|
On October 15 2013 06:43 IronManSC wrote:
See, here's the thing. A lot of people think God either hates you and slaughters you for not listening to him, or he controls you and doesn't let you live the way you want. We have to understand why Jesus died on the cross for our sins (yours and mine alike).
See I understand that you're saying these things and you don't question them for a second but try to put yourself in my shoes here. I have never felt the presence of God, I have never had any such impression. I was raised without a belief in God, so to me, when you tell me that Jesus died for my sins, it sounds exactly like the rambles of any sect or cult or harry potter voodoo magic. People speak to me like Jesus was this great dood who died for my sins, but as it turns out Jesus is not dead, he's alive - except no he's in the sky, and he's actually God. So I ask, what's the sacrifice? A part of God, Jesus, who's also the totality of God, died, but lived, in order to redeem my sins, to God, (himself)? Why was that necessary! He did it himself to fix a standard that he decided by himself! Jesus didn't have to die for my sins if God could have forgiven my sins but decided to send Jesus to do it.
This is all completely arbitrary. Why was Jesus a necessity? It's some kind of rule that says sins can only be forgiven by God through the action of God, but he can't just decide to forgive, he has to jump through some administrative hoops first??? Fill form 27B, then send Jesus, get him killed and then sins are rendered inadmissible in court.
God made us perfect and holy and in his image. We were made to be in relationship with God and to reflect his qualities and love. But... we wanted to live life on our own, thus sin came into the world and infected us all. According to the Bible, the wages of sin is death. Because God is holy and just, he cannot allow sin to go on forever or live with it.
We were perfect but we fucked up. Therefore we weren't perfect.
So, knowing how sinful we are, God had a plan in mind to send Jesus, the sinless Son of God (also named Lamb of God) to be a substitute for us.
Why not pick up the good ole' wrench and fixed the broken, previously perfect creation?
people sacrificed animals to atone for their sins as a substitute, which God accepted
Even I wouldn't accept that. It's sloppy.
He wants us to accept him, but if we don't and decide to live in our sin, then there is a place prepared for all evil and sin someday, which is hell.
I can't understand why that's acceptable behavior. Seems like the dude wants attention. You'd think an all-powerful loving and benevolent being would understand that from the perspective of people, like myself, his existence is not obvious. What am I guilty of? My brain is the way it is - it just is. And I don't think God exists. Why wouldn't he have mercy in this case? I'm a good guy in most ways that matter...
I wouldn't say that God is mean or controlling. He's basically offering to rescue you, but sadly most people don't want it.
People would want it if some effort was made to convince us that he's "offering rescue". Unfortunately, either our senses have failed us or his message is grossly unclear.
|
On October 15 2013 04:25 Rainbow Cuddles wrote:
The word that best describes Christianity in 1 word is fear. The entire religion is based on fear of heaven/hell. All religions have something they're based on though.
Christianity, Fear
Buddhism, Suffering
Judaism, Forgiveness
Every religion has it's thing. Most of the traits like anti-gay or judgemental stem from his core value. You can take that core value & make it a positive or a negative. Sadly most people go with a negative because it's easier
I would say judaism is far more about tradition than forgiveness and that christianity is far more about forgiveness than fear.
|
On October 15 2013 04:25 Rainbow Cuddles wrote:
The word that best describes Christianity in 1 word is fear. The entire religion is based on fear of heaven/hell. All religions have something they're based on though.
Christianity, Fear
Buddhism, Suffering
Judaism, Forgiveness
Every religion has it's thing. Most of the traits like anti-gay or judgemental stem from his core value. You can take that core value & make it a positive or a negative. Sadly most people go with a negative because it's easier
I like this a lot, though personally I'd argue that the Core principle in Christianity is Sin not fear. Jesus died for our sins, original sin, confession, all that are pretty central to the christian faith. I also think that is why Fear is often seen as the main factor, because we are inherently sinful in the christian belief system and must "save" ourselves or be damned for eternity by it.
