Why do you believe in the bible?
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
lord xyz
I believe in the Bible because God wrote it.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
I believe in the Bible because God wrote it.
I don't believe you.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
I believe in the Bible because God wrote it.
That is exactly the answer I expect most Christian debators on this website to push....
Then you ask, "How do you know God wrote it?"
And you will get, "Because the Bible says so"
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Hmmm...I believe we have several topics about this already...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t428597.html
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=426873&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
But to answer your question(which I'm sure I already have in another thread) my biggest reason for believing, has to do with the simple message it conveys(love). I definitely could not live without it(it being "love" of course), nor would I want to continue living, if I was not given the chance to experience it at some point - within this convoluted thing we call life.
So what makes thou not believe?
But Love exists in all Faiths, and all aspects of Life.
What makes "Christian Love" more attractive to you then other types of Love ?
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
...But to answer your question(which I'm sure I already have in another thread) my biggest reason for believing, has to do with the simple message it conveys(love). I definitely could not live without it(it being "love" of course), nor would I want to continue living, if I was not given the chance to experience it at some point - within this convoluted thing we call life.
So what makes thou not believe?
I agree, the love that Jesus talked about is a great part of the Bible. However, the reason I don't believe in the Bible is because of all the hateful lies in it.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree, the love that Jesus talked about is a great part of the Bible. However, the reason I don't believe in the Bible is because of all the hateful lies in it.
Same here.
Jesus was a Great Person. But the rest of the Bible does not seem to represent him well.
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree, the love that Jesus talked about is a great part of the Bible. However, the reason I don't believe in the Bible is because of all the hateful lies in it.
What hateful lies? Please extrapolate...
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
What hateful lies? Please extrapolate...
To start, the divinity of Jesus including the lie of his resurrection.
Jesus was a man who died. How many millions of people have been killed or had there lives ruined over the last 2000 years because of this lie?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To start, the divinity of Jesus including the lie of his resurrection.
Jesus was a man who died. How many millions of people have been killed or had there lives ruined over the last 2000 years because of this lie?
I wouldn't consider that a hateful lie.....
The hateful lies qualify more as the existance of Hell. The destruction of Sodom and Gomohrra, the banishment of Adam and Eve, the justification for the execution of homosexual men, the second-class citizenship of women, the selling of daughters into slavery, and the justification for slavery in general.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I wouldn't consider that a hateful lie.....
The hateful lies qualify more as the existance of Hell. The destruction of Sodom and Gomohrra, the banishment of Adam and Eve, the justification for the execution of homosexual men, the second-class citizenship of women, the selling of daughters into slavery, and the justification for slavery in general.
Tell that to the all of the people who were killed because they would not accept Jesus as the son of god.
What Jesus taught was not hateful in any way, but those who made him divine set into action something that became hateful of other beliefs and cultures.
§P0oONY
I don't believe the bible because it's a really unentertaining read. Seriously. It's boring as ****.
Shakyamunison
This is not supposed to be a bible bashing thread.
I just want to know why people believe the Bible.
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
To start, the divinity of Jesus including the lie of his resurrection.
Jesus was a man who died. How many millions of people have been killed or had there lives ruined over the last 2000 years because of this lie?
Well it is not a lie. However, based on your rather adament opinion of it - I find it rather difficult to convince you otherwise. But take this into consideration - perhaps those who wrongfully killed others while professing their belief in Christ's divinity - were not truly Christians at all.
Christ's message is a loving one, but please realise my friend - that love isn't just about "doing what makes you feel good." It's about pain, hurt, sacrafice, and many other unpleasant things. But perhaps most importantly - love is about truth.
Everyone can't be right, nor can everyone be wrong. If one believes in a God who is wrong about just one thing - then that means that their God is wrong about everything, and I definitely can't find myself worshipping(or having any other type of relationship with) a fallible God. Particularly one that lies, accepts bribes, and values certain people over others.
I would rather worship one who was flawless by nature, sticks to his word, loves all people, and doesn't base his word on any approval or condemnation he has received. Even if this means that his word, involves something that is unpleasant to myself. To me this is what Christ's word(love) is all about - and it is unchangeable, despite individual acknowledgement(or lack thereof) of his obvious divinity.
§P0oONY
Fine...
I believe in the bible because I can't handle the fact that there is nothing after death... Better?
peejayd
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But Love exists in all Faiths, and all aspects of Life.
What makes "Christian Love" more attractive to you then other types of Love ?
* i beg to disagree, my friend... you see, that is the reason why i'm always trying to tell you guys, that the Catholics are not the real Christians in the Bible... talk about their infamous mass killing, "The Holy Inquisition", we now blame God, or Christ, or the Bible or all Christians being responsible in that terrible incident... but what does the Bible says about Christians? what is the doctrine of Love and Respect in the Bible?
"But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,"
Matthew 5:44
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another."
John 13:34
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
Greater love has no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:12-13
"Love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor."
Romans 12:10
"Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all.
If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all.
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God; for it is written, Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.
No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
Romans 12:17-21
"So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of faith."
Galatians 6:10
* now, if we really are that picky, let us first know whether those who were involved in the "Holy Inquisition" are true Christians in the Bible...
"Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;"
John 8:31
* did the oppressors in the "Holy Inquisition" continue to abide the words of Christ? heck nope... are they real Christians? of course not! let us remember:
"Not every one who says to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
On that day many will say to me, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?
And then will I declare to them, I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers."
Matthew 7:21-23
* not all faith/s are true... what should we do?
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are of God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world."
I John 4:1
* test them if they are of-God, what is the basis?
"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him."
John 7:17-18
* the doctrine, the teaching, if it's according to the words of Christ in the Bible...
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Well it is not a lie. However, based on your rather adament opinion of it - I find it rather difficult to convince you otherwise. But take this into consideration - perhaps those who wrongfully killed others while professing their belief in Christ's divinity - were not truly Christians at all.
This is the Legendary Christian cop out. "They weren't REAL CHRISTIANS".....
Whose a real Christian these days? What intepretations of the Bible are correct and what are not ? How do you tell?
Is Literalism true Christianity ? Or is it personal intepretation of the Bible ? Or is there some kind of compass you find to guage correct Christianity verses corrupted Christianity ?
Mormons? Catholics ? Baptists ? Evangelicals? Utalitarian ? Who are the REAL CHRISTIANS ?
Christianity, like all other things, can only be accurately judged by its ENTIRETY, not by its preferred aspect. Christianity is the atmosphere created by Christians, ALL CHRISTIANS, good and bad.
Your religion encompasses all who claim it. Please stop trying to separate yourself from your spiritual kinfolk by saying " oh their not like me...im a real christian, they aren't "
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Christ's message is a loving one, but please realise my friend - that love isn't just about "doing what makes you feel good." It's about pain, hurt, sacrafice, and many other unpleasant things. But perhaps most importantly - love is about truth.
So If I torture you, that means I love you ?
If I control you, that means I love you?
If I kill you, that means I love you ?
watch how you use your words.....your own words can get you in trouble.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Everyone can't be right, nor can everyone be wrong. If one believes in a God who is wrong about just one thing - then that means that their God is wrong about everything, and I definitely can't find myself worshipping(or having any other type of relationship with) a fallible God. Particularly one that lies, accepts bribes, and values certain people over others.
So how do you know your God is perfect ? Do you know what perfection is ? Have you ever met God ? Had a full conversation with him ?
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I would rather worship one who was flawless by nature, sticks to his word, loves all people, and doesn't base his word on any approval or condemnation he has received.
Then you have a major problem
The Bible, Christ's followers, and Christianity as a whole all contradicts itself and each other.
Consistancy and Clarity are two of the things Christianity severely lacks and always had.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Even if this means that his word, involves something that is unpleasant to myself. To me this is what Christ's word(love) is all about - and it is unchangeable, despite individual acknowledgement(or lack thereof) of his obvious divinity.
Unchangeable ? Are you aware that the Bible has been translated and editted numerous times ?
Are you aware that Christianity has evolved drastically over the centuries and is ever changing, ever reforming, and ever dividing ?
How can you claim God is unchanging when his representations here on Earth (The Bible and his people) are ever changing ?
lord xyz
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Hmmm...I believe we have several topics about this already...
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f80/t428597.html
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=426873&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
But to answer your question(which I'm sure I already have in another thread) my biggest reason for believing, has to do with the simple message it conveys(love). I definitely could not live without it(it being "love" of course), nor would I want to continue living, if I was not given the chance to experience it at some point - within this convoluted thing we call life.
So what makes thou not believe? Love, something else that doesn't exist, or rather, isn't what you think it to be.
debbiejo
We need a red letter Bible that ONLY has Jesus' words in it and that is all............OH, we do........It's called the gospel of Q.
lord xyz
Originally posted by debbiejo
We need a red letter Bible that ONLY has Jesus' words in it and that is all............OH, we do........It's called the gospel of Q. We do?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
Love, something else that doesn't exist, or rather, isn't what you think it to be.
Can you prove it ?
debbiejo
Originally posted by lord xyz
We do? Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong or hostile about it, unlike the Bible. People that want to know what Jesus taught should read that instead.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
Yes, and there is absolutely nothing wrong or hostile about it, unlike the Bible. People that want to know what Jesus taught should read that instead.
Sorry, but the Q Gospel is only theory and no one has one.
debbiejo
No it's not...........and I have a copy
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by debbiejo
No it's not...........and I have a copy
My information comes from the History Channel, so it can't be wrong.
LFBC_Gir
The Gospel of Q exists, what it says I do not know, however there is speculation that the authors of Mathew Mark and Luke used information from that gospel or else they could have also used information from the book of Mark, because Luke and Matthew relate to that book a whole lot. I think 93% of Marks material is found in Matthew and Luke.
To Answer the question: Yes I do in fact believe the Bible is true, why?
Because it is the foundation of my faith, I believe it is the written word of God. But Above all it has stood the test of time, even with the billion critics that have tried to disprove it, the bible is still in existance and has been for almost two thousand years... not to mention the OT is older than that. The fact that there are 1000 MSS (manuscripts) that the Bible feeds off of proves it's legitimacy. (There is textual criticism there because of some slight and major changes between copies of MSS) But because the specific process the Jews had in place to copy the OT, the Law and Prophets proves it's legitimacy. (If they mispelled a word, they would have to toss out the copy and start over again and they had a process in which they would count the letters from the last letter to the center and the beginning to the center letter of the Torah and if it was wrong it was trashed)
To be honest, because the Bible has lasted so long, and how much effort is being put into it to create a genuine translation (cudos to the translators), to me, proves it's legitmacy.
debbiejo
What do you think of Isiah?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
To Answer the question: Yes I do in fact believe the Bible is true, why?
Why ?
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
Because it is the foundation of my faith, I believe it is the written word of God.
Yes, but why do you beleive that ?
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
But Above all it has stood the test of time, even with the billion critics that have tried to disprove it, the bible is still in existance and has been for almost two thousand years... not to mention the OT is older than that.
Greek Mythology lasted much longer in its time. 2000 years is nothing compared to the endurance of prior mythologies.
