christianity vs. Aethism

[Morality Games]

Matt W keeps attacking my posts for being religious. I will most likely not post on this topic, I guess.

He criticized them for lacking support aside from private feeling, which has no objective force and thus no place in a debate. Aside from that, you can only express your feelings for so long before they get old.

I'll probably get this post taken off for being off topic, but I just thought I should let anyone know who cares that I won't be posting here anymore.

So long (and thanks for all the fish).

[rez]

Quote by: butterbut Lol, I didn't mean to sound offended. To answer your questions, no, no. If you ask me a question I'm just going to preach at you. My understanding of the world is completely different from yours. Let me give you an example, I know people who raised the dead, and cast out demons. I can never prove this actually so it has no place in a debate, however I beleive 100% that the person telling this to me was telling the truth. What is there to debate about that?

Silly butterbut, for thinking that these conversations only extend through debate. The people sharing in conversation are looking for greater understanding, not for high score.

Taking someones word without considering other factors has to be the most irresponsible approach to living life. It says many things about your character not only from the religious standpoint, but also in being a productive citizen in this world. I am sure you don't live your life with such an approach, so how and why should anybody take you serious for any other matter?

As a philosopher you ought to wonder and experience reality and obtain the knowledge of how it works. Only then can you make predictions and speculations and only then can you have sensible beliefs.

Many people fall into the trap of trying to prove and disprove god. I no longer fall for that evil little trick anymore. You need to start to make it seem like you know what you are talking about before anybody takes you serious. Taking someone's word for it "just because" doesn't help much of your case.

[Sonart]

.

Wow, spend a day working and look what happens. Congratulations, Mathew, you have a hit.

Quote by: christianmathew Yes, we are talking about the same god. He did kill innocent women and children, multiple times, to the egyptians, to Job, and a few others. God did not, however, tell his people to do the crusades, though he has told them to kill people before.

Well that's certainly faint praise... God has instructed his people to commit horrendous, brutal genocides, but it's ok, at least the Crusades weren't His idea.

Quote by: christianmathew He is not a trickster, you are just slightly warping his ideas. But then again, you don't believe in gods, so you think your covered.

True, I don't have to worry about gods, but I still live in the same dangerous world as everyone else.

Quote by: christianmathew I may have a cruel god in your eyes, but he is kind and loving in my eyes. He gives us all a chance, even your 13 year old girl, doesn't he?

And here we are... reason number **mumblemumble** why I find the concept of God ridiculous. If God is the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything... why would He bother?

Why on earth would God require His "Children" to make a choice in which the wrong answer demands ultimate suffering for all eternity... a choice so difficult that 70% of all humans -- if not more -- fail? That's a lot of horrific suffering for a "Kind and Loving God". It's not like He's just damning bad people... almost every faith on earth teaches pretty much the same basic rules... treat others as you would have them treat you, love your God or spiritual teacher, don't lie, don't steal, don't murder, don't commit adultery, honor your parents, etc.

Why even put himself in the equation? If God is the all knowing, all powerful creator of everything, why not let his creations go about being what he created. He doesn't require other animals to beleive in Him, does he? Why not simply require humans to conduct themselves as the best Homo Sapiens they can be, contributing and working harmoniously and morally within their society.

And parent or ruler with God's record of causing unimaginable suffering in such a large percentage of his own people would be considered a monster!

Quote by: christianmathew I may quote the bible from time to time, but I don't expect it to impress you.

I'm sure I won't let you down.

Quote by: christianmathew Because it (the Crusades) was wrong, disgusting, and totally selfish, unlike what god would have wanted.

But this, on the other hand, was just and fair?

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword." -- Joshua 6:21 1

"So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon." -- Joshua 10:40-41 1

Quote by: christianmathew The crusade is relatively consistent, except the Old Testament was of God's will.

That's certainly convenient.

Quote by: christianmathew I do believe God can see into the future, but I don't believe his decisions are predetermined, because of free will, which you seem to think contradicts.

It does contradict. How can one see into a future that has yet to be determined by the whims of free will?

Boy, God certainly DOES work in mysterious ways.

Quote by: Butterbut I beleive in God becuase of what he has done in my life. If that is not eveidence, then I don't know what is.

I've heard folks say the same thing about Buddha.

What's that proof of?

.

[Captain Cardio]

Quote by: christianmathew To answer your question Captain Cardio, I do believe God can see into the future, but I don't believe his decisions are predetermined, because of free will, which you seem to think contradicts.

Yes I think this contradicts. Here's why:

If god can see into his own future, god already knows what god is going to choose to do.

