Tremulous Forum
Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: /dev/humancontroller on March 01, 2008, 02:35:39 pm
-
http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/
-
*Ahem* and?
-
I think they had a cyclic redundant sort of concept going there...Not quite sure how God fits into it, its looks more Zen to me...I might have to practice a bit of Rastafarian herbal meditation to contemplate the deepness...
-
Of the 4 steps on the front page, the first leads to their 8 step plan, the next two lead you back to the front page, and the last one leads to disney.com.
In the 8 step plan, they go about a couple things.
Steps 1-3. They have you agree that absolute laws of logic, science, and mathematics exist.
Step 4. Then they give you ask you about absolute laws of morality, and give the example of child molestation to prove you wrong if you disagree.
Step 5. First they ask you if said absolute laws are material or immaterial. No duh.
Step 6. Then they give you two choices: They are all universal, or they are all individual. If B, then they tell you you are wrong because laws of logic, science, and mathematics are indeed universal, and the same with morality, because random people can't go around molesting children. If A, then you agree that all the absolute laws exist.
Step 7. Then they ask you if said absolute laws are changing or unchanging. If unchanging, go to next step.
Step 8. They then give you proof of god in 2 ways. Because they are unchanging, if the absolute laws in 1000 AD said god exists, then god must still exist. The other way is that they say that god made these laws, and you believe in the laws, so you believe in god.
I found a couple problems in their logic.
Flaw A: Step 6 doesn't allow for some absolute laws exist for everyone and some absolute laws exist only for some people. They just don't cover it.
Flaw B: Step 7 has the same flaw as step 6, but with unchanging substituted for universal.
Flaw C: All the steps assume that the all absolute laws as we know them are all correct. Many so-called "laws" in science, logic, mathematics, and morality have been proven incorrect, and more will continue to be proven incorrect.
Flaw D: In step 8, I may believe in the laws, but I might not believe that YOUR god made them. Maybe I believe that something else created these laws that we live by.
-
That thing is missing quite a lot.
Biggest mistake they are making is ignoring that humans are just mass of cells that doesn't differ from other animals in any way but that there is different amount chromosomes in their DNA and that our view of things is personal and what we witness is our memories that are highly altered by limits our sensors and brain gives us. Also about moral laws: The moral laws of humans are just another delusion created by our brain. Call it programming if you wish.
Some of the "moral laws" are the reason why human evolution has become a lot slower. Some of them keep us from extinct. Some are just plain weird considering that our only real reason to live is to survive as a race.
-
When God comes and tells me he exists, I may think about religion as a possible choice in life.
Until then, I remain skeptical.
-
I doubt. There for I might exist.
When God comes and tells me he exists, I may think about religion as a possible choice in life.
Until then, I remain skeptical.
When God comes and tells me he exists, I may think about religion as a possible choice in life.
Until then, I remain amused.
-
I find it amusing that the OP saw fit to say "OmG" if indeed there exists no such personage.
-
All attempts to prove that the God of the Bible exists will end one of two ways:
1. god with a small g, this is the typical one
2. a logical fallacy
Either you are saved or not no person on the Earth can convince you otherwise, only God can do that
*waits for ill-thought out flames*
-
if God personally tells you something, you are probably a prophet, or simply dead <.<
but God has more sense of humour than coming to you directly and showing off. ;-)
-
The axiom of Christianity is that the Bible is the word of God, if you know logic then you know that this means it CANNOT be proven it is assumed.
And to ask for proof of an axiom is illogical
-
Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom).
Believing in something which cannot be verified or falsified could be construed as illogical.
-
Some epistemologists deny that any proposition can be self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom).
Believing in something which cannot be verified or falsified could be construed as illogical.
these epistemologists do not understand logic, an axiom is a first principle, that is it is where the person or system begins there is nothing before it therefore there is nothing that can prove it (though it could be disproved)
An example:
when you look at a glass of water how do you know it is there?
do you assume that you are really seeing it?
or do you pick it up (to try to confirm it)?
both of those assume that your senses are accurate, and you cannot prove that they are, so if you are an empiricist the idea that your senses can be trusted and that all knowledge comes through them is your axiom
-
Something can be considered an axiom only if it is self-evident. Since assuming that the Bible is the Word of God cannot be shown to be self-evident, it does not qualify as an axiom, but merely as a belief, to be taken on faith. Logic has no place in a discussion of theology. Since your starting point requires a "leap of faith" or "willing suspension of disbelief" it cannot be taken to be self-evident, no matter how much you'd like it to be so.
All statements are true in some sense,
false in some sense,
meaningless in some sense,
true and false in some sense,
true and meaningless in some sense,
false and meaningless in some sense,
and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
-
Something can be considered an axiom only if it is self-evident. Since assuming that the Bible is the Word of God cannot be shown to be self-evident, it does not qualify as an axiom, but merely as a belief, to be taken on faith. Logic has no place in a discussion of theology. Since your starting point requires a "leap of faith" or "willing suspension of disbelief" it cannot be taken to be self-evident, no matter how much you'd like it to be so.
All statements are true in some sense,
false in some sense,
meaningless in some sense,
true and false in some sense,
true and meaningless in some sense,
false and meaningless in some sense,
and true and false and meaningless in some sense.
I do not say it is self evident
And logic does have a place in theology, it is the way God thinks. If someone abandons logic for even one second he is contradicting himself
-
I do not say it is self evident
And logic does have a place in theology, it is the way God thinks. If someone abandons logic for even one second he is contradicting himself
If it is not self-evident, it cannot be axiomatic. Perhaps it is you who does not understand the meaning of the term. If God is truly infinite, then all theology is at once true, false, and meaningless. Theology is only useful insofar as it produces a system of ethics which equally prizes the individual and the species. The rest is aesthetics. "What I believe is religion," said the theologian, "what you believe is mythology." If God thinks logically, please explain evil and suffering. You have abandoned logic, and are contradicting yourself. Do not presume to know what or how God thinks. He is infinite, and therefore illogical as well as logical, false as well as true, meaningless as well as meaningful.
Might I recommend the works of Alfred Korzybski, Robert Anton Wilson, Kurt Godel, Morihei Ueshiba, G.I. Gurdjieff, Hazrat Inayat Khan and Robert Sheckley? Your replies seem to lack humor and an understanding of paradox, and are thus constrained by your tight-fitting reality tunnel.
If you present a first principle which I stipulate to be self-evident, then that principle is an axiom. If not, it is just your belief. We cannot properly duel if we have not yet agreed upon the weapons.
I bid you a mind-expanding good day.
