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

Originally posted by Bentley
Sure. But all interpretations could be wrong, we just wouldn't know it.

Originally posted by Bentley
Think about this: I can never fully describe an object, I can only approach it with the limited tools of my understand it. I'll never fully describe it, so it might be impossible to be exactly right when I try to approach it. But I can be downright wrong by describing things that aren't in that object at all.

Originally posted by Bentley
Sure. It still doesn't allow us to apply "every spirit of the tale" to it.

Originally posted by Bentley
As I said, even in fiction we can find rationality, so if we had a fiction in which elements described the dances of unicorns, there would be nothing irrational about the discussion. Sure, there is some room to interpretation, but as I said, at some point subjectivity stops and the way we read is just wrong.

Originally posted by Bentley
Reality is moot to our discussion, irrationality is not about existence on itself, many mathematical rules can't be applied to our universe but are strictly rational.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm just trying to expose my take on the argumentation here, the unicorn argument doesn't address my line of thought at all, so I'm iffy about delving more into it.

Originally posted by Bentley
Oh, that might be the case. I really replied to your questioning of a particular stance, but that's not the entirety of what was happening in this thread at that moment.

Originally posted by Bentley
I believe it's fair to criticize people when they are dismissing valid arguments for unknown reasons or clear bias.

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, [b]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

😉 [/B]

👆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That was my point.

You haven't proved it, both assumptions are still possible and hence up to debate.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I’m not sure what this has to do with what we were talking about.

It kind of throws into question the idea of a right interpretation. But it doesn't make any interpretation wrong by default. There can be wrong without a totally right interpretation and this is pretty easy to prove by many examples.

This is all about our argument, we have been going in circles about how people can read something wrong despite it being fictional. They just can. There can be wrong without a proven "right".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Now you seem to be agreeing with me.

At no point I stated you're wrong, your claim isn't the only possibilyt, that's all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
How can we be wrong about fiction?

We can. If I ask your name, and I say your name is Pikachu, I'm wrong. If ask you if Son Goku is black, and you say yes, you're wrong.

This is not hard to realize at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Reality is never moot.

It can be depending on the argument. If we are discussing fiction, being fascinated and limited by reality will only lead us into errors.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
As I suspected; we are not talking about the same thing.

Could you elaborate?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christians were just doing what Christians do; being hatful… Remember, the Christian killed all of the Gnostics and destroyed their books.

Christians are humans, even people who seem to discuss rationally can prove to be motivated by hateful agendas. We weren't really discussing about this though.

Originally posted by Bentley
You haven't proved it, both assumptions are still possible and hence up to debate.

Originally posted by Bentley
It kind of throws into question the idea of a right interpretation. But it doesn't make any interpretation wrong by default. There can be wrong without a totally right interpretation and this is pretty easy to prove by many examples.

Originally posted by Bentley
Christians are humans, even people who seem to discuss rationally can prove to be motivated by hateful agendas. We weren't really discussing about this though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The burden of proof is not on me. The person who says there’s a right way to interpret the bible is the one with the burden of proof.

It was not their claim. They claimed there were wrong ways to interpret it, which there are.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That’s not the point. Saying someone of a different religion is interpreting the bible wrong, is a false statement; because there is not just one interpretation of the bible.

It's not necessarily wrong by the reason I just cited. This doesn't mean that people should methodically dismiss interprétations that aren't their own, don't get me wrong. My point wasn't to defend people and have them bash others for the sake of it.

The problem is that going by an "everything goes mentality" is just a veiled way to refute any meaning the Bible might have as a moral statement -or as anything-. Which can be as much as a hate statement as the bias you're denouncing yourself.

[QUOTE=15025758]Originally posted by Shakyamunison
[B]See, that’s why we haven’t been talking about the same

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The burden of proof is not on me. The person who says there’s a right way to interpret the bible is the one with the burden of proof.

It was not their claim. They claimed there were wrong ways to interpret it, which there are.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That’s not the point. Saying someone of a different religion is interpreting the bible wrong, is a false statement; because there is not just one interpretation of the bible.

It's not necessarily wrong by the reason I just cited. This doesn't mean that people should methodically dismiss interprétations that aren't their own, don't get me wrong. My point wasn't to defend people and have them bash others for the sake of it.

The problem is that going by an "everything goes mentality" is just a veiled way to refute any meaning the Bible might have as a moral statement -or as anything-. Which can be as much as a hate statement as the bias you're denouncing yourself.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
See, that’s why we haven’t been talking about the same thing.

