|
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote:
Just because there could be other explanations doesn't mean that yours has any validity. I AM a bunch of chemicals and I AM irrelevant and I AM nothing but the interaction between atoms. What's so wrong with that? To say that you are something beyond is nothing but misplaced hubris. Newsflash: humans are a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been here for maybe a few million years and we will probably be gone soon. We're actually not that important.
And isn't it strange that with our modern technology, we can barely predict whether it will rain or not tomorrow and yet these random old men somehow got every prediction for the Messiah correct? The Messiah that the original believers, the Jews, completely reject as the son of God? The fact that Jesus' birth conforms so exactly to their predictions is an indication that the stories were fabricated. The premise behind them have been so ingrained in you that they don't even seem ridiculous anymore. Even in our modern times, we treat our pregnant women like they were fragile and try not to let them anywhere. It's not even moderately conceivable that someone would take their wife all the way to Bethlehem, just to give birth. And the reasoning behind the journey, that they had to go to the original town of their far, far ancestor, to take part in the census, makes absolutely no sense. Also the fact that three kings apparently followed a Star that happened to be right above Jesus' manger. Stars don't magically appear out of nowhere and they are hundreds, if not thousands and millions, of light years away, the thought that it could shine on his manger is laughably ridiculous (not to mention that the star would have had to been formed hundreds or thousands of years ago to shine for one night, since it takes that long for the light to get to earth). But oh yeah, everything is possible with God (sarcasm).
Nice interpretation. You're doing a good job of molding the scriptures to the way you think it ought to be, rather than the way it actually is. I don't give a shit what your supposed holy book says. I'm just pointing out the discrepancies that make it ludicrous for anyone to read it without a huge grain of salt. There's a difference between raising someone from the dead and experiencing the Holocaust. Raising someone from the dead by calling out to them is IMPOSSIBLE. There's a difference between scientific discoveries that haven't been found yet and scientific impossibilities. Where does "science contradict me?" Science is not an entity. It's a branch of knowledge. If you can name something that was shown to be impossible and then discovered to be possible, I'll admit that I was wrong, but all you do is post absolute statements and give no background whatsoever.
The people who believed that the world was flat thought so because it was ingrained in them, by the church, which persecuted galileo for saying that the earth was not at the center of the universe. This example only shows the danger and the threat posed by blind believe and feckless faith. The human mind is easily fooled and overawed. If so many people have seen insane miracles, you will surely be able to show me one example of a miracle that you could back up with evidence?
A brief note, just because something is thought to be impossible by our current understanding does not mean it will always be so. It might be very unlikely, but again, to disprove the existence of something is itself impossible.
Also, I don't think you're going to reach him with a scientific dissection of his beliefs. I'm not too concerned with what he believes but rather why he believes it.
|
It's obvious why he believes it. The fundamentals were ingrained in him when he was a child and he's been indoctrinated at least once a week for years, while going on retreats and stuff to become even more indoctrinated.
And some things are just impossible. You can't cure blindness by rubbing mud into someone's eyes or a lame leg by telling someone to walk.
|
On January 14 2010 05:01 ghostWriter wrote:
It's obvious why he believes it. The fundamentals were ingrained in him when he was a child and he's been indoctrinated at least once a week for years, while going on retreats and stuff to become even more indoctrinated.
And some things are just impossible. You can't cure blindness by rubbing mud into someone's eyes or a lame leg by telling someone to walk.
Oh no, I'm not defending the validity of the miracles supposedly performed by Christ in the past. I am merely saying that it is not entirely inconceivable for what would surely be deemed impossibilities today to become possible sometime in the future.
As for his indoctrination, I would have thought that being a student of the sciences (as he professes to be) would have blunted his literal interpretation of his faith somewhat.
|
On January 13 2010 14:01 skypig wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 10:22 Mindcrime wrote:
What the Lord, our God who became man and died for our sins, specifically told us in Matthew 5:17 was that he did not come to abolish the Law or the Prophets.
If you eat pork, you're probable headed to Sheol unless יהוה takes mercy on your soul. I never said Christ came to abolish the law or scripture; by contrast, the same chapter you referenced says, "I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus was referencing the fact that his coming was FULFILLING the prophecies of all the old prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.) - that's why he said "fulfill." That being said, Jesus still provided examples of how we are to go above and beyond what the law teaches. Matthew 5:21-22 has Jesus saying, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:." So no, Christ did not come to abolish the law or the prophets. However, he did call us to rise to a new level, so to speak, as the example above shows. The phrase "them of old time" refers to those Jews that followed the law - and yet Christ says "But I say unto you", indicating that now there will be a change, and a difference from what was said before. He's not abolishing, true, but he is asking us to go above and beyond. As it says in Matthew 20, "For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven." That's as point-blank as you can get; you have to go above and beyond the law to be saved. Jesus' entire purpose was to free people from the burden of the law and to offer to ALL the path that leads to salvation from God; with Christ's help, you CAN go above and beyond the law and will not be "burdened" by it any longer.
I must have missed the part where the last supper was described as a five course meal of pork and shellfish.
|
United States43728 Posts
Skypig.
After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant.
|
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote:
Just because there could be other explanations doesn't mean that yours has any validity. I AM a bunch of chemicals and I AM irrelevant and I AM nothing but the interaction between atoms. What's so wrong with that? To say that you are something beyond is nothing but misplaced hubris. Newsflash: humans are a blip in the history of the Earth. We have been here for maybe a few million years and we will probably be gone soon. We're actually not that important.
Watch how quickly your argument falls apart: If humans really are "just atoms and molecules" and "to say they're something more is nothing but misplaced hubris", then you're saying it's perfectly okay for me to walk up to an innocent person on the street and shoot them full of bullets, or stab them to death, or whatever. Why is it okay? Because, of course, we're both "just atoms and molecules"; the bullets are "just atoms and molecules displacing other atoms and molecules"; the knife is "just atoms and molecules breaking the electric attractions between other atoms and molecules." After all, what's morality? It's not made of atoms and molecules, so it must not exist, nor be important. Dude, If you actually think that everything is that irrelevant and that nothing has meaning, you have my sympathy and my pity. I encourage you to THINK a little more about life.
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote:
And isn't it strange that with our modern technology, we can barely predict whether it will rain or not tomorrow and yet these random old men somehow got every prediction for the Messiah correct? The Messiah that the original believers, the Jews, completely reject as the son of God? The fact that Jesus' birth conforms so exactly to their predictions is an indication that the stories were fabricated. The premise behind them have been so ingrained in you that they don't even seem ridiculous anymore. Even in our modern times, we treat our pregnant women like they were fragile and try not to let them anywhere. It's not even moderately conceivable that someone would take their wife all the way to Bethlehem, just to give birth. And the reasoning behind the journey, that they had to go to the original town of their far, far ancestor, to take part in the census, makes absolutely no sense. Also the fact that three kings apparently followed a Star that happened to be right above Jesus' manger. Stars don't magically appear out of nowhere and they are hundreds, if not thousands and millions, of light years away, the thought that it could shine on his manger is laughably ridiculous (not to mention that the star would have had to been formed hundreds or thousands of years ago to shine for one night, since it takes that long for the light to get to earth). But oh yeah, everything is possible with God (sarcasm).
Good, you're starting to realize how pathetically limited we are, even with our "modern technology", as you mentioned. And no, the fact that Jesus' birth "conformed so exactly" to their predictions is NOT "an indication that the stories were fabricated, LOL. Where did THAT logical rule come from? If something conforms exactly to someone's predictions, then it's automatically WRONG? Just because humans are wrong so often doesn't mean they were wrong all the time.
I like how you make one huge assumption after another to eventually lead you to think that "the stories must have been fabricated." Wake up, dude - you have no evidence for your claims, and you're going further and further out on the limb to try and convince me of things that my own experience and faith contradicts.
