blood vessels beneath skin and animal hide. To what do you attribute that as a human sense, other than by our tech.
Because I'm not really clear on what you're referring to. Can you clarify? The sense of blood vessels beneath skin, do you mean like a predator's natural predilection to grab by the neck?
Yes, ourt technology allows us to duplicate many of these natural senses other animals have, but it is our artificial sensors, not our natural ones, doing the sensing. We interpret the data and that's the end of it. We do not personally sense the world as other animals have extended natural senses but by our natural five.
My point with the technology is we can scientifically prove how echo location works, then duplicate it. There's no analogue to a 'sixth sense' as you seem to infer. There's no data to interpret, no verifiable number you can use for a sixth sense, is there? Animals do not have 'extended' or 'additional' senses as you've laid out, they're simply the same senses with different levels of sensitivity. An eagle doesn't 'sixth sense' a mouse 1000 feet below because his eyes can see one. He simply sees it, and we can't, but that doesn't mean he's got 'extended vision.' It's just VISION.
Plus faith, but one must know how faith operates to understand its sensation. You obviously have never tried. It has rules, and they must be followed.
Please lay out the rules and we can experiment in understanding this sensation. If you can do it, I should be able to replicate it, right? Faith isn't a sense. It's just a hope. I've said nothing at all about delusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
There are animals endowed with senses of echo location, earth's magnetic field, other objects magnetic fields, sense of electrical current in other animals, photoreceptors sensitive to patterns to which other animals are blind, cavitation [look it up], sensation of temperature difference under skin or hide to identify blood vessels, infrared vision, sense of ground vibration through feet to triangulate origin of sound, sensation of earth's magnetic field to specifically locate north. All these different animals also share our five senses. And you think we are limited to our five? That's delusional.
Most of these, basically all of them except the magnetic field one, are essentially the standard five senses. Echo location is basically hearing. Infrared vision is simply a form of vision, just a different spectrum. Sense of ground vibration is simply a highly sensitive sense of touch. Ability to see patterns certain animals don't isn't a special sense either, it's just vision.
This also misses that these are simply responses to measurable stimuli (this is how we know these animals can do things like sense an oncoming predator through ground vibration, or see in the dark). We can test for the stimuli, we can study the anatomy and discern how it works, and in many, MANY cases we can artificially recreate these abilities (because these are again, just the five senses) and leverage them into our technology like sonar. This does not advance any argument that there are more than the five traditional senses.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Yes, I believe Jesus Christ is alive. That is a reasonable belief.
Alive in what sense? Not the corporeal sense, clearly, correct? That's the common definition of "alive." If you're talking about a different sense, can you clarify? I'm not sure you think the remainder of that paragraph is evidence or arguments that support your position, but it's not even close. You say as much yourself:
Billions have believed this throughout history. Over 2 billion currently or one third of the world's population identify as Christians. While the number is likely significantly smaller as to actual true believers, the number is still huge. While the number that believes exceeds any other religious belief (I include atheism) that does not necessarily make it true, it does show that a bigger percentage of any one religious belief acknowledges Jesus.
This is appeal to popularity, not to mention there are more non-Christians than Christians, plus it ignores the thousands of years of human history that predates Christianity and the religious beliefs therein, which be necessity would have to be non-Christian. It's an observation at best, assertion at worst (not really backed up by much), but in any case "well lots of people believed it, therefore it's probably more true than not" is just strange. I thought your arguments for Jesus were basically "math works, therefore the bible's real" and some sort of oblique prophecy that combines scripture with non-scripture and a bunch of imagery from some dude's dream 1500 years ago about a temple. Needless to say these are less than compelling.
1. Jesus Christ is a historical Person.2. The Christian faith is based on Him.3. He is the central Person in both testaments.4. He and the OT prophecied the destruction of Jerusalem. This happened in AD 70.5. Every NT writing was written before AD 70.
Is it not possible that the Christian faith was based on a mythological figure from an oral tradition? I mean, you think every other religion is basically that. You must have evidence for JEsus being historically real, which I'd like to see. Evidence, not argument or logic or it seems reasonable, though. 2 and 3 don't need 1. Jerusalem exists today, so 4 is wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
When James Watson gave his relatively recent theory that blacks are less intelligent, than other races, the scientific community responded with counter-evidence to this claim. But, they also rendered him a racist. Do you see the problem there?