So when that moment of choice comes along, god can do one of two things:

1. He can choose to do something that he didn't predict in order to verify his free will, which means he didn't predict the future correctly in the first place, so therefore he is not omnipotent.

or

2. He is obligated to make the decision he predicted earlier that he would, to verify his omnipotence, in which case, he would not have come to the decision freely, therefore god would not have free will.

This is a contradiction and they don't come much plainer. When it comes to the moment of god making any decision, he either violates having freewill or violates having omnipotence.

If somebody says that this is not a contradiction to them, they should provide a reason to believe that two things that are mutally exclusive are possible simultaneously, such as a married bachelor or a square circle.

Otherwise, they just aren't subscribing to basic logic.

This may be a logical contradiction for some, but for me I believe that it is not a contradiction. You are right that most christians just accept this, and don't question it, but I do believe that christians think for themselves, since they are able to choose christianity.

That's circular reasoning. You could say that same thing another way:

"Someone is a Christian, therefore they critically think for themselves, therefore they are right for being a Christian."

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric Forgot a zero. It's 6000. It's the implication made from Genesis and the events chronicled in the OT. There is no other date one can glean from the book as the age of the Earth. So, either you can concede or you can stamp your feet and come up with silly logical rules... like "it's okay to ignore certain implications in the bible (the age of the planet), but not okay to ignore others (homosexuality is a sin)."

You sure about that? I've gleaned different info from the Bible that says the world could be older. Prove me wrong.

[Jack]

Matt W keeps attacking my posts for being religious.

Perhaps if you could manage to perceive them as what they actually are, criticisms of your inability to properly debate regardless of the content of your platitudes, you might see that we have no issue with what you post but rather they way you debate (or don't, actually).

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: butterbut Its eveidence to me. Becuase I can't establish it to you doesn't me I haven't established it to myself.

I think a big part of the world is really agnostic. This is how I've always been. You can't prove God, but somehow He's a safety net. I'm not a believer in random acts happening for the good, and the earth has too much good. I know there's a lot of bad, but apparently the good has outweighed the bad, or we wouldn't be here. This is why I believe as much as I can in a higher power. Atheism is too sterile, and life isn't sterile, it's full of contradictions and crazy things that can't be explained.

[JaneDoe321]

Quote by: Sonart .I've heard folks say the same thing about Buddha.

I think people who see the Buddha as a supernatural force are misconstruing the teachings. I actually consider Buddhism a subcategory of atheism, as well.... or maybe more Humanism or something, because it's really not about "a higher power". Many people do venerate the Buddha, but not as some kind of omnipotent being, more as you'd have high respect for a wise person...

At least that's my take on it, and why I have a lot more appreciation and respect for Buddhism as a whole.

That and I've never been condemned to everlasting damnation by a Buddhist.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind You sure about that? I've gleaned different info from the Bible that says the world could be older. Prove me wrong.

Nah. Start a thread about it if you care to. This has spiraled out of control already... and you're really the only person I've ever met who has a different idea of the age of the planet. 99.999999% of everyone is either a young earthist (Earth is 6000 years old give or take) or an old Earthist (the earth is billions of years old as noted by science). If you think there's a third category out there then it's up to you to establish it.

[Winter wind]

So either you're a Christian and young earth or atheist and old earth? I beg to differ.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind So either you're a Christian and young earth or atheist and old earth? I beg to differ.

Winter, you have got to stop changing context, man. You can't debate that way. Look at my statement again:

99.999999% of everyone is either a young earthist (Earth is 6000 years old give or take) or an old Earthist (the earth is billions of years old as noted by science).

You tell me which part notes that everyone who believes in the actual age of the planet is a Christian. In fact, quote it and bold that part.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Winter wind Where does it put the age of the earth at 600 years old? Point to the Bible passage, please?

It's 6,000 years.

"The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything." -- MTA

Quote by: Zhavric Nah. Start a thread about it if you care to. This has spiraled out of control already... and you're really the only person I've ever met who has a different idea of the age of the planet

To the contrary, most Christians I know concede that the Earth is vastly older than 6,000 years, and accept Genesis as more poetry than narrative.

In fact it's my understanding that only about half of Christians adhere to the literal Young Earth creationism.

That's half too many for my idea of an educated nation, but still....

.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: sonart "The Bible provides a complete genealogy from Adam to Jesus. You can go through the genealogies and add up the years. You'll get a total that is just over 4,000 years. Add the 2,000 years since the time of Jesus and you get just over 6,000 years since God created everything." -- MTA

Most modern scholars (not idiots like me, people who have studied this for their lives) reject the traditional view of historicity, and hold instead that the genealogy reflects the ethnic groupings and changing socio-political alliances of the time and places of the oral traditions, perhaps re-edited at the time of the text's final composition in the 7th century BC.