I don't know enough about Judaism to comment, but comparing to Buddhism draws a nice parallel. Christians try and remove their sin and thus improve their lives, Buddhists try to remove their suffering and thus improve their lives. It's always been funny to me how religions all aim to do the same thing, improve our lives, but they squabble and bicker over details and create all this confusion and generally loose sight of that goal.
To me I can find good and bad in just about all religion (buddhism is one of the harder, but there's always stupid, ignorant people of any faith who can ruin something good) so I just prefer to stand outside of all of them. I don't really like how religions tend to have their own unique guide book that has "the Truth" or "the Answer" (we all know it's 42 anyways) that they reffer back to for everything. This is especially the case with Christianity where you get told to follow the Bible, or God's word, and to just have faith in God. To me this removes thinking and stagnates humanity, it teaches people not to think for themselves but trust in a book or the word of an all-mighty yet totally intangible god.
It reminds me of that joke where there is very bad flooding and a small town has to evacuate. There is one man in the town who is devoutly faithful in god and knows that gob will take care of him. So even when the flood waters have forced him onto the 2nd lv of his house and a boat comes by to rescue him, he tells the people on the boat "Do not worry, I know the lord will provide for me and keep me safe." Later he has been forced to the roof and another boat comes, but again he says, "I will be fine, the lord will provide and keep me safe". Still later he is clinging to his chimney and a helicopter comes and offers him a rope, once again he says "No, I have faith in my god. He will keep in safe." So the man drowns and finds himself in heaven. He turns to God (usually it's actually St. Peter at the Pearly Gates) and asks, "Why did you let me die? I trusted you completely!?" To which God replies, "Dude, I sent you two boats and a helicopter, what more did you want?"
|
United States15275 Posts
Anyone who says Judaism is about forgiveness does not understand Judaism.
|
On October 15 2013 09:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Anyone who says Judaism is about forgiveness does not understand Judaism in the slightest.
We all say things based on our own limited interpretations and impressions. So rather than simply bashing someone for their opinion perhaps you'd care to enlighten us?
|
United States15275 Posts
On October 15 2013 09:49 Tictock wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 09:41 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Anyone who says Judaism is about forgiveness does not understand Judaism in the slightest. We all say things based on our own limited interpretations and impressions. So rather than simply bashing someone for their opinion perhaps you'd care to enlighten us?
I did not bash anyone. I said that the person who equated Judaism with forgiveness does not understand the religion. It's not an insult as much as a criticism of a shallow interpretation; you could say the same of any attempt to find the definitive tenet of an evolving entity. You would be hard-pressed to find any emphasis on it in the Old Testament or other works. Perhaps you could cite the book of Lamentations but even it ultimately rejects the concept as unworthy of God.
It's not like Jews themselves were any better at defining the tenets of their own religion. Maimonides was heavily criticized for the 13 Principles of Faith by other prominent Jewish scholars, and his declaration was ignored for centuries.
On October 15 2013 06:43 IronManSC wrote:I wouldn't say that God is mean or controlling. He's basically offering to rescue you, but sadly most people don't want it.
I would say that according to Scripture he is somewhat hypocritical, but Christian scholars generally do a good job of reconciling the depictions of God in the Old and New Testament.
|
judaism is a religion in which the fact that sins of the father only carry on down to his sons until the seventh generation is considered LENIENT.
|
On October 10 2013 00:49 PaqMan wrote:
I attend a private Christian university in Texas (Baylor University, sic 'em Bears!) and all incoming freshman are required to take two classes, Chapel and Religious Scriptures.
Well today at Chapel we had a really awesome speaker come and talk to us, and he told us about one of the projects he worked on. I can't remember the name of the project, but he traveled to all 50 states in the US and polled people the following question:
"If you could use one word to describe Christians, what would you use?"
The top three were anti-gay, judgemental, and hypocritical. Other words that were used were hateful, condescending, and excluding.
The saddest part of it all was that the word which describes the entirety of Christianity was no where at the top of the list; love
And so I come to TL and ask all of you, if you could use any one word to describe Christians, what word would you use?
Were these polls properly conducted? Sounds like mild martyring/ rally cries as most of this country identifies themselves as Christian... Sample sizes? Random sampling? Cities are more likely to be politically/socially liberal, so if he just traveled to say Austin, Seattle, LA, of course he'd get those as "top" answers.
Anyway, sounds like hogwash to me.
|
On October 15 2013 02:59 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 23:04 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 11 2013 02:52 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote:
By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something  If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others. Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong? Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it. what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends. Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve". If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/ is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
yeah that one too, but it would be so hard for them to work out, they will just claim he can do it because he is "god" end of story lol they cant even explain the bible yet they claim it as evidence.. it is really hard to reason when their minds are clouded with dogmas and fear is instilled. Mere thinking of things may be a sign of doubting and in the process "sinning" well played whoever started this, he did an endless loop to "shepherd" the sheep.
|
Organisation.
My own bias has led me to see all religons as merely organisations built for the gain of a few through controlling the many.
Cynical, sceptic whatever fits me. To each their own.
|
On October 15 2013 05:59 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 05:49 Djzapz wrote:On October 15 2013 05:33 IronManSC wrote:
Christianity is not about fear lol. We fear God, but not in its negative sense. We don't fear God as being scary, but we know who he is and what he is capable of. We fear his power. We fear hell because we know how sinful and human we are, just like everybody else, and we know that God determines our destiny. Pretty sure fear is correct actually. Don't do that you'll go to hell. You're sinful, your behavior is disgusting, you'll go to hell. Repent or suffer for eternity. It scares the "fag" out of people it it forces others to maintain their belief out of fear. FEAR is what got people to continue to "believe" While God is just, he is also gracious, merciful, and abounding in love, and a lot of people forget those things about God. The Christian life is about living by faith. Many people say we have a "blind faith," but faith is only as good as the object you place it in. We place our faith and hope in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who died for our sins and rose again and will come back again someday. Just: Inegality is abound. Where's the justice? There's no justice on Earth. There's no justice in determining who goes to hell and who goes to heaven (assuming only believers go to heaven). And if you think there's justice in Heaven, well that's just what you believe. Gracious: God is gracious, God is gracious they say. That's just one of the words from the list of words they use. Merciful: Binary system decides who goes to hell and who goes to heaven. A single factor. Love: Genocide (committed by God himself in the bible and by humans in reality), plagues and disease in general, suffering, etc. Even if I believed in a God, especially if I believed him to be omniscient and omnipotent, I couldn't possibly convince myself that said creator is just, merciful and loving (and I won't even consider "graceful" because that's meaningless). If the biblical God exists, he's way too full of himself to be considered "loving" or "good", he's way too harsh about the punishment of non-believers to be considered "merciful". So you say that you don't "fear" god, you're not truly afraid. If that's so, why are you praising a profoundly immoral God? Fear. Unadulterated fear of hell. And I'm basing this on interpretations of the Bible that you may not agree with personally IronManSC, but that'd put you in some sort of minority opinion regarding the scripture. Yes, there is a "fear" to it, but we don't live in fear as you assume. When we fear hell, it's because we recognize our sinfulness and rebellion against God. 1. God made us perfect in the beginning. WE turned our backs on him, and we deserve to be punished for it. 2. When we come to Jesus and recognize our sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state we're in, we fear hell because we ultimately know that we would be separated from God forever. 3. We are not the way God made us to be and that was our choice, not his. So yes, there is fear, but again, 4. we don't live in fear after accepting Jesus because he regenerates you. He takes away your fear of death and hell and assures you that you are his, and when you accept Jesus personally, there is nothing that can separate his love from you. 5. God does not force us to obey him or worship him. He wants us to genuinely choose to love him and follow him. If we were forced to obey then either the entire world would be hardcore Christianity (or basically 'faith robots'), or we'd all be extinct because of our natural inclination to run away from God and be our own god of our lives. The fact that we wake up every day and continue to breath is in itself a mercy that God gives to all of us; another day of life, another chance to repent and turn to him.
Let me just point out why it is just plain wrong. bolded some lines..
1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them?
why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment?
That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
|
On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote:
Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean
Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
|
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them?
why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah...
We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove?
I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it?
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment?
That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve?
GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20
So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9
Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill?
One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened.
You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell.
That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have.
On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored?
If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people.
So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices.
God's providing a way out.
He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him.
God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit.
Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning.
We are all to be punished for it.
God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty.
If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future.
You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement.
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10 -10
|
On October 15 2013 18:03 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 03:49 blubbdavid wrote:
Or in other words, if I have to prove that there is an invisible teapot in space and I fail to bring up evidence for the teapot(*), as opposite it (2)doesn't necessarily follow that there is no teapot, the opposite also could be that the teapot is inverted, and why even think in terms of negations and contraries? (3)A single non-existant teapot doesn't negate all other hypothetical teapot swirling around in space. (not the definition of falsification, more like why burden of proof sucks ass)
(*)(1)And additionally, absence of evidence does not imply asfrwrwjgjsagjasgh u know what i mean Uh, how would you know that the teapot exists to begin with?
I never said I know that there exists a teapot.
1) my ignorance does not invalidate the teapot
2)a bit of semantics n logics n shit, if we have evidence that there is no evidence whatsoever that a teapot exists, if doesn't follow that there is no teapot, it also could be that it is a non-teapot (whatever that may be), or that the teapot actually is a coffemug.
3) this one is self-explaining
Anyway, keep up the good work, your posts are the best thus far in this thread. And I mean it.
On October 15 2013 17:20 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 02:59 Hryul wrote:On October 14 2013 23:04 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 11 2013 02:52 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote:
By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others. Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong? Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it. what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends. Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve". If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/ is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know. yeah that one too, but it would be so hard for them to work out, they will just claim he can do it because he is "god" end of story lol they cant even explain the bible yet they claim it as evidence.. it is really hard to reason when their minds are clouded with dogmas and fear is instilled. Mere thinking of things may be a sign of doubting and in the process "sinning" well played whoever started this, he did an endless loop to "shepherd" the sheep.
U guys ever thought about that "create a task you cannot solve" is a "meta" question and can be answered with a "meta" answer, as things in vectorspaces stay in vectorspaces?
And second, the true question is: "Can God create a gravity field and a surface strong enough so he can create a rock which he cannot lift?"
Feel free to quote me on your next trip to gnutown.
|
On October 16 2013 01:41 IronManSC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them?
why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah... We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10 On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove? I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it? On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment?
That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve? GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20 So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9 Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back. On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill? One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened. You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell. That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have. On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored? If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people. So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out. He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10 -10
Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity.
Anyway back on topic:
Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff.
I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else.
@blubbdavid
There's nothing "true" about your question, neither is it cool or particularly creative, just another way to phrase the "create the impossible" idea.
Regarding the teapot thing:
"Absence" is the natural state of things. Would you assume there's an invisible piece of shit sitting on your head even though u can't see/feel it? There's no shit on your head until people show you proof that there are some.
Same thing, no teapot, until you point me to some proof that there is 1.
|
On October 16 2013 04:12 ffreakk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 01:41 IronManSC wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
1. when did we turn our backs on "god"? the moment we are born, we are all condemn with "original sin", sin that "adam and eve" commited? are u referring to that as turning our backs? if yes, then how did we just inherit them?
why do we deserve to be punish with the "sin" we did not commit? if I was born as a muslim, do i have no chance on this "original sin"? do I need to change religion? if yes I would have my head cut of as I am an infidel to allah... We are all born with a sinful nature, inherited by Adam and Eve's sin. While that may seem hard to grasp, think of a genetic disease where everybody gets it in each generation. There is no one who doesn't sin, Christian or not. "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth... If we claim we have not sinned, we are calling God a liar and showing that his word has no place in our hearts" - 1 John 1:8-10 On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
2. why when we come to jesus we recognize out sinful nature and our hopeless spiritual state? aint jesus be providing positivity? aint he god as well together with the white dove? I don't understand this question. Can you re-word it? On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
3.if god was so perfect why create a flawed creature( us people) and make them suffer? are we just for his entertainment?
That was our choice to be imperfect? whoa wait, didnt god gave us freewill? dont get started with freewill as god clearly did not provide eve freewill to eat the apple and he did create us like this right? he should have fixed it a long time ago if we are flawed, if we are all created equal, why are there people born with disease, handicaps, disorder and etc? why are some people born rich and some to starve? GodHe did not make us flawed. To make us flawed is to say that God has evil in him and can therefore make mistakes, but there is no sin or darkness in God. He can't be tempted, and he does not tempt anyone. He only warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. He does not make mistakes/errors either, because his ways are perfect and the best ways. God knew sin would enter the world long before it began. "...And the ransom he paid was not mere gold or silver. It was the precious blood of Christ, the sinless, spotless Lamb of God. God chose him as your ransom long before the world began, but he has now revealed him to you in these last days" - 1 Peter 1:18-20 So, he did not make us flawed, or watch us sin and go "woah! I didn't see that one coming..." He knew it would happen. The Bible says that God's ways are perfect (Psalm 18:30). If God's ways are perfect, then to allow sin to happen was the perfect plan after all, as awful as we may carnally comprehend that. This is something that even Christians find hard to understand, but at the same time we know that God is beyond our comprehension. "'My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,' says the Lord. And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine. For just as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways and my thoughts higher than your thoughts" - Isaiah 55:8-9 Diseases, sickness, and every wrong thing in this world are a result of sin - our sinful nature as a human race. We hate each other, we kill and destroy each other, we slander people, and all kinds of nasty things you can think of. This is not from God, but from Satan, who through his rebellion in the beginning brought sin to Adam and Eve. Through their free will they gave in, and now we all suffer from it. Yes we have free will to choose, and that is because God didn't want us to be a bunch of faith robots. He wanted us to genuinely show our love for him, just like he showed his love for us by dying on the cross for our iniquity. What would love, grace, goodness and mercy be if we were all programmed the same way from the start? God chose to die for us while we were still sinners (Romans 5:8), so he wants us to choose to love him back. On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
4. so he created us and made us flawed, sent his "son" which also "him" via virgin child birth using a "invisible" pregnant ray wielded by an angel. he was the one who made us and now if we dont believe in him we should be living in fear? and after that we cook in fire because we did not believe? where is the freewill? One of the hardest things to see in this life, including for Christians like myself, is that despite our free will to make choices (good and bad ones), God's plans are still perfect and they will not be altered. The fact that God's unaltered plans still stand despite our divided attention in this world shows that he knows more than we do, and he knew it before anything happened. You're looking at God as the dictator type who says "obey me or die." You have to understand that we send ourselves to hell by our sin, and Jesus lovingly and willingly died for your sins, so that through him you may be saved from a place that you never deserved to go to to begin with. God cannot co-exist with sin, and hell is the ultimate destination in the end where Satan, his demons, evil, death, and those who rejected Christ and his sacrifice will be. If you want nothing to do with God, he will eventually say "have it your way" and someday there is a place where it has nothing to do with him. The complete absence of God is hell. That might seem unfair for many people that God would "send you to hell" when actually we send ourselves there by our sin, but was God not being fair by making a way to get out in the most loving way? People question why God doesn't just take care of sin already and put it to an end, but I see it as mercy itself: allowing more time and chances for people to turn to him and receive the life we were meant to have. On October 15 2013 17:59 woreyour wrote:
5. god does not force you but then why arent we save if we dont believe? do we have other choices? cant we believe in allah. Why did god give us sins, made us flawed and all then judge us for not believing in him? was he just bored? If God does not force you to believe, then why should he be obligated to save you in the end regardless if you believe or not? That's endorsing a lifestyle of sin and pride and pretty much whatever you want to do in life, because "God will save me anyways after I die." That completely nullifies Jesus's sacrifice and resurrection. There would be no need for the sinless Son of God to atone for our sins if we were all saved in the end anyways. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Satan's objective is to oppose the faith; the body of Christ (the church). He is doing everything he can to keep people away from the one true, living God. There is no other except God himself. Satan's done a pretty good job at getting Christians to be hated, if you ask me. Persecution around the world, churches getting targeted, believers getting insulted and called nasty names for simply having faith in Jesus, the names 'Jesus' and 'God' being in half the swear words, and the many false churches out there to deceive people. So, God did not "give us" sins, and he did not "create us flawed." Those are things we brought upon ourselves from our choices. God's providing a way out. He made us perfect and to be in harmony and in relationship with him. God warned us in the beginning not to eat the forbidden fruit. Satan tempted Eve to eat it, and she chose to despite God's warning. We are all to be punished for it. God was loving enough and willingly laid his life down to pay your penalty. If you trust in Jesus, he "covers you with his blood" and your sins are forgiven; past, present, and future. You are declared spiritually holy and righteous by the blood of Christ, his sinless, perfect atonement. "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is by believing in your heart that you are made right with God, and it is by confessing with your mouth that you are saved" - Romans 10 -10 Do Christians not realise how ridiculous it looks to quote the Bible when trying to explain things to non-believers? In case it's somehow unclear, the guy talking to you don't believe in that thing. You couldn't look more ludicrous even if u quoted Snow White while trying to explain The General Theory of Relativity. Anyway back on topic: Untrue. Would probably my word of choice, though many already echoed (and i agree) the sentiment that 1 word is really not enough for such a thing. To my limited knowledge, after Jesus up until around 50AD, Christianity and its books/records are passed down by words of mouth. To still claim absolute truth (ex: The Bible) after 50 years of mouth-to-mouth information passing is.... tough to believe. If you ever played that game where a bunch people try to pass a message down a line, it doesn't take more than 10 people for an Earthworm to turn into a Dinosaur. And we are talking ~50 years of that stuff. I've nothing against the religion (other than the occasional attempt at conversion, which sometimes can be a nuisance). It certainly does a fine job providing spiritual shelter for some people who need it (as does many other religions). But beyond that, i wouldn't trust it with much else. @blubbdavid There's nothing "true" about your question, neither is it cool or particularly creative, just another way to phrase the "create the impossible" idea.
I found it creative. And it is an extension of the create the impossible idea.
Regarding the teapot thing:
"Absence" is the natural state of things. Would you assume there's an invisible piece of shit sitting on your head even though u can't see/feel it? There's no shit on your head until people show you proof that there are some.
Same thing, no teapot, until you point me to some proof that there is 1.
As far from the target as you could get. The point I was trying to make is that there are other/different viewpoints/considerations than the standard notion ""Absence" is the natural state of things."
Really. Black Swans don't exist. You heard it here first.
Besides, what a twisted use of the word "natural". Is nature "unnatural" since it is not absent?
|
I'm a Christian and I don't fear God; use of the word "fear" in that sense (something like "awe") is archaic. As the rest, I'm just posting to say I don't agree with IronMan about any of his theology, so please do not take that as a descriptor for all Christians.
|
On October 15 2013 02:59 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2013 23:04 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 11 2013 02:52 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote:
By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others. Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong? Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it. what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends. Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve". If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/ is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know.
The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
|
On October 16 2013 06:08 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 02:59 Hryul wrote:On October 14 2013 23:04 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 11 2013 02:52 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote:
By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others. Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong? Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it. what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends. Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve". If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/ is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know. The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging.
Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term.
It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent.
Two questions:
Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two.
Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent.
The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
|
On October 16 2013 06:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:08 Shiori wrote:On October 15 2013 02:59 Hryul wrote:On October 14 2013 23:04 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 03:18 packrat386 wrote:On October 11 2013 02:52 woreyour wrote:On October 11 2013 02:03 packrat386 wrote:
By the way, if you could somehow arrive at a proof that there is no god using only our assumptions about the nature of god and formal logic you could have a faculty position at any philosophy dept in the country Again, you don't need to prove it because your not the one claiming something If you still don't see why I'm not the one claiming something then you really aren't getting the concept of faith. Christianity never claims to KNOW that god exists, only that they believe and that they have been told by others. Let me offer an analogy for why your argument is the one that requires proof. Let us consider the case of the existence of intelligent life in the Andromeda galaxy. It seems that there is no logical argument for why such life could not exist and that there is no logical argument for why such life must exist. We also lack the ability to gather data on whether such life exists because none of our instruments have that capability. Therefore if someone were to come and tell you that they believed that intelligent life did exist (or did not exist) in the Andromeda galaxy, how could you claim that they are wrong? Logic and empirics are powerful tools, but there exist problems of a very slippery nature such that neither is sufficient to resolve it. what is probable can be posible. Someone or someday, proof would be provided. Maybe not today, maybe on the near future. But if you want proof for the talking burning bush then it is just hard. Aliens can be more viable than imaginary friends. Uh but all powerful is self-contradictory?! think about the "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" paradox, which can be generalized to "create a task you cannot solve". If there is a "solution" to this without going "meta" like: god created logic/ is all powerful therefore he is not bound to it etc. . . please let me know. The phrase "creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it" applied to an omnipotent entity is question begging. Like he said, it's a paradox. A omnipotent being cannot create a rock so heavy he can't lift it, therefore, no being can be both omnipotent in the purest sense of the term. It doesn't beg the question because it's logically sound. If omnipotent being cannot do something, then it isn't omnipotent. Two questions: Can omnipotent being create a rock so heavy it can't lift it? If the answer is yes, we move on to question two. Can omnipotent being lift the rock? If the answer is yes, then it failed in the first place and therefore isn't omnipotent. If the answer is no, then it cannot lift a rock and therefore isn't omnipotent. The conclusion is that no being can be omnipotent. At best, it's pretty-fucking-potent. . I don't think it begs the question given that the conclusion explains itself through the logic of the problem.
Except there's no reason to think that omnipotence should require the ability to, as it were, "do the [literally] impossible."
It's in no way a logically sound argument, because you're cheating with the premises. This is like saying omnipotence is paradoxical because an omnipotent being couldn't make a (planar) square circle. No, and omnipotent being couldn't make a square circle. But that's because "square circle" isn't actually intelligible; it just sounds like it is.
If an omnipotent being exists, then asking whether it can create a rock so heavy that it can't lift it is exactly like asking whether it can create a square circle. It can't, because both sentences are meaningless. They refer to things beyond themselves which have already been ruled out.
You'd be best suited, IMO, to actually give a definition of omnipotence before going about producing paradoxes. Is omnipotence the ability to do everything possible, or everything, including the impossible? I see no reason why it should be the latter, given that logic is not an imposition on entities in the sense that it would be "stronger" than the omnipotent entity, but is actually just a description of reality. Frankly, though, the debate is pointless, because
1) these paradoxes are pretty weak, given that they refute something nobody believes and which doesn't require a paradox to refute (can X do the impossible? The answer is no regardless of what property X possesses because impossible "things" do not actually refer to anything).
2) It would be indiscernible anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