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
The fact that there are 1000 MSS (manuscripts) that the Bible feeds off of proves it's legitimacy. (There is textual criticism there because of some slight and major changes between copies of MSS) But because the specific process the Jews had in place to copy the OT, the Law and Prophets proves it's legitimacy. (If they mispelled a word, they would have to toss out the copy and start over again and they had a process in which they would count the letters from the last letter to the center and the beginning to the center letter of the Torah and if it was wrong it was trashed)
So because a lot of people wrote it, it must be true ?
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
To be honest, because the Bible has lasted so long, and how much effort is being put into it to create a genuine translation (cudos to the translators), to me, proves it's legitmacy.
So if I translate a spanish textbook to english, you will worship it ?
How is something conretely legitamate just because it is old and a lot of people took the time to translate it?
What does that matter? The claims cannot be backed up.....you chose to beleive it, because it is most convienent for you.
LFBC_Gir
No not because so many people have written it, the fact that most of the copies are incredibly accurate to what we would consider "closest to the original" I believe the Bible is the written word of God because my faith is built upon it. My foundation is Christ's teachings and coincidently His teachings came from OT priciples. The Apostles and other writers pretty much wrote commentaries on what Jesus taught so that churches would catch the vision and stop being dumb. (no church is perfect)
Alliance
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
I believe the Bible is the written word of God because my faith is built upon it.
Thats wonderful logic.
the Darkone
I beleive in the Bible because it's about redemption, the stories in the Bible shows everybody has fall from grace and later in life reclaim it and their faith in God. Whatever God said in the Bible came to be over the years, the coming of the messiah, his ressuraction and his return, and including God proclaiming that Israel has to become a nation once again before the second coming Jesus and that happen on May 15,1948 when Israel became a nation once again.
Alliance
Perhaps you should focus on the story, and not the unfactual literal interpretation of the book.
The Bible has some of the oldest, best, and most meaningful myths in the world. I think they have wonderful meanings, but the Bible is not factual.
Nellinator
Sure it is.
Peter existed - fact.
Mount Zion exists - fact.
Jerusulem is a city - fact.
So on and so on. Lots of facts in the Bible really.
Alliance
WHo the hell are you.
Ever heard of the genere called Historical Fiction?
There is a difference between containing facts, and being factual.
You're saying the Greek myths, and any other myth are just as factual as the Bible, because they use real people and places.
the Darkone
Originally posted by Nellinator
Sure it is.
Peter existed - fact.
Mount Zion exists - fact.
Jerusulem is a city - fact.
So on and so on. Lots of facts in the Bible really.
^exactly.
Jesus existed fact
Jesus was crucified fact.
Moses exited fact.
Hebrews leaving Egypt fact.
Israel became a nation once again May 15,1948 fact.
Daniel thrown into the lions den fact.
Alliance
All totally unprovable.
Besides for living in the light. You certainly have no problem calling yourself "the Darkone."
I think you are the anti-Christ. The great Deceiver.
Nellinator
Originally posted by Alliance
WHo the hell are you.
Ever heard of the genere called Historical Fiction?
There is a difference between containing facts, and being factual.
You're saying the Greek myths, and any other myth are just as factual as the Bible, because they use real people and places.
Actually, I'm just yanking your chain right now. Seems to be working a little too well so I'll back off. Seems that neither of us are in particularily good moods tonight.
the Darkone
Originally posted by Alliance
All totally unprovable.
Besides for living in the light. You certainly have no problem calling yourself "the Darkone."
I think you are the anti-Christ. The great Deceiver.
Why are you worrying about screen name, it's comic book thing for your information. I was baptise last month, so my screen name has nothing to do with my salvation, I am confident where I am going, are you?
Alliance
Originally posted by Nellinator
Actually, I'm just yanking your chain right now. Seems to be working a little too well so I'll back off. Seems that neither of us are in particularily good moods tonight.
Well then please, don't waste my time with frivolous cr@p. I'm not trying to waste yours.
Originally posted by the Darkone
Why are you worrying about screen name, it's comic book thing for your information. I was baptise last month, so my screen name has nothing to do with my salvation, I am confident where I am going, are you?
Yes. Except my confidence has basis.
debbiejo
Originally posted by Alliance
WHo the hell are you.
At 2 in the morning, this is cracking me up........lol
Oh, and I agree that historical places don't necessarily made a story true. Man, look at Washington DC. Bad example, those stories are true...
Many of the bible stories are based on astrology which was a science at that time and paganism rituals.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
The Gospel of Q exists, what it says I do not know, however there is speculation that the authors of Mathew Mark and Luke used information from that gospel or else they could have also used information from the book of Mark, because Luke and Matthew relate to that book a whole lot. I think 93% of Marks material is found in Matthew and Luke.
To Answer the question: Yes I do in fact believe the Bible is true, why?
Because it is the foundation of my faith, I believe it is the written word of God. But Above all it has stood the test of time, even with the billion critics that have tried to disprove it, the bible is still in existance and has been for almost two thousand years... not to mention the OT is older than that. The fact that there are 1000 MSS (manuscripts) that the Bible feeds off of proves it's legitimacy. (There is textual criticism there because of some slight and major changes between copies of MSS) But because the specific process the Jews had in place to copy the OT, the Law and Prophets proves it's legitimacy. (If they mispelled a word, they would have to toss out the copy and start over again and they had a process in which they would count the letters from the last letter to the center and the beginning to the center letter of the Torah and if it was wrong it was trashed)
To be honest, because the Bible has lasted so long, and how much effort is being put into it to create a genuine translation (cudos to the translators), to me, proves it's legitmacy.
The Lotus Sutra is 3000 years old and it has survived all of its critics, and is still around. So, it must also be the word of god because it has survived and has had great care taken to preserve it. Also, no one has ever proved it wrong.
lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Can you prove it ? Yep, same way I disprove God.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
Yep, same way I disprove God.
Go for it dude.
lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Go for it dude. It was made up. There is no evidence of it being true. The only people who see it as true aren't taken seriously by those who don't see it as true. There is no argument to even suggest it to be true.
You can't deny those as facts can you?
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
It was made up. There is no evidence of it being true. The only people who see it as true aren't taken seriously by those who don't see it as true. There is no argument to even suggest it to be true.
You can't deny those as facts can you?
But that is not proof. I agree with you, but to prove something is very difficult when it has to do with human beliefs.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
No not because so many people have written it, the fact that most of the copies are incredibly accurate to what we would consider "closest to the original" I believe the Bible is the written word of God because my faith is built upon it. My foundation is Christ's teachings and coincidently His teachings came from OT priciples. The Apostles and other writers pretty much wrote commentaries on what Jesus taught so that churches would catch the vision and stop being dumb. (no church is perfect)
Okay...why is your Faith built upon it ?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
It was made up. There is no evidence of it being true. The only people who see it as true aren't taken seriously by those who don't see it as true. There is no argument to even suggest it to be true.
You can't deny those as facts can you?
What facts prove that Love does not exist ?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by the Darkone
Why are you worrying about screen name, it's comic book thing for your information. I was baptise last month, so my screen name has nothing to do with my salvation, I am confident where I am going, are you?
I find it funny how you beleive Baptism will guarantee you a life in Heaven afer you die. I used to beleive that fairy tale when I was in 5th grade. I grew up since then
FYI...Baptism does not save you from Hell. Repentance does. Do you even know the foundations of your own religion ?
the Darkone
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I find it funny how you beleive Baptism will guarantee you a life in Heaven afer you die. I used to beleive that fairy tale when I was in 5th grade. I grew up since then
FYI...Baptism does not save you from Hell. Repentance does. Do you even know the foundations of your own religion ?
I've repent for my sins, how about you? Baptism doesn't save you I know that, repentance's saves you which I have done. I pray for my sins to be forgiven, and prayed for other people to come too God in my family.
My grandmother God bless her soul told me; tomorrow is never promise to you live for today because you have enough on your plate for today. Never really understand years ago, but now I do and can't wait too see my love ones again.
I know my foundation of my religion thank you. I've been born again and having complete faith in Jesus Christ my lord and savior, I believe in the word of God 100% if you don't.
lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
What facts prove that Love does not exist ? The fact it was made up, the fact there's no evidence to prove it, etc.
Just read the post again.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that is not proof. I agree with you, but to prove something is very difficult when it has to do with human beliefs. True, but the fact it was made up is reason enough to suggest it is false.
sammii
People believe in the bible because they believe in god and Jesus ,the bible gives reassurance for those who need it.
when really the only person you need to believe in is yourself!
at the end of the day no matter how much you look to god its you that chooses the decisions you make in life
weather right or wrong it was still your choice your own instincts
not the gods or the bible
yourself!
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
The fact it was made up,
Where and When ?
Originally posted by lord xyz
....the fact there's no evidence to prove it, etc
Xmarksthespot not too long ago provided evidense as to the physical aspect of the phenomena we call "love". Now are you arguing that it doesnt exist, even though there is scientific evidense to back it up ?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by sammii
People believe in the bible because they believe in god and Jesus ,the bible gives reassurance for those who need it.
when really the only person you need to believe in is yourself!
at the end of the day no matter how much you look to god its you that chooses the decisions you make in life
weather right or wrong it was still your choice your own instincts
not the gods or the bible
yourself!
I think you are very wise indeed
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by ESB -1138
----I believe in the Bible because it is God's book to all the nations of the world for him to show his people the way
Okay...can you prove God wrote it ?
Originally posted by ESB -1138
----I'm the son of a son of a preacher and was raised by the word of God. My grandfather served the Lord with all his mind, heart, and body. My father raised me to serve the Lord and to follow his commandments.
This explains everything. You were RAISED to believe what you beleive. That's why you beleive it, and no other reason is as valid as this.
Just because you were programmed into thinking a certain way, doesn't make your beleif true.
Originally posted by ESB -1138
----When you read the Bible you can feel the Holy Ghost speaking to you about all the sins you haven't confused yet.
I've read the Bible numerous times and have never felt this. Oh wait, lemme gues.....Satan is inside me, so that's probably why
Not many Christians who have read the Bible claimed to have felt this experience. Did you ever consider the possibility...wait....probability that this sensation was SELF-INDUCED ?
Take some psychology, and figure it out.
lord xyz
Originally posted by sammii
People believe in the bible because they believe in god and Jesus ,the bible gives reassurance for those who need it.
when really the only person you need to believe in is yourself!
at the end of the day no matter how much you look to god its you that chooses the decisions you make in life
weather right or wrong it was still your choice your own instincts
not the gods or the bible
yourself!
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Where and When ?
Xmarksthespot not too long ago provided evidense as to the physical aspect of the phenomena we call "love". Now are you arguing that it doesnt exist, even though there is scientific evidense to back it up ?
By love do you mean like alot, or this special force when two people "love" eachother. The former is true but the latter is not, and what I mean when I talk about love, sorry if I never cleared that up.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
By love do you mean like alot, or this special force when two people "love" eachother. The former is true but the latter is not, and what I mean when I talk about love, sorry if I never cleared that up.
Initially, I thought you meant that Love does not exist, PERIOD.
No one truly knows what Love in its entirety is. So both our claims are not yet proven, and are therefore inadequate and only hypothetical.