If you look into the time period, this makes sense. those with whom the authors felt the closest affinity were grouped as descendants of Shem, those with whom there was the deepest animosity were grouped as sons of Ham (whose son Canaan was cursed by Noah), and the foreigners who were invading their shores from across the sea (Yavan) or from the East (Medes) were identified with Japheth.

"The Bible is the Word of God through human beings speaking in the idiom of their time, and the richness of the Bible comes from the fact that we don't take it as literally so; that it was dictated by God."

Desmond Tutu

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Sonart To the contrary, most Christians I know concede that the Earth is vastly older than 6,000 years, and accept Genesis as more poetry than narrative. In fact it's my understanding that only about half of Christians adhere to the literal Young Earth creationism. That's half too many for my idea of an educated nation, but still.... .

OMFG Did I not just get done explaining this to Winter Wind? You guys need to start paying attention to context.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Zhavric OMFG Did I not just get done explaining this to Winter Wind? You guys need to start paying attention to context.

In that spirit, my response to Sonart, is also applicable to you, Zhavric.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind Most modern scholars (not idiots like me, people who have studied this for their lives) reject the traditional view of historicity, and hold instead that the genealogy reflects the ethnic groupings and changing...

In other words, most modern scholars recognize that they'd sound like idiots in front of their scholar buddies if they say "The earth is 6000 years old" so they've come up with an excuse. We see this all the time with biblical scholars. They begin with the brainless idea that the bible is always correct / the word of god and not the laboring of sociopathic sandal wearers. When the claims in the book are destroyed utterly by science, the honest thing for these apologists to do would be to say, "Okay. It's wrong." Instead, they conclude that the wrong stuff is "figurative" and look for other meanings.

"What? The earth isn't 6000 years old? Well... uhm... it couldn't be the case that the bible is just wrong... so what silly meaning can we invent that sounds sorta like what's in there? I know! Ethnic lines! Sure. Let's run with it..."

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Zhavric In other words, most modern scholars recognize that they'd sound like idiots in front of their scholar buddies if they say "The earth is 6000 years old

You seem to divide the world into two groups

Atheists
People who hate evidence

I believe in evolution. I accept evidence. I also believe in God. I don't think that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

so they've come up with an excuse.

sigh, we base our logic the same way you do, except we assume God exists as opposed to you who say God doesn't exist.
So when one hypothesis is struck down, we move on to the next.

Plus, being religious, we get to throw out logic every now and again (I just love being Christian).

Instead, they conclude that the wrong stuff is "figurative" and look for other meanings.

"What? The earth isn't 6000 years old? Well... uhm... it couldn't be the case that the bible is just wrong... so what silly meaning can we invent that sounds sorta like what's in there? I know! Ethnic lines! Sure. Let's run with it..."

Is there a logical problem with the actual explanation?

As for the "figurative". Well I only do it 'cause the Bible tells me so.
The best way to explain the discrepancy is by saying that Christ does not change, but the people do and therefore, so does God's relationship with the people

Also I may have said earlier that Jesus completely changed the law. If i said that, I was wrong. Jesus came to update it and make sure it stayed fresh. Change interpretation of it rather then abolish it.

"Likewise, no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the wine will burst the skins, and both the wine and the skins are ruined. Rather, new wine is poured into fresh wineskins."
Mark 2:22

"Then he said to them, "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath."
Mark 2:27

Found the final nail
"In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away."
Hebrew 8:13

Also, Jesus agrees with me.

God acts through man. Jesus was not happy with those who followed the letter of the Bible before he changed it. He did not politely say "I know that was then, but this is now". He called them hypocrites.
Quote:
Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered
A translation (i don't put words in mouth, just clean up the old english): You idiot, lawyers! You have the key to knowledge. You're smart. I know, because God gave you that key. And yet you don't use your head! You don't use the key. You just stick to stopping others from using the key (brains).

Not objectionable. (i think...)

He expected that humans would have tended to the wine and not just cling to the wineskin.
He expects that from us. And how is this possible? How can humans be allowed to change anything?
Because God lives inside us.
God gave us the Bible in the (maybe vain) hope that we would use our brains when reading it. That we would be able to change wineskins by ourselves.
Quote:
our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Corinthians 3:5-6:
not the letter but the Spirit.

We don't "pick and choose" at all. We find the spirit.

I think I nailed it this time.

Oh one last thing.

