Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ya, you tell those strawmen what is up!

So, in summary, He was comparable to the monarchies that He liberated "His people" From?

Why do you think that is?

God has a name? Why would God have a name?

Exactly.

Regards
DL

"God is extremely egotistical and prideful. Why does he not defend his name?"

Because he doesn't care about the opinions people of who talk bull.

-

Moral fact: God doesn't owe you or anyone else eternal life.

Fun fact: God saying how great he is, isn't egotism or pride, it's actually a fact that he's bigger than all of us.
It's also a fact that we owe him our lives and thus really ought to pay up.

Originally posted by BananaKing
"God is extremely egotistical and prideful. Why does he not defend his name?"

Because he doesn't care about the opinions people of who talk bull.

-

Moral fact: God doesn't owe you or anyone else eternal life.

Fun fact: God saying how great he is, isn't egotism or pride, it's actually a fact that he's bigger than all of us.
It's also a fact that we owe him our lives and thus really ought to pay up.

I don't owe any mythological being for my life. I own thanks to my parents for my life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't owe any mythological being for my life. I own thanks to my parents for my life.

And you owe thanks to God for your parents. And we can keep going back and back as long as we like.

Ultimately if God exists, he is the one we owe our lives to.

But either way as I said, God doesn't owe you eternal life, and if anything you owe him yours. Morally things do fall in his favour.

Originally posted by BananaKing
Moral fact: God doesn't owe you or anyone else eternal life.

Fun fact: God saying how great he is, isn't egotism or pride, it's actually a fact that he's bigger than all of us.
It's also a fact that we owe him our lives and thus really ought to pay up.

These 'facts' you've mentioned... I don't believe the scientific community recognizes any of them...

Well God doesn't recognize science.


/trumped

If God disbelieves science, does this mean nature becomes unrecognizable to the scientific method? And if so, does chaos become law?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If God disbelieves science, does this mean nature becomes unrecognizable to the scientific method? And if so, does chaos become law?

Science and gods (including God) are different.

A God must have believes in order to be real. The names of gods we no longer remember, have no reality, not even imaginary. But Science does not require the you to believe. Gravity pulls on the believe and non-believer equally.

Ultimately, there's a huge conditional:

If God exists, then it stands to reason the laws of nature, which are observed and described to the best of human ability via scientific method, are a reflection of its own nature, in the same way a written work can reflect the biases and motives of its author.

To furthermore add to that point, if God does indeed exist and it is the case that he is responsible for nature, then it seems reasonable to assume anything and everything that happens in nature is according to its will. This extends to animals eating the young of others, mass extinctions due to volcanic eruptions or meteor strikes, and everything done by people (since people are part of nature; they are not independent of it).

And then God is directly responsible for everything.

/discussion.

God doesn't utilize morality as we define it. He's something of a True Neutral.

That alignment sucks.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
God doesn't utilize morality as we define it. He's something of a True Neutral.

More like a true supernatural.

He never even watched that show.

Originally posted by BananaKing
Yes, If God didn't exist that would be a waste of time, but if something pretty darn close exists then it would be wiser to be safe than sorry.

I don't buy this. To live in fear, is not to live at all.

Originally posted by BananaKing
In terms of death, morality and their relation to God, eternal life is related regardless of if you're a Christian or a Hindu. I'm somewhere between Christian and Buddhist.

Life is not eternal. All things in the cosmos has a birth, life and death. Even non-living things like planets and stars have a birth, life and death. If eternal life existed, it would equal eternal death.

Originally posted by BananaKing
If you ask practically any scientist be them atheist or theist they will say there is no evidence that reality owes us eternal life.

So you are wrong there I'm afraid.

Also, if you ask practically any scientist, be they atheist or theist, they will say there is no evidence that unicorns dance in the spring time.

Lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence to support the existence of something.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't buy this. To live in fear, is not to live at all.



Life is not eternal. All things in the cosmos has a birth, life and death. Even non-living things like planets and stars have a birth, life and death. If eternal life existed, it would equal eternal death.



Also, if you ask practically any scientist, be they atheist or theist, they will say there is no evidence that unicorns dance in the spring time.

Lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence to support the existence of something.

1. Then don't do it out of fear, do it out of gratefulness. I'm pretty sure God isn't interested if your reason for thanking him isn't actually gratefulness.

2. Then birth, life and death are eternal if they do and will always apply, surely?

3. True, but Phoenix2001 attempted to use a lack of scientific evidence to imply that God might owe us eternal life. I was simply responding to that claim by pointing out what the scientists would say about God owing people eternal life.

Originally posted by BananaKing
1. Then don't do it out of fear, do it out of gratefulness. I'm pretty sure God isn't interested if your reason for thanking him isn't actually gratefulness.

I'm sure that God does not care about my gratefulness.

Originally posted by BananaKing
2. Then birth, life and death are eternal if they do and will always apply, surely?

Even the Cosmos had a birth and now has a life. Therefore, the cosmos must have a death.

Originally posted by BananaKing
3. True, but Phoenix2001 attempted to use a lack of scientific evidence to imply that God might owe us eternal life. I was simply responding to that claim by pointing out what the scientists would say about God owing people eternal life.

Well, Phoenix2001 should know better.

Originally posted by BananaKing
3. True, but Phoenix2001 attempted to use a lack of scientific evidence to imply that God might owe us eternal life. I was simply responding to that claim by pointing out what the scientists would say about God owing people eternal life. No, he wasn't. He was calling out your frequent claim of knowing "facts" regarding God. That anyone would claim to "know" anything about an intangible, abstract concept such as God is worthy of challenge. Those moral "facts", and those fun "facts" about God are more accurately termed moral "beliefs", and fun "beliefs". You could also substitute in the word "idea", appropriate, given that all of these are specifically your "beliefs" or "ideas".


But they are not facts.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, he wasn't. He was calling out your frequent claim of knowing "facts" regarding God. That anyone would claim to "know" anything about an intangible, abstract concept such as God is worthy of challenge. Those moral "facts", and those fun "facts" about God are more accurately termed moral "beliefs", and fun "beliefs". You could also substitute in the word "idea", appropriate, given that all of these are specifically your "beliefs" or "ideas".


But they are not facts.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
No, he wasn't. He was calling out your frequent claim of knowing "facts" regarding God. That anyone would claim to "know" anything about an intangible, abstract concept such as God is worthy of challenge. Those moral "facts", and those fun "facts" about God are more accurately termed moral "beliefs", and fun "beliefs". You could also substitute in the word "idea", appropriate, given that all of these are specifically your "beliefs" or "ideas".


But they are not facts.

But you've yet to explain why I am wrong, or why I even may be wrong.
I see no reason to call it a mere "belief". Would you be so picky had I said "Moral fact: Murder is wrong"?

Why does God owe you eternal life?

Originally posted by BananaKing
But you've yet to explain why I am wrong, or why I even may be wrong.
I see no reason to call it a mere "belief". Would you be so picky had I said "Moral fact: Murder is wrong"?

Why does God owe you eternal life?

God does not owe anyone eternal life, because eternal life does not exist.

Eternal life is not a fact; it is a belief.

There is nothing wrong with having a belief, and beliefs do not have to be fact.

Originally posted by BananaKing
But you've yet to explain why I am wrong, or why I even may be wrong.
I see no reason to call it a mere "belief". Would you be so picky had I said "Moral fact: Murder is wrong"?

Why does God owe you eternal life? In fact I would have. I'm a moral nihilist, I don't believe in moral facts, only preferences.


And what do you think I'm saying you're wrong about? That I'm saying you're beliefs are "wrong"? Because I'm not saying that. I am saying that your claim that you "know" (i.e. are in possession of 'knowledge' of) something about God is flat out incorrect. You know absolutely nothing about God, same as me. You only believe things about God. Same as me. We're all agnostic, regardless of our corresponding faith (or lack thereof).


And don't confuse my refutation of your choice of wording considering this subject of "facts" and "knowledge" as disagreement about your beliefs regarding God owing people eternal life. I don't believe God owes us anything. I don't believe in God at all.

Originally posted by BananaKing
But you've yet to explain why I am wrong, or why I even may be wrong.
I see no reason to call it a mere "belief". Would you be so picky had I said "Moral fact: Murder is wrong"?

Why does God owe you eternal life?

Also, murder is not always wrong.

If someone had murdered Hitler before he came into power, then 9 million Jews might not have been murdered.

Where is your "Moral Fact" now?

Moral fact: Hitler was one of the greatest men in history because he killed Hitler.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Moral fact: Hitler was one of the greatest men in history because he killed Hitler.

No, that would make Hitler normal. Mass murderer - Hitler's assassin = 0

Hitler was also a True Neutral.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Hitler was also a True Neutral.

Thus the problem with the bipolar thinking of good and evil.

It's only murder if it's unlawful, "justifiable homicide" is lawful (look it up).
Killing Hitler wouldn't be murder it would be justifiable homicide.

Except Hitler was a legal authority in a country pretty much adopting his rules, so that wouldn't fly.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Except Hitler was a legal authority in a country pretty much adopting his rules, so that wouldn't fly. Hitler: renegade for life.

Originally posted by BananaKing
It's only murder if it's unlawful, "justifiable homicide" is lawful (look it up).
Killing Hitler wouldn't be murder it would be justifiable homicide.

Hitler didn't kill anyone himself(WW1 withstanding), so you'd be killing him for the acts of others. I'm pretty sure that's murder from a legal standpoint.

Originally posted by BananaKing
It's only murder if it's unlawful, "justifiable homicide" is lawful (look it up).
Killing Hitler wouldn't be murder it would be justifiable homicide.

But suicide is against the law.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hitler didn't kill anyone himself(WW1 withstanding), so you'd be killing him for the acts of others. I'm pretty sure that's murder from a legal standpoint. Murder is moral so long as it's convenient to a lot of people.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
God has a name? Why would God have a name?

I've been through the valley* on a God with no name....



*of the shadow of death

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Murder is moral so long as it's convenient to a lot of people.

* people in power

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
God doesn't utilize morality as we define it. He's something of a True Neutral.


How utterly Mormon of you to say.

When can I schedule your baptism? I can do the baptism for you.

Mormons baptize?

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Mormons baptize?

They even baptize the dead.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Mormons baptize?


Yes.

And...



Originally posted by Shakyamunison
They even baptize the dead.



We find it extremely fitting to baptize the dead because the true leader of our church is zombie Jesus.

I like zombies.

Can I still raid and pillage as Odin allows if I join?

Mormon's love to baptize the dead and make them Mormon by proxy.

Former US presidents, celebrities, prominent figures of other religions, thousands of (Jewish) Holocaust victims have been un-jewed and made Mormon post death. They even Mormonized Adolf Hitler.

That's like peeing on somebody else's pee. I mean, really.

If it makes you feel better, the dead probably don't care. Some Jews did protest over the un-Jewing of Theodor Herzl and the Holocaust victims, iirc.

There was also some gay-guy who went around 'gayifying' prominent dead Mormons, ie he was making them gay post death. This was in retaliation to the LDS baptizing prominent dead homosexuals as a means of saving them.

Maybe the lesson to be learned is: Even death won't stop you from being trolled?

I'm going to dig up Theodore Roosevelt and ex post facto him as a pagan hero of olde, while giving him a Viking boat funeral.

Then when I'm done, no one else can follow.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I'm going to dig up Theodore Roosevelt and ex post facto him as a pagan hero of olde, while giving him a Viking boat funeral.

Then when I'm done, no one else can follow.

Mormons don't need a body.

So we can safely conclude that Mormons > Stealth Moose in PDRW (post death religion warping).

Originally posted by Robtard
So we can safely conclude that Mormons > Stealth Moose in PDRW (post death religion warping).

Hax.

Is there a topic anymore?

Some kind of stupid pseudo-gnostic inflammatory thread to push an agenda, IIRC.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Some kind of stupid pseudo-gnostic inflammatory thread to push an agenda, IIRC.

But I'm tired of talking about that.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But I'm tired of talking about that.

Such a simple point but it is so spot-on.

Originally posted by dadudemon

We find it extremely fitting to baptize the dead because the true leader of our church is zombie Jesus.

https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7038/6911272612_578abd8fb3_z.jpg

Originally posted by Bardock42
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7038/6911272612_578abd8fb3_z.jpg

Originally posted by Bardock42
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7038/6911272612_578abd8fb3_z.jpg \

I swear that one of my employees made this...that or he has seen this image before and just repeated it to me.

I saw it on Impediment's facebook page.

Originally posted by Bardock42
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7038/6911272612_578abd8fb3_z.jpg

Of those choices, I'm torn between being a vampire or a lich.

That's not what a lich is...

It's really more about ridiculing Jesus than being accurate...

Originally posted by NemeBro
That's not what a lich is...

They are in D&D; all that matters.

It's also almost verbatim to what Wiki says about liches, so probably where they got it.

Personally I don't believe in God... sometimes (I only believe in god while gambling).

But believing in God... is a nice thing in itself. Not stupid or cowardly. It is having faith in something that you have no evidence of actually knowing... okay it is a little stupid. But holding that faith is quite admirable.

God being egotistical? Well being God... he can kind of afford to. I mean he can back it up. He just won't defend himself because he isn't a 14 year-old girl on facebook.

A person defends themselves when they are in danger, since no mortal can put God in danger he has no reason to defend himself.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
A person defends themselves when they are in danger, since no mortal can put God in danger he has no reason to defend himself.

However, mortals can kill god. If everyone on Earth stopped believing in god (or God), then god would die. Many gods have died this way.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, mortals can kill god. If everyone on Earth stopped believing in god (or God), then god would die. Many gods have died this way.

Belief in Yahweh, the God described as being God, non belief could not actually kill him. He dies in out minds but does not die as being. Also he his counter parts the angels. Belief or disbelief in some sort of God does not make him actually exist. He exists whether humans accept his existence or chose not too. A choice he gave us

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Belief in Yahweh, the God described as being God, non belief could not actually kill him. He dies in out minds but does not die as being. Also he his counter parts the angels. Belief or disbelief in some sort of God does not make him actually exist. He exists whether humans accept his existence or chose not too. A choice he gave us

Sorry to disagree with you, but if no one worshiped Yahweh, then Yahweh would be dead. Think about Ra. Is Ra alive or dead?

BTW Yahweh was made up by humans, just like Ra

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry to disagree with you, but if no one worshiped Yahweh, then Yahweh would be dead. Think about Ra. Is Ra alive or dead?

BTW Yahweh was made up by humans, just like Ra

For one second believe there was a extra terrestrial that created us. Then say we believed in them at one point and then stopped believing in them later on, but they never actually died as a being.

They are dead in our minds, but still living their own life elsewhere right?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
For one second believe there was a extra terrestrial that created us. Then say we believed in them at one point and then stopped believing in them later on, but they never actually died as a being.

They are dead in our minds, but still living their own life elsewhere right? No, they were all killed by the black goo.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
For one second believe there was a extra terrestrial that created us. Then say we believed in them at one point and then stopped believing in them later on, but they never actually died as a being.

They are dead in our minds, but still living their own life elsewhere right?

Gods are not aliens. They are place holders for things we cannot understand, yet. The burning bush; a flaming gas seep: The spark from the ark of the convent; a crude capacitor.

Ok another example.

A cat is born it grows up it does not remember it mother or father. Does that make them automatically dead.

Someone gives up their baby for adoption the baby never knows it parents who created it, does that make the parents dead.

Or someone has amnesia and cannot remember their parents or wife no matter who tell then different, they can't believe because they do not have memory. Even if their parents are standing in the same room?

All in all the OP wants God to stand up for himself my point is God does not need to because he does not rely on us. A person defends them self when they are in danger. Since we cannot put him in danger I see no reason for him to stand up for himself?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Ok another example.

A cat is born it grows up it does not remember it mother or father. Does that make them automatically dead.

Someone gives up their baby for adoption the baby never knows it parents who created it, does that make the parents dead.

Or someone has amnesia and cannot remember their parents or wife no matter who tell then different, they can't believe because they do not have memory. Even if their parents are standing in the same room?

All in all the OP wants God to stand up for himself my point is God does not need to because he does not rely on us. A person defends them self when they are in danger. Since we cannot put him in danger I see no reason for him to stand up for himself?

The problem is that the word dead. A cat's parents may or may or be dead, but to the grownup cat, that has not seen its parents sense it was born, they might as well be dead.
Of course none of this counts for an idea.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Gods are not aliens.



To some schools of thoughts they are.


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
are place holders for things we cannot understand, yet. The burning bush; a flaming gas seep: The spark from the ark of the convent; a crude capacitor.

That "spark" that you allude to killed a man, according to the story.
That's quite a capacitor, if that's what you think it was.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Gods are not aliens ...

Returning to this, it's specifically worth mentioning that some religions consider "gods" and "aliens" alike to be demons or fallen angels, with a few of the "gods" being Satan himself.

Zeus, Thor, and the Incan gods are the first to come to mind, and are particularly fascinating in lieu of the following Bible verse:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 10:18
And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think God had a propensity for perniciousness in Him that stemmed from a difficulty in relating to the human condition before He sent His son.

I kind of have this idea that Lucifer is a persona of God - the only Angel with free-will, able to convert many an Angel despite their inability to disobey God.

Like Lucifer; Jesus also had free-will, Jesus could have abused his powers or joined Lucifer on the flip of a dime any time before or during his torturous murder.

Think about it, God uses avatars like a burning bush, God uses signs and divination, why? To me, what Lucifer and Jesus really are, are quantifiable personas of God. God would not be compatible with a human. To fathom interactions with something on that kind of a frequency would be the equivalent to perceiving all possible dimensions of space, all the areas of space, and the entirety of time simultaneously and non-linearly. So God needs a form on our frequency in which to rule. Jesus and Lucifer are both capable of manipulating systems in nature. Lucifer represents a paroxysmal, horrifically sadistic, terrorist... and a megalomaniac, and Jesus represents the pinnacle of humanity's capacity for good; a patient, understanding, compassionate, nurturing, inspirational leader who can and will solve any problem that emerges. Jesus' wisdom is an illuminating order in the chaos that is nature. Satan had no desire to learn for the sake of wisdom, he learned for the sake of gaining a capacity to manipulate.

Originally posted by Robtard
They are in D&D; all that matters.

It's also almost verbatim to what Wiki says about liches, so probably where they got it. They most certainly are not in DnD. Where's the phylactery? It can't be a lich in DnD without a phylactery (Unless it's one of those lame good-aligned liches).

Originally posted by NemeBro
They most certainly are not in DnD. Where's the phylactery? It can't be a lich in DnD without a phylactery (Unless it's one of those lame good-aligned liches).

This guy....has no idea what he's talking about:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

Originally posted by dadudemon
This guy....has no idea what he's talking about:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lich_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons) Max will often look up things.

He's a faux-pseudointellectual - whereas I'm just a fuax-intellectual, mostly, I can get a bit pseudo when I overstep my bounds but this doesn't happen as often as with helly.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
To some schools of thoughts they are.
I was giving my opinion.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
That "spark" that you allude to killed a man, according to the story.
That's quite a capacitor, if that's what you think it was.
The story was probably exaggerated over time, if the story is even true.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Returning to this, it's specifically worth mentioning that some religions consider "gods" and "aliens" alike to be demons or fallen angels, with a few of the "gods" being Satan himself.
Some people believe strange things.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Zeus, Thor, and the Incan gods are the first to come to mind, and are particularly fascinating in lieu of the following Bible verse:
The bible is just a book written by humans, and there are many interpretations.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
So you believe in God?

I am a Gnostic Christian but do not believe in the flying sugar daddy type of God.

This is close.

http://www.thesongofgod.com/tgc/basic_beliefs.html

This is the goal of Gnostic Christians.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=player_embedded

This is a decent method of getting to that goal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

Regards
DL

Originally posted by BananaKing
"God is extremely egotistical and prideful. Why does he not defend his name?"

Because he doesn't care about the opinions people of who talk bull.

-

Moral fact: God doesn't owe you or anyone else eternal life.

Fun fact: God saying how great he is, isn't egotism or pride, it's actually a fact that he's bigger than all of us.
It's also a fact that we owe him our lives and thus really ought to pay up.

Use a knife then.

Enjoy the education that Rudolf Steiner gives you in this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Use a knife then.

Enjoy the education that Rudolf Steiner gives you in this clip.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL

A good video.

Originally posted by tsilamini
ya, you tell those strawmen what is up!

Originally posted by Dr. Matthew


Please explain.

to address the question in the thread title, i think the answer is clear. god is clearly scared of you, greatest i am. you must've punked him. good job

Originally posted by red g jacks
to address the question in the thread title, i think the answer is clear. god is clearly scared of you, greatest i am. you must've punked him. good job

Granted 'greatest i am's' beliefs are strange, but not really any more strange to me then mainstream Christianity.

Originally posted by red g jacks
to address the question in the thread title, i think the answer is clear. god is clearly scared of you, greatest i am. you must've punked him. good job

Did you follow that Steiner link just above.

If so, you will know that me insulting God is just insuring that unless someone refutes my judgement, what I am doing is training myself never to be as big of a prick as he is shown to be inn scriptures as well as making sure I never sit back and suffer lies being told about my character and morals.

Seems to me that that is what a good God would do. Do you agree?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Did you follow that Steiner link just above.

If so, you will know that me insulting God is just insuring that unless someone refutes my judgement, what I am doing is training myself never to be as big of a prick as he is shown to be inn scriptures as well as making sure I never sit back and suffer lies being told about my character and morals.

Seems to me that that is what a good God would do. Do you agree?

Regards
DL

so you want God to debate with you about His character? or you're just training yourself of blasphemy?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Did you follow that Steiner link just above.

If so, you will know that me insulting God is just insuring that unless someone refutes my judgement, what I am doing is training myself never to be as big of a prick as he is shown to be inn scriptures as well as making sure I never sit back and suffer lies being told about my character and morals.

Seems to me that that is what a good God would do. Do you agree?

Regards
DL

When you can answer a straight question, we might chat.

The fact that you do not answer show that you know you cannot answer it in a worthy fashion.

Your religion has hurt your ability to think just as it has corrupted your morals.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry to disagree with you, but if no one worshiped Yahweh, then Yahweh would be dead. Think about Ra. Is Ra alive or dead?

BTW Yahweh was made up by humans, just like Ra

He was probably assuming gods were personal being, if that's the case, aliens would fit the description.

If you go by the line of thought they never existed in any fashion or form, they can't be dead by obvious reasons.

I'm nitpicking either way

Originally posted by Bentley
He was probably assuming gods were personal being, if that's the case, aliens would fit the description.

If you go by the line of thought they never existed in any fashion or form, they can't be dead by obvious reasons.

I'm nitpicking either way

Can something fictitious be dead? Casper the ghost is dead.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Can something fictitious be dead? Casper the ghost is dead.

New thread!

Originally posted by Greatest I am
When you can answer a straight question, we might chat.

The fact that you do not answer show that you know you cannot answer it in a worthy fashion.

Your religion has hurt your ability to think just as it has corrupted your morals.

Regards
DL

you twist the Scriptures... you didn't even lay out a decent premise to deserve a decent response to begin with... you just say "God is evil" - and dared anyone to refute it... again, please compose yourself...

you cannot even convince anyone that your religious affiliation is THE truth... you denounce God as evil, you reject religion, and you twist Bible verses to conform with your twisted interpretation...

God didn't punish Jesus... God sent Jesus to save people, and Jesus sacrificed Himself to cleanse the world from sin... you really have a twisted logic when it comes to the Scriptures...

God and Jesus exists...
and there is no original sin...

that's what the Bible says... stop misinterpreting the Bible deliberately...

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
This entire post is unadullterated idiocy!

He's a different religion then you. Good job on being tolerant.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He's a different religion then you. Good job on being tolerant.

What does tolerance have to do with recognizing the illegitimacy of an argument?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
What does tolerance have to do with recognizing the illegitimacy of an argument?

I get the feeling that you think Greatest I am is a Christian. He's a Gnostic Christian, and from what little I know about Gnosticism his argument is consistent with Gnostic beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I get the feeling that you think Greatest I am is a Christian. He's a Gnostic Christian, and from what little I know about Gnosticism his argument is consistent with Gnostic beliefs.

For a point of convenience I could be described as a Christian as well. In reality, if you are following the tenets of the Bible and recognize Christ as lord and savior you are a Jew.

To his post and my comments, his argument makes no sense in relation to the scripture that he is citing.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
For a point of convenience I could be described as a Christian as well. In reality, if you are following the tenets of the Bible and recognize Christ as lord and savior you are a Jew.

To his post and my comments, his argument makes no sense in relation to the scripture that he is citing.

That is just the way you believe. It's all about interpretation. You believe one way and he believes another. It's not like ether of you or him are right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is just the way you believe. It's all about interpretation. You believe one way and he believes another. It's not like ether of you or him are right.

We can look at the text and apply simple logic to discern if his critique is correct.

The text that he cites is not indicative of the claim that he is making.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
We can look at the text and apply simple logic to discern if his critique is correct.

The text that he cites is not indicative of the claim that he is making.

You can't apply logic to the bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is just the way you believe. It's all about interpretation.

What he probably means is that interpretation only goes so far. If I tell you to eat your soup, obviously I don't mean you should bury your soup in a graveyard or wait 10,000 and then eat your soup. There is such a thing as a rational interpretation.

Belief and subjectivity take a secondary role on this, always

Originally posted by Bentley
What he probably means is that interpretation only goes so far. If I tell you to eat your soup, obviously I don't mean you should bury your soup in a graveyard or wait 10,000 and then eat your soup. There is such a thing as a rational interpretation.

Belief and subjectivity take a secondary role on this, always

Yes, I agree, however, rational interpretation does not apply to the bible. All religious interpretations of the bible are irrational. The reason I say this is because the bible is a collection of different stories and text that were not intended by the original writers to be put together. Remember that the bible was not constructed (or assembled) until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This was long after all the individual books of the bible were written.

If I were to take a cross section of storied from today's popular culture and bind them together in one large book, would anyone be able to come up with a rational interpretation of how they fit together? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I agree, however, rational interpretation does not apply to the bible. All religious interpretations of the bible are irrational.

I could see that statement working, but the reasons you give aren't that relevant to the subject in hand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The reason I say this is because the bible is a collection of different stories and text that were not intended by the original writers to be put together. Remember that the bible was not constructed (or assembled) until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This was long after all the individual books of the bible were written.

The fact that the stories are different does not mean they can't be consistent. Going by this logic, human history can only be told by a single author, which can never happen and is thus, inconsistent on itself. You can say as much about law or lore, texts can be similar and share enough elements in common to be fitting with each other. The Bible has the advantage of being built this way by design, the people who gathered the books together intended them to be used together. So while the logic comes after the writting, it obviously exists and negating it is not sensible.

You can argue that the story remains irrational to many sensible standards, which is, as far as I see, pretty likely. Still, at least some people thought there was some rationality towards the anthology, since they made it.

Being made by a single author/mind has nothing to do with it, as language itself is build from different speeches and we can clearly make a rational sense of words.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I were to take a cross section of storied from today's popular culture and bind them together in one large book, would anyone be able to come up with a rational interpretation of how they fit together? I don't think so.

Except people do this all the time and the assortment of books can convey a similar spirit.

What LoB was criticizing earlier was about clearly misrepresenting the spirit of the tale. These are not necessarily the same thing, and I think it's pointless to pretend they are for the sake of arguing. They can both be irrational and at least one of them is not necessarily "illogic".

Originally posted by Bentley
I could see that statement working, but the reasons you give aren't that relevant to the subject in hand.
I guess that is your opinion.
Originally posted by Bentley
The fact that the stories are different does not mean they can't be consistent. Going by this logic, human history can only be told by a single author, which can never happen and is thus, inconsistent on itself. You can say as much about law or lore, texts can be similar and share enough elements in common to be fitting with each other. The Bible has the advantage of being built this way by design, the people who gathered the books together intended them to be used together. So while the logic comes after the writting, it obviously exists and negating it is not sensible.
I never said they had to be written by the same person. However, if I attach the first five chapters of a western history book to the story of superman, what kind of rational interpretation can I get? The bible is a mix of fiction and non-fiction. I history book cannot be written that way and be called rational.
Originally posted by Bentley
You can argue that the story remains irrational to many sensible standards, which is, as far as I see, pretty likely. Still, at least some people thought there was some rationality towards the anthology, since they made it.
And for fiction that works out great. In fiction, interpretations do not have to be rational. Who is faster, superman or the flash?
Originally posted by Bentley
Being made by a single author/mind has nothing to do with it, as language itself is build from different speeches and we can clearly make a rational sense of words.
I think this is irrelevant. The problem here is that we are being presented two competing interpretations of the bible. My point is that one of them is not right, and the other wrong. They are just different. I do not believe there is a correct interpretation of the bible.
Originally posted by Bentley
Except people do this all the time and the assortment of books can convey a similar spirit.
Again this works with fiction. However, the people in this thread are talking about the bible as if it was fact.
Originally posted by Bentley
What LoB was criticizing earlier was about clearly misrepresenting the spirit of the tale. These are not necessarily the same thing, and I think it's pointless to pretend they are for the sake of arguing. They can both be irrational and at least one of them is not necessarily "illogic".
No one knows what the original spirit of the tale was.
Who is to say that the Gnostic interpolation of the bible is less valid then the popular Christian interpolation? After all, Calvinism is a relatively new interpolation when compared to the Gnostic interpolation.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
God is extremely egotistical and prideful. Why does he not defend his name?
Oh you haven't the slightest clue.

When the Serpent killed his father, trapped his father's brethren in hell, he tricked his brother and sent him there. He established himself as an alpha male over his brothers and sisters, used humanity as his primary source of entertainment, and sex.