No offense, but you are still 14. Experience it first, then tell me it does not exist.
Love is displayed not only throughout mankind, but throughout the animal kingdom as well. It's kind of hard for me to beleive that something so common among the animals is something we just made up.
Love, whether it be simply a chemical reaction, a force of unification, an instinct, or all of these things combined exists regardless of its most essential form.
JesusIsAlive
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Well it is not a lie. However, based on your rather adament opinion of it - I find it rather difficult to convince you otherwise. But take this into consideration - perhaps those who wrongfully killed others while professing their belief in Christ's divinity - were not truly Christians at all.
Christ's message is a loving one, but please realise my friend - that love isn't just about "doing what makes you feel good." It's about pain, hurt, sacrafice, and many other unpleasant things. But perhaps most importantly - love is about truth.
Everyone can't be right, nor can everyone be wrong. If one believes in a God who is wrong about just one thing - then that means that their God is wrong about everything, and I definitely can't find myself worshipping(or having any other type of relationship with) a fallible God. Particularly one that lies, accepts bribes, and values certain people over others.
I would rather worship one who was flawless by nature, sticks to his word, loves all people, and doesn't base his word on any approval or condemnation he has received. Even if this means that his word, involves something that is unpleasant to myself. To me this is what Christ's word(love) is all about - and it is unchangeable, despite individual acknowledgement(or lack thereof) of his obvious divinity.
Remarkable response. The following Scriptures come to mind after reading your post:
Proverbs 25:11
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold In settings of silver.
Proverbs 10:21
The lips of the righteous feed many, But fools die for lack of wisdom.
Rogue Jedi
i believe in the bible because i choose to. others choose not to because thats their choice.
Storm
Theists often seem to be voluntarists, and Christians in particular commonly argue the voluntarist position.
Face
I believe in it cause its Gods word and mans book of life
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Face
I believe in it cause its Gods word and mans book of life
What brought you to that conclusion?
Rogue Jedi
thats his opinion, as it is mine. we arent trying to force it on you.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
thats his opinion, as it is mine. we arent trying to force it on you.
I am simple trying to understand something about the point were you were not saved, and when you decided to be saved. What was it about the Bible that made you choose?
Rogue Jedi
i shared my life changing experience with one person here. Lord Urizen. at least i think it was him.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i shared my life changing experience with one person here. Lord Urizen. at least i think it was him.
I missed it, plus I don't want your life changing experience, just what was the spark?
Nellinator
I believed in Satan before I believed in God. My life was confusing, depressing, and hopeless. I decided to start reading the Bible and suddenly life made more sense because I realized that what the Bible said about how to live was right. Life became easier, I was happier, joy started to enter my life, I dropped bad habits, prosperity started to come along, etc. I realized that without the Bible I would still be in the dark, and since I knew that the Bible was God's word I figured that anyone to be so right about life, he must be real. Therefore, I chose to believe in God and continue to believe in his word because following it has never led me astray.
Rogue Jedi
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I missed it, plus I don't want your life changing experience, just what was the spark?
the spark was when i realized that certain things that had happened in my life were due to divine intervention. some tragic events were avoided, and i suddenly realized how precious life is.
sammii
Originally posted by Nellinator
I believed in Satan before I believed in God. My life was confusing, depressing, and hopeless. I decided to start reading the Bible and suddenly life made more sense because I realized that what the Bible said about how to live was right. Life became easier, I was happier, joy started to enter my life, I dropped bad habits, prosperity started to come along, etc. I realized that without the Bible I would still be in the dark, and since I knew that the Bible was God's word I figured that anyone to be so right about life, he must be real. Therefore, I chose to believe in God and continue to believe in his word because following it has never led me astray.
Well surely when you were feeling depressed if you had gone to a councilor, psychiatrist ect, they would have told you how to live just as well as the bible
would that have then ment you belived in councilors? and worshiped them?
mahasattva
Originally posted by Nellinator
I believed in Satan before I believed in God. My life was confusing, depressing, and hopeless. I decided to start reading the Bible and suddenly life made more sense because I realized that what the Bible said about how to live was right. Life became easier, I was happier, joy started to enter my life, I dropped bad habits, prosperity started to come along, etc. I realized that without the Bible I would still be in the dark, and since I knew that the Bible was God's word I figured that anyone to be so right about life, he must be real. Therefore, I chose to believe in God and continue to believe in his word because following it has never led me astray.
I was raised to believe that I should always think for myself, that I should discern fantasy from reality, that violence is not something that should be glorified, and that God is greater than our ability to describe in words or to limit with ideas. For these reasons, I do not accept the Bible as a unique authority on God or any other subject. That does not mean that I dismiss it entirely, however.
To begin with, I will not accept anything just because it is written in the Bible. As far as I am concerned the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament from the Christian point of view) is a collection of the tribal legends, historical records, and religious writings of the ancient Hebrews. I am a modern man - not an ancient Hebrew. Therefore, my entire worldview is informed by scientific data and cultural assumptions that are extremely far removed from those of the ancient Hebrews. Unlike them, just to name a few examples, I am convinced that this universe is billions of years old; that life as it now appears on Earth is part of an ongoing process of evolution; that different languages and dialects developed over time; that it is not an abomination to eat pork, shrimp, or lobster, or to mix beef and dairy products; that slavery is immoral; that it is immoral to execute disrespectful children; and that one is never justified in committing genocide or ethnic cleansing. The ancient Hebrews, however, were ignorant of modern astrophysics, ignorant of geology, ignorant of the fossil record and carbon dating, they believed that all of the existing language groups originated from God's curse at the tower of Babel, they believed that it is an abomination to eat certain kinds of foods or to prepare foods in certain ways, they believed that disrespect to God or one's parent's is a capital offense, they practiced slavery, and they believed that God had commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child in certain towns during the conquest of the promised land (in other cases the men and boys were killed and the woman and girls enslaved). So, for scientific and moral reasons I do not view the Bible as an authority.
The Bible also relates stories wherein a donkey speaks to its master, a flood covers the entire world and all life on earth today is descended from only the animals aboard Noah's ark, a woman turns into a pillar of salt, people are lifted up bodily into the heavens never to return, the sun stands still in the sky, and finally a man physically comes back from the dead and proceeds to walk through walls and ascend bodily into the heavens. I am leaving out a lot of other miraculous tales that are either logistically impossible, or which could be explained in a more rational way. The point is that the reality I live in does not operate that way, and I have never been given any good reason to believe that any of these things happened in real life other than the testimony of the ancient Hebrews who (as I said) had a prescientific mythical worldview; and the testimony of a small sect of Judaism which became the nucleus of a minor mystery religion in the Roman Empire, which eventually became the official religion of that empire, which then become the reigning religious ideology of various European nation-states. I must say that I require objective, empirical, and verifiable and irrefutable evidence before I throw common sense out the window and accept that any of these things happened in real life.
I also cannot accept the Biblical God's use of violence, terror, and threats to get people to do what He wants. This includes Joshua's conquest of the promised land, the behavior of the Judges, Jesus and St. Paul's threats of eternal damnation for those who do not believe, and finally the Armageddon promised in the Book of Revelations. Jesus even says at one point that he comes not to bring peace but a sword to divide families against one another (Matthew 10:34). It seems to me that the violence and threats of violence in the Bible are nothing more than a very human way of abdicating responsibility and laying all of our very human shortcomings at God's door. I do not accept the Biblical portrait of a God who commands, condones, and makes use of violence and terror. I do not believe that everything that could be said about such an infinite reality as God has been said in the Bible.
"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it ." --The Buddha Sakyamuni
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by the Darkone
^exactly.
Jesus existed fact
Jesus was crucified fact.
Moses exited fact.
Hebrews leaving Egypt fact.
Israel became a nation once again May 15,1948 fact.
Daniel thrown into the lions den fact.
Did he "exited" before or after the Hebrews were leaving Egypt --
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by LFBC_Gir
No not because so many people have written it, the fact that most of the copies are incredibly accurate to what we would consider "closest to the original" I believe the Bible is the written word of God because my faith is built upon it. My foundation is Christ's teachings and coincidently His teachings came from OT priciples. The Apostles and other writers pretty much wrote commentaries on what Jesus taught so that churches would catch the vision and stop being dumb. (no church is perfect)
Riddle for you? What do you call the getting together of a sock -- that's copying another sock -- of an individual who's socking another?
Answer: A sock hop...He..He..He..
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
This is the Legendary Christian cop out. "They weren't REAL CHRISTIANS".....
Whose a real Christian these days? What intepretations of the Bible are correct and what are not ? How do you tell?
Is Literalism true Christianity ? Or is it personal intepretation of the Bible ? Or is there some kind of compass you find to guage correct Christianity verses corrupted Christianity ?
Mormons? Catholics ? Baptists ? Evangelicals? Utalitarian ? Who are the REAL CHRISTIANS ?
Christianity, like all other things, can only be accurately judged by its ENTIRETY, not by its preferred aspect. Christianity is the atmosphere created by Christians, ALL CHRISTIANS, good and bad.
Your religion encompasses all who claim it. Please stop trying to separate yourself from your spiritual kinfolk by saying " oh their not like me...im a real christian, they aren't "
A real Christian is one who loves Christ(God) more than anyone else -- and only second to that -- loves their brother more than they love themselves.
What is love? Well love is Christ -- and being loving, is following Christ's word. You either choose to believe his word is "loving" or you don't. It's that simple.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So If I torture you, that means I love you ?
Only if you equate truth with torture.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If I control you, that means I love you?
It is better to have self control, then to control an entire army.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If I kill you, that means I love you ?
If I let you live with a lie - does that mean I'm loving?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
watch how you use your words.....your own words can get you in trouble.
Possibly -- but I'd rather get in *trouble* telling the truth, then receive rewards telling a lie.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So how do you know your God is perfect ? Do you know what perfection is ? Have you ever met God ? Had a full conversation with him ?
How do you know he isn't perfect? Being imperfect beings -- and having limited knowledge -- how is it even possible for us to recognize perfection?
Simple answer -- it is not. However - we still have much evidence *for* God's love and perfection around us. The fact that we are both still alive today -- the fact that God allows each of us to continue existing, despite our sinful nature -- is proof of his love. We are all living under the grace and love of God right now. You either have faith in this love and/or perfection that Christ personifies - or you don't. Once again Urizen..it's that simple.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Then you have a major problem
The Bible, Christ's followers, and Christianity as a whole all contradicts itself and each other.
Consistancy and Clarity are two of the things Christianity severely lacks and always had.
If one has never had clarity to begin with, believes in the subjectivity of everything, and/or is never consistent with anything they say -- how can they expect to recognize such concepts -- when they are glaringly presented before them?
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Unchangeable ? Are you aware that the Bible has been translated and editted numerous times ?
Are you aware that Christianity has evolved drastically over the centuries and is ever changing, ever reforming, and ever dividing ?
How can you claim God is unchanging when his representations here on Earth (The Bible and his people) are ever changing ?
God remains true - despite the subjective interpretations that man gives him. Look around you Urizen - have your words changed anything regarding my opinion of God(Love) - or have they changed anything in regards to the world around you. Sadly(to you of course) -- they have not.
When your words have proven the ability to change all of these things, then I will put my faith in them. Until then -- I will stick with my faith in my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
Good day to you Urizen. God bless.
lord xyz
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
A real Christian is one who loves Christ(God) more than anyone else -- and only second to that -- loves their brother more than they love themselves. So you're saying there is less that two real Christians? I mean, only one person can love God more than anyone else, and if that person doesn't have a brother, well, it's not a christian. Oh, and what if two people love Jesus the same amount?
Wait, what do you mean by love anyway?
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
What is love? Well love is Christ -- and being loving, is following Christ's word. You either choose to believe his word is "loving" or you don't. It's that simple. Eh? So you're saying a true Christian is someone who Jesuses Jesus more than anyone else and Jesuses their brother more than they Jesus themself?
And what are you saying it's that simple? What you said is more weird, scary, confusing and dangerous rather than simple.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Good day to you Urizen. God bless. Great way to piss off an atheist you got there.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i shared my life changing experience with one person here. Lord Urizen. at least i think it was him.
Yes you did. I appreciated it, and respect it.
But I am not convinced as to why I should beleive. You suffer, I suffer, we ALL suffer. Your suffering is no more meaningful than my own, nor is mine more meaningful than yours.
We all suffer, we all find ways to ease that, we all find something to make us stronger, and we have every right to it.
You have the right to beleive in God, I have the right to beleive something else. However, we also have the right to question each other's beleifs.
Nellinator
Originally posted by sammii
Well surely when you were feeling depressed if you had gone to a councilor, psychiatrist ect, they would have told you how to live just as well as the bible
would that have then ment you belived in councilors? and worshiped them?
Ironic because I am a counselling psychologist.
Originally posted by mahasattva
I was raised to believe that I should always think for myself, that I should discern fantasy from reality, that violence is not something that should be glorified, and that God is greater than our ability to describe in words or to limit with ideas. For these reasons, I do not accept the Bible as a unique authority on God or any other subject. That does not mean that I dismiss it entirely, however.
To begin with, I will not accept anything just because it is written in the Bible. As far as I am concerned the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament from the Christian point of view) is a collection of the tribal legends, historical records, and religious writings of the ancient Hebrews. I am a modern man - not an ancient Hebrew. Therefore, my entire worldview is informed by scientific data and cultural assumptions that are extremely far removed from those of the ancient Hebrews. Unlike them, just to name a few examples, I am convinced that this universe is billions of years old; that life as it now appears on Earth is part of an ongoing process of evolution; that different languages and dialects developed over time; that it is not an abomination to eat pork, shrimp, or lobster, or to mix beef and dairy products; that slavery is immoral; that it is immoral to execute disrespectful children; and that one is never justified in committing genocide or ethnic cleansing. The ancient Hebrews, however, were ignorant of modern astrophysics, ignorant of geology, ignorant of the fossil record and carbon dating, they believed that all of the existing language groups originated from God's curse at the tower of Babel, they believed that it is an abomination to eat certain kinds of foods or to prepare foods in certain ways, they believed that disrespect to God or one's parent's is a capital offense, they practiced slavery, and they believed that God had commanded them to kill every man, woman, and child in certain towns during the conquest of the promised land (in other cases the men and boys were killed and the woman and girls enslaved). So, for scientific and moral reasons I do not view the Bible as an authority.
The Bible also relates stories wherein a donkey speaks to its master, a flood covers the entire world and all life on earth today is descended from only the animals aboard Noah's ark, a woman turns into a pillar of salt, people are lifted up bodily into the heavens never to return, the sun stands still in the sky, and finally a man physically comes back from the dead and proceeds to walk through walls and ascend bodily into the heavens. I am leaving out a lot of other miraculous tales that are either logistically impossible, or which could be explained in a more rational way. The point is that the reality I live in does not operate that way, and I have never been given any good reason to believe that any of these things happened in real life other than the testimony of the ancient Hebrews who (as I said) had a prescientific mythical worldview; and the testimony of a small sect of Judaism which became the nucleus of a minor mystery religion in the Roman Empire, which eventually became the official religion of that empire, which then become the reigning religious ideology of various European nation-states. I must say that I require objective, empirical, and verifiable and irrefutable evidence before I throw common sense out the window and accept that any of these things happened in real life.
I also cannot accept the Biblical God's use of violence, terror, and threats to get people to do what He wants. This includes Joshua's conquest of the promised land, the behavior of the Judges, Jesus and St. Paul's threats of eternal damnation for those who do not believe, and finally the Armageddon promised in the Book of Revelations. Jesus even says at one point that he comes not to bring peace but a sword to divide families against one another (Matthew 10:34). It seems to me that the violence and threats of violence in the Bible are nothing more than a very human way of abdicating responsibility and laying all of our very human shortcomings at God's door. I do not accept the Biblical portrait of a God who commands, condones, and makes use of violence and terror. I do not believe that everything that could be said about such an infinite reality as God has been said in the Bible.
"Don't believe in anything simply because you heard it.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
But after observation and analysis, you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept and live up to it ." --The Buddha Sakyamuni
This has nothing to do with what I said. Though, your Buddha quote actually shows my course of action to be wise because it is basically what I did.
lord xyz
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
i believe in the bible because i choose to. others choose not to because thats their choice. You can choose your beliefs now?
Regret
Originally posted by sammii
Well surely when you were feeling depressed if you had gone to a councilor, psychiatrist ect, they would have told you how to live just as well as the bible
would that have then ment you belived in councilors? and worshiped them? Interestingly enough, depending on the psychological school of thought, a psychological counselor would have had various possible solutions to the issue. I, being a behaviorist would suggest one spend more time with individuals that are in the position that the individual wants to be in. The Christian community that he became a part of obviously has the aspects of life that he wishes to have himself, and by becoming a part of their group, they have shaped his behavior such that he is like them. Such is a logical path, and the path he chose includes belief in the Bible. One cannot become like someone else while denying aspects of that someone. If one wishes to do well in school, one should befriend and spend time with those that do well in school. If one wishes to sleep around, one should befriend and spend time with those that sleep around. If one wishes to be a racist, one should befriend and spend time with racists. We are shaped by those we spend time with, regardless of what they are. No one worships counselors, so there is no shaping towards such a behavior, such would be an illogical leap in speculation. Although if one goes to a counselor and the counselor makes them feel better, regardless of the method, the subject will be inclined to hold that advice above conflicting advice. Such is seen in religious devotion as well. The question in religious devotion is whether the reinforcement is due to ones religious compatriots or due to the deity and practices of the religion, does one rely on the group or the concept for reinforcement? Most frequently I believe it is the group that is reinforcing the behavior, not the concept, but a conclusion on the subject would need proper observation.
Nellinator
Originally posted by Regret
Interestingly enough, depending on the psychological school of thought, a psychological counselor would have had various possible solutions to the issue. I, being a behaviorist would suggest one spend more time with individuals that are in the position that the individual wants to be in. The Christian community that he became a part of obviously has the aspects of life that he wishes to have himself, and by becoming a part of their group, they have shaped his behavior such that he is like them. Such is a logical path, and the path he chose includes belief in the Bible. One cannot become like someone else while denying aspects of that someone. If one wishes to do well in school, one should befriend and spend time with those that do well in school. If one wishes to sleep around, one should befriend and spend time with those that sleep around. If one wishes to be a racist, one should befriend and spend time with racists. We are shaped by those we spend time with, regardless of what they are. No one worships counselors, so there is no shaping towards such a behavior, such would be an illogical leap in speculation. Although if one goes to a counselor and the counselor makes them feel better, regardless of the method, the subject will be inclined to hold that advice above conflicting advice. Such is seen in religious devotion as well. The question in religious devotion is whether the reinforcement is due to ones religious compatriots or due to the deity and practices of the religion, does one rely on the group or the concept for reinforcement? Most frequently I believe it is the group that is reinforcing the behavior, not the concept, but a conclusion on the subject would need proper observation.
B.F. Skinner's influence on you is quite clear. Especially his concepts of neutrality in motivation.
Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
B.F. Skinner's influence on you is quite clear. Especially his concepts of neutrality in motivation. Yes, I am rather skeptical of the explanations provided by cognitive and mental type theories. While their techniques work, I believe the true explanation can fall within a behavioral paradigm and thus avoid speculation as to internal supposed variables that may not actually exist in the manner we believe they may, particularly when such is unnecessary. Although, I believe in the concept of spiritual preexistence. Given this, experience began at a point much further back in time than conception, and thus some behavior could be due to spiritual exposure prior to this point. But then, I also believe many natural laws to be extensions of eternal laws or concepts. Given the universal nature of learning theory, I believe its principles to be eternally applicable.
Nellinator
And very few people here will understand that.
Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
And very few people here will understand that. Seldom are behaviorists understood, our views often appear cold and are inttrpretted as totally against the possibility of internal states existing.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
Seldom are behaviorists understood, our views often appear cold and are inttrpretted as totally against the possibility of internal states existing.
Not necessarily, I thought it was interesting, but it does contradict your stubborn beleif in Sin and Hell.
If you truly beleive that we learn throughout eternity, then you must also beleive that this Life is just one of many forms of existance that we as human beings will endure, and that it would only make sense that for whatever mistakes or "sins" we commit in this life would not be punished by the method of Hell (eternal torment), but rather given an infinite number of chances to mature past, since you still insist on the belief that education, in a spiritual sense, is eternal.
I find it self contradicting that you are open to the belief that we still evolve as spirits, not just bodies, yet you also beleive that Heaven and Hell exist as eternal consequences for whatever actions were done in this one limitted lifetime.
Nellinator
Originally posted by Regret
Seldom are behaviorists understood, our views often appear cold and are inttrpretted as totally against the possibility of internal states existing.
And people are often angered when their behaviors are shown to be predictable.
Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Not necessarily, I thought it was interesting, but it does contradict your stubborn beleif in Sin and Hell.
If you truly beleive that we learn throughout eternity, then you must also beleive that this Life is just one of many forms of existance that we as human beings will endure, and that it would only make sense that for whatever mistakes or "sins" we commit in this life would not be punished by the method of Hell (eternal torment), but rather given an infinite number of chances to mature past, since you still insist on the belief that education, in a spiritual sense, is eternal.
I find it self contradicting that you are open to the belief that we still evolve as spirits, not just bodies, yet you also beleive that Heaven and Hell exist as eternal consequences for whatever actions were done in this one limitted lifetime. You forget that an extremely small few actually make it to Mormon Hell.
Also, Behaviorists believe that punishment works, it does charge behavior rates. For a behaviorist the issue is that punishment must be instant and severe. From our perspective, divine punishmint may be too much delayed, but probably not too severe.
Punishment in no way conflicts with a behavioral perspective.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
You forget that an extremely small few actually make it to Mormon Hell.
I bet that extremely small few includes all homosexuals
Originally posted by Regret
Also, Behaviorists believe that punishment works, it does charge behavior rates. For a behaviorist the issue is that punishment must be instant and severe. From our perspective, divine punishmint may be too much delayed, but probably not too severe.
1) Punishment being instant and severe is not the same as punishment being Eternal. If the goal of punishment is the effort of change, then how would eternal punishment fit this plan ?
2) Same goes for Eternal Reward. If Heaven Is Eternal, then it is also unchanging, and there will not be much personal or spiritual evolution occuring if there is only one way to travel.
3) Factually, Punishment does not always work. Punishments such as time in prison, physical or emotional abuse, or even torture do not always stop criminals from comitting crimes. There are other methods, besides reward and punishment that would work properly, if the goal is to succeed in changing a person's behavior/mentality.
Your beleif is nothing more than wishful thinking being supported by some examples of success, but nothing solid.
Originally posted by Regret
Punishment in no way conflicts with a behavioral perspective.
It does if it's eternal punishment, which is what Hell is said to be by the Bible.
Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Punishment being instant and severe is not the same as punishment being Eternal. If the goal of punishment is the effort of change, then how would eternal punishment fit this plan ?
2) Same goes for Eternal Reward. If Heaven Is Eternal, then it is also unchanging, and there will not be much personal or spiritual evolution occuring if there is only one way to travel.
3) Factually, Punishment does not always work. Punishments such as time in prison, physical or emotional abuse, or even torture do not always stop criminals from comitting crimes. There are other methods, besides reward and punishment that would work properly, if the goal is to succeed in changing a person's behavior/mentality.
Your beleif is nothing more than wishful thinking being supported by some examples of success, but nothing solid.
Its not wishful thinking. It is a firm psychological principle that is tried and true. Of course there are variations due to the unique nature of each person, but the concept is still the same. I personally prefer methods of negative reinforcement for learning discipline.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
I personally prefer methods of negative reinforcement for learning discipline.
Why ? Why opposed to positive reinforcement? Is Compassion not positive ? Since when does Negativity, aggression or hostility of any kind qualify as beneficial ?
Nellinator
You don't know what negative reinforcement is if you made that comment. Its not cruel, violent or aggressive. Its a psychology term from the work of B.F. Skinner (the guy in Regret's sig).
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of it.
Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I bet that extremely small few includes all homosexuals
No, there are only a handful of individuals. The only means by which a person can reach the "Eternal punishment" of Hell (Outer Darkness in Mormon terminology) is to have absolute knowledge of God and deny that knowledge. Even the worst criminals of our time don't reach this hell.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
1) Punishment being instant and severe is not the same as punishment being Eternal. If the goal of punishment is the effort of change, then how would eternal punishment fit this plan ? There are times when a subject must be removed due to problems so severe that they compromise the ability of the subject to complete the minimum requirements. Outer Darkness is the place these individuals go. Originally posted by Lord Urizen
2) Same goes for Eternal Reward. If Heaven Is Eternal, then it is also unchanging, and there will not be much personal or spiritual evolution occuring if there is only one way to travel. What states that Heaven is unchanging? I am doubtful that such is the case. Eternal only refers to duration, not state.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
3) Factually, Punishment does not always work. Punishments such as time in prison, physical or emotional abuse, or even torture do not always stop criminals from comitting crimes. There are other methods, besides reward and punishment that would work properly, if the goal is to succeed in changing a person's behavior/mentality. Punisher (scientific definition) - A stimulus or event, the presentation or removal of which diminishes the rate of a behavior.
If the presentation or withdrawal of a stimulus does not reduce the rate of the target behavior, it was not a punisher. Punishment always works by definition. If behavior does not decrease, it was not punished.
Factually, punishment does always work. If the individual attempting to punish fails, punishment did not fail, punishment did not occur.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Your beleif is nothing more than wishful thinking being supported by some examples of success, but nothing solid.Punishment works. Reinforcement works. If behavior rates do not change then neither reinforcement or punishment were present.Originally posted by Lord Urizen
It does if it's eternal punishment, which is what Hell is said to be by the Bible. I do not see how, you seem to have a limited understanding of behavior principles.
Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
Its not wishful thinking. It is a firm psychological principle that is tried and true. Of course there are variations due to the unique nature of each person, but the concept is still the same. I personally prefer methods of negative reinforcement for learning discipline. The most efficient method, imo, is differential outcomes effect. Where all behaviors are reinforced or punished to some degree, thus allowing maximal matching and discrimination to occur.
Regret
Originally posted by Nellinator
You don't know what negative reinforcement is if you made that comment. Its not cruel, violent or aggressive. Its a psychology term from the work of B.F. Skinner (the guy in Regret's sig).
Wikipedia has a reasonable explanation of it.
Thanks Nellinator.
For Urizen:
Negative reinforcer - A stimulus or event the removal of which increases the rate of the behavior upon which it is contingent.
In simple terms the experimenter makes the subject's life better by removing aversive stimuli from the environment.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
No, there are only a handful of individuals. The only means by which a person can reach the "Eternal punishment" of Hell (Outer Darkness in Mormon terminology) is to have absolute knowledge of God and deny that knowledge. Even the worst criminals of our time don't reach this hell. There are times when a subject must be removed due to problems so severe that they compromise the ability of the subject to complete the minimum requirements. Outer Darkness is the place these individuals go.
Originally posted by Regret
What states that Heaven is unchanging? I am doubtful that such is the case. Eternal only refers to duration, not state.
If Heaven is eternal reward, then it is final. There is no need for further evolution or development, since nothing but the desired goal will result from it's beginning. There will be no struggle, no negative consequence, no true achievement if it is a state of eternal reward.
Only enjoyment. Hey, I am all for that, but unlike Reincarnation, no true maturity can be achieved without the struggle.
Originally posted by Regret
Punisher (scientific definition) - A stimulus or event, the presentation or removal of which diminishes the rate of a behavior.
Punisher- (ACTUAL definition)- a person who condemns, hurts, harms, or discourages another person for having a thought, performing an action, or speaking thier voice which the first person does not approve of.
Punishment- the act of making a person suffer, feel guilty for, or regret a prior action, thought, or speech.
Originally posted by Regret
If the presentation or withdrawal of a stimulus does not reduce the rate of the target behavior, it was not a punisher. Punishment always works by definition. If behavior does not decrease, it was not punished.
Punishment only works in scientific definition, which is never truly the context by which punishment is used. Religion makes use of the common social concept of punishment, not the concept your presented.
Behavior has improved in MANY people WITHOUT punishment in EITHER definition of the word, so your stance is factually false.
Originally posted by Regret
Factually, punishment does always work. If the individual attempting to punish fails, punishment did not fail, punishment did not occur.
WRONG
Punishment in your scientific definition does not exist in the same context that religion or law uses it, which is the social definition of punishment.
Originally posted by Regret
Punishment works. Reinforcement works. If behavior rates do not change then neither reinforcement or punishment were present. I do not see how, you seem to have a limited understanding of behavior principles.
Behavior Principles are in psychological theory, and considering the fact that psychology is an ever-changing, constantly ret-conned science, I do not see it as absolute fact.
Ex: Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness by the Psychological Evaluation. Today that is NOT the case, and the mental scientific FACTS have CHANGED.....
Interesting, isn't it ?
Rogue Jedi
dude, where do you find the patience to write those long ass posts?
Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
If Heaven is eternal reward, then it is final. There is no need for further evolution or development, since nothing but the desired goal will result from it's beginning. There will be no struggle, no negative consequence, no true achievement if it is a state of eternal reward.
Only enjoyment. Hey, I am all for that, but unlike Reincarnation, no true maturity can be achieved without the struggle.
Punisher- (ACTUAL definition)- a person who condemns, hurts, harms, or discourages another person for having a thought, performing an action, or speaking thier voice which the first person does not approve of.
Punishment- the act of making a person suffer, feel guilty for, or regret a prior action, thought, or speech.
Punishment only works in scientific definition, which is never truly the context by which punishment is used. Religion makes use of the common social concept of punishment, not the concept your presented.
Behavior has improved in MANY people WITHOUT punishment in EITHER definition of the word, so your stance is factually false.
WRONG
Punishment in your scientific definition does not exist in the same context that religion or law uses it, which is the social definition of punishment.
Behavior Principles are in psychological theory, and considering the fact that psychology is an ever-changing, constantly ret-conned science, I do not see it as absolute fact.
Ex: Homosexuality was once considered a mental illness by the Psychological Evaluation. Today that is NOT the case, and the mental scientific FACTS have CHANGED.....
Interesting, isn't it ? First, Behavior Analysis has been consistent in its definition and little it anything has changed in behavioral definitions.
Second, Behavior Analysts hold little scientific credibility in any explanations of behavior that includes mentalistic or internal variable claims as objective evidence is lacking in such claims. Given this, schools of psychology that promote such are not viewed by us as having scientific credibility in all matters.
Mental illnesses are only diagnosed if they interfere with a person's ability to survive. Or if the person feels that they have a problem. Homosexuality is a mental illness if it fits either of these. The DSM_IV TR may not list something, it is not an end-all list of mental illness, and is not intended as such, it is only a reference to reduce wasted time tryng to treat an illness when a reliable treatment has already been researched.
Lastly, if you wish to attack science that is all well and good. Science changes, this does not lessen its validity.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
First, Behavior Analysis has been consistent in its definition and little it anything has changed in behavioral definitions.
But is not consistant with social definitions of the SAME terms. Punishment does NOT always work the way its INTENDED.
Originally posted by Regret
Second, Behavior Analysts hold little scientific credibility in any explanations of behavior that includes mentalistic or internal variable claims as objective evidence is lacking in such claims. Given this, schools of psychology that promote such are not viewed by us as having scientific credibility in all matters.
I love how you claim to trust psychology, but will nitpick the teachings that are more favorable, while ignoring what isn't convienent for you to argue.
Originally posted by Regret
Mental illnesses are only diagnosed if they interfere with a person's ability to survive. Or if the person feels that they have a problem. Homosexuality is a mental illness if it fits either of these. The DSM_IV TR may not list something, it is not an end-all list of mental illness, and is not intended as such, it is only a reference to reduce wasted time tryng to treat an illness when a reliable treatment has already been researched.
1) You cannot just nitpick certain teaching of psychology, and then ignore the others. Again, it is painfully CLEAR AND SELF EVIDENT that you are allowing your religious bias to choose what part of psychology you beleive, and what part to disregard.
You trust Behavioral Theories, even though they are not proven, nor do they validly translate into the social definitions of the same terms, but then you want to INSIST that Homosexuality is a mental illness, EVEN THOUGH Psychology TEACHES it is NOT.
Please stop with the Hypocrisy, because it is getting REPETITIVE and sickening.
2) Homosexuality in itself does NOT interfere with one's ability to survive. Homophobia and SOCIAL STIGMA does.....these two factors are ALSO to blame for one's beleif that one has a problem if one is homosexual.
3) Now, let's just say for arguments sake, that if a person is a homosexual and is NOT exposed to massive homophobia or stigma, but would rather have heterosexual desires, then and only then can we say this person is mentally ill, because he or she is not living a life where they are content or at peace.
Again, this only proves that Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, even though you fkn continue to INSIST it is.
I love how you present factual information that CONTRADICTS your personal beleifs, and then ignore the obvious contradictions.....
Originally posted by Regret
Lastly, if you wish to attack science that is all well and good. Science changes, this does not lessen its validity.
