Originally posted by The Omega
Jury> No, you didn’t answer my question.
Your reply was: “Those who lived faithful to God has God's promise of salvation. From the very beginning up to the end of time.
And those who disobeyed Him will be destined to die.Those who sinned under the law will be judged under the law.
And those who sinned apart from the law will be judged apart from the law.”So, for the third time:
What about the people who never heard of God and couldn’t embrace any commandments?
What about all the people on the planet who existed before the invention of Judaism and Christianity? They’re in hell?
What about all the people living at the time of Judaisms invention in far-away lands, like Australia and North America, with no chance of EVER hearing the word of God. Are they in Hell, too?
Can you write something without clutching a Bible?Ninjaturtle> So what about ancient societies where homosexuality was allowed? Will a homosexual who never heard of God (because he/she lived prior to the spreading of the Bible) be judged by God for his sexual observance?
WindDancer> No, I’m open for new knowledge. Are you not getting the “humour me” statement on purpose??
I’ve never claimed to be better at philosophy than any philosopher. I know very little about philosophy – I’m a scientist. The scientific method is my way.
Do you HAVE any philosophical proof of God? Try one… Please 😄 If you can’t go about such a topic light-hearted and with a sense of humour you’re taking the topic waayyy to serious.
Which is indeed needed as we see things very differently. I do not disrespect you for that, do you disrespect me for MY views?Indeed. Back in the ‘ole days astronomers were called astrologers, and even Galileo and Newton were men of God. Back then we didn’t know WHAT was out there – heck we didn’t know if the world was flat or round or cylindrical. And scientists had to believe in God – so of course great minds tried to get their minds around this paradoxical concept.
Hey, it’s even called a Ph.D. today, right? 😉Tell me: How does one believe in God from a philosophical perspective? How does it differ from your everyday Christian?
If God gave us free will – was he back then unable to see the consequences? Does God have free will?The Bible is not fact. It’s like saying paranoid conspiracy theorists take their FACTS from the latest Alien Abduction site. Facts are not relative. 2+2 will never be five, no matter how many times it’s mentioned in the Bible.
Again you’re wrong. Scientists usually don’t CARE about religion – as I said they don’t have to anymore, the Inquisition is over. Fundamentalist Christians however spend aeons trying to prove a thing like Evolution wrong and cosmology wrong – as if that would somehow make the 6000-year old Earth hypothesis right.
Ninjaturtle> You make it sound as if homosexuals should all give up their love- and sexlife and go into monasteries.
You’re a damn hypocrite! You can find NO other reason to hate homosexuals than an out-dated book, which you only BELIEVE is the word of God. So you’re biased against homosexuals for NO reason. That’s being prejudiced!BF> Hey, Jury’s one of the Chosen Ones who… hears… God’s voice. Or was that… ? Oh, wait. When people HEAR things I usually… call a doctor. 😉
Jury> How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? Did he tell you…?
WD> Just shows the homosexuals are less prejudiced than the Christians, huh?
FE> “The Word of God has not changed hun”
Two things: How do you KNOW the Bible is the word of God? Has God, himself, told you so?If we are to take the Bible literally, then:
- Must we KILL all homosexuals (Romans 1: 26-28)?
- Must we circumcise all boys (Genesis 17:14) or abandon them?
- Is bigamy allowed? (Starting in Genesis 4:19)?Man, you absolutely refuse to take your head out of the Bible, don’t you? Try to THINK for yourself for once – otherwise you’re wasting mine and tpt’s time.
You list stealing, adultery, backstabbing, and cheating as something people can have a desire to do – and choose not to.
So – you’re comparing homosexuality to stealing, back-stabbing and cheating. Yes, you are. Because you make it sound as if homosexuality – as if who you’re attracted to – is simply an evil urge you can overcome. I’m not even going to ask you if you can CHOSE not be in love with someone you’re in love with – that question is philosophically WAY beyond you.
Did Abraham commit adultery with Hagar?
Did Abraham marry his sister with God's blessing?
Did Lot allow the mob to rape his daughters?
Did Lot have sex with his daughters?Biblical family values DO leave something to be desired.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/fv/long.html
Yep, adultery, incenst and bigamy.These things are horrible. Homosexuality is not. So, no thanks. I don't want anything to do with your God!
NO i'm not comparing those to stealing, cheating & lying, read the post plz again, i'm making a point, just because you have a desire for something doesn't make it right, and i believe i said that. You are trying to take what i said, out of context, which is wrong. 😉
romans doesnot state that we shld kill homesexuals either.
about those that don't know or haven't heard about God
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
about those that don't know or haven't heard about God
Mat 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
or those before the aztecs, why didn't they worship your god? cause apperently it got preached everywhere... what about the african cultures? or the maoris?
Originally posted by The Omega
WindDancer> No, I’m open for new knowledge. Are you not getting the “humour me” statement on purpose??
I’ve never claimed to be better at philosophy than any philosopher. I know very little about philosophy – I’m a scientist. The scientific method is my way.
Do you HAVE any philosophical proof of God? Try one… Please 😄 If you can’t go about such a topic light-hearted and with a sense of humour you’re taking the topic waayyy to serious.
Which is indeed needed as we see things very differently. I do not disrespect you for that, do you disrespect me for MY views?
Negative, I'm not uptight about discussions. But just like you take science seriously, I take philosophy seriously. And I did say we can have humor, right? Let's just not make it too much of habit in this debate. Of course I respect your views as long as you respect my views I see no problem at all. Which btw- I'm not an expert either, I can only answer and debate topics on God to my best of knowledge.
So, you want a Philosophical proof of God? Well, I'll give it my best shot, try this one:
Philosopher and Christian Saint Thomas Aquinas Formulated five proofs or ways of demostrating the existence of God. His approach was the opposite of St. Anselm (which I will go into detail if the arguement requires it). Anselm began his proof with the idea of a perfect being "A being which no greater can be conceived", (keep this in mind while reading this post) from which he inferred the existence of that being inasmuch as the actual existence is greater than the mere idea of a perfect being.
By contrast, Aquinas said that all must begin with our experience of sense objects (later Philosophers Immanuel Kant and John Locke would adapt the theory of experience and objects and used for their own theories on God). Instead of beginning with the innate ideas of perfection, Aquinas rested all five of his proofs upon the ideas derived from a rational understanding of the ordinary objects that we experience with our senses. The Chief characteristic of all sense objects is that their existence requires a cause.That every event or every object requires a cause is something the human intellect knows as a principle whenever, but not until, it comes in contact with [b]experience.[b] By the light of natural reason, the intellect knows, by experiencing events, that for every effect there must be a cause, that ex nihilo nihil fit, nothing comes from nothing. To demostrate that God exists, Aquinas relied, then, first upon his analysis of sense objects and secondly upon his notion that the existence of these objects requires a finite series of causes and ultimately a First Cause, or God.
Proof from motion, we are certain, because is evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion. It is equally clear to us that whatever is in motion was move by something else. If a thing is a rest, it will never move until something else moves it. When a thing is a rest, it is only potentially in motion. Motion occurs when something pontentially in motion is moved and is then actually in motion; motion is the transformation of pontetiality into actuality. What causes this motion? You can obviously say it's physics. But if we make the question more deeper we come up with....What is the purpose of this motion? Why should it keep moving? Is it God using his powers to move and object? Sure we can explain motion using Physics. But can physics tell us the purpose of the motion? Because, our intellects always want to find a purpose for a thing. In this case the movement.
Here is an argument from Necessary versus Possible being. In nature we find that things are posible to be and not to be (NO, this isn't Shakespeare). Such things are possible or contigent because they do not always exist; they are generated and are corrupted. Example: There was a time when a tree did not exist; it exists, and finally it goes out of existence. To say, then, that it is possible for the tree to exist must mean that it is also a possible for it not to exist. The possibility for the tree not to exist must be taken two ways: First, it is possible for the tree never to come into existence, and secondly, once the tree is in existence, there is the possibility that it will go out of existence. To say, then, that something is possible must mean that at both ends of it's being, that is, before it comes into being and after it goes out of being, it does not exist. Possible being has this fundamental characterestics, namely, that it can not-be. It can not-be not only after having existed but more importantly before it is generated, caused, or moved. For this reason something that is possible, which can not-be, in fact "at some time is not".
What's argument here? Unlike trees, humans have EXPERIENCE of things. We can experience events in our life time. We experience things since we are inside our mother's wombs. The problem is that our brains LOCK those experiences. After all don't we compare our brains with computers? Both hold a lot a data, but the human brain is much more complex. Therefore our first experiences are file somewhere in some section of our brains. Who can unlock it? Only ourselves. Will we find God since he is our creator? Possible. We need to unlock our first experiences in order to find God.
End of post #1
Originally posted by yerssot
then how come, ie, the Aztecs needed to get converted ?or those before the aztecs, why didn't they worship your god? cause apperently it got preached everywhere... what about the african cultures? or the maoris?
It is being preached over there, hw do you knw they don't worship the same God?
Originally posted by Fiery Eyes
The Word of God has not changed hun. 🙂
For the last goddamn time, the Bible was written by PEOPLE, not God. People are fallible. And with the thing about homosexuals, the apostles were wrong. If you don't believe me, go here:
...and ask somebody. I'm dead serious when I say this. If you refuse to go find out for yourself whether or not these people choose to be who they are, you're only proving my point--that the idea homosexuality is a choice is one created by ignorance.
Originally posted by Fire
lol same time posting, gives that effect yerss 🙂PS it's spanish not spaniards 😛
If I'm not mistaken the aztecs were conquered by the spanish not the portugese
yeah, but I was thinking of Gladiator... thought they called maximus "the spaniard" in it or am I so utterly wrong?
and I took them both as to show that both were guilty of killing and not "preaching"
I'm sorry, do I here the sound of proselytizing? When are people going to realize that the Bible was created to get people to follow a moral lifestyle and worship something that may or may not actually exist. Why believe in someone that has never been seen or heard from since they supposedly "created" this world? This is just my opinion and all, but I think it's a bunch of nonsense that way too many people have played in to.