EPTMy real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven.
Christians: For believers and non-believers alike - Page 9
| Blogs > Fumanchu |
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven. | ||
|
Servius_Fulvius
United States947 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:18 superbarnie wrote: Anyways, if you don't think it is a big sacrifice thats no problem. If God can save humanity with less pain then why not? I don't know what is a fundie but I will try to answer these questions. I enjoy the modern conveniences very much. As for the next part of the question I don't know what you mean by most of it? Are you refering to evolution? If so, then i would like to point out that evolution is far from being "most of science". And I don't see how it is relevant to the first part of the question since evolution hasn't gave me any improvements to my life, yet. Maybe I'm not one of these "fundies" you speak of, since I do believe in "much of it" (science). For example, I have nothing against Ohms Law, the quadratic formula, moores law etc. A "fundie" is a "fundamentalist". Pop culture (and arguably most laypeople) know them as the people who vehemently oppose a bunch of political issues like abortion, same sex marriage, teaching evolution in schools, and many/all forms of birth control. They have a reputation for rejecting scientific claims, namely the age of the Earth, evolution, etc. There are plenty more negative stereotypes, but I think you get the picture. I moved to the deep south a few years ago and attended a church for that many would consider fundamentalist for almost a year. For the most part they're very caring people who actively do good for the community. They're a "spirit-filled" congregation, rank in the top 100 nationally for overall attendance, and, if one was so inclined, they could get heavily involved in church-related events that take place daily. Overall, they're normal people and a number of them have made their faith the most important of their life in word AND action. Many of the people I know would not support things like gay marriage based on their beliefs if it came down to a personal vote, but as a whole the church is politically inactive. Sure, there are plenty nationwide that are and plenty that run their mouths off without caring who is listening and for that they get a negative reputation, especially to those who do not agree. Anyway, I don't think you (superbarnie) are doing yourself many favors by responding with things like "not god, God." It won't be long until the trolling gets worse... On June 14 2012 06:50 Chocolate wrote: Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians. And not five minutes later.... | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever. My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven. Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians. And not five minutes later.... I'm using the exact same logic he has used so far, not really trolling so much as trying to get him to examine his (or her) views and hopefully adopt more rational (imo) ones. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 14 2012 05:44 superbarnie wrote: If I ripped out all your hair , nails and teeth( if u have baby teeth), it would be nothing since it grows back right? if that was all i had to do to save the souls of infinite amounts of people, yes, that would be nothing. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:45 superbarnie wrote: I read a book called Heaven is for Real and its about a kid who during surgery went to heaven and say his miscarriaged sister who his parents never told him about. But whatever, thats not a part of th Bible and the author might be lying so whatever. My real evidence is ( as always ) from the Bible. Inside Jeremiah 19 it refers to children ( i think this includes babies, and unborn children too) as the "innocent". Since they are innocent, then according to the rest of the Bible, they will go to Heaven. Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19. (4) For they have forsaken me and made this a place of foreign gods ; they have burned incense in it to gods that neither they nor their ancestors nor the kings of Judah ever knew, and they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent. (5) They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. + Show Spoiler + http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+19&version=NIV If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed. | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
Fundie is short for fundamentalist. Fundamentalists are those who take every word of the bible literally, and are most often criticized for clinging on to the Genesis story as if it were true. Now, there are obviously many different facets of science, and some of them genuinely have nothing to do with Christianity, but you might not know that tons of different sciences are very connected to each other. For example, you do not believe in evolution ( think), yet you use drugs engineered by scientists that manipulated the DNA of certain bacteria to make the best yields. This small term evolution is pretty big proof that genetics is quite real and offers good benefits. On another note, dogs are also evolved. Over thousands of years, humans have bred dogs with desirable characteristics in an attempt to gain more offspring with those desirable characteristics (like not shedding or barking). This is essentially human guided evolution, as the genetic mutations and traits that lead to the most reproduction become more common because we allow it to happen. On a broader but more related note, you have DNA and genetics in general. How would you feel about medicine made specifically for people with a certain gene, or an ancestor with a medical problem? Essentially, undesirable traits are passed on to offspring, which has an actual effect on their lives such to the point that they need medicine. Is that not evolution right in front of you, that bad traits decrease chances of survival? What about the genetic relationship between primates and humans. Do you believe that God just made us the way we are currently? Then what explains the obvious similarities in DNA between us and bonobos. Not only is our DNA similar, but we as a result have similar traits (living in clans, very social, social hierarchy, faces are similar, bone structure is similar.) There are also fossils that genetically tie humans together with extinct hominids and thus to the primates that exist today, what do you think of those? This leads to fossils in general- if the world is only 6 thousands years old, why are there so many bones of wild animal throughout the Earth, even in Antarctica, which would not have been inhabitable for them in that time? How do you feel about geology? On one hand, it can help save your life by warning you of an incoming earthquake or volcanic eruption, but on the other, it claims that the earth is over 4 billion years old. What about radioactivity? The same science that gives us electricity, extremely powerful weapons, studies stars, and basically what constitutes most of matter, also promotes the half-life theory, that over a certain period of time, the amount of atoms of certain unstable isotopes that will decay in large quantities can be estimated quite precisely. Fossils, geology, and the half-life theory all validate that the Earth is in fact extremely, as in billions, of years old.Last edit: 2012-06-14 06:44:29 Well, then i guess i am a fundie, since I believe that Genesis is true. Id rather believe that the entire bible was false than believe parts of it are true and parts of it are false. Because if that were the case then it wouldnt be holy book which means that even the parts that are presumably true might not be true too. Remeber, dna theory != evolution theory. Genetics do not confirm that evolution is true. Somewhat related stuff - the "father of modern genetics" was an austrian friar who was named Gregor Mendel. i am pretty sure he was a christian. This is proof that Christianity is not a "mental retardant" as some else stated in the thread. | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:50 Chocolate wrote: Then imo it would be better to just kill all babies and fetuses before they are born since that will ensure that they go to heaven. If you truly loved your child, why not just kill them and send him or her to heaven rather than let them live and possibly mess up and go to hell. As Jesus, said, (paraphrasing), "do unto others as you would have done unto you." And the 10 commandments don't count, they are God's laws for the Israelites, not Christians. I'm using the exact same logic he has used so far, not really trolling so much as trying to get him to examine his (or her) views and hopefully adopt more rational (imo) ones. The 10 commandments isn't the only passage that say that murder is unacceptable, and anyways im prolife so i believe that solution would be unacceptable. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:07 superbarnie wrote: Well, then i guess i am a fundie, since I believe that Genesis is true. Id rather believe that the entire bible was false than believe parts of it are true and parts of it are false. Because if that were the case then it wouldnt be holy book which means that even the parts that are presumably true might not be true too. Remeber, dna theory != evolution theory. Genetics do not confirm that evolution is true. Somewhat related stuff - the "father of modern genetics" was an austrian friar who was named Gregor Mendel. i am pretty sure he was a christian. This is proof that Christianity is not a "mental retardant" as some else stated in the thread. dna theory !-evolution theory? ok let's get this straight DNA determines our physical makeup and our development. Check During replication, DNA sometimes makes mistakes, these are called mutations and are passed on to descendants. Check Mutations often have no effect, some have good effects (immunity to diseases, stronger physique) some bad (frailty and susceptibility to disease). Check Logically, if something has better effects, it has more of an opportunity to live a long life and reproduce more, creating more descendants. Conversely, something with bad effects will not reproduce as much. If something reproduces more, more of its DNA will enter the gene pool- over thousands of years, most of the species will probably have the gene if it is particularly helpful. Thus, over time, species can evolve into very different things than what they originally were. This is backed up by DNA theory, genetics, and the fossil record, and is evolution. Mendel was a friar, so he was Catholic. You said that they are not Christian. You haven't responded to the rest of my post yet. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
you sir, are a blasphemizer and a heretic tell me though what makes your specific denomination, of the millions of denominations, the right one? and if it is the right one, will all other christians burn? | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:12 superbarnie wrote: The 10 commandments isn't the only passage that say that murder is unacceptable, and anyways im prolife so i believe that solution would be unacceptable. Indeed, the Pentateuch outlines many reasons in which murder is acceptable. Oddly enough, the ten commandments are the only part in the Old Testament that I could think of that references in a blanket statement. Since you study the Bible so much you must know of more, so why not share them? I came upon a helpful website for a similar issue- capital punishment, which is in many ways the same thing. http://www.twopaths.com/faq_CapitalPunishment.htm Just saying that you are prolife is no reason to dismiss that as a solution. That would be akin to me saying that I am pro-social security, so you can't discuss that with me. You are most likely prolife due to your religion or upbringing, both of which could be heavily influenced by what I said. I hope you find it in you to come up with a better explanation as to why killing babies is bad. Also, I notice that you referenced a verse in Jeremiah to explain a belief (which may or may not exist). Do you only use the OT when it conforms with your views? Awaiting the rest of your replies. | ||
|
Deleted User 255289
281 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:03 Omnipresent wrote: Unless you're seeing something I'm not, this is the only mention of either children or "the innocent" in Jeremiah 19. + Show Spoiler + http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+19&version=NIV If that's the justification for children and those who die before birth getting into heaven, let me just say I'm unimpressed. Heres another one then Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
| ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:26 Caller wrote: i just sure as fuck hope that you aren't eating seafood and working on sundays, because if the bible is 100% perfect, ur dun goofed Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism On June 14 2012 07:26 superbarnie wrote: Heres another one then Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so??? | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:27 Chocolate wrote: Those laws were for the Israelites, sorry. Nice try, Atheism Babies don't know right and wrong, so how can they be righteous or wicked? The son will not share the guilt of the father, so??? not an atheist, sorry and that wasn't regarding you, that was to superbernie, who was talking about how the bible must be 100% accurate for it to be a holy book the book was a series of writings, some derived from holiness, some derived from humans that are flawed. | ||
|
Chocolate
United States2350 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:29 Caller wrote: not an atheist, sorry and that wasn't regarding you, that was to superbernie, who was talking about how the bible must be 100% accurate for it to be a holy book the book was a series of writings, some derived from holiness, some derived from humans that are flawed. No that's what he said before when I asked him the same thing  Just trying to lighten his load, if you know what I mean. | ||
|
Caller
Poland8075 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:31 Chocolate wrote: No that's what he said before when I asked him the same thing Just trying to lighten his load, if you know what I mean.honestly, it boggles me the sheer amount of people that categorize themselves as "christians" but have totally disparate views on what it means to be christian. i sometimes want to put on my red robe and inquisitor hat and just start burning heretics. we haven't had a good inquisition in a while. | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:26 superbarnie wrote: Heres another one then Ezekiel 18:20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. This is not about children being without sin. It's about the transferability, or, in this case, non-transferability. of guilt between parents and children. http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/genesis-deuteronomy/do-sons-bear-sins-fathers-or-not P.S. I still really want to know whether you're a geocentrist. | ||
|
Multiplex
Canada14 Posts
Only one question really: how may we ask God? | ||
|
Omnipresent
United States871 Posts
On June 14 2012 07:54 Multiplex wrote: I'm starting to wonder if superbarnie is being disingenuous in this conversation but this may be due to the fact that I've never met a bona fide fundamentalist christian before. Only one question really: how may we ask God? I think he's legit. I've met and talked to my share of true fundamentalists. They're much more common in the US than Canada, especially near where I live. It's difficult to tell just how far he takes it, but I think he's a real person who really wants to take the Bible literally. He's saying all the right things, and not just the kind of stuff you would focus on if you were faking. The whole Catholics aren't Christian thing was a big one. Also the serious misunderstanding of radiometric dating, genetics/evolution, etc. He also keeps presenting inherently contradictory ideas as though they were perfectly reasonable, but he doesn't insist on them. He talks about them as though they were totally normal things to believe, and anyone who doesn't see them just hasn't heard the right answer enough times. An all loving, infinitely good god who lets people suffer for eternity is an example. A forgiving god who is vengeful. Also, there was that one post he made just to correct someone's capitalization of god. There are a couple other pretty big signals I'm looking for, but they haven't come up yet. Some of them are the kinds of things most young earthers have learned not to say in public. Some of them are the sort of ideas you'd only present if you had actually spent time practicing apologetics or talked to someone who did. I get the impression SuperBarnie is not well practiced at this. There are a few key words that haven't come up. If I spot any of those, I'll be sure to flag them for you. In any event. I hope the discussion gets interesting again soon. | ||
|
Kukaracha
France1954 Posts
On June 14 2012 06:03 Omnipresent wrote: 1. Respect for someone's opinion does not mean blind acceptance of it. If someone presents their ideas, and they are unsound, it's my job to point to it. If someone expresses their ideas and are unclear, it's my responsibility to seek clarification. The most useful way is to ask pointed questions about vague aspects of his/her position. I'm willing to answer such questions about my positions. Others should be as well. 2. Remember, I think I have the correct answers here, or at least the most rational ones. I'm willing to be wrong, but others must demonstrate it. 3. You've perfectly misunderstood the money-in-the-trunk-of-my-car hypothetical. There are three claims at play here: 1. the money definitely exists. 2. the money definitely does not exist. 3. There's no reason to think the money exists, therefor I should not hold the positive belief that it does. You're conflating numbers 2 and 3. I'm not forced to assert the opposite of your claim. I'm allowed neutral ground. I don't have to choose. Neutrality is the default position when considering all claims, including those on the issue of god. 4. I really don't see my aggression here, and I don't think the other posters do either. I've been thanked by other posters for my tone and careful argumentation, both in the thread and via PM. I'm not trying to tell you how awesome I am. I just want you to know that others don't seem to share your apparent offence at what I'm saying or how I'm saying it. I suspect something has been lost in the text between you and I, and you're imprinting presumed characteristics about me onto my statements. 5. I don't believe for a minute that you're an atheist. 1. Respect is respect. It's not calling ideas "ridiculous" and not mocking someone's hypothetical misunderstanding of something you said ("it's Reformation 101, duh"). I have little respect for you, but I won't hide it behind empty words. 2. So you have the correct anwsers, but yet have not been able to answer many of my claims, which reach the foundations of your arguments : On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: What does this say? That we are using a set of beliefs as the foundation of our thought process, at all times, much like science requires axioms that are not proven and yet necessary for what we built on top of it. As there can not be evidence of evidence, there are fundamental things that can't be proven and that we must believe in : I believe I live in a world I share with beings that are similar to me, that my mind is contained in my skull and that all that is outside of it has an independent existance, or even better, I believe that I am awake and that what I perceive is reality. Faith is not only limited to religion. Beliefs are at the core of everything. Debates can oly occur in common grounds, fields that are supported by beliefs that are shared by both participants. As for the question of God, the divergence exists at the base itself, and consequently it's something that can't be debated. On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 2) Objective truth, what? What an open, skeptical mind, truly. On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: You have a flawed conception of human judgement. What's an infant's natural state? Ignorance. The moment I describe a unicorn to a child, he or she must make a choice : doest it exist, or does it not? You see this in a negative/positive dichotomy, but what if I don't advocate that the unicorn exists and simply describe it? In that case, my statement is neutral : "do you think that some horses have horns"? The child here must provide an answer, and no matter what choice was made, it must be justified. Once again, you skip previous logical steps and rush onto hasty conclusions. In this case, you suppose that the neutral state is a world without a God, and that UdderChaos is the one introducing a new element into the picture. This isn't neutral at all. I would've guessed you understand basic logic. On June 14 2012 00:09 Kukaracha wrote: 2) Rigorously speaking, you're a believer too. Your arguments fall apart. You're being delusional at best, simple-minded at worst. 3. You obviously did not understand what I said, let me rephrase it for you.
Note that my choice is merely based on vague assumptions. Your original example is fallacious, because you start with a positive claim. In that case :
The correct layout is the following :
4. More than your tone, what irks me is that you claim to be skeptical and honest in your attitude when you're just the mirror of a religious nut. You're walking on air, building a tower made of clay and calling it "rock solid". If you disagree, please adress the logical fallacies pointed out earlier. Now, if other atheists want to pat your back or if people don't see what your arguments imply is not my problem. 5. I'm an atheist, but I'm also a smart man and a true skeptic. I dislike most atheists much like I dislike most religious people. I see little differences between them, both are mostly blind and ignorant to the holes on the ground they walk. | ||
| ||