So your issue isn't with science, it's with people, who incorrectly use science to support their personal racism, and there's no such thing as "more" evolved in any species including humans. I think we can agree, racist people are assholes, and that science does not in any way support the view that any one race is superior to any other. So...what's science doing in your topic, I don't get it. I don't see any problem with labeling someone who says racist things ("Black people are scientifically proven inferior to white people" for example) as a racist, and I'm not sure what you're getting at. "They" didn't render that guy a racist. HE rendered himself a racist, by, surprise, BEING A RACIST.
As I stated, humans have a natural tendency to claim a right to be equal. The question is, where does that feeling of rights to equal treatment come from? What law of nature provides this human right?I believe it's instilled by the creator.
Ok, so why then would the creator instill this apparent personal desire for equal treatment WITHOUT instilling the need to treat others equally in all people to go along with it? Why wouldn't a creator, if he wanted people to be treated equally, minimze the number of different dividing lines we can draw around groups of people? What makes you think the creator instilled it? My guess: incredulity.
Humans are far from the only social animal that displays the desire to be treated fairly, or who understand the concept of fairness, or the concept of hierarchy or the concept of discrimination. It's a function of in-group versus out-group and control of resources from an evolutionary perspective. Lions don't like hyenas because hyenas want the food a lion hunted. We've conquered a lot of the resource manipulation problems but the drive to discriminate against a group that isn't US remains there, and we invent reasons to indulge it. Race, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, all of these are simply ways for us to maintain that drive to view our pack versus some other pack.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
if objectively observed evidence pointed to some race of humans being higher evolved than others
Actually never mind my first post, here's where the problem is. Science doesn't deem any species "higher evolved." Do you mean better adapted to environments? That's not superior inherently, it's just better suited to wherever we find these races (presuming you're referring to black / white / asian). For example, certain genetic researchers have posited that as hominids migrated out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago, those who settled in certain areas began to adapt accordingly and resulted in the racial features we see today. For example, the peoples that moved to higher elevation or more extreme lattitudes, where sunlight is more intense or present throughout the year, found themselves more exposed to UV rays, and the better reproductive opportunities ended up going to those with slimmer, more shielded eyes, and skin tones more suited to the level of radiation they were exposed to. It's pretty interesting research.
Human justice demands equality, not acceptance of social status based on race/ethnicity.
RIght, and understanding the evolutionary or genetic basis for what we call 'race' today means understanding different =/= inherently superior. It's simply about where your ancestors settled after leaving Africa, if they ever did.
Created:
Posted in:
Can you define "race" in this context please? Just for clarity of discussion.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Fine, but you understand that's not 'religion,' correct?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
I'm not here to tell you that your common sense is right or wrong that's not the point, it's irrelevant to the point I've been making.
Then quit using it as some sort of reason to believe anything. Common sense is 50 / 50 and in fact, far worse, whenever you start trying to figure out how nature really works. My common sense tells me there's no reason to believe any one god is more likely to be real than the other, and mankind is not special in any way, and there doesn't seem to be any other dimension in which people's spirits live. HAS YOUR COMMON SENSE EVER BEEN WRONG? Why do you keep ignoring this question?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
So basically the entire bible is only as good as the person's interpretation, and there is no correct interpretation. If I want to intperet the bit about dragging gay men into the streets and stoning them symbolically, meaning I'm totally right to "stone" them with my words and expose their private lives to all around me because that's what I think the bible says to do, who are you to tell me I'm wrong in the way I read the holy text, right? I mean it's just common sense not to murder them, which means it can't be a literal stoning but more a symbolic rebuke, like public exposure.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
So then how are the loves of Jesus and your wife different? Maybe I misunderstood, I thought you were mentioning your wife loving you because it was a real love, I thought you were connecting that in some way to a real love of Jesus and how you feel both.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
It's not going to matter what you believe, but what you DO.
This I agree with entirely. It's just not what religious people, specifically Christians, will tell you.
Can common sense be wrong? Has YOUR common sense ever been wrong? Just yes or no.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Your lack of a response is pretty telling. The rest is your usual gish gallop. You recognize that common sense can be wrong, and often is, which means that there's no reason to use ONLY common sense as a way to truth. I'm in no way saying the bible or any other holy text is totally devoid of valuable principles. They're just not unique to religious texts, and religious people seem to think they are.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
Can common sense be wrong? It's a yes or no.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
We've been over this, but I notice nothing ever sticks with you even if I'm right.