Zeus the Serpent God.

Originally posted by Oneness
Oh you haven't the slightest clue.

When the Serpent killed his father, trapped his father's brethren in hell, he tricked his brother and sent him there. He established himself as an alpha male over his brothers and sisters, used humanity as his primary source of entertainment, and sex.

Zeus the Serpent God.

I think they are talking about the bible.

I don't think any of you realize that God has asked man for help, before (watch the whole thing: there is a very wholesome and spiritual message at the end that will probably even convince a few atheists...the vid is only like 30 seconds long so endure it to the end):


4zRWflXiWk4

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I guess that is your opinion.

My opinion can always change.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said they had to be written by the same person. However, if I attach the first five chapters of a western history book to the story of superman, what kind of rational interpretation can I get? The bible is a mix of fiction and non-fiction. I history book cannot be written that way and be called rational.

It won't be historical, but again you're taking irrational in the sense of unreal. Books can be fiction and rational at the same time. The inquiry could be interesting from an aesthetical point of view. It's validity as an argument though, it's something else.

If we are going to be runing around the meaning of rational we will enter into a subject I don't care about. So have the definition you care about.

The Bible is not a history book, I just used it as an example.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And for fiction that works out great. In fiction, interpretations do not have to be rational. Who is faster, superman or the flash?

Fiction doesn't have to be irrational, that's a part of my claim.

Flash.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think this is irrelevant. The problem here is that we are being presented two competing interpretations of the bible. My point is that one of them is not right, and the other wrong. They are just different. I do not believe there is a correct interpretation of the bible.

I'm not assuming there is a correct interpretation. I'm stating the fact there are wrong interpretations.

Those premises aren't the same.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again this works with fiction. However, the people in this thread are talking about the bible as if it was fact.

The Bible is an action, the action of composing a set of texts as the basis of a religious doctrine. They aren't just talking about the aesthetical value of it or its content.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one knows what the original spirit of the tale was.

Which wouldn't mean there wasn't one. In turn, it doesn't mean we can use any spirit of the tale. This is really just attacking the argument for the sake of attacking it, this could literaly be applied to anything we ignore.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who is to say that the Gnostic interpolation of the bible is less valid then the popular Christian interpolation?

Well, we agree the fact that it's a hard excercise and that errors can be made on this discussion doesn't mean it's impossible. Also I'm not assuming the Gnostic reading of the Bible is wrong, I'm trying to clarify what another poster posted which was readily dismissed when it actually came from a valid stance.

Even without pursuing a factual truth, beliefs are what you make out of them, by discussing about their religious experience and understanding people learn about it. Discussions don't have to be about being right or wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I agree, however, rational interpretation does not apply to the bible. All religious interpretations of the bible are irrational.

you sure do generalize... the irony of this, is that your generalization is not rational either...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The reason I say this is because the bible is a collection of different stories and text that were not intended by the original writers to be put together. Remember that the bible was not constructed (or assembled) until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This was long after all the individual books of the bible were written.

If I were to take a cross section of storied from today's popular culture and bind them together in one large book, would anyone be able to come up with a rational interpretation of how they fit together? I don't think so.

wrong!

"See this which I have found, saith the Preacher, searching one by one to find out the reason;"
Ecclesiastes 7:27

"Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them."
Isaiah 34:16

read and understand first before you criticize... just like what Jesus said:

"But Jesus answered them, You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
Matthew 22:29

Originally posted by dyajeep
you sure do generalize... the irony of this, is that your generalization is not rational either...



wrong!

"See this which I have found, saith the Preacher, searching one by one to find out the reason;"
Ecclesiastes 7:27

"Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them."
Isaiah 34:16

read and understand first before you criticize... just like what Jesus said:

"But Jesus answered them, You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
Matthew 22:29

I was talking about language this whole time mmm

Originally posted by Bentley
I was talking about language this whole time mmm

I was not. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of some people (not you). I thought you were telling me that they were not being hypocritical. No wonder this was a strange conversation.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I get the feeling that you think Greatest I am is a Christian. He's a Gnostic Christian, and from what little I know about Gnosticism his argument is consistent with Gnostic beliefs.

All belief system aside, it is always immoral to place ones own responsibilities on another's shoulders.

Note that three Christians have run from any discussion on the morality involved as they know they do not have a leg to stand on.

Regards
DL