I attack science and religion the same, and since Scientific Data has changed over the centuries, I don't feel like I'm taking a huge risk challenging it. However, since science holds more validity than religion, I try to be more careful
Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But is not consistant with social definitions of the SAME terms. Punishment does NOT always work the way its INTENDED.
I love how you claim to trust psychology, but will nitpick the teachings that are more favorable, while ignoring what isn't convienent for you to argue.
1) You cannot just nitpick certain teaching of psychology, and then ignore the others. Again, it is painfully CLEAR AND SELF EVIDENT that you are allowing your religious bias to choose what part of psychology you beleive, and what part to disregard.
You trust Behavioral Theories, even though they are not proven, nor do they validly translate into the social definitions of the same terms, but then you want to INSIST that Homosexuality is a mental illness, EVEN THOUGH Psychology TEACHES it is NOT.
Please stop with the Hypocrisy, because it is getting REPETITIVE and sickening.
2) Homosexuality in itself does NOT interfere with one's ability to survive. Homophobia and SOCIAL STIGMA does.....these two factors are ALSO to blame for one's beleif that one has a problem if one is homosexual.
3) Now, let's just say for arguments sake, that if a person is a homosexual and is NOT exposed to massive homophobia or stigma, but would rather have heterosexual desires, then and only then can we say this person is mentally ill, because he or she is not living a life where they are content or at peace.
Again, this only proves that Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, even though you fkn continue to INSIST it is.
I love how you present factual information that CONTRADICTS your personal beleifs, and then ignore the obvious contradictions.....
I attack science and religion the same, and since Scientific Data has changed over the centuries, I don't feel like I'm taking a huge risk challenging it. However, since science holds more validity than religion, I try to be more careful
I do not nitpick, I blatantly disregard all explanations of behavior by way of mentalist fiction. I will present their claims if such comes up, and questions are asked, but I am a behavior analyst. Many of us even dislike and avoid the terms psychologist and psychology, as one cannot truly empirically study the "mind" as there is, at least speaking to the evidence at hand, no such thing.
Once again, you show an utter lack of knowledge on the subject of psychology. Behavior analysis is a fact. It is the most solid and heavily supported stance in psychology. It has been shown repetitively to be a fact. All behavioral principles are repeatedly tested and retested. Behavior analysis is as solid as any statement in physics or any other "hard" science.
A flawed lay definition of a term is irrelevant. When I speak of punishment I am referring to the scientific definition I provided.
I never claimed anything was a mental illness, let alone homosexuality. I merely stated that it can be considered such, depending on the individual case. Use of the term survive was in error, here is a better statement:
Mental disorders will fit at least one, but could fit more, of the following:
Present distressDisabilitySignificantly increase risk of suffering, death, pain, disability, an important loss of freedom
At one point being homosexual resulted in the third being a consideration, and was thus considered to be a problem. I never claimed homosexuality was a mental illness, but it can be considered such depending on the individual and the context. Nearly all behaviors can be considered problematic in the proper context, and if rates exist to an abnormal level.
I believe that choice disappears at some point. I believe there are addicts (not including addicts at birth to to maternal error.) Do they currently have a choice as to whether or not to do the drug? Not in all cases, does this mean doing drugs initially was not a choice? Not at all, their past choices resulted in the present inability to choose, or rather the inability to alter their behavior without aid. This in no manner contradicts the belief that homosexual behaviors were chosen. Also, my belief is that homosexuality was chosen. So far science has not shown it to be otherwise.
Oh, and btw thanks for keeping in form and bringing up the homosexual agenda of Urizen again
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Regret
I do not nitpick, I blatantly disregard all explanations of behavior by way of mentalist fiction. I will present their claims if such comes up, and questions are asked, but I am a behavior analyst. Many of us even dislike and avoid the terms psychologist and psychology, as one cannot truly empirically study the "mind" as there is, at least speaking to the evidence at hand, no such thing.
Psychologists beg to differ
And seeing as how Pyschology/Psychiatry has evolved at a much more consistant rate, and has worked wondors with many of our usual mental cases, I wouldn't go so far as to disregard it all the way
Now, as for questioning Pyschology, yes. I beleive we should question EVERYTHING, even the data that serves our favor.
Originally posted by Regret
Once again, you show an utter lack of knowledge on the subject of psychology.
Really ? Oh greater than thou, please show me the error of my ways....
Originally posted by Regret
Behavior analysis is a fact. It is the most solid and heavily supported stance in psychology. It has been shown repetitively to be a fact. All behavioral principles are repeatedly tested and retested. Behavior analysis is as solid as any statement in physics or any other "hard" science.
Let me rephrase my argument, as I now see that I made the incorrect statement that Behavior Analysis was non-factual or unsupported. That is NOT what I meant.
What I meant was you are using Behavior Analysis in comparison to Theological concept of punishment. I understand and admire your attempt to integrate science and religion to support your beleif, however I heavily disagree.
Using Punishment in its social concept, NOT scientific concept, it is evident that PUNISHMENT does NOT always work.
Theology also does NOT use behaviorist definition of Punishment, only you are using it.
Religion in general, uses the social idea of punishment. If you look at the Bible, the concept "eye for an eye" is a punishment ideal, that has NO real successful basis for correction of an immoral behavior, in any way what-so-ever.
Even Pyschology rejects Punishment as a "quick fix" or "means of correction" which you are trying to push. It doesn't work bro....not in religion, not in reality.
Religion pushes the "punishment" of sin, but do you honestly beleive that punishing someone will stop them from further "sinning" ?
And Hell....how can ETERNAL punishment correct a behavior ?
Originally posted by Regret
A flawed lay definition of a term is irrelevant. When I speak of punishment I am referring to the scientific definition I provided.
But it's IRREVELANT entirely, since it does not logically apply to religion OR the concept of Hell.
Punishment by Theology is the inflicting of suffering, discouragement, or regret for a "sinful" action or thought. Your presented definition does not apply, since the terms of punishment are not being used consistantly.
Originally posted by Regret
I never claimed anything was a mental illness, let alone homosexuality. I merely stated that it can be considered such, depending on the individual case. Use of the term survive was in error, here is a better statement:
Heterosexuality or Bisexuality can be just as much a "mental illness" as homosexuality. Since homosexuality itself causes no harm, the STIGMA and Homophobia that is caused is the true catalyst of any "mental illness" here.
Originally posted by Regret
Mental disorders will fit at least one, but could fit more, of the following:
Present distressDisabilitySignificantly increase risk of suffering, death, pain, disability, an important loss of freedom
Caused by what ? Homosexuality, or Homophobia ?
I think Homophobia is more of a mental illness than homosexuality could ever be
Originally posted by Regret
At one point being homosexual resulted in the third being a consideration, and was thus considered to be a problem. I never claimed homosexuality was a mental illness, but it can be considered such depending on the individual and the context. Nearly all behaviors can be considered problematic in the proper context, and if rates exist to an abnormal level.
At what point do you speak of ?
Are you trying to push the idea that STD's is somehow EXCLUSIVE to Homosexual sex ?
Technically, Heterosexuality spawns more suffering, since the majority of people who SUFFER from STD's happen to be..... HETEROSEXUAL !
Originally posted by Regret
I believe that choice disappears at some point. I believe there are addicts (not including addicts at birth to to maternal error.) Do they currently have a choice as to whether or not to do the drug? Not in all cases, does this mean doing drugs initially was not a choice? Not at all, their past choices resulted in the present inability to choose, or rather the inability to alter their behavior without aid. This in no manner contradicts the belief that homosexual behaviors were chosen. Also, my belief is that homosexuality was chosen. So far science has not shown it to be otherwise.
Your beleif has no valid support however
Homosexuality at its ROOT is homosexual attraction. Not homosexual sex, not homosexual thoughts....homosexual ATTRACTION.
Do you choose your attractions ? If so, please prove this to me....
Your Drug Addict analogy is not only OFFENSIVE but poor and unsuccessful.
Your analogy implies that a Homosexual is NOT homosexual until he or she starts having sex. That is not the case, since there are plenty of homosexual and bisexual Virgins.
Now....that only leaves the possibility, according to your theory, that homosexual attraction is somehow chosen by the person. Okay...if that is the case, then name a possible scenario where a person chooses who they are attracted to....prove it to me somehow, if you CAN.
As a person who knows a great deal about Psychology, you must surely realize that the attraction OR desire for something must occur BEFORE the thought or action does....
So I ask you...where does the attraction come from ?
And why would someone willingly choose a MIND SET that would result in thier social isolation and discrimination ?
Originally posted by Regret
Oh, and btw thanks for keeping in form and bringing up the homosexual agenda of Urizen again
I used homosexuality once being considered a mental illness as support for my claim that Scientific Fact is not absolute, and that studies are ever-changing.
Again, enough with the whole "you keep talking about being Gay"...why do you keep talking about being a Mormon ? If I should only keep my sexuality discussions in "homosexual" threads, than YOU should only keep your Mormon beleifs and perspective in MORMON threads....
You have your beleifs, I have mine....
Smiter
I believe in the bible because Lot's Daughters had sex with their father. Reuben son of Jacob had sex with his step mother, and the bible has lots of funny incest stories. and I am just ROFLING because the minister in the church doesnt read those verses.
Smiter
Man I cant keep my jokes off religion and sex maybe because im Horny good at making jokes about religion and sex.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Smiter
Man I cant keep my jokes off religion and sex maybe because im Horny good at making jokes about religion and sex.
A good Blowjob may help droolio
Smiter
I can get those.. from hoez.. to get a good O'z. Aw shit I can Rap
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Smiter
I can get those.. from hoez.. to get a good O'z. Aw shit I can Rap
Yo Yo
yo yoo yoo yoooo
GOD IS GANGSTA YO !
WHO DOWN WIT G-O-D ?
YOU DOWN WITH G-O-D ? YEAH YOU KNOW ME !
- from Faith, hilarious movie.
Regret
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Psychologists beg to differ
And seeing as how Pyschology/Psychiatry has evolved at a much more consistant rate, and has worked wondors with many of our usual mental cases, I wouldn't go so far as to disregard it all the way
Now, as for questioning Pyschology, yes. I beleive we should question EVERYTHING, even the data that serves our favor. Their wonders can be explained using actual scientific fact, and not mentalist fiction. I do not disregard the value of what they do. Even an atheits will state that belief in deity, particularly in the form of some religions, can provide benefits to some individuals. Also, placebo is wonderful. If someone says and as acts as if they have low self-esteem and then we speak mentalistically about the good things about a person and the person then does not speak and act as though they have low self esteem, objectively all we can say is that we have altered the behaviors that are described as low self-esteem, we cannot objectively state that we have done anything internally, although such may possibly be the case there is no evidence of such.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Really ? Oh greater than thou, please show me the error of my ways.... I have stated the errors you have already exhibited.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Let me rephrase my argument, as I now see that I made the incorrect statement that Behavior Analysis was non-factual or unsupported. That is NOT what I meant.
What I meant was you are using Behavior Analysis in comparison to Theological concept of punishment. I understand and admire your attempt to integrate science and religion to support your beleif, however I heavily disagree.
Using Punishment in its social concept, NOT scientific concept, it is evident that PUNISHMENT does NOT always work.
Theology also does NOT use behaviorist definition of Punishment, only you are using it.
Religion in general, uses the social idea of punishment. If you look at the Bible, the concept "eye for an eye" is a punishment ideal, that has NO real successful basis for correction of an immoral behavior, in any way what-so-ever.
Even Pyschology rejects Punishment as a "quick fix" or "means of correction" which you are trying to push. It doesn't work bro....not in religion, not in reality.
Religion pushes the "punishment" of sin, but do you honestly beleive that punishing someone will stop them from further "sinning" ?
And Hell....how can ETERNAL punishment correct a behavior ?
An eternal punishment does not correct behavior, it inhibits the ability to behave improperly. Punishment does not ever correct behavior, punishment decreases the probability of the punished behavior occurring. Correcting behavior is impossible, altering the probability and rate of behavior is all there is.
Punishment and reinforcement, used properly as consequence for various behaviors, are not rejected by any psychologist.
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But it's IRREVELANT entirely, since it does not logically apply to religion OR the concept of Hell.
Punishment by Theology is the inflicting of suffering, discouragement, or regret for a "sinful" action or thought. Your presented definition does not apply, since the terms of punishment are not being used consistantly. It is not irrelevant, since, if God is perfect, he uses the terms properly. Punishment is often the consequence of sinful behavior, reinforcement or, in theological terms, blessing is the consequence of proper behavior, in theology. My definitions are entirely consistent with scripture. If they are the proper and correct usage, they are the definitions used by deity.
Regardless of you perspective on religion Urizen, most religious individuals do not share you view of the subject
Smiter
we seriously gonna read all that long novel/reply you created?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Smiter
we seriously gonna read all that long novel/reply you created?
That's what he asks of us...
Smiter
Ok, In all Seriousness. I Believe the bible to some extent. I believe in God and in Jesus Christ. I try to follow the teachings specially the Golden rule: Do unto others as you have them do unto you.
But if I combine the Bible with Orgasmism, thats a force to be reckon with, specially my girl is also teaching me the Muslim ways.
I have a F0cking three-way of beliefs. Christian+Orgasmims+Muslim
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Smiter
Ok, In all Seriousness. I Believe the bible to some extent. I believe in God and in Jesus Christ. I try to follow the teachings specially the Golden rule: Do unto others as you have them do unto you.
But if I combine the Bible with Orgasmism, thats a force to be reckon with, specially my girl is also teaching me the Muslim ways.
I have a F0cking three-way of beliefs. Christian+Orgasmims+Muslim
threesome huh ? The more the merrier droolio
Smiter
We need Egalitarianism also to have a full force
Christianity/Bible = God exist+Golden Rule+Do good+ 10 commandments
Orgasmism = How God creates Children through Holy Spirit
Muslim's Teachings =There is Hell but its only temporary depending on your sins
Egalitarianism = everyones equal.
Combine all 4 and you got to COME
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Smiter
We need Egalitarianism also to have a full force
Christianity/Bible = God exist+Golden Rule+Do good+ 10 commandments
Orgasmism = How God creates Children through Holy Spirit
Muslim's Teachings =There is Hell but its only temporary depending on your sins
Egalitarianism = everyones equal.
Combine all 4 and you got to COME
CUM-- a union of Faiths....how delicious droolio
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Smiter
droolio
Nellinator
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
But is not consistant with social definitions of the SAME terms. Punishment does NOT always work the way its INTENDED
I love how you claim to trust psychology, but will nitpick the teachings that are more favorable, while ignoring what isn't convienent for you to argue.
1) You cannot just nitpick certain teaching of psychology, and then ignore the others. Again, it is painfully CLEAR AND SELF EVIDENT that you are allowing your religious bias to choose what part of psychology you beleive, and what part to disregard.
You trust Behavioral Theories, even though they are not proven, nor do they validly translate into the social definitions of the same terms, but then you want to INSIST that Homosexuality is a mental illness, EVEN THOUGH Psychology TEACHES it is NOT.
Please stop with the Hypocrisy, because it is getting REPETITIVE and sickening.
2) Homosexuality in itself does NOT interfere with one's ability to survive. Homophobia and SOCIAL STIGMA does.....these two factors are ALSO to blame for one's beleif that one has a problem if one is homosexual.
3) Now, let's just say for arguments sake, that if a person is a homosexual and is NOT exposed to massive homophobia or stigma, but would rather have heterosexual desires, then and only then can we say this person is mentally ill, because he or she is not living a life where they are content or at peace.
Again, this only proves that Homosexuality is NOT A CHOICE, even though you fkn continue to INSIST it is.
I love how you present factual information that CONTRADICTS your personal beleifs, and then ignore the obvious contradictions.....
I attack science and religion the same, and since Scientific Data has changed over the centuries, I don't feel like I'm taking a huge risk challenging it. However, since science holds more validity than religion, I try to be more careful
Regret is not wrong. Top 100 Psychologists
Look at this. Regret bases a lot of his psychological principles on the work of BF Skinner. There are several camps in psychology with different views, however, I can guarentee that Regret is not a minority or being ignorant. Read this link, or at least look at the lists on pages 142, 144, and 146-7. Skinner is considered the greatest psychologist to ever live, his theories are tried and true, and he has huge following because of the effectiveness and realism of his views and proposed practices. You will see Carl Rogers at 6th, but he apparently has no effect on Regret's principles (mostly, probably because he was more into psychotherapy). This is not uncommon, or incorrect.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Nellinator
Regret is not wrong. Top 100 Psychologists
Look at this. Regret bases a lot of his psychological principles on the work of BF Skinner. There are several camps in psychology with different views, however, I can guarentee that Regret is not a minority or being ignorant. Read this link, or at least look at the lists on pages 142, 144, and 146-7. Skinner is considered the greatest psychologist to ever live, his theories are tried and true, and he has huge following because of the effectiveness and realism of his views and proposed practices. You will see Carl Rogers at 6th, but he apparently has no effect on Regret's principles (mostly, probably because he was more into psychotherapy). This is not uncommon, or incorrect.
What is Regret not wrong about, because we were arguing atleast 3 different points....
Nellinator
I was mostly talking about 1.
Regret is not nitpicking. He follows a certain school of thought, the most popular and best proven school of behavior analysis and treatment. Under Skinner's theories of operant conditioning, any behavior or thought process can be treated and changed through conditioning. Regret believes this, as do I in most cases. Not all psychology teaches that homosexuality is not a mental illness. According, to Regret's definition homosexuality is not necessarily a mental illness, but can be one. When it is, it is prudent and important to help the person change that behavior and their thinking through conditioning.
Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was mostly talking about 1.
Regret is not nitpicking. He follows a certain school of thought, the most popular and best proven school of behavior analysis and treatment. Under Skinner's theories of operant conditioning, any behavior or thought process can be treated and changed through conditioning. Regret believes this, as do I in most cases. Not all psychology teaches that homosexuality is not a mental illness. According, to Regret's definition homosexuality is not necessarily a mental illness, but can be one. When it is, it is prudent and important to help the person change that behavior and their thinking through conditioning.
The same can be said for blind allegience to fairy tale gods and saints that interest themselves in the daily events of humanity. That's not to say that all christians are hate spewing idealouges who blindly follow bronze age versions of Grimm's fairy tales, but a lot of them are.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The same can be said for blind allegience to fairy tale gods and saints that interest themselves in the daily events of humanity. That's not to say that all christians are hate spewing idealouges who blindly follow bronze age versions of Grimm's fairy tales, but a lot of them are.
That was good.
Nellinator
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
The same can be said for blind allegience to fairy tale gods and saints that interest themselves in the daily events of humanity. That's not to say that all christians are hate spewing idealouges who blindly follow bronze age versions of Grimm's fairy tales, but a lot of them are.
You must know that your baseless, hate filled claims are pretty pointless. You ask for an impersonal god? I love the fact that God cares about my personal life and cares about how well I do in life, that he cares about how I treat others and loves me. Of course, you could care less about backing up your statements with anything other than blind hatred. You sound more and more angry and hate filled everyday and you lsoe rationality, logic, credibility, and my respect. Of course, you are still convinced that I hate you for being a homosexual (something I didn't even know until last week) and all homosexuals for that matter. Now, since this is not true, you lose credibility. When you decide to contribute to the debate please speak to me again.
Not to mention that your post had nothing to do with what I said. Why do you seek to create anger and spiteful argument by bringing up irrelevant topics?
Imperial_Samura
Originally posted by Nellinator
You must know that your baseless, hate filled claims are pretty pointless. You ask for an impersonal god? I love the fact that God cares about my personal life and cares about how well I do in life, that he cares about how I treat others and loves me.
I would prefer a logical God whose claims matched his actions...
He is a loving yet aloof God. I don't know he loves me, I just have other peoples claims that he does. And he has policies that frankly don't sit well with a loving God (sorry, but Job continues to be a sticking point for me. I'd like to see a parent let someone do that to their child they love so much and not get questioned at least a little by social services.)
Really I think it shouldn't be both - God is either impersonal and removed from the affairs of man, or he cares a lot and express it. Not he cares a lot but doesn't express it. And yes, I know it comes down to ones definition of expressing love - for some people being told God loves them is enough.
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
I would prefer a logical God whose claims matched his actions...
He is a loving yet aloof God. I don't know he loves me, I just have other peoples claims that he does. And he has policies that frankly don't sit well with a loving God (sorry, but Job continues to be a sticking point for me. I'd like to see a parent let someone do that to their child they love so much and not get questioned at least a little by social services.)
Really I think it shouldn't be both - God is either impersonal and removed from the affairs of man, or he cares a lot and express it. Not he cares a lot but doesn't express it. And yes, I know it comes down to ones definition of expressing love - for some people being told God loves them is enough.
Gaaah! You have heard of the expression - "for every little bit you give, that's exactly what you get back in return" - have you not?
That's what it all boils down to - when one desires to have a relationship with God(Love). You have to make the first step to obtain this relationship, or in other words - you have to show God that you are interested in having a relationship with him.
And before you try to flip things around -- let's be honest - you(and most others) wouldn't really respect(or desire) to be with him if he was desperate for this relationship with you.(scary thought isn't it? To be desired by a desperate God. I wouldn't want to follow a needy or emotionally lacking God would you?)
Actually - he *has* already proven though - that he wants to be with all of us(through his sacrafice on the cross).
So...what do you think all of this means? Basically it means that God's not going to chase after anyone, particularly those who show very little desire to be with him(through their words and actions). But he always makes himself(God) and his *love* equally available to all of his children - and I can guarantee you, that he does indeed *love* them all the same. They simply need to make themselves available(to receive him).
If you own a bible - or you have access to one - I recommend picking it up, and just opening it at random. Before you do this though - pray(to God) that he directs you to the verse that he wants you to read, and that you understand the meaning behind it. You'll be amazed at the things that will be revealed to you.
I must warn you though - in order for you to receive any type of revelation from performing the act above - you must first have an *open* mind - and an *open* heart. If neither of these is present at the time - then you will not receive anything(from performing the actions I've described).
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Gaaah! You have heard of the expression - "for every little bit you give, that's exactly what you get back in return" - have you not?
That's what it all boils down to - when one desires to have a relationship with God(Love). You have to make the first step to obtain this relationship, or in other words - you have to show God that you are interested in having a relationship with him.
And before you try to flip things around -- let's be honest - you(and most others) wouldn't really respect(or desire) to be with him if he was desperate for this relationship with you.(scary thought isn't it? To be desired by a desperate God. I wouldn't want to follow a needy or emotionally lacking God would you?)
Actually - he *has* already proven though - that he wants to be with all of us(through his sacrafice on the cross).
So...what do you think all of this means? Basically it means that God's not going to chase after anyone, particularly those who show very little desire to be with him(through their words and actions). But he always makes himself(God) and his *love* equally available to all of his children - and I can guarantee you, that he does indeed *love* them all the same. They simply need to make themselves available(to receive him).
If you own a bible - or you have access to one - I recommend picking it up, and just opening it at random. Before you do this though - pray(to God) that he directs you to the verse that he wants you to read, and that you understand the meaning behind it. You'll be amazed at the things that will be revealed to you.
I must warn you though - in order for you to receive any type of revelation from performing the act above - you must first have an *open* mind - and an *open* heart. If neither of these is present at the time - then you will not receive anything(from performing the actions I've described).
So your point is that True Love is only a Christian thing ?
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
So your point is that True Love is only a Christian thing ?
He does not even know what true love is.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He does not even know what true love is.
I'm sure he does, but he is mistaking it, or intentionally projecting it onto his concept of Christian Love.
I think we all have or will experience true love some time in our life...and i dont just mean "romantic love", i mean the love that exists between anybody.
He is just misguided by the beleif that Love is only VALID if its source is from the Bible.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I'm sure he does, but he is mistaking it, or intentionally projecting it onto his concept of Christian Love.
I think we all have or will experience true love some time in our life...and i dont just mean "romantic love", i mean the love that exists between anybody.
He is just misguided by the beleif that Love is only VALID if its source is from the Bible.
Ask him this: (he just ignores me) What would you call it, if a Christian gave up their salvation to be with someone in hell for eternity?
Capt_Fantastic
Originally posted by Nellinator
You must know that your baseless, hate filled claims are pretty pointless. You ask for an impersonal god? I love the fact that God cares about my personal life and cares about how well I do in life, that he cares about how I treat others and loves me. Of course, you could care less about backing up your statements with anything other than blind hatred. You sound more and more angry and hate filled everyday and you lsoe rationality, logic, credibility, and my respect. Of course, you are still convinced that I hate you for being a homosexual (something I didn't even know until last week) and all homosexuals for that matter. Now, since this is not true, you lose credibility. When you decide to contribute to the debate please speak to me again.
Not to mention that your post had nothing to do with what I said. Why do you seek to create anger and spiteful argument by bringing up irrelevant topics?
I must know? I must know and accept what you believe? No. That's not how free will works.
You keep accusing me of hatred, but I'm not the one who says "I'm right, and you're wrong, and for it you're going to burn in an eternal pit of fire and suffereing". Wanna know the difference? I'm not going to pretend, for the sake of "gods" favor, that I give two shits about your eternal soul.
As for your respect, I've never had any for you...so your lack of respect for me amounts to not one iota of interest for me. You knowing I'm gay doesn't mean a damned thing to me either. Your on-going condemnation of them is where you screw up. I don't back up my statements with blind hatred, I back them up with indisputible facts. (you know, facts that weren't dreamed up...but rather based on human reality) The difference is that I'm not relying on a book written by flawed human beings and calling it fact via the interaction of god. I'm more than willing to admit the flaws of evolution and reality as observed by humanity over the centuries, you are not. And that stubborn fact makes you wrong. And at the very least, it makes you hypocritical.
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Gaaah! You have heard of the expression - "for every little bit you give, that's exactly what you get back in return" - have you not?
Well, then by your logic, the christian tradition of condemnation and hypocrisy has already doomed them to a life in hell. Sure, there are a lot of good christians in this world. Just as there are a lot of good muslims, buddhists, atheists, etc. Maybe you should consider the thin line between the major world religions....it's isn't condemnation or disgust....it's not moral behavior or hatred of human abuses. It's not believing the exact same thing. Every religion on this planet addresses the right and wrong ways of interacting with each other, but the extremely devout of each want to fight and kill over who said it. Who gives a shit? Live it! We'll all be better off for it.
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I must know? I must know and accept what you believe? No. That's not how free will works.
You keep accusing me of hatred, but I'm not the one who says "I'm right, and you're wrong, and for it you're going to burn in an eternal pit of fire and suffereing". Wanna know the difference? I'm not going to pretend, for the sake of "gods" favor, that I give two shits about your eternal soul.
The accusation is a just one. Most of your arguments against him(and others as of late) have been rather derogatory, condescending, irrational - and out right rude. I haven't seen Nellinator insult you or use inflammatory comments in a single post.
That's the major reason why your arguments sound so irrational, nothing has been said that's insulting, however, you continue to baselessly insult others(particularly those of the Christian faith) who don't agree with your position. Unfortunately - you've only demonstrated yourself to be the very same *hate filled* dogmatic idealogue - that you profess yourself to be so adament against.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
As for your respect, I've never had any for you...so your lack of respect for me amounts to not one iota of interest for me. You knowing I'm gay doesn't mean a damned thing to me either. Your on-going condemnation of them is where you screw up.
Condemnation(Judgement) - and correction are two different things. Still it doesn't appear as if anyone has attempted to do either to you.(*either* "correct" or "condemn"
Expression of ones beliefs in relationship to their religion - is the only thing that has been demonstrated within this thread(and others).
It is your right to choose to either agree or disagree with the positions presented before you, but when you do this - it is advised that you do so in a civil manner.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
I don't back up my statements with blind hatred, I back them up with indisputible facts. (you know, facts that weren't dreamed up...but rather based on human reality) The difference is that I'm not relying on a book written by flawed human beings and calling it fact via the interaction of god. I'm more than willing to admit the flaws of evolution and reality as observed by humanity over the centuries, you are not. And that stubborn fact makes you wrong. And at the very least, it makes you hypocritical.
Ahh - but you see - you also are relying on things that were written by *flawed human beings* -- there's nothing definitive, or written in stone regarding the validity of your doctrine. However - you just choose to have more *faith* in those things - that make you feel more comfortable with your current lifestyle choice(s).
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
Well, then by your logic, the christian tradition of condemnation and hypocrisy has already doomed them to a life in hell.
Possibly - but you have heard of the terms *mercy* and *repentance* haven't you? *Mercy* - is something that is demonstrated on those who *repent* of their sins. Quite frankly put - None of us truly deserves to go to heaven, it is by the grace and mercy of our lord and saviour, and his sacrifice(the cross) - that the option is even made available to us.
We are found to be *righteous* by God - not because of our *good works* as Christians - but because we have confessed ourselves to Christ as being a *hypocritical* sinner(as well as attempted to repent of these *hypocritical* sins), and have accepted(and had faith in) the provision he has made for us(the cross) -- to join him in heaven.
Are you willing to acknowledge yourself as a hypocritical sinner? To me this seems like something you are very adament about *not doing* at this time, based on the wanting to fulfill the desires of your flesh. However - if at any point you are willing to repent - then by the grace and mercy of God, you will become a glorified saint, but remember - the first step you must make - is acknowledging that you have sinned.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ask him this: (he just ignores me) What would you call it, if a Christian gave up their salvation to be with someone in hell for eternity?
USAGI
QUESTION:
What would you call it, if a Christian gave up thier salvation to be with someone in Hell for all eternity ?
Seriously, though that reminds me of a lot of comic book stories...romantic to the EXTREME
lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Ask him this: (he just ignores me) What would you call it, if a Christian gave up their salvation to be with someone in hell for eternity? That's what they all do, they only pay attention to one person and ignore the rest.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
That's what they all do, they only pay attention to one person and ignore the rest.
Actually, they will only respond to the posts they feel confident answering. When they are stumped, they will not admit it. They will simply ignore.
lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually, they will only respond to the posts they feel confident answering. When they are stumped, they will not admit it. They will simply ignore. Is that why you get many replies and bardock doesn't?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
Is that why you get many replies and bardock doesn't?
Most replies to me are just insults though
I tend to piss a lot of people off...and quite frankly it's easier to insult someone than form a reasonable and consice argument against them.
Bardock doesn't get many replies, because he has very little to say.
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Fixed.
I'm willing to acknowledge that everyone has the right to their opinion, regardless how foolish or incorrect their opinion might be.
How childish can you be?
usagi_yojimbo
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
USAGI
QUESTION:
What would you call it, if a Christian gave up thier salvation to be with someone in Hell for all eternity ?
I would call it *loving* Now a question for you - what has an individual done - when it is finally realized that the pot they thought they were pissing in - was never really there to begin with?
Don't worry I'll anwer for you: they've pissed on themselves.
Good day to you Urizen. God bless.
Storm
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
I tend to piss a lot of people off...
And that doesn' t make you reflect on yourself?
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I would call it *loving*
But not LOVE
i don't get it .....your copping out, aren't you?
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Now a question for you - what has an individual done - when it is finally realized that the pot they thought they were pissing in - was never really there to begin with?
Don't worry I'll anwer for you: they've pissed on themselves.
Good day to you Urizen. God bless.
That's almost as funny as the jokes I found in the Bible !
Originally posted by Storm
And that doesn' t make you reflect on yourself?
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I would call it *loving* Now a question for you - what has an individual done - when it is finally realized that the pot they thought they were pissing in - was never really there to begin with?
Don't worry I'll anwer for you: they've pissed on themselves.
Good day to you Urizen. God bless.
So, the loving god would send someone who shows selfless love to hell. This god is not a god of love, he is a god of vengeance. Your god is evil.
lord xyz
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, the loving god would send someone who shows selfless love to hell. This god is not a god of love, he is a god of vengeance. Your god is evil. Define evil.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
Define evil.
Anything Lord xyz doesn't like
lord xyz
Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Anything Lord xyz doesn't like Then you must be evil.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by Storm
And that doesn' t make you reflect on yourself?
Actually, let me restate this:
No
If someone gets angry over a post I make simply because they disagree with what I have to say, or because I won't budge and just say they are right and I am wrong, it means nothing to me.
People really shouldn't be getting angry on these forums, it's just a discussion website, and it this is a person's ONLY outlet for thier thoughts, then that's pretty unfortunate, sorry.
Lord Urizen
Originally posted by lord xyz
Then you must be evil.
How do you dislike someone so much you know nothing about ?
I don't like or dislike you.....you're just a teddy bear image to me
Shakyamunison
Originally posted by lord xyz
Define evil.
The 3 lower paths of the ten worlds. Any actions taken in these worlds lead to suffering. They are known as the tree evil paths.
Green Arrow
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The 3 lower paths of the ten worlds. Any actions taken in these worlds lead to suffering. They are known as the tree evil paths.
You're a Buddhist hunh?
<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>
Copyright 1999-2024 KillerMovies.