CAN.
COMMON SENSE.
BE.
WRONG?
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@RoderickSpode
the main thing would be to use common sense
VERY often wrong.
The Bible is literally a mixture of figurative language and literal accounts throughout the entire book it doesn't have to be one or the other it is both,
Right, so you're saying use common sense to tell the difference. Common sense would dictate donkeys don't talk, there wasn't a flood that covered the earth for 40 days, and no one has ever risen from the dead after three days. Rod, do you think I should use common sense?
it's not going to make any difference in the grand scheme of things as far as beliefs go or whether or not you interpret an account as metaphorical or actual
Rod, can you get into heaven if you don't believe the Jesus story is an actual fact? If the answer's no, which it is, then it absolutely makes a difference in the grand scheme of things.
The Bible literally weaves in and out of figurative and literal. I
This makes everything in it dubious at best, without a reliable way to tell the difference.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
That's not the message. That's a description of the impact and ifluence of his message.
What's the message then? How's it different than what I described? Is it that you can actually live forever and beat death? If it is, why has no one done it?
The barrier you'll continue to run into with believers is the notion that the Bible should be like instant coffee. Tell me one subject in the educational arena where anyone knows/understands it all.
Instant coffee? how? Isn't the bible supposed to be instant salvation for all who hear and accept its message? The problem is that every believer, you included, all think you're the one who's right and the others are wrong, but you can't explain why, otherwise you'd convince someone else, or be convinced by them. There isn't a scientist in any educational arena claiming they know for sure all of science or even all of their own branch. There are tons of Christians doing that, even if you aren't one.
For the record, is the entire bible historical / literal? You seem to say no, but again you don't explain how you distinguish.
Created:
-->
@RoderickSpode
If Jesus' resurrection makes more sense as an allegory than a true occurrence, what's the message of the allegory?
That his words and outlook and the stories about him were powerful enough to survive long after he was actually dead. And you're also not one of those Christians who can lay out exactly how to distinguish the allegorical (talking donkeys) from the factual, as I recall. :-)
So is the bible historically accurate and literal cover to cover? If the answer's no, then please tell me how to tell one from the other.
Created:
Posted in:
Jesus definitely exists, just as every other god every imagined, or Batman and Captain America and Darth Vader exist. It's a character in a story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
but do you love everyone who does loving things to you?
This is the only no rhetorical question marks in your post. The answer to this question is "no."
I really don't care if you answer my questions, I think we all know who you are by now. You compare the love of Jesus with the love of your wife, I asked questions designed to demonstrate how the two are similar, and you've not done that in any way, as usual, but you pretend you have. Good work buddy!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
My assumption was that his wife acted in aw ay that would lead him to believe he was loved by her, and if so then how is Jesus's love similar to that. What's he DO? But apparently her 'grace' is what makes him convinced of her love, not her actions.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RoderickSpode
You're not sure if your parents love/loved you?
My parents act in a way consistent with loving, of course I was sure. Moreover, other people could also tell my parents love me by witnessing how they treated me. I don't get your question.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Yet you display this same kind of faith except you place it in things rather than God. When you take that bungee jump off a 1000 foot building you weigh the options and BELIEVE your chances of the bungee cord breaking as small, so you take the leap. Your faith in things is demonstrated every day.
Except if he does a bungee jump, can the presence of the bungee cord be independently confirmed? He has faith in the idea that whoever fastend the cord did so properly, after the proper training, but he doesn't make the leap if someone says "Trust me, there's a bungee cord tied to you" without looking at the actual bungee cord, right? THe bungee cord doesn't only function if he BELIEVES it's there. It functions regardless. Unlike the way you describe anything to do with god: you have to believe it first, then you can confirm your beliefs. This, of course, is just confirmation bias.
Created:
Posted in:
Two things can be simultaneously true: Darwin might have been racist (extremely common in the 19th century) AND natural selection is how life diversifies. One has nothing to do with the other. It's like wondering if rocket science is anti semitic because Nazi research contributed to its development.