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote:
Nice interpretation. You're doing a good job of molding the scriptures to the way you think it ought to be, rather than the way it actually is. I don't give a shit what your supposed holy book says. I'm just pointing out the discrepancies that make it ludicrous for anyone to read it without a huge grain of salt. There's a difference between raising someone from the dead and experiencing the Holocaust. Raising someone from the dead by calling out to them is IMPOSSIBLE. There's a difference between scientific discoveries that haven't been found yet and scientific impossibilities. Where does "science contradict me?" Science is not an entity. It's a branch of knowledge. If you can name something that was shown to be impossible and then discovered to be possible, I'll admit that I was wrong, but all you do is post absolute statements and give no background whatsoever.
No, you're upset because you quoted OUT OF CONTEXT, while I quoted IN CONTEXT. In short, you don't care about trying to understand the Bible because you fallaciously believe it's made up anyway and so you're just going to grab random passages and spit them out without even trying to think about them. Jesus had a habit of talking to the common people in parables, and many, MANY of them would not understand him at all; sometimes even his own disciples would have to ask him to explain things.
Matthew 13:14-15 says, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isiaah, which saith, 'By hearing ye shall hear, and not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them'."
Wow, look at this: a prophecy from the OLD TESTAMENT is cited by Jesus from the NEW TESTAMENT, basically saying that people WILL NOT UNDERSTAND the Holy Word when they hear it because they are willfully ignorant and DON'T WANT to understand it. The same thing is happening with you, ghostWriter - you don't want to hear or read the Bible's teachings, much less understand them. You'd rather make your own fallacious assumptions in a lame attempt to "prove" that the Bible was "fabricated" and "made up." It's funny how you're helping fulfill Isaiah's prophecy that was written HUNDREDS OF YEARS ago, and for some reason IS STILL TRUE. Makes you think, doesn't it?
On January 14 2010 04:07 ghostWriter wrote:
The people who believed that the world was flat thought so because it was ingrained in them, by the church, which persecuted galileo for saying that the earth was not at the center of the universe. This example only shows the danger and the threat posed by blind believe and feckless faith. The human mind is easily fooled and overawed. If so many people have seen insane miracles, you will surely be able to show me one example of a miracle that you could back up with evidence?
Wow are you wrong here. The belief that the world was flat was a MAJORITY OPINION in those times; in fact people who thought otherwise could be THROWN IN JAIL. And later, the MAJORITY OPINION was proven to be wrong. Just like right now, the majority of people here believe that God doesn't exist and the Bible isn't true - I can promise you that everyone will know that there is a God and that the Bible's witnessings and preachings were true.
As for me giving examples of miracles, I already said multiple times that I have seen them, experienced them, and talked with others who did the same - you think I'm lying to you or something? Is it that hard for you to believe that things that can't be "proven" by experimentation can actually HAPPEN in REAL LIFE? I already said this and I'll say it again: for me to talk about the things I've witnessed and experienced would only subject God's miracles to open mockery from all the people here - I guarantee you that you would not believe them, you would probably accuse me and the others who saw these things of being delusional and hallucinating or whatever other "intelligent" explanation you could come up with. Jesus said once, "Cast not your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." See if you can figure out what THAT one means...and no, it doesn't mean "don't throw your jewelry to wild animals", literally (since you like literal things so much).
|
On January 14 2010 06:04 KwarK wrote:
Skypig.
After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant.
Mark makes clear that none of the apostles understood Jesus until his death and resurrection. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructs his disciples to make "disciples of all nations." Therefore according to the canonical scriptures, it's not true that the disciples did not understand their mission even after the Passion. Paul's mission was made a generation later, much too early to have been influenced by the canonical gospels. In the early-Christian era, before the canon was established, competing gnostic gospels were spread in the Jewish community. No unified theology was possible until the establishment of the canon, therefore it is to be expected that competing theologies would have emerged in the Christ-following community. What the canon eventually did was select the most credible stories on the basis of apostolicity.
|
On January 13 2010 10:15 FieryBalrog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2010 08:02 T-P-S wrote:
So far you've been reasonable, but if you're going to ignore scientific evidence directly contradicting your position, let me know now so that I don't have to waste time trying to make any logical arguments. Specific psychological processes don't need to be completely understood to see that certain chemical neural stimuli produce expected psychological changes.
YOU are "just" the sum total of various subatomic particles arranged in chemical form. Does that mean you don't exist? Does that mean you don't act? Does that mean you're really just an automaton?
No? Where are you getting the assumption that I don't think that I exist because I'm only composed of physical matter? As for whether or not humans are 'automatons', that depends on your definition. At some level, a repeated stimulus should produce the same output even in a system as complex as the human brain. Do you consider us then to be functionally automatic?
The fact that thoughts are chemical processes does absolutely nothing to affect God's presence one way or the other. The only thing it proves is that thoughts are natural phenomena just as everything else in this universe, which of course, they are, and not a mysteriously separate category of existence.
When we have evidence to support the idea that thoughts are directed by chemical processes, and no evidence to support the idea that they are a product of god or satan, it makes the latter a less reasonable assumption.
On top of that, imagine this:
"Rain falling from the sky is God's tears."
"No, rain is just hydrogen and oxygen atoms arranged in certain chemical bonds, evaporated into water vapor, which forms clouds, which upon saturation..." etc.
The latter does not falsify the former, unless God is understood as being a physical person subject to physical laws, which is not the conception of God.
Except that the quote clearly implies a physical god by using something like tears, which only exist insofar as our experience, physically. Beyond that, it's just a question of your definitions of god and tears.
|
most of the commentary in this thread is a bit over my head, but i just had to give a big LOL to skypig.
its been my experience that religion brings out the worst in people. instead of trying to pass on the lessons of love and understanding, religious folk tend to pass on judgement and contempt.
some people either get it or they dont. the amount of ego involved just makes me go bleh. its easy to see why more and more young people are turning away from organized religion.
|
On January 14 2010 09:39 esla_sol wrote:
most of the commentary in this thread is a bit over my head, but i just had to give a big LOL to skypig.
its been my experience that religion brings out the worst in people. instead of trying to pass on the lessons of love and understanding, religious folk tend to pass on judgement and contempt.
some people either get it or they dont. the amount of ego involved just makes me go bleh. its easy to see why more and more young people are turning away from organized religion.
Well I hope I'm not coming across as judging other people in this thread because I'm not trying to judge; I'm trying to point out how ridiculously flawed the arguments that people traditionally use against God are. I've said multiple times that I wish everyone could have the same peace and happiness that I have from serving God, so I have no ill will toward anyone in this thread, and I apologize if I came across as "judging"...I believe that God is the one and final judge and no one else.
I know that "some people either get it or they don't", but it still bothers me to see people that actually believe and live their lives around ignorant arguments like "God doesn't exist because we can't see Him" or "God doesn't exist because we have no tangible evidence of Him."
And I don't like organized religion either; I think it pushes people away from actually experiencing God and having true faith by pulling them into empty traditions and pointless customs, many of which are completely unbiblical (I said this before as well).
Again I apologize if I came across as judging people; I'm not trying to do that, I'm only trying to shoot down flawed arguments that I see here because I think this stuff is really important to think about.
|
On January 14 2010 14:15 skypig wrote:
I know that "some people either get it or they don't", but it still bothers me to see people that actually believe and live their lives around ignorant arguments like "God doesn't exist because we can't see Him" or "God doesn't exist because we have no tangible evidence of Him."
Yeah, they make such dumb arguments. If only they would read the True and Perfect Word of God, the King James Bible, they would come to Know Him.
Look, all I'm saying is that God exists because crocoduck doesn't.
|
United States43728 Posts
On January 14 2010 09:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 06:04 KwarK wrote:
Skypig.
After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant. Mark makes clear that none of the apostles understood Jesus until his death and resurrection. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructs his disciples to make "disciples of all nations." Therefore according to the canonical scriptures, it's not true that the disciples did not understand their mission even after the Passion. Paul's mission was made a generation later, much too early to have been influenced by the canonical gospels. In the early-Christian era, before the canon was established, competing gnostic gospels were spread in the Jewish community. No unified theology was possible until the establishment of the canon, therefore it is to be expected that competing theologies would have emerged in the Christ-following community. What the canon eventually did was select the most credible stories on the basis of apostolicity.
This doesn't change the fact that when Paul started converting gentiles the apostles originally opposed him. The gospels were hearsay about Jesus, the apostles were guys that knew him personally. It's fairly easy to guess which side was a better judge on what Jesus wanted.
|
On January 14 2010 15:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2010 09:25 MoltkeWarding wrote:On January 14 2010 06:04 KwarK wrote:
Skypig.
After Jesus's death the apostles didn't believe in the conversion of gentiles. That came later, with the conversion of Paul and his personal mission to convert non Jews. The matter was hotly debated, there was no definite consensus when Jesus left. So the guys who had been following Jesus around for the last few years somehow didn't know that the old Jewish laws had been superceded. They thought they were running a Jewish sect, not a separate religion. It's all there in the book of Acts of the Apostles. Makes you think. I mean, I don't want to contradict your interpretation of the Bible because I'm sure you know exactly what Jesus meant. I'm just curious why the guys who knew him personally didn't know what he meant. Mark makes clear that none of the apostles understood Jesus until his death and resurrection. In Matthew 28:19, the resurrected Jesus instructs his disciples to make "disciples of all nations." Therefore according to the canonical scriptures, it's not true that the disciples did not understand their mission even after the Passion. Paul's mission was made a generation later, much too early to have been influenced by the canonical gospels. In the early-Christian era, before the canon was established, competing gnostic gospels were spread in the Jewish community. No unified theology was possible until the establishment of the canon, therefore it is to be expected that competing theologies would have emerged in the Christ-following community. What the canon eventually did was select the most credible stories on the basis of apostolicity. This doesn't change the fact that when Paul started converting gentiles the apostles originally opposed him. The gospels were hearsay about Jesus, the apostles were guys that knew him personally. It's fairly easy to guess which side was a better judge on what Jesus wanted.
Acts 15 clearly writes that the Apostles decided in favour of gentile converts. A key theme of the gospels (our accounts of the relationship between the apostles and Jesus) was that the Apostles did NOT understand what Jesus wanted. Jesus eluded their understanding at every turn. It was not until they experienced the resurrection that they understood his nature.
|
I for one, really have mixed feelings about islam.
Ive met many muslims through my life, and have many muslim friends and all of them are generally good people but Ive also met quite a few that are really the reason for some of my "fear" of islam. I hate the fact that you cant say anything negative about islam withouth being attacked. And as a christian I want to live in a country with christian morals ethics and so on, I also want this for my kids. But the fact is that quite a few muslims wont incorporate them into the way of living here in sweden. Those that do such a thing come here to Sweden and want to take their entire country with them. For example I think its a shame that young women die over the fact that they protest against wearing burka and so on in Iran and here in sweden refugees from Iran want laws passed in Sweden that allows them to wear burka at work and so on, its crazy
|
Hilarious thread. Thanks for the laughs, skypig.
There is a goblin living in my cupboard. Prove me wrong.
|
On January 15 2010 00:21 faseman wrote:
Hilarious thread. Thanks for the laughs, skypig.
There is a goblin living in my cupboard. Prove me wrong.
I have a feeling that the goblin exists. srsly. I have seen miracles and heard about miracles in other people's lives that conclusively prove his existence to me on a daily basis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