Well, that might be the case. You see, it's different to say people are irrational because they dismiss things by prejudice and because it's different to their own convictions and to say any belief they might have regarding a subject is irrational. The second statement has a wider scope and has to be argued from a theoretical perspective, the first statement is just humans being humans and seems extremely redundant so I thought it wasn't worth discussing.

Some of the generalizations you stated made me believe that you were also arguing in a wide scope, but it doesn't have to be the case.

Originally posted by Bentley
It was not their claim. They claimed there were wrong ways to interpret it, which there are.

Originally posted by Bentley
It's not necessarily wrong by the reason I just cited. This doesn't mean that people should methodically dismiss interprétations that aren't their own, don't get me wrong. My point wasn't to defend people and have them bash others for the sake of it.

Originally posted by Bentley
The problem is that going by an "everything goes mentality" is just a veiled way to refute any meaning the Bible might have as a moral statement -or as anything-. Which can be as much as a hate statement as the bias you're denouncing yourself.

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, that might be the case. You see, it's different to say people are irrational because they dismiss things by prejudice and because it's different to their own convictions and to say any belief they might have regarding a subject is irrational. The second statement has a wider scope and has to be argued from a theoretical perspective, the first statement is just humans being humans and seems extremely redundant so I thought it wasn't worth discussing.
Some of the generalizations you stated made me believe that you were also arguing in a wide scope, but it doesn't have to be the case.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
NO. There is more then one interpretation of the bible. In order for there to be a wrong interpretation, there has to be a right interpretation. Please provide proof that one of the many interpretation of the bible is correct.
Here is a list of all the denominations of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations
If there was a correct interpretation of the bible, there would not be so many denomination (interpretations) in Christianity.

Again, this is language we are talking about. If I say "I'm your brother" I can be literal or metaphorical, I'm not necessarily wrong nor right by choosing a sense in that phrase. But if you think that by saying "I'm your brother" I mean "the Xbox One travels to the past", then you're probably just wrong -I guess it dépends on the context?-.

So nope, there is no need to prove there is one right interpretation to defend the point I'm talking about.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Moral? What are you talking about? The bible is just a book written by humans. Morality does not come from the bible. Morality comes from society.

Again, where does books come from? Aren't the elements of interpretation based on a particular society at any point in time? Besides, you missed the important word in my reply, I said you're taking sense away from the Bible. That sense is meant to be -partly- one with morality. By design. You're smart and this can't get past you.

I'm assuming you're trying to make a point of the kind "there are too many meanings to the Bible so it's essentially meaningless". But that kind of reasoning will never make the Bible literaly meaningless, extrapolation doesn't work that way in language.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Christians believe that a man named Jesus died and was resurrected, and still lives 2000 years later. To me, that’s irrational. However, not all Christians believe that literally. So, there is some room for rational thought, but most of the Christians on this forum would not consider those people (Catholics and Mormons for example) to be Christian.

Well, yes, I think in my first post I readily said that there are bound to be irrational things about Christianity depending on the perspective. It won't be rational to every measure out there, as I think human brains cannot naturally be fully rational to begin with -it'd be near impossible to make such discipline appear at a social level, we do see glimpses here and there-.

As for people in these forums, I wouldn't really know, but many arguments that happen here are about définitions which are the kind of discussion I'd rather not engage.

Bentley,
Let me make this real simple; if person ‘A’ tells person ‘B’ they are wrong; then it is assumed that person ‘A’ is right. However, if person ‘A’ is also wrong, and no one is right, then the word wrong loses all meaning. All that is left is belief.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Bentley,
Let me make this real simple; if person ‘A’ tells person ‘B’ they are wrong; then it is assumed that person ‘A’ is right.

I don't see why you'd assume that. I can tell you how the universe doesn't work but I can't solve the universe. This statement is simply false.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, if person ‘A’ is also wrong, and no one is right, then the word wrong loses all meaning. All that is left is belief.

Also you're assuming people can only be absolutely wrong or absolutely right, defining things as a black/white reality, as if they could be defined by language. This stance is at least questionable.

I don't think we should discuss about belief, the last time we did you made it such an absolute that it was impossible to talk about it at all. As if your god was belief on itself.

Originally posted by Bentley
I don't see why you'd assume that. I can tell you how the universe doesn't work but I can't solve the universe. This statement is simply false.

Originally posted by Bentley
Also you're assuming people can only be absolutely wrong or absolutely right, defining things as a black/white reality, as if they could be defined by language. This stance is at least questionable.

Originally posted by Bentley
I don't think we should discuss about belief, the last time we did you made it such an absolute that it was impossible to talk about it at all. As if your god was belief on itself.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then you misunderstood, because I don’t have a god. I use the word God to communicate to people who do not understand the Mystic Law.

It wan an analogy. Again, we won't enter in discussion about définitions because they are tiresome.

Anyways, I think maybe I should put my point in simple words.

Language is a tool a method. We have proved through study and ages of history that it works, while not perfect, is a method that has rules and fulfills a propose.

When I apply the method, there are a number of possible readings that can be obtained from any phrase. These are limited because language is a real method that can be found in society, at some point, if a language accepts too many acceptions, we can admit it's a different language altogether.

When I say "I'm your mom" in English, there isn't just one valid meaning, depending on context we can pull a number of possible interprétations. But there are also other possibilities, we can make no sense from it at all, and we can take a sense that doesn't come from applying language as a method. For all intents or propose, the second one is not -english- language at all.

That second possibility, call it a mistake, a random occurrence or a wrong, exists. If you don't want to use the word "being wrong" for whatever reason, be my guest. I'm not going to validate a point through all possible inflexions and meanings of every word. I'm not talking about fiction or hypothesis, language is a real object and it works -pretty much- as I described.

I hope this is clear.

Originally posted by Bentley
It wan an analogy. Again, we won't enter in discussion about définitions because they are tiresome.

Anyways, I think maybe I should put my point in simple words.

Language is a tool a method. We have proved through study and ages of history that it works, while not perfect, is a method that has rules and fulfills a propose.

When I apply the method, there are a number of possible readings that can be obtained from any phrase. These are limited because language is a real method that can be found in society, at some point, if a language accepts too many acceptions, we can admit it's a different language altogether.

When I say "I'm your mom" in English, there isn't just one valid meaning, depending on context we can pull a number of possible interprétations. But there are also other possibilities, we can make no sense from it at all, and we can take a sense that doesn't come from applying language as a method. For all intents or propose, the second one is not -english- language at all.

That second possibility, call it a mistake, a random occurrence or a wrong, exists. If you don't want to use the word "being wrong" for whatever reason, be my guest. I'm not going to validate a point through all possible inflexions and meanings of every word. I'm not talking about fiction or hypothesis, language is a real object and it works -pretty much- as I described.

I hope this is clear.

🤨

I didn't know you were talking about language, and I'm not sure what the method as to do with anything. 😛

Talk to you later, dude!

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 dyajeep
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...

You maintain your immoral position by ignoring what was given.

Ignore this as well.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

================

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
All of this is wrong in every way. When you come up with something other then bull and hog wash, post, until then shut up with your foolish posts.

Ignore but you cannot run from just logic.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

================

Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

Perhaps like being man enough to step up to your own demands for a worthy sacrifice?

That is what a good God would do.

Regards
DL

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

Originally posted by Greatest I am
You maintain your immoral position by ignoring what was given.

Ignore this as well.

The following 2 quotes are why I call what God did murder. As you can see, a sacrifice was not required.

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

1 Timothy 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

As you can see all are saved without a sacrifice.

you are just proving to everyone that you are ignorant of the belief you are bashing... don't just read the verse, try understanding the context as well...

"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior,
Who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,
Who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time."
I Timothy 2:3-6

you see, the salvation came into realization because of the sacrifice made by Jesus...

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral.

Jesus said to pick up your cross and follow him but I see that you have taken the line that someone else should pay your dues. Quite manly and moral that. Not.

Do you really think someone else can pay your dues and allow you to shirk your just reward?

maybe you are under the impression that after we profess faith in Jesus - then, we are already saved, and we will do nothing afterwards? that belief or impression is stupid... Christians are commanded to work diligently to attain salvation:

"But he who endures to the end will be saved."
Matthew 24:13

"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;"
Philippians 2:12

"For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."
Ephesians 2:10

"Now I would remind you, brethren, in what terms I preached to you the gospel, which you received, in which you stand,
By which you are saved, if you hold it fast--unless you believed in vain."
I Corinthians 15:1-2

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."
James 2:24

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Deuteronomy 24:16 (ESV) “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin.

Ezekiel 18:20 (ESV) The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.

The declaration which says that God visits the sins of the fathers upon the children is contrary to every principle of moral justice. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

As above so below.

If you had God's power, would you not be able to find a way that does not go against the wisdom of Jesus and the bible?

you've given the verses, so what's your problem with original sin? there is no original sin... it's a wrong interpretation... the verses you've given are some proofs of it...