Page 22 of 89 FirstFirst ... 1217181920212223242526273272 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 440 of 1780
  1. #421  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    However, it being crazy is simply your accusation, which relies on assuming that your chosen belief is correct.
    I don't hold any religious beliefs. Religion attempts to definitively answer questions that people like me aren't even asking or seeking definitive answers to.
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 02/19/2010 at 10:50 AM.
  2. #422  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You assume that I am a practitioner of blind faith perhaps.
    KAM
    Well ya....how can you worship an all powerful being if not with blind faith?
  3. #423  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    I suppose you could say that God is real but only in the sense of God being a concept, an idea, a myth, a state of mind. Some people have gone to far and think God is actually real - that is that God exists in physical reality. God is a concept, there is no real 'God' who exists physically in the universe. As a concept the idea of God can be useful (in your personal life perhaps or as a tool to control large groups of people). However if you take it to far and begin to think that God is real you will have all sorts of problems; like thinking that there is no such thing as evolution, that there was a talking snake in the garden of Eden, that there was a garden of Eden, that Adam and Eve were real people, that a man walked on the surface of a sea, not working on weekends, the inability to enjoy p0rn, homosexual hate, the belief that fish isn't meat, the crazy idea that 75 virgins would be a good time, and on and on.....
    The biggest flaw with religion is that it does rely on Faith. Speaking of Christianity ONLY, the God of the Bible has and does reveal Himself to us, but not in the obvious ways that we ask all of the time. Here's where the fact comes in: an INFINITE God cannot be understood by a FINITE being such as ourselves.Here's where the Faith comes in: Even Christians have many questions about who God is and why God made these decisions. Its impossible for us to understand His reasoning in our current forms. A true heart-felt communication to God does not go unheard, even if its not answered on your terms. The main thing that most Christians understand is that God has a plan already in motion that will end suffering, and that plan is obviously not coming to its fruition today (as of me writing this...I cannot speak for the rest of the 12hrs in the EST day). Here's some more faith for you: You went to sleep not knowing IF you would wake up. You had an and unproven belief that you would. That is called faith.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    These reasons show us God is NOT real. Here we go:

    ...
    6. There are bad things in the world, why doesn't God stop them, if he loves us with all his heart? Letting someone suffer relentlessly, when you have the power to stop the pain easily, is not love.
    Love is not defined by what humans can understand, for its an action that we discovered, and still remains scientifically unmeasurable. And like I said before, who are we to understand what exactly is in store for the pain and suffering? I know this example isnt quite on the level we are speaking of, but you have to know pain to know pleasure. You work out, and pain ensues before the benefit. Many people characterize love as pain. Would we really enjoy a salvation if we didnt know how much pain our own decisions would cause?
    7. A woman cannot have a baby and still be a virgin, simple as that.
    Actually, a virgin is defined as someone who didnt have sex. Sperm does NOT need sex to fertilize an egg. With all of our technology, I'm surprised at your oversight.
    8. There are things that ARE impossible, even to God, such as: you cannot add 2 and 2 to equal 198, you cannot take 6 away from 2 without equaling a negative number.
    Again, these things are impossible for US to understand. Since humans did not MAKE the laws of the land, only name them as they could observe, then its understandable how we cant see the possibility of things we dont understand.
    9. If god is so forgiving, why did he create a hell?
    Hell is the dwelling place of a fallen angel, Lucifer.
    Your statements do not prove that there is no God, but only proves that our understanding is finite. Just as it took exploration to find out that the world was bigger than our finite (at the time) understandings, you too, will have to explore to have your horizons expanded.
  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #424  
    Quote Originally Posted by darreno1 View Post
    In the end it seems we end up with different interpretations anyway. I have yet to see 2 biblical scholars that agree completely on anything.
    You could take all of the biblical scholars of the world and lay them end to end and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #425  
    Quote Originally Posted by Xerlot View Post
    Look into the writings of Joseophus he was a Jewish Saducce. So he had every reason to tell the world Jesus was a fake. Yet he documents that Jesus was alive, Crucified and missing from the grave.
    I'm not contesting that he lived, was crucified, or missing from the grave. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it's been pretty settled on the first two points. The third is hearsay, as far as I know.... Regardless, none of these prove that he was the son of God, resurrected, ascended into Heaven, etc. Those are faith based interpretations of events, not the events themselves.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #426  
    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    ....the God of the Bible has and does reveal Himself to us, but not in the obvious ways that we ask all of the time.
    Why not? Wouldn't that be the best, most efficient and plainest way to have everyone worship you?

    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Actually, a virgin is defined as someone who didnt have sex. Sperm does NOT need sex to fertilize an egg. With all of our technology, I'm surprised at your oversight.
    I'm going to just come out an say it. Jesus, if he did actually exsit, was born over 2000yrs ago. In vitro wasn't really going on back then, leaving sex as the soul way to get yourself knocked up.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Love is not defined by what humans can understand
    Yes it is. It's a human emotion which I understand quite well thank you. Even religious people understand love because they believe that man was made in the image of God and by that definition God to would have to understand love as humans understand it....so we are all on the same page there.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    Again, these things are impossible for US to understand. Since humans did not MAKE the laws of the land, only name them as they could observe, then its understandable how we cant see the possibility of things we dont understand.
    Mathematics isn't a law of the land. It is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change.

    Quote Originally Posted by BMIC50 View Post
    an INFINITE God cannot be understood by a FINITE being such as ourselves.
    Holy crap....that's convenient.
  7. #427  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    So based on 11 exceptions to the rule, ignoring the first edition of the holly book, looking only at some Christian denominations and making some generalizations...I'm wrong.

    Sounds like a typical religious justification.

    Open your minds people. You just might find you're the masters of your own universe. I would bet that not living every day wondering if your daily decisions will get you into heaven or not would be very liberating.
    Masters of your own universe...could you clarify? Does this mean we all have a universe with a sun and stars and celestial bodies that are immeasurable?

    Last I check, the universe wasnt mastered by any human. I know that the US Govt is trying to, but all of the satellites in the world wont help them.

    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Actually, my only reference at this time (don't care to do exhaustive research) is common sense. The printing press is roughly 500 years old. All translations and reproductions of the bible during the first 1400 years of its existence would have been done by hand. All translations from its original language to its current form would also be first person and by hand. If I translated a science text book from Greek to 10 other languages by hand, would you trust my handiwork (pun intended)? Then, lets say people do this thousands and thousands of time over hundreds of years...would you trust those translations and reproductions to be an accurate representation of the original text that is now thousands of years old?

    I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
    Based on the fact that humans are imperfect, you are citing that reason to be the reason why a book is unreliable. So, if humans founded science and wrote books about it, then it too is flawed. So there is NO tangible way for us humans to accurately measure the validity of the Bible, of the universe, or of your own brain! We humans are the ones messing everything up!

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    I don't hold any religious beliefs. Religion attempts to definitively answer questions that people like me aren't even asking or seeking definitive answers to.
    That sums it up. God has placed in His children a thirst that cannot be quenched by anything BUT Him. Unfortunately, as it is written, not everyone is His child. So not everyone will have that thirst. But those who do, end up finding Him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You could take all of the biblical scholars of the world and lay them end to end and they still wouldn't reach a conclusion.
    Or any set of scholars.
  8.    #428  
    Let me ask people to consider a few things:
    1. The original question is how we consider whether God exists and whether that concept can be logical or not.
    2. The next issue is whether we as humans should be capable of understanding this God, if He exists. Sharing examples of this is fine and can be debated a bit, but if humans are capable of having different understandings of such a possible God, then it might be that humans are wrong (rather than God). It's reasonable for some to stop here and dismiss further arguments, but it still does not prove existence or non-existence of a God.
    3. If there are points of a given religion that you feel explain things well, explaining those points and how, what, when, why they help is permissible.
    4. If you've concluded God does not exist, fully explaining your reasoning (ie: the path you followed to arrive at this this conclusion) should facilitate productive discussion.
    5. In the event you think there may be more than one God, please feel free to make rational arguments as to how/why you've arrived at such a conclusion.


    My hope here is to try and follow arguments to rational conclusions where possible and to shed light on things for others to consider. We should refrain from calling each other wrong. It would be better for each of us to postulate that maybe we might be wrong and that zero or more of the other views might be right. Philosophers need to respect each others arguments.

    -- Thanks
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #429  
    Oh sure, NOW you give us the ground rules!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10. #430  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    We should refrain from calling each other wrong. It would be better for each of us to postulate that maybe we might be wrong and that zero or more of the other views might be right.
    This would be the nicest way to tell someone they are wrong that I can think of...well done.

    Unfortunately the answer to the question...does God existed or not?.....regardless of the answer, will leave one side right and the other side wrong. There is no middle ground on this issue.
  11. #431  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    I'm going to just come out an say it. Jesus, if he did actually exsit, was born over 2000yrs ago. In vitro wasn't really going on back then, leaving sex as the soul way to get yourself knocked up.
    ]Not to get all technical on you, but in vitro isnt the only way sperm can travel. Sperm can live outside of the female for up to 24 hours. Again, my mind was blown when I heard that because that is one of the toughest parts of the Bible for me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Yes it is. It's a human emotion which I understand quite well thank you. Even religious people understand love because they believe that man was made in the image of God and by that definition God to would have to understand love as humans understand it....so we are all on the same page there.
    Emotion is NOT love. Love is too big to JUST be called an emotion. Sure, we humans understand that, but as I tell my wife, Love is an emotions that compels us to act. The depth of love that God has given us is deeper than any feeling you or I can measure in our current finite bodies.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Mathematics isn't a law of the land. It is the study of quantity, structure, space, and change.
    So whats your point? Math is not God's law with which we define everything...including the existence of a God? It doesnt even define YOUR existence. What equation determines which one of those sperm successfully fertilizes that egg? Furthermore, how does math define how long the term will be? If you are born alive or dead...or not aborted?

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Holy crap....that's convenient.
    I think what your argument is entails that if we cannot prove it, then its silly. But I am throwing back to you that we cannot prove a lot of things. I think one of your posts said that you simply leave things you dont understand. Well, just like scientists, they didnt leave the world to its unknown state. They theoretically tested things. Some answers became of those tests, and others are still unfounded. But thats not a silly endeavor. So therefore, religion is not a silly endeavor. Things that we do not understand of the Bible, we study. There are still many things we dont understand. But exploring religion is not silly...giving up is.
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #432  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Actually, my only reference at this time (don't care to do exhaustive research) is common sense. The printing press is roughly 500 years old. All translations and reproductions of the bible during the first 1400 years of its existence would have been done by hand. All translations from its original language to its current form would also be first person and by hand. If I translated a science text book from Greek to 10 other languages by hand, would you trust my handiwork (pun intended)? Then, lets say people do this thousands and thousands of time over hundreds of years...would you trust those translations and reproductions to be an accurate representation of the original text that is now thousands of years old?

    I'm looking forward to your thoughts.
    I'm glad you brought that up. Since we do have many translations in different languages dating back to the 2nd Century, and since it's unlikely that a single person transcribed them all, we can be fairly certain that they all came from earlier sources. And, since the large majority of the earliest preserved fragments are in agreement, we can have even more certainty about what the originals said. We have over 20,000 manuscripts or partial manuscripts and the majority of them are in agreement.
  13.    #433  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I'm not contesting that he lived, was crucified, or missing from the grave. In fact, I'm pretty certain that it's been pretty settled on the first two points. The third is hearsay, as far as I know.... Regardless, none of these prove that he was the son of God, resurrected, ascended into Heaven, etc. Those are faith based interpretations of events, not the events themselves.
    Good (polite) post!
    I don't know enough to agree or disagree whether His resurrection and/or ascension should be faith-based interpretations alone. Logic tells me there would be evidence to refute his resurrection if this was the case (and I don't believe such evidence exists). How a risen God leaves the Earth is likely immaterial for purposes of identifying whether the said God exists. I do agree with you here on the "faith" part in that there would be theological reasons to want to know where God is and whether/if He might come back again.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  14. #434  
    That isnt what I am saying at all. The faith that it took for me to maintain my belief after I found out that info was the point. Religion, especially Christianity, has been through many trials. Even when I found out that bit of info, I didnt just ... give up.

    Nothing to say about the rest of my post?
    Last edited by Micael; 02/19/2010 at 11:54 AM. Reason: Removed deleted post text
  15.    #435  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    This would be the nicest way to tell someone they are wrong that I can think of...well done.

    Unfortunately the answer to the question...does God existed or not?.....regardless of the answer, will leave one side right and the other side wrong. There is no middle ground on this issue.
    Most likely you are correct (unless multiple Gods exist, then we might all be wrong)!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16.    #436  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Oh sure, NOW you give us the ground rules!
    Better late than never! Sorry that I wasn't smart enough to envision what to say in advance. I'll continue to step in with these sorts of suggestions when I think doing so might better focus the discussion. (Others are also welcome to make these sorts of suggestions.)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  17. #437  
    The biggest issue I have with humans worshiping a God is that they are giving up their freedom for no reason at all. Worshiping a God so that you can spend eternity in a comfortable after life requires sacrifice. Sacrifice which limits your ability to be all you can be while your alive. Sacrifice which is ultimately unnecessary and a waste of your time. Time you could of spent living your life on your terms and not those of a mythical God.

    Instead of making choices aimed at getting into a comfortable afterlife (which may or may not exist)...try living your life in the best interests of yourself, your family, friends and community (actual real things that we all share). I promise you the world will be a better place for it.

    -IMHO
    Last edited by ryleyinstl; 02/19/2010 at 12:26 PM.
  18. #438  


    Funny regardless of your point of view....
  19.    #439  
    I've been holding off on explaining some of the views/logic behind Catholic doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, Mary's virginity, and (even more controversial and not in the Bible) Mary's perpetual virginity. Now might be a time to clarify (at least some) of these:
    • Jesus was conceived in Mary by the work of the Holy Spirit (not Joseph).
    • Catholic doctrine teaches that she remained a virgin throughout her life. (Yes, I know there are mentions of "brothers" of Jesus in the NT. We apply a meaning of "kinsfolk" to the word "brothers" where this is mentioned. The Church has not dogmatically declared whether these were step "brothers" (possibly from an earlier marriage Joseph may have had) or "cousins". Many Christians do not agree with the Catholic teaching on this, but when you stand by it, it better withstands many of attacks on who the Father of Jesus is. It's also pretty clear in the Bible that Jesus is treated as the "Son of God".)
    • Part of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is that Mary was forgiven of Original Sin (a consequence that all humans inherit from the fall of Adam and Eve) "before" she was conceived. This was a special grace where God "saved" Mary before her soul was created (at conception). God can do this because God is eternal. Mary needed to be an immaculate "tabernacle" for God and even having once had original sin was not good enough for a deity. The conclusion of accepting this doctrine is that God did create one "perfect" human who was predestined to accept becoming the mother of God. That's why Catholics hold Mary in high regard. This has nothing to do with Mary other than through the grace of God, he made one human who did not sin. Another consequence is that when we ask Mary to pray with us, our prayers are the most powerful prayers possible. (Now my opinion: Even the worst possible sinner in the world, completely isolated from God here on Earth, could ask Mary to join their prayer and ask her to perfect the prayer, and that prayer will be heard.)
    • The last theological point to raise about Mary is that she did not die. Adam and Eve were not to die until they committed their sin. As a consequence, their Earthly lives became mortal. The early church writers believe that Mary went onto what's called "dormition" (which was a form of deep sleep) and that she was "assumed" into Heaven by the power of God (in other words, not on her own power as when Jesus ascended).
    • Jesus was(is) the "new Adam". Mary was(is) the "new Eve". Mary is now titled as the "Queen of Heaven".


    You are perfectly welcome to dismiss any or all of the above teachings. Yes, the whole thing sounds really crazy, but it's theologically sound and has withheld being proven wrong to this day. Anyone who doubts the existence of God, after having read his Word to understand His will, should pray with Mary to ask God to reveal himself (in some way) to them. Your perfected prayer will reach the ears of God.

    I've probably missed a bit of what I needed to say here to minimize discussion or debate on this belief. I will do my best to answer questions according to the teaching of my Church. I welcome disbelief (but I ask that you pray with Mary to ask Jesus for help with this disbelief). The one remaining issue that I know will come up is why none of what I said above is "in the Bible". That beings up a (predominantly "Protestant") doctrine called "Sola Scriptura" (Latin for "the Bible alone") which will have to be the subject of another post.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #440  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I'm glad you brought that up. Since we do have many translations in different languages dating back to the 2nd Century, and since it's unlikely that a single person transcribed them all, we can be fairly certain that they all came from earlier sources. And, since the large majority of the earliest preserved fragments are in agreement, we can have even more certainty about what the originals said. We have over 20,000 manuscripts or partial manuscripts and the majority of them are in agreement.
    So by that rationale, you would also follow the teachings of the Koran, the Tora, or the book of Mormon, all of which surfaced in similar fashion and, by your definition of corroboration, are valid. So what makes the bible more reliable than other similar, older or newer, texts that claim to be revelation from God? They are both transcribed, re-written, edited, and translated by man (or many men). Are they all equally valid even though they espouse dramatically different information? If the bible says one thing, and the Tora says the opposite, how is a religious man to decide what to do? Who to obey? How to live? Who to worship?

    BMIC50 said "So, if humans founded science and wrote books about it, then it too is flawed"

    Man invented the word science, not science itself. The immutable laws of nature that govern our universe predates man. Science is merely our attempt to categorize and understand what always had existed and what always will. If there is a flaw, it is not in science or the laws of nature. It would reside in mans attempt to understand those laws.

    What do you think?
    Last edited by joshaccount; 02/19/2010 at 12:56 PM.

Posting Permissions