Calm down. It's all for fun anywho

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Winter wind You seem to divide the world into two groups Atheists People who hate evidence

Straw man. There are far more types of people in the world. Volconvo is a different story...

I believe in evolution. I accept evidence. I also believe in God. I don't think that science and Christianity are mutually exclusive.

In the words of my boss' boss, "You need to recheck your math." You can't claim to believe in god and make the claim that you "accept evidence". What I see you're failing to grasp is that stating "god exists" is like stating "1+1=3". It's nonsense. The god hypothesis contradicts mountains of proven scientific claims.

sigh, we base our logic the same way you do, except we assume God exists

Right. Which is an assumption that requires that you ignore vast amounts of evidence. Hence my check your math comment.

Plus, being religious, we get to throw out logic every now and again (I just love being Christian).

No. You don't. You have to use it and use it conistently otherwise you're wrong. Why are you having so much difficulty with this very simple concept?

As for the "figurative". Well I only do it 'cause the Bible tells me so. The best way to explain the discrepancy is by saying that Christ does not change, but the people do and therefore, so does God's relationship with the people

Which is a cop out.

Also I may have said earlier that Jesus completely changed the law. If i said that, I was wrong. Jesus came to update it and make sure it stayed fresh. Change interpretation of it rather then abolish it.

Again, this is a cop out. First, jesus didn't show up. He's a myth that was fabricated circa 70 ce to "re-judify" Judea. He was an attempt to update some of the idiotic laws the Jews had been using. You see, like the Muslims that would come later, the Jews used religion to keep the peace / as a body of laws. They couldn't just say "don't do that". They had to say moronic nonesnes like, "That thing offends god." Today, modern apologists try to reconcile all this nonsense. All those stupid laws. All those "do this and god shall smite thee"'s. All that brainless garbage. Is it any wonder the christ mythers of the first century wanted rid of it?

We don't "pick and choose" at all. We find the spirit.

Of course you pick and choose. That's all you Christians do. You pick and choose which laws from the OT are relevant. You pick and choose how you interpret Jesus' words. You pick and choose which gospel stories to believe. You pick and choose so much that you don't even realize you're doing it.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: zhavric In the words of my boss' boss, "You need to recheck your math." You can't claim to believe in god and make the claim that you "accept evidence". What I see you're failing to grasp is that stating "god exists" is like stating "1+1=3". It's nonsense. The god hypothesis contradicts mountains of proven scientific claims.

Ok, lets get down to the basics of the basics. God can exist. Lets say he created the initial energy burst that brought everything into existence. What mountains of evidence disproves that?

Which is a cop out.

It's not. The Bible says so. Right in the passages I described. I'm following the Bible.

First, jesus didn't show up. He's a myth that was fabricated circa 70 ce to "re-judify" Judea.

For the purposes of this thread, can we just say Jesus existed? If you want to have this argument, fine, but do it on the other thread. I have a response posted, and you haven't responded yet. So either prove me wrong, or we will just have to work under this assumption.

They couldn't just say "don't do that". They had to say moronic nonesnes like, "That thing offends god." Today, modern apologists try to reconcile all this nonsense. All those stupid laws. All those "do this and god shall smite thee"'s. All that brainless garbage. Is it any wonder the christ mythers of the first century wanted rid of it?

This doesn't address my post in any way.

My idea was that the Bible agrees with my statement that Christians need to adapt the Bible. You say that we just do it because we are hypocrites. It isn't an argument, just an opinionated statement.

Of course you pick and choose. That's all you Christians do. You pick and choose which laws from the OT are relevant. You pick and choose how you interpret Jesus' words. You pick and choose which gospel stories to believe. You pick and choose so much that you don't even realize you're doing it.

Zhavric I don't pick and choose anymore time then I admit. And I was just defending our right to do so. Is this a problem?

[Morality Games]

Ok, lets get down to the basics of the basics. God can exist. Lets say he created the initial energy burst that brought everything into existence. What mountains of evidence disproves that?

The only reason we treat the energy burst as though it happened is because there is evidence to prop up the idea. To be consistent in character and for the sake of logical cleanliness, it is fair to give every idea the same treatment. No idea deserves to be holy until it is proven to be holy.

However, you are arguing for a deistic God, not the Christian God. Accounts of the Christian God's accomplishments contradict scientific evidence more directly.

It's not. The Bible says so. Right in the passages I described. I'm following the Bible.

The Bible also insists in other places the reverse mode of interpretation, a literal one, is the correct choice -- it is just differences in opinion amongst different writers living in different time periods. And no one who wrote those things ever once considered the matter in the same style as you, so why are you appealing to their words for authority? That is taking their statements out of context, which is senseless.

Quote: