|
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.
It's not uncommon for people to be against the teachings of Scripture, or to shun it whenever it's brought up. Most people don't like what it has to say, either because it's true or it's just some "dusty old book" as some people call it and therefore it has no relevance to today's world. What's always funny to me is the same people who tell me I take verses out of context (even after explaining what the verses mean) are the same people who take Matthew 7:1 out of context, which reads "Do not judge, or you will be judged." Anyway that's beside the point. He was asking biblical questions, and I am answering from a Bible-believing perspective. I can tell you things that are in the Bible in normal language and you probably wouldn't notice it, but as soon as I bold it and reference it, suddenly you (or any others) feel threatened by it. Interesting 
There are 365 prophecies that were told hundreds of years before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Jesus not only fulfilled all of them, but 109 of those prophecies could only be fulfilled by Jesus himself. Here is a list of the prophecies/foreshadowing of the coming Christ long before he even came: http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
On October 16 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote:
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.
A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins, and was resurrected to life three days later. Salvation comes through Christ alone. He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him, and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you. I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
|
On October 16 2013 06:53 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:25 Djzapz wrote: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.
I didn't think I cheated with the premises: I wrote "all powerful" as in "nothing is impossible". This may be a naive definition since you run into problems, but it also suggests itself, because it is the common meaning associated with it.
I also don't know why 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.
Care to elaborate? For me it is a meaningful sentence and your reason is unclear. I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems but it's just a personal taste.
But just to give it back: [...] given that logic [...] is actually just a description of reality [of omnipotent entities]. Now this is a meaningless sentence.
|
On October 16 2013 08:10 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 04:12 ffreakk wrote: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. It's not uncommon for people to be against the teachings of Scripture, or to shun it whenever it's brought up. Most people don't like what it has to say, either because it's true or it's just some "dusty old book" as some people call it and therefore it has no relevance to today's world. What's always funny to me is the same people who tell me I take verses out of context (even after explaining what the verses mean) are the same people who take Matthew 7:1 out of context, which reads "Do not judge, or you will be judged." Anyway that's beside the point. He was asking biblical questions, and I am answering from a Bible-believing perspective. I can tell you things that are in the Bible in normal language and you probably wouldn't notice it, but as soon as I bold it and reference it, suddenly you (or any others) feel threatened by it. Interesting There are 365 prophecies that were told hundreds of years before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Jesus not only fulfilled all of them, but 109 of those prophecies could only be fulfilled by Jesus himself. Here is a list of the prophecies/foreshadowing of the coming Christ long before he even came: http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htm
Most nonreligious people probably don't oppose the use of Biblical scripture because they "don't like it", they oppose it because it is not by itself a historically reliable or credible source of information.
Also all of those prophecies are from the Bible. You are using the Bible to prove itself, circular reasoning much?
|
On October 16 2013 08:10 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 04:12 ffreakk wrote: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. It's not uncommon for people to be against the teachings of Scripture, or to shun it whenever it's brought up. Most people don't like what it has to say, either because it's true or it's just some "dusty old book" as some people call it and therefore it has no relevance to today's world. What's always funny to me is the same people who tell me I take verses out of context (even after explaining what the verses mean) are the same people who take Matthew 7:1 out of context, which reads "Do not judge, or you will be judged." Anyway that's beside the point. He was asking biblical questions, and I am answering from a Bible-believing perspective. I can tell you things that are in the Bible in normal language and you probably wouldn't notice it, but as soon as I bold it and reference it, suddenly you (or any others) feel threatened by it. Interesting There are 365 prophecies that were told hundreds of years before the Messiah (Jesus) came. Jesus not only fulfilled all of them, but 109 of those prophecies could only be fulfilled by Jesus himself. Here is a list of the prophecies/foreshadowing of the coming Christ long before he even came: http://www.bibleprobe.com/365messianicprophecies.htmShow nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:06 Shiori wrote:
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. A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins, and was resurrected to life three days later. Salvation comes through Christ alone. He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him, and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you. I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
And NO ONE can know the heart. The only one who is aware of the relationship between a man and God is that man and God. So you nor anyone else can say for sure who is a true Christian. Regardless of their actions or their words, you will never be able to be 100% sure of what they have in their heart. I've read a couple of your posts before and it seems at times that you're calling people out on the credibility of their relationship with Christ. Maybe that's not your intention, and if so I apologize, but if it is, people like you really piss me off.
|
A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior,[/quote]
Obviously.
who shed his blood on the cross to atone for our sins,
No. Atonement theory is not necessary for being a Christian. That's not to say that it wasn't the defeat of sin, and stuff, but I reject penal substitution.
and was resurrected to life three days later.
Yes.
Salvation comes through Christ alone.
Yes. Although you don't know what this means. I like to think Christ isn't a huge douchebag and that he wouldn't send people to eternal punishment for (anything) being otherwise decent but being Hindu. That'd make Christ a shittier person than me.
He is the one, true living God, and there is no one like him,
There are tonnes of people like him. Every person who does good works is being Christlike. That's the whole point. If Christ were nothing like us, his life and death would have been irrelevant, because he'd have been like an alien.
and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you.
It's nice, yes.
I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself.
Didn't claim otherwise. I just think your exegesis and divine command theory and substitutionary atonement ideas are wrong. I don't think you need to be a Christian to be saved, either, but technically you didn't say otherwise, so it's whatever. Also, I don't think the point of Christianity is to be saved, but rather to have a personal relationship with God.
|
On October 16 2013 06:53 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:25 Djzapz wrote: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.
Fair enough sire.
|
|
|
On October 16 2013 02:49 blubbdavid wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2013 18:03 ninazerg wrote: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
I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to:
- He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists.
- He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so.
The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed.
Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened:
1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof.
2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone.
3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about.
4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner.
Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions?
In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
|
On October 16 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:
A true Christian/believer/saint is someone who believes in Jesus as Lord and Savior, Obviously. No. Atonement theory is not necessary for being a Christian. That's not to say that it wasn't the defeat of sin, and stuff, but I reject penal substitution. Yes. Yes. Although you don't know what this means. I like to think Christ isn't a huge douchebag and that he wouldn't send people to eternal punishment for (anything) being otherwise decent but being Hindu. That'd make Christ a shittier person than me. There are tonnes of people like him. Every person who does good works is being Christlike. That's the whole point. If Christ were nothing like us, his life and death would have been irrelevant, because he'd have been like an alien. Show nested quote +and we should strive to have a personal relationship with the one who created you. It's nice, yes. Show nested quote +I hate to burst your bubble but unless someone believes these things in their heart, they are not a real Christian, no matter how much you may proclaim it to yourself. Didn't claim otherwise. I just think your exegesis and divine command theory and substitutionary atonement ideas are wrong. I don't think you need to be a Christian to be saved, either, but technically you didn't say otherwise, so it's whatever. Also, I don't think the point of Christianity is to be saved, but rather to have a personal relationship with God.
Everyone has the capacity to do good works in life because we were made in his image; to reflect him. The question though is why do you do what you do? What's the driving force/motivation that inclines you to do good things in life? For the believer, we do good things because of what Christ did for us. We love him because he first loved us. Good works alone will not merit a ticket to heaven or his favor (he has no favorites). That's why we humbly accept Jesus as Lord, his gift of forgiveness and eternal life, and trust in his claims and promises. God saves -- we cannot save ourselves, so we must trust God and that he is who he says he is. That is how helpless we really are.
You're right, the Christian walk is about having a personal relationship with God - after you are saved. When you are saved, he gives you the faith to believe in him and trust in him. You can't please God without faith, which comes from not only hearing but believing the Word of God. Alongside that, he gives you the Holy Spirit who counsels you as life goes on and sanctifies you throughout your lifetime to become more and more Christ-like. The Holy Spirit enables you to understand Scripture and spiritual truths, and helps you see and think the way that God does (not completely, but enough to understand what he wants for you).
Ok, I have a question for you. Why did Jesus die? How do we receive forgiveness?
|
On October 16 2013 08:25 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 06:53 Shiori wrote:On October 16 2013 06:25 Djzapz wrote: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. I didn't think I cheated with the premises: I wrote "all powerful" as in "nothing is impossible". This may be a naive definition since you run into problems, but it also suggests itself, because it is the common meaning associated with it. I also don't know why 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. Care to elaborate? For me it is a meaningful sentence and your reason is unclear. I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems but it's just a personal taste. But just to give it back: [...] given that logic [...] is actually just a description of reality [of omnipotent entities]. Now this is a meaningless sentence.
The problem with the "logical paradox" argument against omnipotence is that it's absolutely meaningless, in all regards.
To start with, it's pointless semantics. Omnipotence is a descriptor, not a requirement. If an all-powerful being existed, it would not cease to exist because you created a logic bomb.
Secondly, it's a constantly moving goalpost using arbitrary constraints. Even the "rock too heavy to lift" example is faulty in that you're forcing the concepts of weight and the action of lifting...movement is entirely relative, weight isn't even a scientific property (and the scientific geek would say "a rock of infinite mass collapses the universe from its gravitational pull, and now weight and movement are nonexistent").
Same with a "Squared-Circle"...it requires an arbitrary 3-dimensional orientation, because a 2-d plane perspective wouldn't see a difference.
And after I've logicked those examples, you'll just keep making more...hence the moving goalpost.
And at no real point in the discussion will you have actually disproven "God", only that an arbitrary word used to describe him might be slightly inaccurate.
|
On October 16 2013 14:47 ninazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 02:49 blubbdavid wrote:On October 15 2013 18:03 ninazerg wrote: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 I didn't say there's a teapot, because I'm not an idiot and know it's allegorical. Sure, it could exist, and "burden of proof" does not preclude the unknown from existing. The moment someone makes a claim that the teapot exists, and someone disagrees with their assertion of the teapot's existence, then it is up to the person with the knowledge of the teapot to go "Here's my proof" or simply say "You know what, I can't prove it, but I know it's there". At this point, the Teapot Cynic has many choices on how to proceed, but most of the conscious decisions will boil down to: - He sees the Teapot Proponent has offered no proof of any kind to back up his claim that the teapot exists, and decide to not to believe that it exists. - He does not see any evidence of a teapot, but decides that, despite a lack of proof, has decided that the teapot exists, because the Teapot Proponent said so. The reality may be different than the conclusion that the Teapot Cynic came to, but he came to his conclusion based on the best measure of judgement that he could employ at that point in his life. However, the Teapot Proponent's argument favoring the teapot's existence was completely empty, and therefore, he was not able to persuade his friend that the teapot existed. Now, my question is: how did the Teapot Proponent come to believe that the teapot existed? Either one of the following happened: 1. Another person told him that the teapot definitely existed, but did not give him any proof of its existence, so he was unable to pass on the proof. 2. He just made the whole thing up just to fuck with everyone. 3. He has a mental condition that has detached him from reality, so that he genuinely believes the teapot exists, but when confronted with evidence, he simply becomes angry and tells them that they don't know what they're talking about. 4. He was able to perceive the existence of the teapot in some manner. Only the fourth example would lend any sort of credence to the actual existence of the teapot. However, there remain many questions, such as: Can other people also perceive the teapot, or was he the only one who was able to perceive its existence? Did he believe that he had perceived the teapot, but was actually in an altered mental state due to hypnosis, drugs, mental illnesses, or other psychological conditions? In reality, the first and fourth examples above are the reasons behind people believing in the existence of God. The first is that someone in a position of authority and/or trust says that God definitely exists. The fourth example is something many Christians claim to experience, which is to perceive God mentally, audibly, and even visually. Now, if you can get two people together and one goes "I was able to hear God clearly with my ears." and another goes "I had a near-death experience and was with God in Heaven for a short time." then you have something there that is worth investigating. So if God is perceptible, then the burden of proof is lifted, because you at least have something. But to go "Well, you can't prove God doesn't exist." is just a waste of breath or keystrokes. You see what I mean? You'd not be adding anything to the table in the search for the truth, and if you're discussing the truth with someone, then everything should be on the table.
+1 for this. Though ninazerg mostly elaborated on the same old "burden of proof" thingie, it was elaborated well. One can claim a lot of things, but to actually convince people, sufficient evidence is usually required.
|
On October 16 2013 01:41 IronManSC wrote:Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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" w hen 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. Show nested quote +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." Th ose 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
you did not answer my questions, instead you kept quoting the good old book :D (i will give u details as to why not to refer to the good old book later)
also bolded some parts that needs to be better explained as they dont really make sense
let me make it simpler:
1. Why believe in your christian god and not allah, and other more "bigger" religion god as well, vishnu and the hindu gods. I wont be using thor and zues here to make it simpler.
2. If he is so perfect and knows what will happen, why go over all these "you have sinned, now get saved" program? that nullifies freewill right? as he already knows what will happen anyway.
3. Do you think inheriting sins is fair? I mean eve could have been just a bitch and said #yolo eats fruit and all. Not everyone would do it, if it was a weird fruit I wont eat it, why do you think we need to suffer from that? So you think deflecting north koreans jailed in war camps by their tyrant is cool? and not only that deflector is jailed, his family as well plus 3 generations of his children. I dont think its cool, much worse for your god to condemn all of humanity for a stupid mistake eve did even adam did not have a clue. Anyway the talking snake made me stop and blew it for me.
As for why you dont follow the good old book.
1. It is so outdated even the dinosaurs wont agree with it. Why was it not updated or why did not god made a new update to clean out the wordings errors compiled? Example: bible bears, genesis stories etc.
2. It could be a kinda "fan fiction" compilation compiled by fans of god and jesus. Example: I am a fan of starwars and I would write my version of yoda being a sith lord. People would still love it but then we know yoda was a good guy. See what happened there? for all we know those said authors would have been fans of jesus who wrote stuff about him on what they "heard" or believed he was supposed to be. And what the people in the coucil of nicea compiled, nit picked jesus stories that were to them "cool" no wonder the bible is so inconsistent.
3. Bible was made from different letters (who knows who) was passed from word from mouth, lost in translation etc that think the modern illiad is closer to the original than the 1st scrapbook compiled by those "shepherds" long ago.
|
On October 16 2013 16:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 08:25 Hryul wrote:On October 16 2013 06:53 Shiori wrote:On October 16 2013 06:25 Djzapz wrote: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. I didn't think I cheated with the premises: I wrote "all powerful" as in "nothing is impossible". This may be a naive definition since you run into problems, but it also suggests itself, because it is the common meaning associated with it. I also don't know why 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. Care to elaborate? For me it is a meaningful sentence and your reason is unclear. I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems but it's just a personal taste. But just to give it back: [...] given that logic [...] is actually just a description of reality [of omnipotent entities]. Now this is a meaningless sentence. The problem with the "logical paradox" argument against omnipotence is that it's absolutely meaningless, in all regards. To start with, it's pointless semantics. Omnipotence is a descriptor, not a requirement. If an all-powerful being existed, it would not cease to exist because you created a logic bomb.
The original claim from packrat was: 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.
And I just used one adjective I assumed would be shared by all three monotheistic religions: The omnipotent god.
Of course such a being would not cease to exist. But it would be illogical for such a being to exist.
On October 16 2013 16:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Secondly, it's a constantly moving goalpost using arbitrary constraints. Even the "rock too heavy to lift" example is faulty in that you're forcing the concepts of weight and the action of lifting...movement is entirely relative, weight isn't even a scientific property (and the scientific geek would say "a rock of infinite mass collapses the universe from its gravitational pull, and now weight and movement are nonexistent").
Same with a "Squared-Circle"...it requires an arbitrary 3-dimensional orientation, because a 2-d plane perspective wouldn't see a difference.
You should read more carefully and use a little "text sensitive" reading. I didn't introduce the Squared-circle. And you are wrong. both a square and a circle are two-dimensional objects. You don't need the third dimension.
And then you are arguing against something I already hinted at: I also like the abstract one better for the circumvention of physical problems. Great work Sherlock. really.
On October 16 2013 16:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
And after I've logicked those examples, you'll just keep making more...hence the moving goalpost.
And at no real point in the discussion will you have actually disproven "God", only that an arbitrary word used to describe him might be slightly inaccurate.
Well that might be because there is no real "globally accepted" definition of God in a strict sense I could work with. And as I already said it ties in to what packrat originally said. Also: burden of proof is a useful concept because it ties in so nicely with occams razor.
|
Apparently my post was the cause of some debate. As far as the "rock too big to move" thing, I think people have pointed out why assuming that omnipotent means "my defy logic" is faulty. As shiori said, you're refuting something nobody believes in.
|
Hyrul, probably the best version of this argument is the argument that god can't guarantee free will and still be omnipotent (can an omnipotent being limit it's own power?). However, that one is already taken, no faculty position for you
|
On October 16 2013 23:34 packrat386 wrote:Hyrul, probably the best version of this argument is the argument that god can't guarantee free will and still be omnipotent (can an omnipotent being limit it's own power?). However, that one is already taken, no faculty position for you
damn it! And I already wrote my applications. . .
E:I'm not too happy with the free will paradox since "free will" itself is not well-defined. But faith is disconnected from logic anyways so there is no point in arguing about it anyways.
|
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
|
On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life?
Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments.
Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
|
On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy.
that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really.
Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term.
Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference.
why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense?
I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
|
On October 17 2013 01:17 woreyour wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 00:51 packrat386 wrote:On October 17 2013 00:32 woreyour wrote:
Its like god is god, deal with it. He is so powerful he can do anything.
He has the divide by zero power but when asked for proof, no proof. Why? because he is god why do i need a proof?
If I prove him I would just be doubting him = not faithful. Damn, this idea gives you no choice, it is a lose lose situation.
Amazing how these people able to convince people to believe this. What is the motivation? fear of after life? Lol, this is such a terrible conception of faith. The argument that God ought to be able to do things that are illogical has already been addressed several times, and nobody is arguing that you can't discuss proofs of God for fear of being being considered unfaithful. You guys need to learn the principle of charity in arguments. Anyway, the reason I made my post earlier was not to say that nobody has ever offered a proof for why there is no god. Several of such proofs have been proposed (although there are objections to all of them), as well as proofs for why god must exist necessarily. I was just trying to say that its silly when atheists treat the issue like it should be obvious to any logical person that god doesn't exist. The answer isn't very obvious at all, and is a pretty complicated topic in modern philosophy. that is the "catholic" conception of faith for you by the way as well as for some other smaller sects and smaller churches. They cannot doubt god, if they do and start asking questions, their church leader would have them "prayed over" to scare the demons away. Questioning god or faith in god is considered "demonic" acts. So hardcore really. Since there are a million kinds of "christians" it is really hard to start unless we define each and every term. Simple reason would only just to explain your proof and why do you think it is, tell us why do think it is and why do you think you are correct and I will "try" to tell you why. We dont need to be smart asses here and learn basics of debate and principle X and Y or read the book of W and Z reference. why would we offer proof of there is no god? It is really simple, first we are not the one claiming of a "god" being. So we require your statement and proof for us to make sense of it. We are not the ones who is saying Jesus is the only savior .... if you are saying that to us, how can you convince us to believe in jesus in a way we can make sense? I dont think there is a necessity to prove a god should exist. Yes it is complicated, that is why we discuss it, probably we can start convincing one another and achieve something.
Lol, I went to Catholic church for 16 years and none of that is canon. You should check out the Jesuits sometime. Some of them actually offered some of the best refutations of proofs FOR god.
I've explained to you a dozen times why you need to have proof against god and why Christianity doesn't claim proof of god necessarily. If you haven't gotten it by now I can't really explain it in any more detail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