-
If it is not self-evident, it cannot be axiomatic. Perhaps it is you who does not understand the meaning of the term. If God is truly infinite, then all theology is at once true, false, and meaningless. Theology is only useful insofar as it produces a system of ethics which equally prizes the individual and the species. The rest is aesthetics. "What I believe is religion," said the theologian, "what you believe is mythology." If God thinks logically, please explain evil and suffering. You have abandoned logic, and are contradicting yourself. Do not presume to know what or how God thinks. He is infinite, and therefore illogical as well as logical, false as well as true, meaningless as well as meaningful.
Might I recommend the works of Alfred Korzybski, Robert Anton Wilson, Kurt Godel, Morihei Ueshiba, G.I. Gurdjieff, Hazrat Inayat Khan and Robert Sheckley? Your replies seem to lack humor and an understanding of paradox, and are thus constrained by your tight-fitting reality tunnel.
If you present a first principle which I stipulate to be self-evident, then that principle is an axiom. If not, it is just your belief. We cannot properly duel if we have not yet agreed upon the weapons.
I bid you a mind-expanding good day.
Well I know I am not going to convince anyone, so let us first show each other his first principles
mine is: The Bible alone is the Word of God
I await yours
-
The entirety of existence is the Word of God. The Bible alone? How utterly, anthropomorphically, Western-traditionally, near-sighted you are. Your God is infinite, and yet of the myriad ways of describing Him, of the countless visions of His glory, of the thousands of texts honoring His Work, you choose one version of a bad English translation of a bad Latin translation of a bad Greek translation of a Semitic oral tradition. What a tiny, tiny mind you have. The Opposing Party refuses to so stipulate. You have therefore, no axiom, sir. You have merely your own ill-founded and ill-formed belief, based on lack of evidence and utter ignorance of the true nature of the infinite. We cannot duel, sir, as you are an unworthy opponent. I bid you peace, good fortune, and the leisure in which to examine such trite, trivial, and trifling opinions. Indeed, you cannot and will not convince anyone of anything with such entrenched and chauvinistic (and might I add wholly inherited and therefore not personally examined) positions. Nothing of the sort can be deemed axiomatic. I do, however, find it to be self-evident that you are a close-minded fool. May the love of God open your eyes to the folly of such finite and delusional thinking.
Peace be with you.
-
Wow. That you can even be arsed with this shit..
My mind just boggles at this, and I fear that if i should ever participate, my mind would too be one of the narrow minded ones.
So I choose not to, rather, i keep myself occupied with less disgustingly pretentious questions.
-
I applaud that sentiment wholeheartedly.
(Sorry, but I truly enjoy taking the piss out of anyone who tries to use axiom and God in the same sentence. Even Godel couldn't pull it off convincingly, who the hell do these rubes and schlubs think they are kidding with their freshman logic and Holy Tomes? In short, bitch please.)
//edit'd for parenthetical afterthoughts, Steely Ann stylee
-
The entirety of existence is the Word of God. The Bible alone? How utterly, anthropomorphically, Western-traditionally, near-sighted you are. Your God is infinite, and yet of the myriad ways of describing Him, of the countless visions of His glory, of the thousands of texts honoring His Work, you choose one version of a bad English translation of a bad Latin translation of a bad Greek translation of a Semitic oral tradition. What a tiny, tiny mind you have. The Opposing Party refuses to so stipulate. You have therefore, no axiom, sir. You have merely your own ill-founded and ill-formed belief, based on lack of evidence and utter ignorance of the true nature of the infinite. We cannot duel, sir, as you are an unworthy opponent. I bid you peace, good fortune, and the leisure in which to examine such trite, trivial, and trifling opinions. Indeed, you cannot and will not convince anyone of anything with such entrenched and chauvinistic (and might I add wholly inherited and therefore not personally examined) positions. Nothing of the sort can be deemed axiomatic. I do, however, find it to be self-evident that you are a close-minded fool. May the love of God open your eyes to the folly of such finite and delusional thinking.
Peace be with you.
khm... how can you say that Bible only is not enough? it's just as enough as an... "ideal religion" that would fit to your taste. it can be a perfect mixture of all religions and collected knowledge of humanity, BUT from the perspective of the supernatural, it's absolutely unimportant.
a little bit like in H.P. Lovecraft's works. if God exists, he is so unbeleiveably powerful that he doesn't care if we choose this or that certain way to make contact with him.
in this case, the less is just as much enough as the more.
if you think that "beleiving" is about certain translations, meditation positions, lithurgy elements and different kind of musics that each can affect the way God treats you, you are FAILED on the way to experience something very interesting what describes the whole humanity, the whole history, our whole culture. reading about the same thing by different words, it really doesn't matter. teoretically everyone can choose a religion for himself what fits the most.
no problem for using this or that way. the goal is the same.
and... beleiving in one thing is one of the most "anthropomorphic" things.
cheers and chill :-)
-
You misunderstand me, mistake my meaning, and I believe I was defending your reply against this person's failed use of his misapprehension of the meaning of the term "axiom". I have utterly no quarrel with you whatsoever; however, anyone who tries to use their complete lack of understanding of the simplest principles of logic while at the same time utilizing the ALL CAPS, while at the same time deciding not to capitalize or punctuate is a troll and deserves flaming. This does not mean I am not chill. As a matter of fact, I find that popping the balloon-like arguments of ill-informed internet popinjays with the sharp barbs of my advanced, draconian wit to be quite relaxing, somewhat cathartic and wholly therapeutic. Perhaps you don't quite understand the thrust of my argument (I fear that language, distance, and this impersonal form of communication may cause a rift between us which I do not wish to engender).
God is infinite. This is not my axiom, it is the general consensus of five thousand years of spiritual tradition among the sentient beings of your planet. Worship/experience/disavow/dispute-the-existence-of Him/Her/We/They/Us/You/Me as you see fit. But do not try to convince me that one folio of old papyrus is more sacred than another which thoroughly explicates the same material for another people in another place in another situation. Your zygotic heritage is clouding that which you call your mind.
I am quite chill, and I say to you "Cheers!" also...
Ciao Bello
-
Trying to change the belief of a believer is impossible player1. I only do it when I want to waste some time while compiling maps or evading assigments. Still I applaud you. In the metaphorical sense.
As a thought exercise I'll put up someone writing something on paper now, getting it lost, and rediscovered in 3000 years. Has it gained any validity for going through that process? No. Fact remains religion as a belief is useless, religion as a social construct was necessary. Religion in the current day is overtaken, many people get by in society just fine without it.
-
Thank you. Any system of belief is useful insofar as it produces a model of the universe which the user can convince himself is self-consistent and non-contradictory.
I applaud your common good sense, sir. Or what used to pass as such. The men of today have had their brains much-addled by those would keep them shrouded in deceit. I find you an island of hope, in a world filled with dopes.
-
What a tiny, tiny mind you have.
:(
-
i defended Raven because i didn't find what bad he said. he was "defending" his religion in a traditional and very simple way. also i didn't find where he "attacked" me with any reply...?
i didn't write about the axiom-debate at all, my reply was only because someone got fooled down for the religion he has.
so i agree with benmachine that i'm a bit :-( about the flaming.
As Survivor said, religion was a social motivator, a place where education, encourage, help and control was possible (amongst many bad things unfortunately).
I agree.
And I agree that things changed.
Religion changed.
but sirs, God didn't change...
if our surrounding changed, we should still find a way to find/contact him, maybe in a recent "style".
every church, religion, etc. changes. just think about reformation. drop stereotypes.
on the other hand i guess we are talking about almost the same thing :-)
exept the bible, what i think deserves a little bit more respect than a lost and found brainstorm by any of us. you don't have to be a christian or jew to find very good and useful things it.
in Trem terms...
Bible is a very good manual for life. if you read it, you're less likely gonna feed, camp, cheat or decon because you understand how things works.
so i didn't want to be offensive or anything, i think this is an interesting conversation where we discuss one of the biggest questions ever, so ofc we don't agree instantly.
it will take some more time and threads maybe before we announce our own religion :-D
-
i defended Raven because i didn't find what bad he said.
He is trying to use his misunderstanding of basic logic to put forth the argument that believing in a magical father-figure is somehow logical, and could proceed from some sort of axiomatic first principles. He is, in short, an idiot, and a dangerous one at that, who will try to use science, logic and humanitarianism to defend institutionalized ignorance, illogic, and a hierarchical structure based on befuddling the weak-minded and baffling them with bullshit.
he was "defending" his religion in a traditional and very simple way.
No, he's not. If he had simply stated that his religion works for him, that he finds comfort in his faith or that it forms a useful model of the universe for him, then that would have been in a simple and traditional way. Instead of making an appeal to faith, or simply stating what works for him, he tries to throw around three-dollar words, ones that he doesn't even understand, and stand on some college-boy/public school argument about the definition of such terms. A chimpanzee with access to wikipedia could run circles around him, as I have ably shown. If you'd like to see a simple and traditional appeal to faith and defense of religion, might I recommend the works of Baha'ullah? I find them comforting in the way that others cling to different piles of paper.
also i didn't find where he "attacked" me with any reply...?
You, sir, are a kind and generous soul, willing to overlook the slights and jibes of the more uncouth. I applaud your good faith.
i didn't write about the axiom-debate at all, my reply was only because someone got fooled down for the religion he has.
He didn't get fooled down for what religion he was. He got fooled down for trying to sound smarter than he is, for trying to base his arguments on positions he himself does not understand, for simply regurgitating what has been shoved down his throat without actually engaging his own brain at all, and for simultaneously getting on his ALL CAPS high horse when he has no idea what the fuck he is talking about. Anyone who throws around certainties like that deserves a good strong kick right in his preconceived notions, and needs to be disabused of his prejudices, post haste. What you one-book defenders fail to see is that your world-model is no longer a useful hypothesis, and is in fact ill-equipping you to deal with the other four-fifths of the crew and passengers of Spaceship Earth, rendering you unfit to make societal decisions vis-a-vis Scenario Universe, and the future of our progeny in said construct. As the Romans said, "Beware the man of one book." (They indeed had much to fear for the Christians pre-empted and perpetuated their failed attempt at empire, doomed to ruin by abandoning the ideals on which it was founded.) As the Masons say, "This is the stone the builders rejected." You face the same dilemma as all of the supposed God-speakers, those who would put words in the mouth of the Almighty: You can't contain the infinite in one book; hell you can't even agree amongst yourselves as to which book, and what chapters. Who are you to have the unmitigated, chauvinistic gall to say that your book is better than the Avesta, the Quran, the Apocrypha, the Torah, or the Book of Slack? As a Zoroastrian Syncretist Aikido Wiccan Taoist, I am deeply offended by your presumption, as are 80% of the rest of the planet's population.
so i agree with benmachine that i'm a bit :-( about the flaming.
Two things: 1) Stupid people should not be able to promulgate falsehoods in the name of God. 2) Not only is pointing out sophistry, solipsism and silliness not flaming, but the necessary operation and proper functioning of the mindful conscience, it is the duty of every free man who values the independence of thought that he now enjoys and the freedom of speech to call bullshit on bullshitters.
As Survivor said, religion was a social motivator, a place where education, encourage, help and control was possible (amongst many bad things unfortunately).
I agree.
And I agree that things changed.
Religion changed.
Actually religion refused to change, which is why it is like your friend from the 70s who wears shorts that are too short for a dude and still has a mullet. It has lost touch with its constituency, largely due to the fact that is is too centered around specific cultures, books, and untenable models of Scenario Universe.
but sirs, God didn't change...
if our surrounding changed, we should still find a way to find/contact him, maybe in a recent "style".
every church, religion, etc. changes. just think about reformation. drop stereotypes.
Indeed, dropping stereotypes would include not thinking that your book, culture, or world-model is superior to all others in describing a personage, presence or consciousness that is truly infinite, and indeed can never be constrained in such a simplistic and dunderheaded fashion.
on the other hand i guess we are talking about almost the same thing :-)
exept the bible, what i think deserves a little bit more respect than a lost and found brainstorm by any of us. you don't have to be a christian or jew to find very good and useful things it.
Indeed I believe we share much common ground, I generally think you are a cool dude, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinions, as is Revan. But please don't try to describe subscribing to one particular pile of parchment over another, by preferring the scribblings on goatskins to the ideographs pressed into clay tablets as logical, or as a useful world-model in our current situation. Again, you are showing the anthropo-, Judeo-Christian, ethno-, monotheist-centric bias of your world-view every time you take a special exception for the Bible. If you cannot see this, perhaps you do not have the perspective to have a logical conversation on the matter, and we will have to relegate your arguments to the limited scope for which they can apply.
in Trem terms...
Bible is a very good manual for life. if you read it, you're less likely gonna feed, camp, cheat or decon because you understand how things works.
I personally find a red-letter New Testament to be sufficient for my needs. I highly recommend reading it at least twice; once, read the whole thing, and then go back and read just the parts in red, just the actual words of Jesus. It's like reading two different books. Besides, why do you need your Holy Book when your prophet has already told you, "Do unto others as you would they you. This is the whole of the law."? Just for the bedtime stories about magical miracles?
so i didn't want to be offensive or anything, i think this is an interesting conversation where we discuss one of the biggest questions ever, so ofc we don't agree instantly.
I present these thoughts merely to try to unlock your mind, so that your spirit can achieve true union with the Ineffable, and not some dime-store pulp fiction hand-me-down designed to keep the sheep in their pens, and ready to roll over on their backs for the shearing.
it will take some more time and threads maybe before we announce our own religion :-D
I share your vision for a world where all men may date their best friend's sister.
Cheers!
Thanks for playing. Hate the game, not the player (or just free your mind and don't hate at all, but love diversity and multiplicity in all of its myriad manifestations). I bid you the everlasting peace of your convictions, and the wisdom to examine them thoroughly.
mildly edit'd: to amend a dangling prefix, and add the following:
Postscript: The Universe is a riddle, posited by God. I don't have the answer; you don't have the answer. No one ever does or will except maybe one or twelve who realized that the answer is that it wouldn't be a riddle worthy of God if a man could divine the answer.
In other words, it's a mindfuck designed by God, to fulfill our constant craving for novelty and self-knowledge, as well as our zygotic heritage of being dichotomously Damning-Through-Naming, twofold-seeing in the face of ineffable infiniteness, only capable of pitting Thesis against Antithesis, never achieving true Synthesis, this vs. that thinkers, unable to get beyond our fascination with low whole numbers. Primates stuck in the thin smear of biosphere which coats the living surface of the gravity well we call home. Instead of appreciating the view, we debate about the veracity of someone else's arcane views of the matter, as if they are sacrosanct. God, in my conception, enjoys a great laugh at the sheer variety of our forays into folly and our flourishes of fractured philosophy, seeking as they do to contain that which can never be contained, by the very nature of its immense infinitude, and "first-principle" pre-createdness.
-
Here is my opinion of this whole religion business:
My proof that God doesn't exist:
We can't prove that God exists. This means that if he does exist, none of his actions affect our world in any way. Therefore, it is unimportant whether he exists or not, as we wouldn't notice the difference. Because he doesn't do anything, I conclude that he doesn't exist in this universe.
If you find any flaws in my reasoning, please tell me about it.
How religion started:
Someone decided to write a fairy tale, and then people believed it. Now some of you will argue that people like Jesus actually existed and did "miracles". My belief is that someone got a bit overexcited, decided to become the "Son of God" and exploited people's stupidity to make them believe him and write his story into the Bible.
Why does religion exist:
- Power for the religions leaders that exploit people's weak minds
- A way to control people by warning them about hell if they do bad things
- A way to keep people stupid by answering existential questions for them
-
Thank you. A considered reply. I applaud your ability to explicate your beliefs in a brief yet thoughtful manner. In my own personal reality-tunnel, the thought that God exists is a useful tool which I find comforting, and which I try not to let obscure my ability to let other people have their own trip. I also like to believe in Jesus, and find it a useful focus for thoughts on ethics and realizing my own lack of application in this arena of personal fulfillment. But then the Catholics got hold of me for my first seven years and you know what they say... (after that you can have him, he'll still be ours).
Hallelujah! :angel:
-
I took a look again and i still don't find where Raven said that Bible is superior to any other books, manifests or anything else.
He was talking about the God of the Bible(he used this phrase), therefore this God's words are the Bible. there is nothing illogical or harmful in this.
I see only one 'so-called' evidence that god exists: that people are constantly trying to search for him troughout ages, cultures and geographical distances.
even you.
i doN't think christians are forcing you to anything. a particular religion can help you troughout some experiences, feel free to join any and be smart enough to benefit from it.
those who needs the help of religion will mostly find an open way. and iT's not necessary to be dumb to be in a church.
Some of the most intelligent and open-minded people i've ever met were my preachers. we even played roleplaying games with one of them, i learned to play the guitar from the other.
Let me tell you something important. the fairy tales, bedtime stories and particular examples that are in the Bible are trying to cover very important thoughts inspired by the eternal hunger of mankind for God. the details are not important at all if you managed to be a beleiver. or let's say, enlightened. from that point, who cares if Jesus or Mary was a virgin, or they even existed at all? or who cares if you are christian, buddhist, mohamedan or anything else?
the path to "enlightement" is leading trough some details that are not necessary anymore if you achieved your goal.
staring at your bellybutton can also lead to enlightement, but it's just more easy if you have special examples and organized help when seeking for the supernatural.
khm... Amanieu's "proof" is... self-ownage, sorry. don't expect God to come down to you in the role of Gandalf, shooting fireballs to your neighbour that annoys you so much, and then leaving a G-rune there proving that it was him.
one should be especially blind to not to see how marvelously, ununderstandibly complicated, enormous and exciting is the world. something is out there, and something is in us. universe is so BIG that it doesn't even matter if you start searching for proof out in space, or inside of you.
nahh, probably i'm far beyond the point where my english knowledge is enough to cover what i want so say :-D
-
don't expect God to come down to you in the role of Gandalf, shooting fireballs to your neighbour that annoys you so much, and then leaving a G-rune there proving that it was him.
I never said that.
one should be especially blind to not to see how marvelously, ununderstandibly complicated, enormous and exciting is the world. something is out there, and something is in us. universe is so BIG that it doesn't even matter if you start searching for proof out in space, or inside of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle
-
"carbon chauvinism" - :-) <.< :-* >.> :-D
interesting article btw.
-
I took a look again and i still don't find where Raven said that Bible is superior to any other books, manifests or anything else.
Consider it said.
The entirety of existence is the Word of God. The Bible alone? How utterly, anthropomorphically, Western-traditionally, near-sighted you are.
OK, here is a paraphrase of an example that C. S. Lewis gave, I do not know the actual quote if someone does it would be useful:
People want to see through things, but what is the purpose of seeing through something?
To see something opaque, if you can see through every thing then the whole universe is invisible.
Some things have to be assumed
You misunderstand me, mistake my meaning, and I believe I was defending your reply against this person's failed use of his misapprehension of the meaning of the term "axiom". I have utterly no quarrel with you whatsoever; however, anyone who tries to use their complete lack of understanding of the simplest principles of logic while at the same time utilizing the ALL CAPS, while at the same time deciding not to capitalize or punctuate is a troll and deserves flaming.
The caps were for emphasis, sorry.
so i didn't want to be offensive or anything, i think this is an interesting conversation where we discuss one of the biggest questions ever, so ofc we don't agree instantly.
I agree, we could sit here for as long as what ever the latest age the scientists think the universe is and debate this and never agree
i doN't think christians are forcing you to anything. a particular religion can help you troughout some experiences, feel free to join any and be smart enough to benefit from it.
True Christians know that it is impossible to do so, that was a Roman Catholic invention that unfortunately was picked up by some of us.
btw. Optimus, the name is Revan, not Raven, just look it up on wikipedia
I await more flames :P
-
He is, in short, an idiot, and a dangerous one at that, who will try to use science, logic and humanitarianism to defend institutionalized ignorance, illogic, and a hierarchical structure based on befuddling the weak-minded and baffling them with bullshit.
:(:(
Two things: 1) Stupid people should not be able to promulgate falsehoods in the name of God. 2) Not only is pointing out sophistry, solipsism and silliness not flaming, but the necessary operation and proper functioning of the mindful conscience, it is the duty of every free man who values the independence of thought that he now enjoys and the freedom of speech to call bullshit on bullshitters.
You cite the policy of free speech and simultaneously advocate the silencing of 'stupid people'. Nice.
In addition, it is not your duty to call bastards bastards. In fact, it is very rarely productive and often only serves to degrade the situation.
I have little interest in the debate myself (although fwiw I am a strong atheist who believes that religion formed the basis of civilised society and that 'religious' wars are really just the product of nationalism and xenophobia), but I am disappointed with player1's conduct.
edited to fix quote
-
The Bible alone is the Word of God
@+OPTI+: I think your interest in this subject matter is beginning to outstrip your command of the unique, specifying character of the English language.
-
Armanieu expressed the basic enlightment for others, it's up to the others to accept it. One idiot said that some dude invented us and we must pray for him in return (the rest of the idiots in the world followed).
Either one of the two things can be considered: all possible worlds exist (count==limitless), and our world is one of them; we are some inferior descendant of something unknown. If the latter is considered, and if God is to be thought to exist, it can only be done scientifically: we have just as much ability to interact with the "outside", as our thoughts have with us. Wether or not we are a theory of somethout "outside", wether or not the "outside" has control over our world (aka. HAX!), it is pointless to think about God. It's just an invalid question.
I consider Pure Pwnage to be more epic than the Bible.
As for the Jesus question, and its miracles, nowadays we have more scientific considerations. Jesus was an alien lifeform that had more knowledge of us than we had. And "its" death, as in writings, was in reality just it travelling away on its spaceship or planet, which looked like a red cross.
I find it amusing that the OP saw fit to say "OmG" if indeed there exists no such personage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-initialism
-
Here is my opinion of this whole religion business:
My proof that God doesn't exist:
We can't prove that God exists. This means that if he does exist, none of his actions affect our world in any way. Therefore, it is unimportant whether he exists or not, as we wouldn't notice the difference. Because he doesn't do anything, I conclude that he doesn't exist in this universe.
+1
How religion started:
Someone decided to write a fairy tale, and then people believed it. Now some of you will argue that people like Jesus actually existed and did "miracles". My belief is that someone got a bit overexcited, decided to become the "Son of God" and exploited people's stupidity to make them believe him and write his story into the Bible.
I reckon you are probably right, and that the bible probably was just a story to begin with. A story with good morals, which some people took too literally. But I doubt that what you said about Jesus is true. I've heard a theory that he was a "terrorist" against the Roman occupation at the time, and that he meerly preeched "anit-roman" belifes, for which he was executed. Some people then thought that this was a good thing, as he gave his life for the freedom of others, and they saw him as a true son of god, which then got confused as the son of god.
Why does religion exist:
- Power for the religions leaders that exploit people's weak minds
- A way to control people by warning them about hell if they do bad things
- A way to keep people stupid by answering existential questions for them
+.5
I aggree but disagree at the same time.
Just to throw it out there, I am an Athiest. I enjoy haveing religious debates with my freinds, and getting them to the point of, "If you introduce me to God, and I shake his hand...". Religion is somthing we should keep off the internet.
The internet is for games, pr0n and violence...
The only religion worth descussing on the internet is Pastafarianism.
-
Ok, there is a reason why they say not to talk about religion and politics on online forums...
My honest and personal take on the matter:
"Believe whatever you want to believe, as long as you don't bother me with it."
I will probably not look in this thread again.
-
phail
-
:(:(
You cite the policy of free speech and simultaneously advocate the silencing of 'stupid people'. Nice.
In addition, it is not your duty to call bastards bastards. In fact, it is very rarely productive and often only serves to degrade the situation.
I have little interest in the debate myself (although fwiw I am a strong atheist who believes that religion formed the basis of civilised society and that 'religious' wars are really just the product of nationalism and xenophobia), but I am disappointed with player1's conduct.
I don't advocate silencing Revan. I advocate calling his arguments baseless, and pointing out his failed use of such technical terms as "axiom", "logic", "fallacy", and etc. Something is not axiomatic simply because he wishes to call it so; there is also the stricture of self-evidence. He cannot simply redefine his terms, utilizing them freely to mean whatever he wants them to mean, three thousand years of Western rhetorical tradition to the contrary notwithstanding. He started the game, by trying to cite "first principles". That was his choice. As you can see, kind and simple-minded folk may be easily taken in by this sort of thing, and rush to defend the very devil in their midst who is trying to control their minds, indeed, to bedazzle them with seemingly incontrovertible arguments which are in reality nothing but a load of bluster. "Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace." It is indeed my duty to point out such people, and their failed schemes of misusing logic to validate that which is nothing but chauvinistic hate-mongering. If you cannot see him for the troll that he is, then I will be happy to point it out to you each and every time I witness it.
He did not say that the Bible is good, or useful, or inspiring to him personally. He said that the Bible, and the Bible alone (which version of it he still has not stated yet) is the One and Only True Word of God. What you atheists apparently cannot seem to understand, is that this is an act of war against the private religious and spiritual beliefs of anyone who does not accept that statement to be "axiomatic"; that is, to be self-evidently true to the casual observer. It is an intellectual outrage, a blow against religious freedom of expression (as well as the right not to believe) and a slap in the face to millions of devout believers of other faiths throughout the world, throughout history: pious souls who have never even heard of his one and only holy book of books.
Perhaps you don't live in America, where fundamentalists of every stripe seek to subvert discourse, to utilize the tools of logic and reason to suppress logic and reason, and demand equal time for "alternative science" which is nothing of the sort, since it precludes falsifiability, the very basis of the scientific method. We have a CFR member from Maine whose grandfather financed fascists posing as a good old boy from Texas while trying to dismantle the Constitution, hobble due process, and introduce thousands of signing statements as an end run around the Legislature, while at the very same time attempting to roll back science education into the fundamentalist Dark Ages. This is indeed a very slippery slope. Don't think for one minute that if these people were granted the power over your mind that they so deeply crave, that you would enjoy the intellectual independence to doubt the existence of God and the freedom of speech to express that view which you now take for granted.
I, sir, am disappointed that you wish to let book-burners and unbeliever-stoners promulgate their pogroms on what should be a space free for everyone to express his or her views with no mention being made of one religion being unarguably superior to all others. If you can't see how insultingly presumptuous this theological thug is being, you certainly deserve the America you are about to inherit, if these people are allowed "equal time" to express "family values" and "traditional viewpoints", at the expense of all others.
As Jesus said: I come with the sword, to pit brother against brother, son against father, husband against wife.
@Revan: Don't try quoting C.S. Lewis. You wouldn't understand the merest metaphor and you continually spout idiocies.
@techhead: I emphatically applaud your common good sense.
