|
God...
May 31, 2010 21:43:14 GMT -5
Post by Joey on May 31, 2010 21:43:14 GMT -5
Okay. This has turned into a discussion of whether God exists or not. I am sick and tired of debating on that topic. I know you wont change me and I wont change you. So what is the point if I have heard it all before. It's all a game of "Prove you wrong" which isnt very fun. So last post in this thread for me.
To your post: So what if someone believes that a dragon started the big bang? I would still respect their beliefes and wouldnt call them mindless and brainwashed.(Thats what being brainwashed is isnt it? Not having your own mind?) So no matter what religion I believe, I will always respect others belifes, just as I dont call you Godless and say your dammned. I have more than 3/4 of my life(hopefully) to change my mind. I also have that time to think. So now I'm going to believe what I do, but be open to all. And I will stop debating whether God exists because like I said, its a game. And a game means its a competition, which strives to put one ahead of another. And whats the point? We're all human and all live on this earth, lets not care what others believe unless it's doing us harm. (Okay so alot of the christians today do harm against gays and such. That's not me.)
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
God...
May 31, 2010 21:57:04 GMT -5
Post by FranticProdigy on May 31, 2010 21:57:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
God...
Jun 1, 2010 1:21:50 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on Jun 1, 2010 1:21:50 GMT -5
hmmm....so there is a possibility of something being true, but at the same time there is also no evidence of being true. The problem in all of this is that we can't even put a definition on God, he means different things to different people.
|
|
|
God...
Jun 1, 2010 4:45:42 GMT -5
Post by bombmaniac on Jun 1, 2010 4:45:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
God...
Jun 1, 2010 4:47:27 GMT -5
Post by speedyreedy on Jun 1, 2010 4:47:27 GMT -5
Stoned =/= tired =/= looking down...
Fail
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
God...
Jun 1, 2010 10:18:11 GMT -5
Post by Nakor on Jun 1, 2010 10:18:11 GMT -5
hmmm....so there is a possibility of something being true, but at the same time there is also no evidence of being true. The problem in all of this is that we can't even put a definition on God, he means different things to different people. The one generally universal aspect is that there is some sort of supernatural world. In the end the definition doesn't matter too much. It only ranges the possibility from "no reason to believe god x exists" to "proof why god y can't exist." One shouldn't logically conclude in favour of either god. Any supernatural plane falls under the same rules of logic. Of course, if you postulate god to be wholly physical, then you've ruled out the supernatural world, but still have to deal with the lack of evidence. And if you define god to be something that actually exists -- such as 'the tree in my front yard is god' -- then you're just abusing the word 'god' by trying to give it a new, intentionally confusing definition. So the exact definition tends to be unimportant, because basically no concept of god likely exists.
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 12:50:02 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on Jun 15, 2010 12:50:02 GMT -5
I personally don't believe, because nobody has given me any evidence besides a book. Just sayin' And what is wrong with said book? If you're going to dismiss it, you have to dismiss a rather large ammount of other historical sources. Its an account, like many others, of events that took place. What about it is problematic then?
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 12:58:19 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on Jun 15, 2010 12:58:19 GMT -5
If this is the position you take then you are asking us to believe in something that will literally forever be unprovable as we cannot use our knowledge to show anything about God is real. This is the basis for faith and is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Russel's Teapot comes back in. If I told that there was a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars that could never be physically seen no matter how much we advance in technology, you would never believe it's there. The position I am taking is that it is not possible to prove/disprove God using scientific method. You then have to consider other methods, eg the historical evidence. Every example of a contradiction I've seen can be fairly easily put down to a lack of biblical understanding in the vast majority of cases. I've seen many disproof's of these examples, and most of them are grasping for straws and interpreting different verses 10 ways to Sunday. Most are truly ridiculous. But let's try one out. "I will never again curse the ground for man's sake..." Genesis 7:2:21. This is God showing regret. He did not like what came of flooding the Earth and says he will never do it again. This would mean that God made a mistake in his own eyes. This would mean he is not perfect, in any sense, because He felt He made a mistake.Wrong. Saying "I have done something once, I will now not do it again" is not regret. Regret is "I have done something once, it went badly, therefore I will not do it again". It is more likly in this scenerio that God will not do it again because he does not need to. Off of what are you basing this assumption? I've ever seen God spell out what He saw as perfection in human's. Also, our ability to love is irrelevant. It is very relevent. Our ability to love is a product of free will. You can love the idea of God, or sometimes God Himself, yet your mind refuses to let you believe in Him. I've seen people in this situation. Refusal to believe in God or Jesus, even if you still love them, puts you in a position where you are sent to Hell, which in itself is ridiculous because, as has been said, you go for an infinite amount of time for a finite crime. I don't care if you disobeyed the supreme ruler for all 70-some years of your life, you DO NOT DESERVE TORTURE FOREVER. There is absolutely nothing you could possibly do EVER in this life to deserve something like that. It is NOT a just punishment, it is an unfair one, especially since he is able to see why we commit our transactions against Him. I do not believe in God because of this, this, and this. God knows this and would be able to see why I see them as valid points, yet I get punished anyway? [/b][/quote] You spend the entire of your physical existance denying God, you therefore spend all of your spiritual existance away from him. In the end people who deny God get what they asked for. Things in the Bible have been proven to not be true within a possibility of 99.99%, yet people still believe in them. Things like creationism have been proven false unless you are a non-empiricist philosopher, which not many are. Yet scores of people still believe in creationism. Creationism is not in the Bible. It is an interpretation of the Bible, those two things are not the same. Please show this evidence. All of the actual historical evidence I have seen has been shown to have been tampered with at some point in time. Now, I believe Jesus existed as so many stories about somebody influential named Jesus exist, I just don't believe the stories themselves. Copies of the gospel pre-70 AD Copies of books quoting the gospel pre 40-AD No, they really aren't verifiable. There is no proof of Jesus' death and resurrection ANYWHERE and no mention of it but in the Gospels through the Bible, which itself is full of contradictions. - Please show REAL Biblical contradiction - Please explain why the gospels are not counted as evidence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 13:05:38 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 13:05:38 GMT -5
I personally don't believe, because nobody has given me any evidence besides a book. Just sayin' And what is wrong with said book? If you're going to dismiss it, you have to dismiss a rather large ammount of other historical sources. Its an account, like many others, of events that took place. What about it is problematic then? So if you say that it's an account of events that took place, you also believe that Mozes split the Red Sea and made a path for the Jewish people?
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 13:33:53 GMT -5
Post by Ricky on Jun 15, 2010 13:33:53 GMT -5
And what is wrong with said book? If you're going to dismiss it, you have to dismiss a rather large ammount of other historical sources. Its an account, like many others, of events that took place. What about it is problematic then? a) What other ammount of historical sources back up the events suggested in the bible? Name a few... b) For a minute I'll put aside the validity of wheter the events of the bible took place. Hitler's book is also an account of events that took place, should we also take it as the truth? c) If you answered question A and B like a normal human being you will not have to ask again what is problematic about it...
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 14:50:47 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on Jun 15, 2010 14:50:47 GMT -5
And what is wrong with said book? If you're going to dismiss it, you have to dismiss a rather large ammount of other historical sources. Its an account, like many others, of events that took place. What about it is problematic then? a) What other ammount of historical sources back up the events suggested in the bible? Name a few... b) For a minute I'll put aside the validity of wheter the events of the bible took place. Hitler's book is also an account of events that took place, should we also take it as the truth? c) If you answered question A and B like a normal human being you will not have to ask again what is problematic about it... Actually, the Bible is a really accurate source of historical data. What may confuse many people is that people who wrote the Bible wrote the events down how THEY saw it.
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 15:21:34 GMT -5
Post by Ricky on Jun 15, 2010 15:21:34 GMT -5
krzych i'm still waiting for you to name a few historical sources that back up the events suggested in the bible...
also the writters might have intended it to be of entertainment use such as comic books. and without historical sources backing it up means that THEY didn't see it....
Now, answer the questions and stop trying to go around them.
|
|
earth
Moon
the awesome
Posts: 245
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 15:25:22 GMT -5
Post by earth on Jun 15, 2010 15:25:22 GMT -5
the bible is mostly stories to teach morals and stuff, NOT REAL, ACCURATE, HISTORICAL things.
well thers quite a bit that is historical, such as people, places, and SOME events, just not the majority.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 16:42:01 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2010 16:42:01 GMT -5
the bible is mostly stories to teach morals and stuff, NOT REAL, ACCURATE, HISTORICAL things. well thers quite a bit that is historical, such as people, places, and SOME events, just not the majority. ^^this
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 18:10:34 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on Jun 15, 2010 18:10:34 GMT -5
a) What other ammount of historical sources back up the events suggested in the bible? Name a few... ANCIENT NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD), "the greatest historian" of ancient Rome: "Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed." Gaius Suetonius Tranquillas, chief secretary of Emperor Hadrian (117-138 AD): "Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city." "After the great fire at Rome [during Nero's reign] ... Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief." Flavius Josephus (37-97 AD), court historian for Emperor Vespasian: "At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation) Julius Africanus, writing around 221 AD, found a reference in the writings of Thallus, who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean around 52 AD, which dealt with the darkness that covered the land during Jesus's crucifixion: "Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun--unreasonably, as it seems to me."
Pliny the Younger, Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 112 AD:
"[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food--but food of an ordinary and innocent kind." Pliny added that Christianity attracted persons of all societal ranks, all ages, both sexes, and from both the city and the country. Late in his letter to Emperor Trajan, Pliny refers to the teachings of Jesus and his followers as excessive and contagious superstition.
Emperor Trajan, in reply to Pliny:
"The method you have pursued, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those denounced to you as Christians is extremely proper. It is not possible to lay down any general rule which can be applied as the fixed standard in all cases of this nature. No search should be made for these people; when they are denounced and found guilty they must be punished; with the restriction, however, that when the party denies himself to be a Christian, and shall give proof that he is not (that is, by adoring our gods) he shall be pardoned on the ground of repentance, even though he may have formerly incurred suspicion. Informations without the accuser's name subscribed must not be admitted in evidence against anyone, as it is introducing a very dangerous precedent, and by no means agreeable to the spirit of the age."
Emporer Hadrian (117-138 AD), in a letter to Minucius Fundanus, the Asian proconsul:
"I do not wish, therefore, that the matter should be passed by without examination, so that these men may neither be harassed, nor opportunity of malicious proceedings be offered to informers. If, therefore, the provincials can clearly evince their charges against the Christians, so as to answer before the tribunal, let them pursue this course only, but not by mere petitions, and mere outcries against the Christians. For it is far more proper, if anyone would bring an accusation, that you should examine it." Hadrian further explained that if Christians were found guilty they should be judged "according to the heinousness of the crime." If the accusers were only slandering the believers, then those who inaccurately made the charges were to be punished.
The Jewish Talmud, compiled between 70 and 200 AD:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practised sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Anyone who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.' But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover."
[Another early reference in the Talmud speaks of five of Jesus's disciples and recounts their standing before judges who make individual decisions about each one, deciding that they should be executed. However, no actual deaths are recorded.]
Lucian, a second century Greek satirist:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. ... You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." Lucian also reported that the Christians had "sacred writings" which were frequently read. When something affected them, "they spare no trouble, no expense."
Mara Bar-Serapion, of Syria, writing between 70 and 200 AD from prison to motivate his son to emulate wise teachers of the past:
"What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given."
b) For a minute I'll put aside the validity of wheter the events of the bible took place. Hitler's book is also an account of events that took place, should we also take it as the truth? c) If you answered question A and B like a normal human being you will not have to ask again what is problematic about it...
You'll take Mein Kamph as an accurate historical record of what Hitler thought of his struggle, yes. It all depends on the style of the history you are dealing with.
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 19:07:00 GMT -5
Post by Lex on Jun 15, 2010 19:07:00 GMT -5
Bible = about as historically accurate as Inglorious Basterds.
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 20:55:57 GMT -5
Post by krzych32 on Jun 15, 2010 20:55:57 GMT -5
Ricky, how am I going around, that was my first post on this topic? You should start reading the names of people you talk to...
|
|
|
God...
Jun 15, 2010 22:58:19 GMT -5
Post by Lyserg Zeroz on Jun 15, 2010 22:58:19 GMT -5
michaelt1987 But aren't those just "reports" or letters or some other form of anything not really objectively historical but rather biased depending on who was writing? Also, those seem to depict the suffering of chrisitans (something that there is no discussion whatsoever about if that ever happened, it is a fact) and talk about how cool Jesus was (WAS not being on the actual time when Jesus supposedly existed), it doesn't really prove anything oher than christians suffered and that people have heard about some guy named Jesus who was pretty awesome. You spend the entire of your physical existance denying God, you therefore spend all of your spiritual existance away from him. In the end people who deny God get what they asked for. I don't believe in hell, I shouldn't care, but this is really horrible. I don't care about God, is not that I'm denying him/her/it, I just don't care because the supposed God hasn't given me any reason to care. Do I deserve to suffer for eternity just because I don't believe things that have no real proof or evedience to support them, if I believe in science and reason, do I get to go to hell? Why? How come? I think I'm a good enough person, do I at least get to reincarnate? I mean, OK, heaven no for me, but, Hell?! What about the poeple who actually "deny" God instead of just not caring, what if they realise that some religion is harming humanity at lowering education and reason, and making good people do bad things just because their preists tell them to, what if a person denies God and fights against all the bad things that religion has done!? Do they deserve hell !? Does a person deserve hell just because they excersice their right to not believe, to not want to be a part of something they see as worse than senseless? But maybe is not that bad, is it? Maybe your definition of hell is not the one where you are tortured all eternity, I sure hope so, because if not, then you are saying that good people deserve horrible damnation for really wrong reasons. And BTW, why do you believe what you believe? I hope it is not a believe born out of fear and terror that hell may have caused you, that's a terrible reason to believe in a god or gods.
|
|
|
God...
Jun 16, 2010 3:39:22 GMT -5
Post by michaelt1987 on Jun 16, 2010 3:39:22 GMT -5
michaelt1987 But aren't those just "reports" or letters or some other form of anything not really objectively historical but rather biased depending on who was writing? All history is biased to one extent or another. If you throw out history with any bias, you throw out pretty much all history. Also, those seem to depict the suffering of chrisitans (something that there is no discussion whatsoever about if that ever happened, it is a fact) and talk about how cool Jesus was (WAS not being on the actual time when Jesus supposedly existed), it doesn't really prove anything oher than christians suffered and that people have heard about some guy named Jesus who was pretty awesome. It proves supporting to the evidence that the Gospels discuss, very close to the time, which means that contary to what many people say the idea that Jesus rose from the dead was not a modern addition etc. I don't believe in hell, I shouldn't care, but this is really horrible. I don't care about God, is not that I'm denying him/her/it, I just don't care because the supposed God hasn't given me any reason to care. But he has. He lived, and died, for you. I'd say that's a good reason. Do I deserve to suffer for eternity just because I don't believe things that have no real proof or evedience to support them, if I believe in science and reason Science and reason are not incompatable with believing Jesus rose from the dead to save you from your sins. do I get to go to hell? Why? How come? I think I'm a good enough person, do I at least get to reincarnate? I mean, OK, heaven no for me, but, Hell?! Good by whose standards? Your own? Everyone is good by their own standards. To be good by God's standards you would need to be perfect. No one is perfect, and God understood that which is why Jesus came to the world, so that we could be saved. He was perfect for us when we could not be. What about the poeple who actually "deny" God instead of just not caring, what if they realise that some religion is harming humanity at lowering education and reason, and making good people do bad things just because their preists tell them to, what if a person denies God and fights against all the bad things that religion has done!? Do they deserve hell !? Does a person deserve hell just because they excersice their right to not believe, to not want to be a part of something they see as worse than senseless? Denying some of the bad things that religious people have done is not the same as denying God. Just because people who have believed in God have misused the idea of God does not mean God himself is evil. But maybe is not that bad, is it? Maybe your definition of hell is not the one where you are tortured all eternity, I sure hope so, because if not, then you are saying that good people deserve horrible damnation for really wrong reasons. And BTW, why do you believe what you believe? I hope it is not a believe born out of fear and terror that hell may have caused you, that's a terrible reason to believe in a god or gods. It probably won't be active torture, there is nowhere in the Bible where it says that it is active torture. What the Bible does say is that it will be extremely unpleasnt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
God...
Jun 16, 2010 3:59:34 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jun 16, 2010 3:59:34 GMT -5
Science and reason are not incompatable with believing Jesus rose from the dead to save you from your sins. This was enough to make my respect for you go from "someone who stands by his beliefs" to "an ignorant fool". Don't try to force your religion on other people. We don't believe, that's our 'problem'. You're allowed to believe in God, I don't give a SHIRT, but you don't have any proof that he exists. Belief =/= proof and a 2000 year old text from a shirtload of different authors, who often didn't have direct contact with this person called Jesus (who I do belief existed btw). By the way, you say that God is not evil. What about the tower of Babel? The story goes like this: The descendants of Noah settled in the area which we now call the Middle-East. To make a 'beacon' for where they lived, they decided to build a tower, which would be seen from so far that everyone would be able to find their way to the city. So they started building and building, and because they were all decendents of Noah, they all spoke the same language. They were able to communicate really good and they could pull of the crazy tower. God saw this and decided that the people were too strong because they were unified. Was he scared of what they could accomplish? In any case, he decided to break down the tower, killing a lot of people and then spreading them language wise so they wouldn't be able to work together that well. How is this a benevolent god? And why would you believe in such a god?
|
|