ChickenSoup
Banned
That is a very good question
Sadam is gone
- Thread starter Atown
- Start date
- Status
That is a very good question
Dark Virtue
New Member
Wow, two loaded questions
Don't worry, I'll answer, but I have a problem with the word BELIEVE. Belief is much different from knowledge. For instance, children believe in Santa, even though he doesn't existence. I know that Paris exists because of the overabundance of proof and evidence...even though I've never been there.
People can believe in God all they want, and I have no problem with that. I start having a problem when they claim to KNOW he exists.
To answer your question, I would much prefer to "believe there is no God and find out that there is". Why? I will quote the great Bertrand Russell...
Dark Virtue
New Member
Ditto that!
[qutoe]Using the "which way would you rather be wrong" approach can be trouble. It gives people the wrong idea about what Jesus really is all about. Jesus didn't come to scare people into submission - He came to love them into a relationship.
The "What if I'm wrong" ideology should be a corollary of our belief, not the focus or reason. The "What if I'm Wrong" isn't really even belief for belief's sake. It's barely even a belief. It's not a true relationship with God, which is what He wants. I could say "I believe my wall can think", just because I don't want to be wrong and offend my wall just in case it *can* think. But if my wall can think, and knows that I only said "maybe it can" as a 'just in case'... wouldn't my wall still be mad at me?
The same, I suspect, applies here. If you believe in God 'just in case', then you're not really in it for the right reason. You don't have a relationship, you have an acknowledgment of the possibility of His existence. However, I'm not the final judge, He is. I understand that my logic is flawed and incomplete and I'm not fit to judge the least of us. I'm just giving you what I believe based on what I've read.[/QUOTE]
This "just in case" argument is otherwise known as, "Pascal's Wager". There are many, MANY problems with the Wager, not least of which is this...it never spells out which faith is the correct one. If you argue in favor of the Wager, the problem still arises of just which faith should be chosen. I choose not to accept Pascal's Wager because it is illogical and forces one to be intellectually dishonest.
Dark Virtue
New Member
However, I'd like to point out that there is nothing wrong with becoming a Christian because you are afraid of going to hell for your sins.
Are you sure about that?
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear."
How does one who accepts Christianity for no other reason than to escape hell, stand before God on Judgement Day?
Sorry...this goes back to Pascal's Wager. I'll stick with Thomas Jefferson and the use of reason.
astrod00d
New Member
Well I'll tell you this, I don't know who Russell is but if he's dead now, he has all the evidence he needs that there is definitely a hell. It is sad to say but it is true whether you believe it or not. I can only pray that you don't end up there yourself still waiting on hard evidence. I respect you DV. I think you are a well educated, well spoken man. But you must go out and seek him because when you find him, you will know that he is there. You have no fear of the Lord because you don't believe He exists. Proverbs 1:7 tells us that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge. If you would only believe in Him and commune with Him, you would have the evidence you need. Until you let your guard down, you will not know until it is too late.
Sqweak!
I was a little confused about the rules on if we where supposed to be having this discussion here or not so I did not post even after I had written a reply. Seeing how the discussion continues without me I cannot without conscience keep silent.
The parts in bold are in response to a definition for Religion. They are verbatim dictionary definitions but I have only listed the ones that apply to the discussion. I don't take the Webster's dictionary as the definitive source for truth but everyone should know that. I also rephrase the same fact multiple times in the hope of fostering understanding.
Worship: 1: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <~of the dollar>
God: A person or thing of supreme value
Supreme: HIGHEST in degree or quality
Whatever scale of value you have the highest thing on it would be considered to have a supreme value. By this definition anyone who places any value on anything has a God. Anything can be worshiped, power, an idea, MONEY as defined above, or as has been said...
Lack of belief has altered behavior something it could only do if it was a belief. In addition wouldn't you say "Much more importance" describes something you have extravagant respect, honor or devotion for? Technically you could not say atheists put importance on treating their fellow human beings well as that would fulfill definition number two for religion (#2 not 1. b), however, this belief is not a Atheist one it is a Humanistic one (which I could also debate on) and therefore not applicable to all Atheist. The two are separable. Having any scale of value gives you a God so no one could be a true Atheist.
Committed observance and scrupulous conformity are so close I define them both under definition number 3 below.
People cannot be nothing (darkness) because we are something. You may not have a opinion on something but to do so you must choose to do so and that is a opinion (IE I don't care enough about this subject to get involved or I do not have the time. For whatever reason people will choose to spend their time on one thing or another). You know of other beliefs/religions but have chosen not to believe them. That is not the same as saying "I don't know". I think the root of the discussion is people cannot choose to be neutral. That is to say without belief in anything. As Christians we are all accounted to God no matter what we do or do not do. Even if there is no God in the natural world we are still under the consequences of our actions. Don't stock up on supplies for winter you starve.
If you go purely by scrupulous conformity alone just about anything could be a Religion, army, race, boy scouts whatever. More than conformity is needed for something to be a Religion. However atheism does fulfill this requirement.
Conformity: correspondence in form, manner, or character: AGREEMENT <behaved in ~ with his beliefs>
Atheist must conform and commit to one thing. Must have one belief and practice. To be atheist you cannot indulge in any other religious practices and still be one. Christians can't worship idols. Jews and Muslims can't eat certain things. And there is a whole list of cant's for any religion and they are all considered to be practices/beliefs. Can any atheist claim to believe in God and still be a Atheist? It is a conformity like any other. Something you have to do to be one.
Atheism: a. a disbelief in the existence of God b. the DOCTRINE that there is no deity c. ungodliness, wickedness (I assume you are not calling yourself wicked)
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or a system of belief
Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof
I can offer you just as much evidence for God as against (as others have said in other threads). If you cannot prove something and yet you believe it to be true you are taking it on faith. Faith is believing without proof.
A Atheist could claim that the definition of their belief is: leaning neither towards believing in God/Religion or against. No one could ever choose to be this because you would have to have a knowledge of what the term God means, therefore, you would not be neutral but bias by your definition of the term. Take this example. A stranger tells you have a incurable disease and will die if not taken to the hospital immediately. You either.
a. see a doctor
b. dismiss it
You see if you wait around for more evidence you are still under the possibility of dying therefore you must have not have believed. You may only be 51% sure one way or the other but you still made a choice. You did not believe. Considering you could die your faith must have been pretty "firm" too.
Take the law I mentioned in the previous post (failure to stop and render aid) If you are at the scene of a accident and know someone needs help but you turn away you've made a judgment. If you have no knowledge of the accident you would be guiltless therefore you couldn't be held accountable. As a Atheist you must have some concept of God in order to reject him or claim neutrality therefore you do have knowledge of the accident and the power to do something about it. You are literally judging God not fit to be involved with. Think Christians have all the answers about God? They don't, but neither does anyone have all the answers about anything yet they still make choices.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Having read many of DVs posts I thought I would reply to a couple of questions/posts. The first being proving the existence of God logically.
Science only respects cause and effect however when this is applied to the question of existence you arrive at a impasse (DV's Infinite Regression). Every cause would be a effect of another cause which would equate to infinity a concept beyond science's ability to prove. Science cannot measure infinity only represent it with a number, word or symbol pi etc. Science claims that the big bang created everything. That the big bang came from a gas cloud. What then did that come from? One day we may learn what that came from and so on and so forth but you can ONLY come to one of two conclusions. Either a. cause and effect go on forever or b. There was a definable starting point so something must have come from nothing. By science (the law of nature) neither one of these are possible or provable. A infinity existence would be a order of existence beyond the visible observable universe that's supernatural! If you believe something came from a TRUE nothing then you are once again believing in a concept that goes beyond the visible observable universe that's supernatural as well. The existence of a higher power is proven by the limitations of our own logic. "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27
Supernatural: 1:Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; esp.: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit or devil
2: departing from what is usual or normal so as to transcends the laws of nature.
This seems to fulfill the requirements of your 2 quotes below.
We can take this further as well. A Infinity existence that would be all things would have to have to both have a "will" and not have a "will" because it would have to occupy all states. Clearly from our perspective it must have had a will concerning us because we are here. A supernatural, all powerful thing (because it would encompass everything) that has a will would be God. If there was something supernatural that came from nothing (a existence beyond our perception). It could not have been acted upon by any other thing as it would be at the beginning. Thus with either conclusion it would have had to have a will (being self-perpetual) ergo being God.
Evidence by the way can also be defined as one who bears witness.
God doesn't require a creator. With this you are putting mans limitations on God. Which by the way would defeat the entire purpose of believing in a God because he'd then be limited by a origin and owing his existence to whatever created him. Let me answer with the "Can God create a Rock so big he cannot lift it" argument. God created the rock. God created the time within the rock would be lifted. God created the concept of up and down. And God created any perception you would have of the rock being lifted. The Answer to this question is both yes and no. You see the one who makes the rules is not bound by them. Most people would say that something cannot be off/up and on/down at the same time, however, there is research being done on that very thing http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/fourier.htm There are arguments however I would place against this as the 3rd state could simply be considered unknown or neutral (things can have a neutral state unlike people) Neither do I know anything about quantum mechanics to prove or disprove it on a math level.
In the Christian doctrine: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. One could surmise from this that the universe was nothing/darkness by our perception however by Gods perception he always was and will be. That is to say there was something because he was there. By this both of the arguments of infinity/nothing would be true at the same time based upon your perception. This gets into the duality of the perceptions of God and man which I will not cover here.
I think you have this backwards. Every time you say "I don't know" by believing in the effect of something without cause you have no foundation (note science frequently misuses the term "random" to avoid saying "I don't know" as well) I submit that to be a atheist you actually have to have more faith in this circumstance than one that believes in a supernatural creation. There is no ultimate foundation for any scientific facts that you could claim. As Christians we have the same scientific facts but have the foundation of God (its the middle part neither of us know). Furthermore Christians will say "I don't know " this or that but will follow it up with "but I know who made it" (listen to the Newsboys "Your love is better than life" song which says " I don't know" over and over ). The Point is God is the Rock on which everything else is built. If you have no foundation any facts you "prove" are subject to change by the changing of the foundation.
24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7:24-27
Allow me to recap. Logic demands a reason, a impetus for everything. When dealing with the question of all existence this would go on forever as every answer would only demand another question, however, in the asking this question you prove that existence is beyond the bounds of logic. All things + forever = supernatural.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
All 5 senses can be fooled so no evidence is absolutely verifiable. All one can prove to oneself is the statement "I am" but once you accept there is something beyond "you" you are back to a concept of a higher power to which you are under control.
You answered why God created logic right above. It is important to point out that you need both where one leaves off the other must continue. Science itself requires some faith because as much evidence as you have you will never have all the evidence. Without understanding the basis for which all matter and existence comes from you cannot for absolutely certain get the exact same effect for eternity. Works and faith are similar to logic and emotion one without the other is lost. The Sinners prayer illustrates this...
Logic/Works
"I know I am a sinner" A imperfect state. This conclusion is usually arrived at though the evidence of errors in one life.
"I know I have fallen short of God" Any time you are subject to a higher power, weather, boss whatever you are admitting to being under the power of something. It may not be the God but if you trace it to its highest source you find God by definition. (Problems and false faiths arise when you don't go to the highest power. If something is subject to another it is not supreme.)
Emotion/Faith
"I accept that God loves me (if he does he would have done something to show me hmmm I wonder what...) and put my trust in him"
At this point you must let faith take over. You cannot even desire to be saved from imperfection if you don't have emotion either.
Also one of the reasons God created logic is so he could deify it thus proving his existence. The miracles in the Bible were done to show this very thing.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Your assumption is based on the fact that we believe you earnestly did so. Give me evidence that you actively sought him out with a open heart...you can't. I can say given your incredulous responses in the Saddam is gone thread you never could have accepted Christ in your heart. I quote the verses Matthew 7:1-2
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
and Matthew 6: 14-15
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
It is hypocritical to accept a forgiveness you do not deserve while still not forgiving others. You are saying Christ's sacrifice was not for any who would accept it, only those you judge worthy of it, but the fact is you know you aren't worthy of it so you condemn yourself. To be worthy of a perfect sacrifice one would have to be perfect but if you were perfect you wouldn't need it.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I apologize if I have missed some relevant information as there are many many posts of DVs to read. To many in fact to comment on in a already mammoth post. I end with respect to ALL (including you DV) parties...and the hope someone/anyone will actually take the time to read this =P
QUESTION IF THERE IS A BETTER PLACE WITHIN THE FORUMS (I know the one place is closed) TO DISCUSS THIS WOULD SOMEONE START A THREAD THERE AND POST A LINK TO IT HERE. Also forgive the strange way I put the quotes and their links up I still don't know how to post them akin to DVs way. THANK YOU.
I was a little confused about the rules on if we where supposed to be having this discussion here or not so I did not post even after I had written a reply. Seeing how the discussion continues without me I cannot without conscience keep silent.
The parts in bold are in response to a definition for Religion. They are verbatim dictionary definitions but I have only listed the ones that apply to the discussion. I don't take the Webster's dictionary as the definitive source for truth but everyone should know that. I also rephrase the same fact multiple times in the hope of fostering understanding.
Worship: 1: extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem <~of the dollar>
God: A person or thing of supreme value
Supreme: HIGHEST in degree or quality
Whatever scale of value you have the highest thing on it would be considered to have a supreme value. By this definition anyone who places any value on anything has a God. Anything can be worshiped, power, an idea, MONEY as defined above, or as has been said...
Lack of belief has altered behavior something it could only do if it was a belief. In addition wouldn't you say "Much more importance" describes something you have extravagant respect, honor or devotion for? Technically you could not say atheists put importance on treating their fellow human beings well as that would fulfill definition number two for religion (#2 not 1. b), however, this belief is not a Atheist one it is a Humanistic one (which I could also debate on) and therefore not applicable to all Atheist. The two are separable. Having any scale of value gives you a God so no one could be a true Atheist.
Committed observance and scrupulous conformity are so close I define them both under definition number 3 below.
People cannot be nothing (darkness) because we are something. You may not have a opinion on something but to do so you must choose to do so and that is a opinion (IE I don't care enough about this subject to get involved or I do not have the time. For whatever reason people will choose to spend their time on one thing or another). You know of other beliefs/religions but have chosen not to believe them. That is not the same as saying "I don't know". I think the root of the discussion is people cannot choose to be neutral. That is to say without belief in anything. As Christians we are all accounted to God no matter what we do or do not do. Even if there is no God in the natural world we are still under the consequences of our actions. Don't stock up on supplies for winter you starve.
If you go purely by scrupulous conformity alone just about anything could be a Religion, army, race, boy scouts whatever. More than conformity is needed for something to be a Religion. However atheism does fulfill this requirement.
Conformity: correspondence in form, manner, or character: AGREEMENT <behaved in ~ with his beliefs>
Atheist must conform and commit to one thing. Must have one belief and practice. To be atheist you cannot indulge in any other religious practices and still be one. Christians can't worship idols. Jews and Muslims can't eat certain things. And there is a whole list of cant's for any religion and they are all considered to be practices/beliefs. Can any atheist claim to believe in God and still be a Atheist? It is a conformity like any other. Something you have to do to be one.
Atheism: a. a disbelief in the existence of God b. the DOCTRINE that there is no deity c. ungodliness, wickedness (I assume you are not calling yourself wicked)
Atheist: one who denies the existence of God.
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or a system of belief
Faith: a firm belief in something for which there is no proof
I can offer you just as much evidence for God as against (as others have said in other threads). If you cannot prove something and yet you believe it to be true you are taking it on faith. Faith is believing without proof.
A Atheist could claim that the definition of their belief is: leaning neither towards believing in God/Religion or against. No one could ever choose to be this because you would have to have a knowledge of what the term God means, therefore, you would not be neutral but bias by your definition of the term. Take this example. A stranger tells you have a incurable disease and will die if not taken to the hospital immediately. You either.
a. see a doctor
b. dismiss it
You see if you wait around for more evidence you are still under the possibility of dying therefore you must have not have believed. You may only be 51% sure one way or the other but you still made a choice. You did not believe. Considering you could die your faith must have been pretty "firm" too.
Take the law I mentioned in the previous post (failure to stop and render aid) If you are at the scene of a accident and know someone needs help but you turn away you've made a judgment. If you have no knowledge of the accident you would be guiltless therefore you couldn't be held accountable. As a Atheist you must have some concept of God in order to reject him or claim neutrality therefore you do have knowledge of the accident and the power to do something about it. You are literally judging God not fit to be involved with. Think Christians have all the answers about God? They don't, but neither does anyone have all the answers about anything yet they still make choices.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Having read many of DVs posts I thought I would reply to a couple of questions/posts. The first being proving the existence of God logically.
Science only respects cause and effect however when this is applied to the question of existence you arrive at a impasse (DV's Infinite Regression). Every cause would be a effect of another cause which would equate to infinity a concept beyond science's ability to prove. Science cannot measure infinity only represent it with a number, word or symbol pi etc. Science claims that the big bang created everything. That the big bang came from a gas cloud. What then did that come from? One day we may learn what that came from and so on and so forth but you can ONLY come to one of two conclusions. Either a. cause and effect go on forever or b. There was a definable starting point so something must have come from nothing. By science (the law of nature) neither one of these are possible or provable. A infinity existence would be a order of existence beyond the visible observable universe that's supernatural! If you believe something came from a TRUE nothing then you are once again believing in a concept that goes beyond the visible observable universe that's supernatural as well. The existence of a higher power is proven by the limitations of our own logic. "And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God." Luke 18:27
Supernatural: 1:Of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; esp.: of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit or devil
2: departing from what is usual or normal so as to transcends the laws of nature.
This seems to fulfill the requirements of your 2 quotes below.
We can take this further as well. A Infinity existence that would be all things would have to have to both have a "will" and not have a "will" because it would have to occupy all states. Clearly from our perspective it must have had a will concerning us because we are here. A supernatural, all powerful thing (because it would encompass everything) that has a will would be God. If there was something supernatural that came from nothing (a existence beyond our perception). It could not have been acted upon by any other thing as it would be at the beginning. Thus with either conclusion it would have had to have a will (being self-perpetual) ergo being God.
Evidence by the way can also be defined as one who bears witness.
God doesn't require a creator. With this you are putting mans limitations on God. Which by the way would defeat the entire purpose of believing in a God because he'd then be limited by a origin and owing his existence to whatever created him. Let me answer with the "Can God create a Rock so big he cannot lift it" argument. God created the rock. God created the time within the rock would be lifted. God created the concept of up and down. And God created any perception you would have of the rock being lifted. The Answer to this question is both yes and no. You see the one who makes the rules is not bound by them. Most people would say that something cannot be off/up and on/down at the same time, however, there is research being done on that very thing http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/fourier.htm There are arguments however I would place against this as the 3rd state could simply be considered unknown or neutral (things can have a neutral state unlike people) Neither do I know anything about quantum mechanics to prove or disprove it on a math level.
In the Christian doctrine: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. One could surmise from this that the universe was nothing/darkness by our perception however by Gods perception he always was and will be. That is to say there was something because he was there. By this both of the arguments of infinity/nothing would be true at the same time based upon your perception. This gets into the duality of the perceptions of God and man which I will not cover here.
I think you have this backwards. Every time you say "I don't know" by believing in the effect of something without cause you have no foundation (note science frequently misuses the term "random" to avoid saying "I don't know" as well) I submit that to be a atheist you actually have to have more faith in this circumstance than one that believes in a supernatural creation. There is no ultimate foundation for any scientific facts that you could claim. As Christians we have the same scientific facts but have the foundation of God (its the middle part neither of us know). Furthermore Christians will say "I don't know " this or that but will follow it up with "but I know who made it" (listen to the Newsboys "Your love is better than life" song which says " I don't know" over and over
). The Point is God is the Rock on which everything else is built. If you have no foundation any facts you "prove" are subject to change by the changing of the foundation.24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7:24-27
Allow me to recap. Logic demands a reason, a impetus for everything. When dealing with the question of all existence this would go on forever as every answer would only demand another question, however, in the asking this question you prove that existence is beyond the bounds of logic. All things + forever = supernatural.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
All 5 senses can be fooled so no evidence is absolutely verifiable. All one can prove to oneself is the statement "I am" but once you accept there is something beyond "you" you are back to a concept of a higher power to which you are under control.
You answered why God created logic right above. It is important to point out that you need both where one leaves off the other must continue. Science itself requires some faith because as much evidence as you have you will never have all the evidence. Without understanding the basis for which all matter and existence comes from you cannot for absolutely certain get the exact same effect for eternity. Works and faith are similar to logic and emotion one without the other is lost. The Sinners prayer illustrates this...
Logic/Works
"I know I am a sinner" A imperfect state. This conclusion is usually arrived at though the evidence of errors in one life.
"I know I have fallen short of God" Any time you are subject to a higher power, weather, boss whatever you are admitting to being under the power of something. It may not be the God but if you trace it to its highest source you find God by definition. (Problems and false faiths arise when you don't go to the highest power. If something is subject to another it is not supreme.)
Emotion/Faith
"I accept that God loves me (if he does he would have done something to show me hmmm I wonder what...) and put my trust in him"
At this point you must let faith take over. You cannot even desire to be saved from imperfection if you don't have emotion either.
Also one of the reasons God created logic is so he could deify it thus proving his existence. The miracles in the Bible were done to show this very thing.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Your assumption is based on the fact that we believe you earnestly did so. Give me evidence that you actively sought him out with a open heart...you can't. I can say given your incredulous responses in the Saddam is gone thread you never could have accepted Christ in your heart. I quote the verses Matthew 7:1-2
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
and Matthew 6: 14-15
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: 15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
It is hypocritical to accept a forgiveness you do not deserve while still not forgiving others. You are saying Christ's sacrifice was not for any who would accept it, only those you judge worthy of it, but the fact is you know you aren't worthy of it so you condemn yourself. To be worthy of a perfect sacrifice one would have to be perfect but if you were perfect you wouldn't need it.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
I apologize if I have missed some relevant information as there are many many posts of DVs to read. To many in fact to comment on in a already mammoth post. I end with respect to ALL (including you DV) parties...and the hope someone/anyone will actually take the time to read this =P
QUESTION IF THERE IS A BETTER PLACE WITHIN THE FORUMS (I know the one place is closed) TO DISCUSS THIS WOULD SOMEONE START A THREAD THERE AND POST A LINK TO IT HERE. Also forgive the strange way I put the quotes and their links up I still don't know how to post them akin to DVs way. THANK YOU.
Last edited:
Neirai the Forgiven
Christian Guilds List Manager
Sorry to leave it so late and suddenly come in from left field with an offtopic answer to an offtopic question, but college has been back in session
That's the NLT (New Living Translation.) Not to be confused with the "Living Bible" which is a paraphrase. The NLT was translated with a method that is very similar to that of the NIV (i.e. by a large community of highly trained, peer-reviewed scholars, so as to be authoritative and unbiased as much as possible.) I like it because it tends to be easier to understand certain parts of the Bible (e.g. Paul's letters) and it tends to have a relatively low count of "Christianese."
ChickenSoup
Banned
And if someone got the nerve to nuke those pesky French?
Arkanjel
New Member
So yeah.....Saddam is dead folks. Remember what this thread was supposed to be about? Not a thinly veiled RD discussion. Not sure where a mod is, but perhaps it should be reined in. I don't mind RD, but this is not the thread for it.
phasetim
GFC#5 Deadly Waffle
back to original topic.. Saddam is dead.. so what? terrorism is rising, there are more terrorist today than later... U.S. is more hated than ever before, and we are destroying nations, and people in the name of a freedom they would not fight for.. All we've accomplished in Iraq is creating warlords who hate us as much as Saddam and are capable of hurting americans with that hatred. We shake hands with the current leaders of Iraq, as we once shook hands with Saddam, castro, and bin laden, we were friends with all the people we call enemies. Maybe its time we keep to ourselves. It is the design our founding fathers demanded.
This may be a concept that some disagree with but Israelites are similar to the other nations near them...
Israel rejected God and demanded a king..
They need a dictator, a king, a ruler, they will not survive in a democracy, its just not designed for all people...
Besides forcing a democracy is not democracy at all.
This may be a concept that some disagree with but Israelites are similar to the other nations near them...
Israel rejected God and demanded a king..
They need a dictator, a king, a ruler, they will not survive in a democracy, its just not designed for all people...
Besides forcing a democracy is not democracy at all.
ChickenSoup
Banned
I think a democracy is what it needs... too much power in one person's hands can be crazy out there in the Middle East
Dark Virtue
New Member
What a sad, sad outlook on life.
You have made an incorrect assumption...albeit one that is often made by Christians as they chastise nonbelievers. It is this...you claim that I have to go out and seek God. Philosophies about the necessity of seeking God aside, I have, for the better part of half my life, sought God. I was a Christian for many years, but in the end found nothing. And please, let's not drag out the tired, old rhetoric about me not being a "true" Christian or any of that nonsense.
The problem, as you brought up in your post is that in order to believe in God, you have to first WANT to believe in God. Logically, my wanting to believe in him shouldn't matter one iota. Not wanting to believe in gravity doesn't change the fact that it's there.
Again, I fall back on the words of Thomas Jefferson...whom I suppose you also count among those languishing in hell since he was a Deist..."Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith."
PS, before you start condemning others to hell, you may actually want to understand the concept. I refer to your misunderstanding of Gehenna, Tartarus, Sheol and Hades.
Dark Virtue
New Member
What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?
Dark Virtue
New Member
Care to elaborate on this?
Dark Virtue
New Member
OY...where to begin...
Gerbil...are you married? I love and adore my wife. I respect and admire her. I adore her and am devoted to her. I do not, however, do so extravagantly, which is defined as, "exceeding the limits of reason". Example, I could not, in good conscience, continue to love my wife if she went on a murderous rampage, relishing in bloodlust. That would exceed the limits of reason. According to your definition, I would not be worshipping her.
Your logic is flawed. You assume that whatever holds "supreme value" assumes the place of a god, and that is not so. You have done nothing to prove this theory.
Again, you are relying on your flawed premise that everyone must have a god.
I'm also not sure what your definition of atheist is. I suggest you first understand what atheism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I'm going to pull one sentence from here, because I believe it to be of importance to your point. You said, "You know of other beliefs/religions but have chosen not to believe them." I know of many religions because, not only have I been a follower of religion, but I have also been a student of religion, having studied religion and philosophy on a collegiate level. I am not a follower of any religion because I did not find a logical, reasonable reason to do so. To quote Stephen Roberts, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Why?
I'm sorry, but none of this makes any sense.
Are you claiming to have evidence of God? If so, please share.
If you have no evidence, and are relying on blind faith, then I point you to Mark Twain, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Again, before you travel too far down this road, you should really understand the definition of atheist. It is apparent you do not.
Once again, you definition of atheist has led you to improper logical judgements. Atheists do not reject god, they cannot, by definition. Atheists have no belief in god to begin with, so how can they deny something they don't believe in? The definition you are attributing to an atheist would better fit an apostate, "One who is guilty of desertion of one's faith, religion, party, or principles".
You do realize, that no one, in the history of the world, has logically proven the existence of any god, right?
I'm going to stop here for a second to state that you have done nothing to logically prove the existence of God. What you have done is somewhat hypocritical. You denounce Infinite Regression, but then paint yourself into a corner with a logical fallacy.
You either play by the rules of logic or you don't. You can't say that everything requires a creator...except for God. It doesn't work that way.
Uh...where are you getting this from? Randomness and the lack of knowledge are not synonymous. You are simply making a false statement.
Oh, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard this bit of "reasoning".
You're throwing out all kinds of definitions, except when they are of actual use to you. I have faith, but I do not have Faith. I have faith that my car will start in the morning and that the sun will come up. I have faith in those things because of past experience. I do not, however, have Faith in the existence of God. See the difference?
Sorry, but again you are flaunting logical hypocrisy. You cannot claim to rely on science and in the next breath claim to have a foundation of God, something that is illogical and cannot be proven by science. It just doesn't work that way.
Again, you are stumbling on definitions. Logic does not demand A reason for anything. Logic, does, however, demand the use OF reason.
This is NOT a logical statement, nor is it reasonable.
If you're going to get technical, you could argue that you can't even prove one's own existence.
I understand that there are things that I do not understand, things that are imperceptible to me. That doesn't automatically mean that there is some higher power behind everything. You are making illogical, erroneous assumptions.
It's hard to put much stock into your argument when you say such inane things as "science itself requires faith". That is horribly wrong.
Say what? How did God deify logic?
You are seriously crossing the line, effectively calling me a liar. You have, in fact, judged me. Strange how that works, no?
Looks like YOU are the hypocrite
Gerbil...are you married? I love and adore my wife. I respect and admire her. I adore her and am devoted to her. I do not, however, do so extravagantly, which is defined as, "exceeding the limits of reason". Example, I could not, in good conscience, continue to love my wife if she went on a murderous rampage, relishing in bloodlust. That would exceed the limits of reason. According to your definition, I would not be worshipping her.
Your logic is flawed. You assume that whatever holds "supreme value" assumes the place of a god, and that is not so. You have done nothing to prove this theory.
Again, you are relying on your flawed premise that everyone must have a god.
I'm also not sure what your definition of atheist is. I suggest you first understand what atheism is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I'm going to pull one sentence from here, because I believe it to be of importance to your point. You said, "You know of other beliefs/religions but have chosen not to believe them." I know of many religions because, not only have I been a follower of religion, but I have also been a student of religion, having studied religion and philosophy on a collegiate level. I am not a follower of any religion because I did not find a logical, reasonable reason to do so. To quote Stephen Roberts, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
Why?
I'm sorry, but none of this makes any sense.
Are you claiming to have evidence of God? If so, please share.
If you have no evidence, and are relying on blind faith, then I point you to Mark Twain, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
Again, before you travel too far down this road, you should really understand the definition of atheist. It is apparent you do not.
Once again, you definition of atheist has led you to improper logical judgements. Atheists do not reject god, they cannot, by definition. Atheists have no belief in god to begin with, so how can they deny something they don't believe in? The definition you are attributing to an atheist would better fit an apostate, "One who is guilty of desertion of one's faith, religion, party, or principles".
You do realize, that no one, in the history of the world, has logically proven the existence of any god, right?
I'm going to stop here for a second to state that you have done nothing to logically prove the existence of God. What you have done is somewhat hypocritical. You denounce Infinite Regression, but then paint yourself into a corner with a logical fallacy.
You either play by the rules of logic or you don't. You can't say that everything requires a creator...except for God. It doesn't work that way.
Uh...where are you getting this from? Randomness and the lack of knowledge are not synonymous. You are simply making a false statement.
Oh, if I had a dollar for every time I've heard this bit of "reasoning".
You're throwing out all kinds of definitions, except when they are of actual use to you. I have faith, but I do not have Faith. I have faith that my car will start in the morning and that the sun will come up. I have faith in those things because of past experience. I do not, however, have Faith in the existence of God. See the difference?
There is no ultimate foundation for any scientific facts that you could claim. As Christians we have the same scientific facts but have the foundation of God (its the middle part neither of us know). Furthermore Christians will say "I don't know " this or that but will follow it up with "but I know who made it" (listen to the Newsboys "Your love is better than life" song which says " I don't know" over and over
Sorry, but again you are flaunting logical hypocrisy. You cannot claim to rely on science and in the next breath claim to have a foundation of God, something that is illogical and cannot be proven by science. It just doesn't work that way.
Again, you are stumbling on definitions. Logic does not demand A reason for anything. Logic, does, however, demand the use OF reason.
This is NOT a logical statement, nor is it reasonable.
If you're going to get technical, you could argue that you can't even prove one's own existence.
I understand that there are things that I do not understand, things that are imperceptible to me. That doesn't automatically mean that there is some higher power behind everything. You are making illogical, erroneous assumptions.
It's hard to put much stock into your argument when you say such inane things as "science itself requires faith". That is horribly wrong.
Say what? How did God deify logic?
You are seriously crossing the line, effectively calling me a liar. You have, in fact, judged me. Strange how that works, no?
Looks like YOU are the hypocrite
Arkanjel
New Member
If any mods are paying attention, lock this thread. It has no more relevance to the original topic. Thank you.
SirThom
New Member
I'd lock it except I don't know if I'm allowed to...
Corpfox
Active Member
http://www.cgalliance.org/forums/showthread.php?p=195725
It does say admins only can lock it, but maybe one of the rules from the ToS are bound for this thread to be locked.
I had to say the first rule:
You give witty, logical remarks and turn what he says back on him to effectively dodge actually answering his judgement against you.You are seriously crossing the line, effectively calling me a liar. You have, in fact, judged me. Strange how that works, no?
Looks like YOU are the hypocrite
I know what I've seen and I can say without a doubt that God exists and that He has protected me on more than one occasion. You come around here stirring up people who would die for their God and ask them to proove what they've seen when the fact is that if they told you about it you wouldn't believe them anyway. Although not everyone has been in a situation that forced God to move on their behalf like that, but blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe. The kind of stories that come from Christians about how they've seen God are sometimes too extraordinary to be proven, but most often believing comes before seeing.
Let me ask you this, have you ever been in a position for God where your life was at risk? Have you ever gone out by faith and put yourself in a position where God would have to do something incredible if you were to survive? Maybe you have and you're bitter that nothing happened and maybe that's how you got here, I don't know and I can't pretend to. All I know is I've seen God work in my life in a way that simply can't be taken away by mere words, no matter how logical and witty. You can't disprove what I've seen and I can't prove to you that God exists through any words. Chances are the only way you're ever going to get proof that God exists is when you throw your reasoning to the wind, believe that He does exist, and take a step of faith to where you can clearly see Him move.
Want to dismatle that with a witty remark? Go ahead, I haven't put any effort into reinforcing that with logic, and I know that I can't if I try. It just isn't logical the way it works, but this is how I've seen God in my life in ways that you won't knock down with words.
Kidan
Moderator
The discussion in this particular thread has devolved a bit - and reviewing it I've seen a bit too much name calling.
If you want to continue discussions on the two or three distinct topics I saw in my quick review, then they each need their own topic thread.
Everyone: If a thread is getting out of hand, rather than saying "Is a MOD going to lock this thread?" Click this icon "
" so that the thread will get reported. I do not read every post of every thread. If the topic has no interest to me, in fact there's a good probability that I won't stick my head in some threads until someone tells me that there is a problem. And this goes for ALL the forums here at CGA, not just this one.
If you want to continue discussions on the two or three distinct topics I saw in my quick review, then they each need their own topic thread.
Everyone: If a thread is getting out of hand, rather than saying "Is a MOD going to lock this thread?" Click this icon "
- Status