@+OPTI+: We are saying the same thing. I, too am a devout believer who still questions everything every day. I have no quarrel with you, or your personal spirituality. Stop defending people who are trolls. Let him stand up for himself. If you defend him any more, then the trolls really have won. He's a big boy. He pulled "axiom" out of his ass. Let's say you sit out this round and see if he's really a devout believer, or just another bullshit artist trying to be a smartass. Spec player. He's cheating.
@Amanieu & Kaleo: Cool. Thanks for expressing your views. Thanks also for calling them your opinions, and not trying to utilize any false appeals to some sort of rigorously-argued rhetorical method.
@humancontroller: You're full of shit, and you always will be.
@tito: thx 4 stopin bai u kin go nao doof
-
Nahh, so here the dog have been buried!
I can understand that player1 in the USA feels more worried about fundamentalism than me in central europe.
where satanism is a considered church and scientologists are coming with their fluxus condensator or what the heck, I'd feel unconfortable when hearing about religion.
freedom of beleive finally arrived to a point where it's very easy to create a church, even is your only point is to avoid taxes...
In Hungary I guess i'd need 100 people's signature to create a religion.
At the same time, where 6 school shootings are happening in 10 days, something is needed to do and if you are sinking, you catch the rope whoever throws it to you. No wonder that it's easy to drive people crazy. Same happens everywhere.
But let's just don't afraid, as here comes the generation what finds PurePwnage better than Bible, they will not let any fundamentalist to take the joystick away. And i guess it's more serious than it sounds like at the first time.
@player1: Revan was asking for flames, and you give it to him. altough i understand your problems benmachine is still fully right -.-
luckily i successfully forced my eye to avoid and jump over the sentence that you addressed to /dev/humancontroller, therefore i don't have the slightest opinion.
doN't forget that you are not fighting against inquisitors and prophet incarnations here, only simple dudes playing an fps <.<
-
I don't live in America, no.
It is of course up to you to, and let me set this out quite clearly, point out the rational and logical problems with others' point of view. Although it seems incredibly presumptious to me to nominate yourself as the ideological defender of these poor 'kind and simple-minded' individuals, and to assume that we as readers cannot see the issues for ourselves.
Where I take issue is in your language, and your attitude. Point out the apparent ridiculousness of the opposing arguments, fine, but please, please, do not resort to argumentum ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) to push your point. I guess in the end this is all I want you to understand:
Calling someone an idiot, even if that is exactly what they are, helps no-one.
Not them, not me, least of all you.
Right now I see one uncompromising but professional theist being assaulted by an aggressive and hot-headed player1 who can't seem to pause to catch his breath and calm down. To whom do you think I am going to afford more patience and interest?
P.S. I looked up both promulgate and pogrom. May want to re-check the second word, by my dictionary it makes little sense in your context. And, it still looks to me like you are telling us that religious fundamentalists should not be allowed to express their views.
-
Well I know I am not going to convince anyone, so let us first show each other his first principles
mine is: The Bible alone is the Word of God
But wasn't the Bible written by a person and not by God?
-
And translated/ammended multiple times. Also, people had to decide which parts to leave in and which parts to leave out. Also, Ecclesiastes is clearly written by at least two separate authors with wildly varying opinions, along with words/phrases from vastly distant eras of the Hebrew language.
BUT WE JUST FORGET ABOUT ALL OF THAT, BECAUSE GOD MUST HAVE TOLD THEM TO FIX IT, RIGHT?
-
@Eve+Gandor: luckily, you are in a safe distance from experiencing something what can't be described by words.
-
you guys totally kick my ass when it comes to this, but is the bible not one large collection of contradictions? to steal the words of one Jim Merrit:
"The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan.
Of the various methods I've seen to "explain" these:
1. "That is to be taken metaphorically" In other words, what is written is not what is meant. I find this entertaining, especially for those who decide what ISN'T to be taken as other than the absolute WORD OF GOD--which just happens to agree with the particular thing they happen to want...
2. "There was more there than...." This is used when one verse says "there was a" and another says "there was b," so they decide there was "a" AND "b"--which is said nowhere. This makes them happy, since it doesn't say there WASN'T "a+b." But it doesn't say there was "a+b+little green martians." This is often the same crowd that insists theirs is the ONLY possible interpretation (i.e. only "a") and the only way. I find it entertaining they they don't mind adding to verses.
3. "It has to be understood in context" I find this amusing because it comes from the same crowd that likes to push likewise extracted verses that support their particular view. Often it is just one of the verses in the contradictory set is suppose to be taken as THE TRUTH when if you add more to it it suddenly becomes "out of context." How many of you have gotten JUST John 3:16 (taken out of all context) thrown up at you?
4. "there was just a copying/writing error" This is sometimes called a "transcription error," as in where one number was meant and an incorrect one was copied down. Or that what was "quoted" wasn't really what was said, but just what the author thought was said when he thought it was said. And that's right--I'm not disagreeing with events, I'm disagreeing with what is WRITTEN. Which is apparently agreed that it is incorrect. This is an amusing misdirection to the problem that the bible itself is wrong.
5. "That is a miracle." Naturally. That is why it is stated as fact.
6. "God works in mysterious ways" A useful dodge when the speaker doesn't understand the conflict between what the bible SAYS and what they WISH it said."
(for more of Mr. Merrits thoughts visit:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html)
for example in the bible it says god is a forgiving god, but then goes on to say that he destroyed some city or decided to test someone in a cruel way orflood the known world, or that if you don't repent you are damned to all eternity in(depending on the version of the bible) purgatory/hell.
also it says that if a person were to hear the word of god that some bad shit would happen to them. so why, when someone reads the bible to you, for everyone i have heard speak of the bible refers to the Word of God.
I'm not saying that i do or dont believe in A god or The God, or multiple gods, im just saying that the bible is full of contradictions, and from what I read and could understand of the discussion, much of the argument was based from the "truth" of the bible.
i found that whether or not god is truly real or not just relies on the belief of the induvidual, not upon a group(groups of the induviduals are ok though....i.e. churches, etc) which helps to reduce the "im right your wrong so die!" attitude of many groups of believers and non-believers( see the middle east religion conflict). people who try to force religion down the throats of others are in the wrong(well...for forms of christianity, anyway) for,now my moment of hypocrisy, the bible roughly says that god give man that single choice in the pitiful existance that is our lives.
Or sumtins....
-
Or sumtins....
there you got closest to the truth :-D
What I don't understand is that every "outsider" of beleiving are demanding proofs for magic, supernatural actions and perfect consistency in a text what is more thousand years old, based on feelings and memories that born before men could write.
Bible can greatly help you to be okay if you understand it well, and not only trying to seek its mistakes. men wrote it, they make mistakes. But with the right kind of eye, you can find the substance of it.
If you can't use the opportunity, than kthnxbai, there are many other ways. ;-)
-
@benmachine: Duly noted. (A pogrom is a systematic program of annihilation practiced against one's perceived enemies, and that is exactly what the fundamentalists are doing in America. Trying to kill off the competition. Once they kill your beliefs, and your mind, and your freedom, they might as well kill your body. They've already taken away any reason to live.) Besides, he's not "expressing his views". He has stated that he is indisputably correct and that his argument is beyond examination. He's not, it's not, and he is a duplicitous, deceitful liar, trying to suck in the uninformed and easily duped with such patently ridiculous nonsense. I don't have to "assume" that people are being taken in. Look at how many people have tried to defend his right to be wrong. I do, however, defer to your kindler, gentler level of discourse. We here in America no longer enjoy that luxury, as we have been shouted down by those who believe that their personal spiritual beliefs are somehow derived from inarguable "first principles".
@+OPTI+: OK. I'm going to try this one last time and then I give up. There is nothing wrong with God, the Bible, or direct experience of mystical awareness. There is, however, a great deal wrong with stating that the Bible is the one and only Word of God. What about all of the other people who have other beliefs? Are they wrong? Are they stupid? Are they damned? That's where the problem lies. We know that the Bible can be good; obviously you personally find much that is good about it. That's not what Revan is saying. He's stating that it is inarguably the one and only Word of God. See why that is unacceptable? Please, please, please stop repeating yourself. I am not arguing with you. What I take issue with is this person appointing himself as professor of logic to defend a theological work. He's not only wrong, he doesn't have the faintest idea what he's talking about, yet by using a lot of big words and speaking as if he's absolutely certain that everything he says is the only possible interpretation, he gives the impression that his argument is somehow beyond reproach. It's not. He's full of shit, and I, for one, am not afraid to say so. No malice intended. Here in America telling someone that they're full of shit is like saying Good Morning. It's not an insult. It's a statement of fact. Now do you understand? Please don't tell me again about how great the Bible is, or religion is, or Christianity is (besides which, Zarathustra composed the Gathas some twelve hundred years earlier than the New Testament was written). That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about trolls thinking that someone died and left them in charge of logic and reason. They're wrong, and they won't run that crap around the block while I'm around.
@Revan: Any more trollicious stupidities you'd like to try to defend with your complete lack of knowledge of what you're talking about? ::)
@Eve: <3
edit'd to fully explicate that which should have been obvious several posts ago
-
That thing is missing quite a lot.
Biggest mistake they are making is ignoring that humans are just mass of cells that doesn't differ from other animals in any way but that there is different amount chromosomes in their DNA and that our view of things is personal and what we witness is our memories that are highly altered by limits our sensors and brain gives us. Also about moral laws: The moral laws of humans are just another delusion created by our brain. Call it programming if you wish.
Some of the "moral laws" are the reason why human evolution has become a lot slower. Some of them keep us from extinct. Some are just plain weird considering that our only real reason to live is to survive as a race.
dogs have more chromosomes than us
-
What about all of the other people who have other beliefs? Are they wrong? Are they stupid? Are they damned? [...] speaking as if he's absolutely certain that everything he says is the only possible interpretation, he gives the impression that his argument is somehow beyond reproach.
@Revan: Any more trollicious stupidities you'd like to try to defend with your complete lack of knowledge of what you're talking about? ::)
Yes they are dammed unless God saves them.
Yes I am certain.
No, call me what you will I think I am done with this thread
... now come the real flames
-
I think it's kind of sad that you believe some 70% (and rising) of the world is going to suffer eternal torture, regardless of their personal merit or morality, simply because they don't believe the same as you.
I don't begrudge you for your beliefs, but that just seems like a sad world view to live in from where I'm sitting. I don't think I could ever be happy if I thought that was true.
-
I think it's kind of sad that you believe some 70% (and rising) of the world is going to suffer eternal torture, regardless of their personal merit or morality, simply because they don't believe the same as you.
I don't begrudge you for your beliefs, but that just seems like a sad world view to live in from where I'm sitting. I don't think I could ever be happy if I thought that was true.
I understand what you mean and yes it is sad... but in a way reassuring because Christians do not have to worry like the others
-
player1's just still mad at me since I pwned him in another thread. Now I have to be full of his crap.
And I can express my opinions with or without saying "In my opinion, ...", just as other can say his opinions about me.
-
Hehe...it seems whatever forum I go to, there's always a thread like this. Ironic because this topic has fascinated me since I was...er...11??? (yes I'm a geek...) :-[ :P :P
A. I think the website that started this thread is logically fallacious. Reason: look at B :D
B. No Human in the history of the world has PROVEN anything! This is why they say:
Ok, there is a reason why they say not to talk about religion and politics on online forums...
People get onto forums expecting to convince someone of something. It usually doesn't work, people just dig their heels in more. ;D ;D Humans just can't prove anything...yes there are some things we "know to be a fact," like Euclid's Geometry or the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But...there are countless things we have "known to be a fact" that ended up wrong. Even the scientific community has agreed to make certain things a scientific law (top of the scale/"proven" fact if you know your scientific method.) Eg, the law of cold fusion was around for years. And then people realized...it was a faulty law. When humans are convinced they have or can "prove" something completely, their minds close to any other possibilities.
Thus. yes, the website is fallacious to say that it can prove God exists. On the flipside, it's also fallacious to say that one can prove he doesn't exist.
"The Bible is riddled with repetitions and contradictions, things that the Bible bangers would be quick to point out in anything that they want to criticize. For instance, Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors. The flood story is really two interwoven stories that contradict each other on how many of each kind of animal are to be brought into the Ark--is it one pair each or seven pairs each of the "clean" ones? The Gospel of John disagrees with the other three Gospels on the activities of Jesus Christ (how long had he stayed in Jerusalem--a couple of days or a whole year?) and all four Gospels contradict each other on the details of Jesus Christ's last moments and resurrection. The Gospels of Matthew and Luke contradict each other on the genealogy of Jesus Christ's father; though both agree that Joseph was not his real father. Repetitions and contradictions are understandable for a hodgepodge collection of documents, but not for some carefully constructed treatise, reflecting a well-thought-out plan."
A large part of the point of my post is to just prevent closed-mindedness and thus all the name-calling, etc. that results. Thanks for sharing the quoted material, Atom Eve, it's very good and the points about the common responses are excellent. Now, just to kind of add something to the mix, did anyone actually research a) this guy's sources (meaning Jim Merrit's sources) or b) his credentials?
For example:
Genesis 1 and 2 disagree about the order in which things are created, and how satisfied God is about the results of his labors.
In Meritt's article, he claims that in Genesis Chapter 2, plants and animals are created AFTER humans, unlike in Chapter 1. However...chapter 2, v 5: "and every plant of the field before it was in the earth..." and then later in verse 7 : "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground..." Then a few verses later, in v 10, the creation of animals is referred to in Hebrew past tense. But of course, a Unix programmer/oceanographer like Meritt probably doesn't know this about Hebrew. ;) ;) Oh...and I couldn't find any reference in 3 different translations that the satisfaction level of this Creator/God changed.
Similar things are true for the other claims, but I won't go through them because personally I find really really elongated forum posts on religion kinda boring... (oops... ::) )
And BenMachine, I just want to extend HUGE thank-you to you for trying to keep everyone level-headed.
Calling someone an idiot, even if that is exactly what they are, helps no-one.
Kinko that. :D
Jesus was an alien lifeform that had more knowledge of us than we had. And "its" death, as in writings, was in reality just it travelling away on its spaceship or planet, which looked like a red cross.
LMAO that's a new one...I would seriously love to see where you got that from...is there like a website or something? ;D ;D
`DrStrangeLove
PS: If you want to know, you could call me a questioning Theist. I believe in God, but I refuse to just listen and agree to anyone, theist or atheist, without checking it out myself.
-
I think I am done with this thread
reply to Atom Eve
You just can't quite make up your mind about whether you're going to reply anymore or not, but you know everything there is to know about salvation and holiness? ::) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certainty)
You've just said all you'll ever need to say to convince me of the falsity of your ability to be sure about anything. :-* (http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=7548.msg115672#msg115672)
Nearness to God is Heaven. And believing that two-thirds of the people in the world today1 (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) are damned fools is not a very nice thing to do. :'( (http://www.jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html)
Please quote the scripture where God states that the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible) alone (http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=7548.msg115246#msg115246) is the Word of God. I can't quite remember seeing it... ??? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy)
Please make it something either God or Jesus said, not just a letter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Timothy) from St. Paul to St. Timothy.
...they are damned unless God saves them.
What if he saves them through one of at least a dozen (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Classical) other possible ways?
1Not to mention all of the people who lived before Moses (whether you think that was just a couple thousand years or several tens of thousands).
Note: This post contains subliminal, clickable, mind-expanding smilinks. Click and read at the risk of broadening your horizons.
Cheers! ;D (http://deoxy.org/8basic.htm)
@dhc: I truly meant it as a compliment. If you and Revan aren't both f0rqu3, then I can cross two more suspects off of my list.
-
Xenu shall eat you all!
-
Impostor!!!
@Atom Eve: :) (http://www.subgenius.com/)
@dsl: Wilkommen! :P (http://www.xenu.net/)
-
CHEESE SHALL EAT HAM!!!!
(http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/disjectamembra/wp-content/photos/cheese_oh_cheese.jpg)(http://maxmcmillan.net/wp-content/uploads/ham.jpg)
NAOW LETS ALL NOT TALK ABOUT RELIGION ANY MORE!
-
I have to say, a grilled ham and cheese sounds good right now.
Or heck, it doesn't have to be grilled if it's on toast.
Then, I can use provolone.
Mmmm.... That does sound mostly awesome.
-
(http://forbiddenplanet.co.uk/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/milk_cheese_Dorkin.jpg)
-
I have to say, a grilled ham and cheese sounds good right now..
Dude. You just made me hungry and it's midnight. I will officially blame you for any lack of sleep I may have. :D
-
Beef Jerkee!!(?)!!!!!
Ham?
..................... ok back to writing The Colonial Wars :angel:
LOVE SCIENCE FICTSHUN
EMO CAKE! The CAKE that cuts itself!
-
fooood....
-
Mmmmmm... Coffee...
Or a nice big mug of Shut The Fuck Up
-
You just can't quite make up your mind about whether you're going to reply anymore or not, but you know everything there is to know about salvation and holiness?
You've just said all you'll ever need to say to convince me of the falsity of your ability to be sure about anything.
Nearness to God is Heaven. And believing that two-thirds of the people in the world today are damned fools is not a very nice thing to do.
Not to mention all of the people who lived before Moses (whether you think that was just a couple thousand years or several tens of thousands).
No I don't know everything about salvation, etc. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Reality isn't always nice
Those who were saved went to heaven, it is possible for someone to be an unbeliever his whole life and at the last microsecond before he dies repent.
Or a nice big mug of Shut The Fuck Up
/me thinks about taking a drink and decides to only drink it if player1 does
/me pass the mug to player1
-
God= falcity it is a natural accurance that any intelligent bieng would come up with somthing to explain every thing the person who created this simply took the easy way and was the first one to do it saying "god created everything" or more likley "gods created everything" then with the monothiest crap it still amazes me no one took the time to look around them like Darwin did or Galileo and see a new anserw that wasn't the cheap half assed idea infact Darwin was christian until he went to the Galapagos and look at the birds of all things and saw the pattern amazing he was the first one to do that or maby the first out spoken but w/e if we went to a alien civilazation they would have a differant god or gods (if intelligent of course) and we would just have another war and im not saying that there cant be a god but certinly not any thing like the wierd god ideas now (exept Spegediety HE OWNZES ALL DA GODS WIT HIS NOODLES OF TRUTH!) and im not saying that i created a religion and its right because i haven't i have no proof that this "high intelligent god" with computer and stuff to make a universe exists but it would have had to come from another universe (the multiverse exists by the way) so for now for the most logical anserw for any thing look at todays current science but dont blame it for changing some times the anserws are only temperary until they find proof else where besidse religion causes war, prejidice, death, and ignorance
-
Can you guys please keep your personal opinions on the deeper questions in life to yourself for just now?
I have to check in on this every day to see if something interesting has happened in this thread..
WHICH IT OF COURSE HAS NOT!
Because this thread sucks more balls than judas himself, and we all gotta agree he sucked a good lot of balls in his time. (probably)
Because this has become a personal obsession of me; reading this damn thread for near up to five minutes per day, and that adds up to a lot of time spent writhing in agony.
So i am BEGGING you! STOP NOW!'
Edit: Your personal opinions don't matter for shit anyway, as you are merly human. (Which should make this post matter about as much, but meh- Today! Self contradictions from my side do not take effect, because I.... ..I HAVE BEEN DIVINELY INSPIRED BY GOD AND... And whatever made me write this piece of utter bullexcerements..
-
(http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd226/snbtherealone/pastafarian.jpg) SPEGHEDIETY LOVES THIS THRED
Edit: Your personal opinions don't matter for shit anyway, as you are merly human. (Which should make this post matter about as much, but meh- Today! Self contradictions from my side do not take effect, because I.... ..I HAVE BEEN DIVINELY INSPIRED BY GOD AND... And whatever made me write this piece of utter bullexcerements..
Bitch, merly human my ass! Why'll you sit on your fat ass i make a differance because I ACTULLLY THINK most people just follow the leader, and this is to my advantage.
-
When this thread was a discussion of religion, without getting too heated, I found it quite interesting. But alas, it's degraded to this. I answer with a hearty "meh".
(http://www.srhuston.net/junkpile/meh.jpg)