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
If you think otherwise, let's see your reasoning. I bet it is extremely inconsistent with chance happenstance or materialism. The universe requires a Creator/God to make sense. Of course, you are welcome to stumble about while denying Him.
My reasoning for 2+2=4? Are you essentially arguing that because 2+2=4, Jesus? You are making a giant leap from "because we've figured out math, the universe requires a creator, AND that creator is Jesus. Can you explain the difference between me stumbling around and you knowing JEsu made math work, like in practical every day terms? What's the impact on your life, or what's the negative impact you perceive on my life? You have not once answered these questoins, in spite of saying rather arrogantly you've 'made sense of the universe.'
We don't make them up. We discover them.
True!
Thus, it is reasonable to believe a necessary Mind has put them in place. It speaks of intelligence. It is not reasonable to believe these laws or principles came about by chance happenstance.
This is the leap. There's no reason to make this conclusion based on what you've laid out. All you can conclude is that the principles in question are consistent for some reason. Anything beyond that requires one of two things: evidence that can be demonstrated independently (not your feelings), OR a leap to an unjustified conclusion. You're making the latter.
Purpose and meaning require intent and agency.
Can you demonstrate that these two things are "built into the universe"? Or are you just going to say "THAT'S THE ONLY WAY IT MAKES SENSE!" (argument from incredulity / ignorance)
God, the ultimate Being (outside of our time continuum)
Where can I confirm the existence of this other time continuum? IF I can do that, I can find whichever god lives there? And who created this other time continuum, since nothing can create itself?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You're convinced your wife feels something because YOU feel it?No. I'm convinced my wife loves me because I've felt her love.
Your reply states clearly you're convinced she feels something (love for you) because you feel her love. You then go on to cite various physical verification of her presence, which is more a case of that she is there. If you're not trying to convince anyone, why are you on a debate site? There are plenty of Jesus Love sites, and you probably won't get banned every couple of weeks from those.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You're convinced your wife feels something because YOU feel it? I'm not doubting your wife loves you. I'm just curious as to why you're convinced she does, and saying "well I feel that she does so it must be true" is all you've offered for both Jesus and your wife. How did you know that Jesus loved you, what did you find so convincing?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
What it does most effectively is completely undermines the historical literalism of the bible. Many Christians will tell you it's not that important, that the bible is full of these allegorical tales, but they don't ever explain how these "easily identifiable allegories" are somehow distinguishable from the central supernatural myth of Christianity. Jesus' resurrection, which makes far more sense as an allegory than it does as a true occurrence, a man rising from the dead and all. It's every bit as likely as a 40 day global flood and a boat built by a 500 year old man holding two of every animal on earth and leaving zero evidence behind.
Created:
-->
@Athias
Would it be fairer to say "true under the common understanding of the words "two" and "four"', then?
Created:
-->
@MisterChris
. At the time of Genesis' writings, no Jew would have a scientific background to understand concepts like evolution and the old earth. So it makes sense that God would present a simplified account that had some symbolic meanings.
Why would he make early man so impenetrable, and then lay a whole bunch of evidence that looks totally different from the biblical account? How can an early man NOT understand natural selection, but they are expected to understand unsubstantiated allegorical symbols? If I wanted credit for something, I'd sign my work, not do my best to make sure whatever I did could only be credited to some other person.
Short answer no.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
Both Jesus and my wife love me. I asked neither of them for "proof" of that love. What sort of "proof" did your wife offer you?
Can you explain how you're convinced your wife loves you?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
IOW's is it possible, ever, that 2+2 can equal something other than 4 (an eternal truth)?
Not without changing the definitions of "2" and "4," no. 2+2=4 is demonstrably and irrevocably true.
I believe mathematics and logic require a necessary mindful being since they exist regardless of your belief.
Seems a leap and completely unnecessary to me. You can neither demonstrate this requirement as necessary, nor can you advance the ball from "mindful being" to Jesus. We've had this discussion. You just say "It's what I presuppose, and that's exactly the same as you presupposing the neutral position." Usually accompanied by the wall of text and a few bible verses. But if that belief is all that keeps you from eating children or whatever it is you think non-believers MUST do because thay don't believe, then by all means, it's fine to believe whatever it is!
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
I have no idea why you're asking me: 2+2=4 with or without people to name "2" and "4", we are not required at all for that to be true in my view.
Created: