|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted November 29, 2009 10:28 PM |
|
|
The lying subject, is not very important for me, if you wish on persisting on it, then you'll have to find someone else to debate it with, however I'll, as I hadn't wrote this earlier, of course reply to what you wrote.
Quote:
Michael Moor has made tons of false statements in his "documentaries" an it is quite easy to conclude that he is therefore a liar, and not merely an incompetent buffoon.
I don't see from what you write, how it's quite easy to see that he lies and not mistaken. For it to be a lie, you've to make convincing evidence of the person knowing the "truth" already, but yet claims otherwise.
Quote:
So you are wanting me to declare why Jesus said these are the two most important commandments in the Word of God without refering to God?
No, I want you to tell me why you think these two are the most important commandments, without refering to anything you don't for absolute sure knows is the truth, and then I want to know how you know these truths you'll refer to, are true.
Quote:
1) No one has the same attributes as God. God is the only self existant, all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present being. God is the only god.
2) Jesus is God existing as a human being. God can exist in multiple was at the same time.
See, these are the attributes I was looking for.
Since you claim that Jesus equals God as a human being, the exact same attributes of God, combined with a human being, should be describing Jesus, yes?
Assuming so, then I'd like to ask you further into these attributes, if I may.
What do you mean by self existant, can you come with an example of something or someone, who's not self existant to make it clear to me?
What do you mean by all-powerful? Does it mean there's no limit to what God can do, or are there limits, and in that case, what does all-powerful then mean?
Is all-knowing not a subset of all-powerful? Anyway, I assume it means knows everything that was, is and will be, am I correct?
Finally, omni-present, this means being present everywhere at once, or to say, aware of everything, is this correct? If not please correct me. Again, is this not one more subset of all-powerful?
Okay having the attributes in order now, I still lack the reason why you follow God, and not let's say Allah, or Odin.
But even with the lack of this part and the lack of clear meaning of your words, I think I've enough information from you, to ask the next question.
Given God is all-powerful and loving, as are both what you've said in this thread, how come you need to follow God at all?
Why not just make everything into heaven where everyone, despite opinion, thoughts, ideas, doings, etc. would forever get what they want?
I mean, God can do this, otherwise God was not all-powerful.
Also, God is loving right? Is there any higher love, than make everyone decide what they want, and have what they want, with no consequences, for all eternity?
Because is that not the self sacrificingness, and setting one self aside, that if we humans did, would make the world a paradise, but of course not nearly as much as God would be able to, because being all powerful, no logical fallacities can deny Gods will, which it however can with us humans, thereby making anything possible, despite what arguments one must have?
Or do I missunderstand what love truely is?
Or do I misunderstand the attributes you give?
Also, it might got lost in the text above, but if you'd be so kind, please answer this part:
Quote:
Okay having the attributes in order now, I still lack the reason why you follow God, and not let's say Allah, or Odin.
Quote:
damn I'm getting old...
That's old news! 
Quote:
old Angelito
I'm way ahead of you. 
Edit: I'd also like to add the following thought experiment which hopefully will make it clear what I ment when I talked about given equal setting from another point, how you'd react to it. (Given someone else had the same attributes as God, etc.).
Let's assume that you, Elodin, are giving all-powerfullness in a world where there's no God, we're only assuming, there's very well no truth in this, it's only a thought experiment, and I do not make you equal to God, because I only give you the all-powerful attribute.
Now Elodin, as one who agree with God, I believe you'd love everyone, am I correct?
Okay, assuming I'm correct, you look upon a world you've created, in this world, a lot of living beings behave differently, some show love and compassion towards eachother, others don't, we'll focus on one single person in this example, because that's all we really can do without making it too big of a text right now.
We look upon a given person, this person wants to do something bad, now you're all-powerful, and I suppose you're loving, how would you show your love?
Can you beat me in showing my love? The one who shows his love best, i.e. makes the best consequences must also be the one who have the best arguments, yes?
So, if I should show my love, I'd use my all-powerfullness to retrain the three important things:
1) Consciousness
2) Free Will
3) Freedom
1) Means I'd let this person exist forever.
2) Means I'd let this person be able to choose freely and getting this to happen, without being affected by environment or genes, i.e. most often emotions.
3) I'd let this persons choice be unlimited and without negative consequences.
Now multiply this out to all living beings, i.e. I'd show the same love for everyone.
Now you might mention that this is not logical possible, because if one person wants to kill someone, and the other person does not want this, then there's inconsistency, but being all-powerfull it means I can -, and will solve it, otherwise there'd be no all-powerfullness.
So can you beat this? Would you require anything else? Let's go to the next thought experiment, yes?
In this next one, we look at another person, again we go back to basics, nothing have been done so far, you've made no choice yet again, this person does not believe in you, doesn't care about you, and only wants for him-/herself. How will you react?
Again, I ask if you can beat me, because I'd not care what this person thinks about me, or even if this person thinks about me in the first place, because that has nothing to do with me showing my love to this person. I don't care if this person loves me, that's not what love is about, love is about loving, not being loved, so for me I'd do exactly the same as above, and only if the person wanted, I'd reveal my existance.
Now, I assume that you'd require this person to love God and love his/hers fellow man, if not for yourself, then for them to make a better world.
Given what I wrote above, I see no connection between loving God and creating a world better for all of us, if there's no such connection, no argument of why one should do it, can exist, and if it exist, please enlighten me.
Secondly, I'd assume that you'd require of this person to love his/hers fellow man, and the only reason I can see, is to make the world a better place, a paradise, but if you already have the unlimited all-powerfullness, why not just do it, without removing free will, giving unlimited freedom?
You see, in my solution, it's so, but in the solution of the bible, we get no help, eventhough it's possible, that is in my opinion not love, but a good advice, from someone who ultimately thinks it's more important to learn a lesson than to live in a paradise, a utopia.
Secondly the, you must love God part, does not bring anything positive with it, therefore, I can only refuse this postulate, until argumentation of why one should do so have been presented.
I decided to go for these two claims of yours, because I randomly noted you marked them as the most important, and therefore I assume they're the easiest to argumentate for, and certainly it's easy to argumentate why we being good to eachother makes the world better, but the attributes you gave God means in principle that it's not something that should be required, how you're going to argumentate for loving God however, that's beyond me, and for me equal to the following scenario:
Someone is in trouble, you decide to help this someone through good advicing, in your advicing you include that this person must love you, but that's selfish! And that's a sin!
But you know what would not make it love, and please don't mistake the require part as something you must, it would not be selfish if Jesus had said love of everyone and everyone is equal, even God is equal to the fellow man, and you should love them equally and ultimately.
But no, love of God is seperated and that's where the selfishness rises from.
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 10:50 PM |
|
|
The level of the arguments in this thread.
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:01 PM |
|
|
____________
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:05 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
so you're not even going to consider the possiblity that he was just a really good guy, and just put it down to the fact he was god...
that is depressing, really, it is.
a man who does good must be god made flesh, and not a man with a conscience.
that is really depressing.
Jesus was a real human being AND God. God existing as a man. The human form was limited in knowledge to what he learned naturally and to what the Spirit of God revealed to him. As a man he prayed and worshiped the Spirit of God as is proper. As a man he got tired and bled when he his wrists and feet were nailed to the cross. As a man God died on the cross. Not the Spirit of God. The human manifestation of God.
That had all been prophecied. That God would be born into the world through a virgin in Bethlehem, live a sinless life, be betrayed for 30 peices of silver by a friend, have his hands, feet, and side pierced [prophecied 1000 years before his birth and before cruicifixion was invented], die for our sins, rise from the thread, and be entroned in heaven as both God and the Christ.
You really can't be a Christian without belief that Jesus is God.
all the miracle stuff could have been doctored in by his disciples. believe it or not, advertising existed from the times of ancient egypt, and found it's way through greece and into rome. to have an audience, Jesus's followers might have needed to edit, change and improve Jesus's image. more importantly, all the prophecies are from the same book, later complied and translated. believe me, I've worked with group writing exercises, changing events in your story to fit with the over all arc is quite common. more importantly, some of the prohpecies come true in Jesus, but not all of them.
I still maintain the belief that Jesus was not God as a man (no matter what Gematria says (****ING HORSE**** PEICE OF ILLOGICAL ****ery)), but as a beleiver in the goodness of humanity and a preacher of that. as I have said before, to call a man with a decent message that even now we don't listen to the son of god or god in the flesh shows both the weakness of humanity and the evil of humanity.
Quote:
Quote:
He distorted the truth in Farhenheit 9/11, yes. and not only that, he has admitted that and apologised apologised to those invovled. it's alot better than what, say, the Sun, the Daily mail and the Daily sport have ever done.
your obviously the kind of man who will watch Farhenhype 9/11 on repeat.
You don't know what "kind of man" I am. Moore lied in more than just the "documentary" you mentioned too. If he did indeed admit he lied, that is a start.
even if he is a liar, he admitted he was wrong. more importantly, what he lied about, on the scale of atrocities, wasn't that much.
I again call the case of David Irving, who not only was a holocaust denier, but changed and edited evidence he was meant to be archiving in order to suit his arguement that the holocaust was not organised by the nazi's. He is a liar, no doubt, but not only has he not admitted it, he continued to do it for about 20 years more before he was caught. even afterward, he has the termerity to call himself a historian.
Moore is not like that. Farhenheit he admitted he lied to for that, but most of the unknown ones, like Sicko, pets or food, and Capitalism a love story, they all check out, they are all solid bits of journalism, investigative journalism at some of it's finest. maybe it's just his stance that you don't like, maybe it's because of the fact he's a great big bold lefty that you find him objectionable.
Quote:
Quote:
you demand links when I can just tell you what you have said
Obama and his cabinet you have described as socialists.
Bush, you described how he was harshly treated.
you have regularly held Beck as the esteem of fair and truthful journalism when he exposed Obama for having a professor who was a marxist and university.
It is a fact that Obama has socialists in his administration and one communist [Van Jones] was forced to step down because of all the heat. I already linked to sources that name some of the socialists.
Yes, Obama is a socialist. In his own words he said he wanted to redistribute wealth. He also said in college he sought out Marxist professors. I linked to proof of all of that.
As far as Bush being harshly treated, I said that the left is complaining about comparisons to Obama and Hitler yet they compared Bush to Hitler. I linked to a commercial from an organiztion of Nancy Pelosi that proved that.
Beck exposed the self avowed communists and socialists in the Obama administration and the fact that Obama sought out Marxist professors. I linked to Obama saying that he sought out Marxist professors, a link to his statments in "Dreams from my Father," his audio book.
then link it again. I will judge the credibity of your sources for myself. just because you can make a link, doesn't make it valid.
link
link
link
the left and right will bicker about their leaders. I don't see hitler in bush, myself...possible curious goerge, but not hitler.
I treat beck the same way I treat Moyles... don't know who it is, look him up! he's on radio 1
Quote:
Quote:
my point is not to insult you, my point into ask you, what is the point of this if you are so stuck in your views that no amount of discussing, arguing, ranting, raving, and so on, will move you.
Why not, as I have stated, Set up a blog? you views could be heard free of interuption from other people who present their own arguements.
Ah, so calling me a mule was not insulting me?
I have no desire to start of blog. Yes, you are not going to persuade me to abandon any viewpoint I hold without solid facts to back you up.
Like I said, when I first came to this forum I only posted in game related topics. When I started reading OSM I saw false claims being made about religion and Christianity in particular and so I decided to join the discussion and address the false statements that were being made.
Anyways, you probably have more time to maintain a blog so maybe you should start one instead.
hey, some places stubbornness is seen as a boon, never backing down, never giving up, even at it's bleakest, but eh, you're funeral.
did you really need to address the balance? I mean, you could have left us to stew in our own ignorance, pitying our narrow minds to the joy's you've obviously experienced in christianity.
More to the point, I have business to take care of, so listen up.
The kind of man you are dealing with is not a sensible one. In fact, I go out of my way to make light of the situation. over the internet, it looses some of it's edge. this whole situation started when I decided to say "religion is an opiate, it's your choice whether you enjoy it". you took offense at that, calling me an atheist, a communist, a socialist, a liar, a non-believer, and so on.
did you ever think of the flip side. What If I had said "Religion is a rollercoaster, it's your choice where you enjoy it", would you have flipped out on me then? the major problem with that Idea is that a rollercoaster can't be compared to religion in the same way an opiate can.
the Idea of an opiate is that it releives pain but f***s you up in the end. too much, it turns into a weapon to impale yourself on, but with it comes a community and friends, and a feeling of wonderment and greatness. it doesn't change much, but the same old is good, and with every new version, there is a different expeirence each time. However, we all react differently to it. some mellow out, some have a cracking time, Some are scared and abused, some get violent, some find love, some loose it, and some simply don't change. and there are always those who don't want a bit of the opiate, either those who recover or who have never tried it, who range from those who simply ignore it, to those who want it destroyed.
To me, there is nothing more human that religion. It's got nothing to do with God, Allah, Jesus, muhammad, vishnu, buddha, amateratsu, odin, zues, Asani, the flying spaghetti monster, but it's got everything to do with people, who worship, run, join, break, create, destroy, argue!
and that, my friend, is why I Love these kinds of discussions, because It brings out all our religious junkies and our abstaining atheists out for a big merry fight!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The level of the arguments in this thread.
And you managed to drop the level anyway. That is ssomething.
Quote:
Lexxan
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Outspoil, Outbump, Outflame!
Outch!
|
|
Lexxan
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Unimpressed by your logic
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:27 PM |
|
|
That was a pretty good blow actually 
____________
Coincidence? I think not!!!!
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 29, 2009 11:44 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker, you clearly have no sense of logic at all.
For the following example analogy, I will NOT use Christianity or its branches for the purposes of using usual logic examples.
Let's suppose you have a big circle. Let's call it G, from Group.
Cool. Now imagine there are two smaller circles in it, called A and B.
Awesome. But wait the climax isn't there yet. Now suppose that you love the circle called A (you being Elodin  ). Pretty much that you want it to be the entire group G, because you think B sucks. (this is exaggerated for the analogy but you get the point)
Thus, you think that A is the only one that G stands for, B being sucky.
Ready?
Now replace "sucks" with "is not true", A and B with respective branches of Christianity (whatever that is, I know he's not a catholic though), and G with Christianity itself.
Now do I really have to draw this for you? Go back to school.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 12:55 AM |
|
|
Why does this thread have 28 pages? Why do the same people post their opinions over and over? We heard you the first time, and if the problem is that people don't "consider" or "listen" to your opinion they are propably even less likely to do it the second time.
Any way, I'll just post my opinion.
My opinion is that religion is good in theory. That it gives people hope, moral and guidance. The thing is that in practic it leads to, not always but way to often, to people who stop caring about the beliefs and valus and only cares about the religious organisation. As, f.ex., christians have done through out history. Burning witches, not because the witches has wrong believes and values, but because they oppose the religious organisation. It is just one of the countless examples.
So I think that religion should exist, but only on a personal level. Any one who tries to use their religion or impose it on others are "wrong" and should be "punished". Off course there should be some kind of "official" moral code, i.e. laws, but it should not be based on single individuals thoughts and believes.
What I believe? Well, I think that every one, at least human, have some kind of energy residing "inside" us. Some kind of soul, I guess you could call it. I also believe that there is a god which feeds upon our residal energy and gains a greater power than any single human. This god sometimes helps us humans, mostly the ones who believes in him, since those are the ones he feed upon.
As for values; I would, just to shorten it, label myself as a satanic/christian hybrid.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 01:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't see from what you write, how it's quite easy to see that he lies and not mistaken. For it to be a lie, you've to make convincing evidence of the person knowing the "truth" already, but yet claims otherwise.
You are right. I have addressed Moore in previous threads. Here is a link dealing with false claims made in just one of his documentaries.
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
Quote:
No, I want you to tell me why you think these two are the most important commandments, without refering to anything you don't for absolute sure knows is the truth, and then I want to know how you know these truths you'll refer to, are true.
Becaue is you do those two commandments are the foundations for the others. To love God is the foundation for dealing with God. To love man is the foundation for dealing with man.
Quote:
Since you claim that Jesus equals God as a human being, the exact same attributes of God, combined with a human being, should be describing Jesus, yes?
Yes and no. Jesus is God existing as a man. Before his glorification, as I said, he was limited to purely human attributes, except for what he learned from the Spirit or what the Spirit of God did through him. After his resurrection now Jesus knows has all knowledge, and is all powerful (can do whatever he wants to do.) The human body of Jesus is seated on the throne of God but his Spirit fills and transcends time and space.
Quote:
What do you mean by self existant, can you come with an example of something or someone, who's not self existant to make it clear to me?
Self existant means that God is not dependant any outside force for his existence. He did not come into being as the result of any cause nor does he have need of anything to continue his existence.
Quote:
What do you mean by all-powerful? Does it mean there's no limit to what God can do, or are there limits, and in that case, what does all-powerful then mean?
All powerful means God can do whatever he desires to do. Now, words have meaning so God can't do something like make an object both all blue and all green at the same time.
Quote:
Is all-knowing not a subset of all-powerful? Anyway, I assume it means knows everything that was, is and will be, am I correct?
All knowing means God knows everything there is to know unless he choses not to know it. For example, when a person truely repents of a sin God choses not to remember that the person committed the sin.
Quote:
Finally, omni-present, this means being present everywhere at once, or to say, aware of everything, is this correct? If not please correct me. Again, is this not one more subset of all-powerful?
Omnipresent means that everything is in the presence of God.
Quote:
Okay having the attributes in order now, I still lack the reason why you follow God, and not let's say Allah, or Odin.
Because the God described in the Bible is the one true God. Early on in my life I heard the message of repentance and forgiveness preached, faith rose in my heart and I responded to the promptings of the Spirit of God. Later I was baptised. Later I learned that the baptism in the Spirit of God was still for today, though I had been taught differently. I received the Spirit and began to speak in tongues. This resulted in me being disowned by my parents for a time because it was against the teachings of the denomination they belong to.
The Word of God witneses to my spirit as being true and the Spirit of God bears witness that it is true.
Odin does not have the characteristics needed to be the cause of the universe. Allah's characteristics are very differnt from what the Bible delcares God to be like.
For example, the Qu'ran says Allah deceived Mohammed because Mohammed would have been discouraged and refused to fight if Allah had shown him the number of opposing enemy troops.
Quote:
Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43
Allah commands men he wants to destroy to sin.
Quote:
And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16
Allah creates some people for hell.
Quote:
"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186
If someone commits adultry it is becase Allah caused them to.
Quote:
Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422
Quote:
Given God is all-powerful and loving, as are both what you've said in this thread, how come you need to follow God at all?
Why not just make everything into heaven where everyone, despite opinion, thoughts, ideas, doings, etc. would forever get what they want?
First, I don't know all of God's thoughts and reasons for everything he does. Sorry.
Second, he has given man free will. You get to chose to do good or to do evil. You reap what you sow.
Why exactly should God allow rebels into Heaven? Loving does not mean you accept everything a person does. Loving does not mean that for example you allow your rebellious teenage son to live in your house when he beats your wife, smokes dope in the living room and molests your daughter.
God loved man enough to begin to exist as a man to suffer the consequences of our sins. Our part is repentance (confessing and forsaking our sins) and obeying him.
Quote:
Also, God is loving right? Is there any higher love, than make everyone decide what they want, and have what they want, with no consequences, for all eternity?
No, making you have the desires that would be pleasing to God would be making you into a robot. You chose what your desires will be. You chose the thoughst you think. You chose the words you speak and the actions you take. Free will.
If you are saying God should give everyone what they want, with no consequences, what if someone wanted to rape you for all of eternity. Would you think that would be a good thing?
Quote:
Or do I missunderstand what love truely is?
You seem to have a misunderstanding of love as being accepting every action the person you love commits if I have understood what you wrote.
Quote:
Now you might mention that this is not logical possible, because if one person wants to kill someone, and the other person does not want this, then there's inconsistency, but being all-powerfull it means I can -, and will solve it, otherwise there'd be no all-powerfullness.
No, you would not be able to allow someone to be raped and not raped at the same time. Words have meaning. Just like no object can be purely blue and purely yellow at the same time.
Athiests typically fall back on fallicies like this to try to say that There is are inconsistancies with the terms all-powerful and all-knowing. But your logic is illogical. You have a misunderstanding of what "all powerful" means.
Each person is given free will. A person has to be rapable in order for the rapist to rape.
Quote:
Given what I wrote above, I see no connection between loving God and creating a world better for all of us, if there's no such connection, no argument of why one should do it, can exist, and if it exist, please enlighten me.
Loving God means you will seek his aid and his council and the world would indeed be a better place if we all sought the wisdom of God.
Quote:
Secondly, I'd assume that you'd require of this person to love his/hers fellow man, and the only reason I can see, is to make the world a better place, a paradise, but if you already have the unlimited all-powerfullness, why not just do it, without removing free will, giving unlimited freedom?
Like I said, you are trying to pull the old make the object both all blue and all green at the same time trick. Logical fallacy.
If God made everyon do his will then there would be no free will, we would be robots.
Quote:
You see, in my solution, it's so, but in the solution of the bible, we get no help, eventhough it's possible, that is in my opinion not love, but a good advice, from someone who ultimately thinks it's more important to learn a lesson than to live in a paradise, a utopia.
Sorry, but the Bible contains the solution. You can choose to obey God or to be a rebel. Your choice. Free will. You reap what you sow.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 08:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
JollyJoker, you clearly have no sense of logic at all.
For the following example analogy, I will NOT use Christianity or its branches for the purposes of using usual logic examples.
Let's suppose you have a big circle. Let's call it G, from Group.
Cool. Now imagine there are two smaller circles in it, called A and B.
Awesome. But wait the climax isn't there yet. Now suppose that you love the circle called A (you being Elodin ). Pretty much that you want it to be the entire group G, because you think B sucks. (this is exaggerated for the analogy but you get the point)
Thus, you think that A is the only one that G stands for, B being sucky.
Ready?
Now replace "sucks" with "is not true", A and B with respective branches of Christianity (whatever that is, I know he's not a catholic though), and G with Christianity itself.
Now do I really have to draw this for you? Go back to school.
And this nonsense has exactly what to do with your wrong claim, Elodin wasn't exactly saying Christianity (and specifically his own little brand of it) was the true way? Because he IS saying that and has saying that as long as I've read his posts.
Death, just as a last observation, how much sense of logic would you expect a person to have, that starts a post with "Jolly Joker, you clearly have no sense of logic at all", just to go on and write some paragraphs about what that person seems to think is logical?
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 10:12 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 10:15, 30 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
And this nonsense has exactly what to do with your wrong claim, Elodin wasn't exactly saying Christianity (and specifically his own little brand of it) was the true way? Because he IS saying that and has saying that as long as I've read his posts.
I repeat, I've never said only my denomination of Christianity will be saved.
I repeat, link to where I said such a thing. You can't because I never did. Please stop saying false things about me.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 10:19 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
And this nonsense has exactly what to do with your wrong claim, Elodin wasn't exactly saying Christianity (and specifically his own little brand of it) was the true way? Because he IS saying that and has saying that as long as I've read his posts.
I repeat, I've never said only my denomination of Christianity will be saved.
You still claim that you are "the correct fate", so I honestly think you should stop thinking with terms and redirection on that issue.
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 10:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And this nonsense has exactly what to do with your wrong claim, Elodin wasn't exactly saying Christianity (and specifically his own little brand of it) was the true way? Because he IS saying that and has saying that as long as I've read his posts.
I repeat, I've never said only my denomination of Christianity will be saved.
You still claim that you are "the correct fate", so I honestly think you should stop thinking with terms and redirection on that issue.
I've never in my life used the term "the correct fate." Link to it or admit your statement is false.
No, I'm not going to go back and put all the references here. But you can find Beck discussing them. Here is a link describing the communist Van Jones that Beck exposed.
Van Jones-Communist, radical environmentalist
http://video.foxnews.com/8661920/who-is-van-jones
Find the rest there. It is not hard.
Quote:
hey, some places stubbornness is seen as a boon, never backing down, never giving up, even at it's bleakest, but eh, you're funeral.
You were clearly using mule as an insult.
Quote:
The kind of man you are dealing with is not a sensible one. In fact, I go out of my way to make light of the situation. over the internet, it looses some of it's edge. this whole situation started when I decided to say "religion is an opiate, it's your choice whether you enjoy it". you took offense at that, calling me an atheist, a communist, a socialist, a liar, a non-believer, and so on.
False statement. Link to where I called you a communist or socialist, ect. And to where I called you a liar and if I did I'll show why I called you a liar.
Quote:
the Idea of an opiate is that it releives pain but f***s you up in the end. too much[/quote
Actually, I already showed the studies that say religious people have fewer mental disorders, are less likely to commit suicide, and help people more so your statement is false. The studies indicate that it is bad for you.
____________
Revelation
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 12:07 PM |
|
|
@Elodin
After reading your most recent answer to my latest post, I think the language barrier hinders a common understanding, I don't know if it's because I wrote it bad, reads it bad or you reads it bad, but I'll try to make it clear what I mean, and how I understand what you're writing.
Some parts, I've temporary stopped on for now, as they've evolved in a different way, than what my questions were assigned to.
Quote:
Quote:
What do you mean by all-powerful? Does it mean there's no limit to what God can do, or are there limits, and in that case, what does all-powerful then mean?
All powerful means God can do whatever he desires to do. Now, words have meaning so God can't do something like make an object both all blue and all green at the same time.
Words might have meaning, but only the meaning God chooses correct? If God wanted, he could rewrite the entire definition and logical steps from there on, to make any reality true, true?
Now, for letting the logic of our world stay true, yet break it (or the classic, create and lift a stone you can't lift), I'll say that it depends on the imagination, because many of the things you might see as illogical, i.e. impossible, are stuff I've logical sound solutions for. Since God is all-powerful, God must have an unlimited imagination as well.
Because, logic, as we use it, is still limited to our imagination, one type of logic often used in science, and as far as I know a foundation of quantum mechanics, is causality.
Because for us, it seems logical, that the actions of the past creates the world of the future.
However, in principle we're conscious being limited to only knowing exact that, that we exist in the given moment of time, every past time is based on memory, and as soon as you put any kind of all-powerful being into it, be it God or just a world that simulates our world (Matrix), then you can't know whether or not our memory, which basicly is a tool we've very close to us, have been tampered with, creating the illusion of causality.
I'll try to use my limited imagination to give you examples of why your examples of what is not logical true, very well could be, but I won't continue doing this, it's just a demonstration that all-powerfullness truely means all-powerfullness, but I can't ever prove it, unless you want to continue with this forever, and I don't really want that. 
Quote:
For example, the Qu'ran says Allah deceived Mohammed because Mohammed would have been discouraged and refused to fight if Allah had shown him the number of opposing enemy troops.
This part here isn't that important, but you were so nice to give an example, so I think I'd honor it, by asking you this then:
If Allah had had all the needed characteristics of God, so that you'd not be able to see the difference of those two, yet you'd know they're different, how would you choose who to follow then?
Quote:
First, I don't know all of God's thoughts and reasons for everything he does. Sorry.
Of course not, I didn't expect that. However what is a leader worth, if he does not make his commanders agree with him due to him being able to convince of his way being the right way, rather than using authority?
Quote:
Quote:
Given God is all-powerful and loving, as are both what you've said in this thread, how come you need to follow God at all?
Why not just make everything into heaven where everyone, despite opinion, thoughts, ideas, doings, etc. would forever get what they want?
Second, he has given man free will. You get to chose to do good or to do evil. You reap what you sow.
I agree in the part that free will is very important, like I wrote in the earlier post, consciousness, free will and freedom.
However the "You reap what you sow" part is now talking about freedom, God can choose what consequences one should have, it's nothing to do with free will.
That's easy to explain I believe, because all that is required is that we first imagine full control of ourself, i.e. free will, then imagine you being in many different worlds with different consequences upon actions.
Now it's clear that independent of your free will, the consequences will vary, and that's exactly my point, because the consequences tells about the freedom you've not the free will.
Quote:
Why exactly should God allow rebels into Heaven?
Because, being all-powerfull, you've the ability to makes this persons life wonderful, despite this person not agreeing with you.
Quote:
Loving does not mean you accept everything a person does.
Of course you don't accept it, but what you do, is you forgive none the less, that's a very important part of love, if you truely love someone, you can always forgive them.
Quote:
Loving does not mean that for example you allow your rebellious teenage son to live in your house when he beats your wife, smokes dope in the living room and molests your daughter.
If you're all-powerfull however, you can choice to let your son have all this characteristics, yet without the consequences you write.
Quote:
Our part is repentance (confessing and forsaking our sins) and obeying him.
I can understand the confessing and forsaking part, as that's character building (if I understood the words correct), but the obeying part seems unneeded to be honest.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, God is loving right? Is there any higher love, than make everyone decide what they want, and have what they want, with no consequences, for all eternity?
No, making you have the desires that would be pleasing to God would be making you into a robot. You chose what your desires will be. You chose the thoughst you think. You chose the words you speak and the actions you take. Free will.
I probably wrote it bad, what I was talking about was the consequences of your actions, not that God choose your actions.
The decide what they want part refers to people deciding what they want. I.e. free will. With this new information, I suppose you want to change your reply to this part?
Quote:
If you are saying God should give everyone what they want, with no consequences, what if someone wanted to rape you for all of eternity. Would you think that would be a good thing?
Here you come into something very important, I believe. Because what is the problem of rape? The problem is the unwilling experience from the part of the person who gets raped, if this experience did not exist, rape would not be a proble actually, or there would still be pregnancy, but that's also solveable as well.
You see, imagine you've millions of hosts (bodies) all over diferent planes of existance, now you can freely choose between these, but imagine also, just to make your example true, that somewhere, someone rapes you on one of these planes.
Now to add to this, it's a rape that you're completely unknowing about, because you've the power to choose, so from your perspective of the world it does not happen, and you'll never know about if, you'll still move freely, etc.
From the perspective of this other person however, you're being hold down and raped.
Quote:
Quote:
Or do I missunderstand what love truely is?
You seem to have a misunderstanding of love as being accepting every action the person you love commits if I have understood what you wrote.
Ah you see, I wrote in the sense of all-powerfullness, where I believe every problem can be solved, otherwise it wouldn't be all-powerfullness to begin with. That you'd willingly limit the power of God to be able to reply to me in a way that makes sense surprises me, but on the other hand, I also find it positive.
If we talk real world, and I'll not talk about consciousness here, as you'll probably disagree on this part, but about free will, not being unlimited, and freedom not being at any top peak as well, simply means that the lack of control means that towards those we love, we'll sometime have to teach them lessons, but we'll also know that not always will they be able to control themselves, and we'll sometime have to limit them.
Quote:
Quote:
Now you might mention that this is not logical possible, because if one person wants to kill someone, and the other person does not want this, then there's inconsistency, but being all-powerfull it means I can -, and will solve it, otherwise there'd be no all-powerfullness.
No, you would not be able to allow someone to be raped and not raped at the same time. Words have meaning. Just like no object can be purely blue and purely yellow at the same time.
I'm glad you took your two examples together in this part, now I'll reply fully to both of them, hopefully showing that with the right amount of imagination, what you believe to be logic, is not logical true at all.
So let's start with the rape example, you probably remember the different planes of existance example, but let's make another example this time.
Imagine that we get the technology and have the ressurces required for making the following possible. Now we invest a shielding technology, all this really is about, is to seperate the world in a way, so we all can get what we want.
So we seperates the world so all "bad" things are not something we experience. To make quick simple examples, someone calling you something that'd result in an emotion activating, which would make you sad, i.e. limiting your free will (cause why should you be sad due to sounds?), would not pass through. Someone shooting you with a gun, or a tree falling on you, is neither something you experience, and the tree, likewise the bullet simply either tunnels through you, or reflects off you.
All this requires to happen is actually quite simple, you need to decide what light should go through, which gives the information of the world around us, so seperating wave lengths (which the body already does, which is why you can't see stuff like atoms), and also be able to transfer the amount of energy needed (or even better, change wave lengths of both parts to such an amount that tunnelling happens). This way you'd not experience any of this, or take the consequences of it.
But we could make it even simplier, how about absolute free will? Simply let any kind of disturbance, i.e. environmental -, or genetically decided gradients go away, that way the choice would be your completely, no lust to drive you.
Then do the same type of shielding against things that endangeres you.
Of course what you want to shield off is completely your choice.
Finally, then there's the society part, the interactions between living beings, but it's quite easy as well, because we only have 5 senses, all these senses are easy to manipulate with, not manipulating the reciever of course, that'd be violating the freedom, but manipulating what is send, so it's not senseable.
As an example, let's take sound again, you yell something, but this other person have decided not to hear anything (also see, etc. because this person wants to be left alone, so have likewise choosen not to be seen, heard, etc.), then the sound waves you produce, when they hit his shielding area, will simply be transformed into wave lengths that we're not able to hear. Likewise this person have decided not to be seen, or be feelable (not senseable at all), so you don't even know this person is there, the light reflecting from the person gets arranged differently when leaving the persons shielding area, making the person invisible, and should it happen you and the person are at the same position, tunneling means neither of you'd take notice.
Okay I hope this should make it clear that the problem with rape is the experience, and what we experience depends on our senses, and with sufficient technology and ressurces we can change these senses to suit us.
Of course we pre-decide what we want to accept and what we don't want to, it's about being prepared.
But again, to make your example possible, let's assume that someone decides to rape you, for all eternity.
So for making it possible, we'll need to unnecessary limit your shielding to a degree, where this other person can rape you.
However we don't need to limit it to the degree where you experience the rape.
So we could very well imagine that you're actually being raped right now, for all eternity, you just don't know it, because the one who does it, is not senseable in anyway, not for you, not for anyone, except this person self.
So you'll probably talk about raping means getting hold down, not be able to move, and I'll reply that it once again depend on perspective, from your perspective, you've all the freedom of the world, you can move as you wish, from this other persons perspective, just as a crude example, you both stand still and the world around you moves.
Because how do we depict whether something moves or stands still? You can't really know if it wasn't because acceleration results in a force, i.e. you can feel who is getting accelerated.
If Newtons second law of emotion had not been like, you'd probably not be able to tell who's moving and who's standing still. After all remember the Earth moves with an extreme speed that we don't feel, eventhough it's a circular, i.e. accelerated, road.
Now for your other example, how many colours do you know about? Since our senses are limited, and the light we see are only in the "visible" range (i.e. what we can see), is not very likely to believe there could exist colours we're not aware of? Just imagine a colour-blind person, how do you tell a colour blind, or simply blind for the matter, how a colour looks like? You can't describe it, I mean purpose is purple, what else can be said?
The same goes with your example of both prely Yellow and purely Blue / Green, you see there could very well exist an unknown colour that'd be described as being both purely yellow and purely blue / green, but we can't imagine any colour we haven't seen, likewise we can't imagine anything that's not composed of stuff we've already experienced.
So as I wrote to you earlier, I'm not interested in keep on comming with suggestion of that which you find a logical fallacity, is not so at all, as that'd take all eternity to prove my point in that way, no my point is on the other hand, you cannot prove completely that something is impossible, and through that, with unlimitted imagination, it's per definition possible to do anything being all-powerfull.
Quote:
Athiests typically fall back on fallicies like this to try to say that there are inconsistancies with the terms all-powerful and all-knowing.
Maybe, but only the "stupid" kind, because atheist means that you don't believe in God, i.e. have been convinced God does not exist, but for that you need to make convincing arguments, and attacking characteristics described in the bible of how God is and is not, is only proving the bible to fallacious, not God, because God is unmeasureable, where being an atheist makes no sense.
Quote:
Each person is given free will. A person has to be rapable in order for the rapist to rape.
Yes, but only from the perspective of the raper.
Meanwhile from the perspective of the "victim", nothing ever happens.
It's so we could easy imagine this world is simply simulated, and all our memory is being dictated to us, the only true existing moment is actually right now, and through that type of logic, you could be raped forever without ever being the victim of rape, because with unlimited power, you can make any unwanted consequences go away.
And that's ultimate freedom.
Quote:
Quote:
Given what I wrote above, I see no connection between loving God and creating a world better for all of us, if there's no such connection, no argument of why one should do it, can exist, and if it exist, please enlighten me.
Loving God means you will seek his aid and his council and the world would indeed be a better place if we all sought the wisdom of God.
That's not how I understand it, I'd seek the wisdom and aid of people I don't love, if I find it probable they can help me. People are interested in a better world, if Gods aid would bring that, then people would, loving or not, do that, if convinced it's true. So I still find the whole "loving of God" thing unnecessary.
Quote:
Quote:
You see, in my solution, it's so, but in the solution of the bible, we get no help, eventhough it's possible, that is in my opinion not love, but a good advice, from someone who ultimately thinks it's more important to learn a lesson than to live in a paradise, a utopia.
Sorry, but the Bible contains the solution. You can choose to obey God or to be a rebel. Your choice. Free will. You reap what you sow.
Until you convince me the consequences of the solution of the bible are either better, or equal but faster, then I don't see how you refute what I wrote helps your point.
Also, again, here I think you confuse free will with freedom, free will is the ability to choice, the amount of freedom decides the consequences.
My whole point, foremost is however that, I've no problem accepting that we're all diferent, there might be a God, there might not, I don't know, but I know I'd never bow down to anyone requiring so of me, for no good reason (requires something of me, i.e. love).
Since I see the reason of doing so, is for my own good, then it's somewhat even worse, because the reason is unnecessary (imagine a paradise on Earth, now do you agree you can only know the actions of the persons, since their thoughts are private? Okay, assuming you agree, imagine that the thoughts of these persons is either loving -, or non-loving of God, yet their actions are the same, because whether you love God or not, does not change your actions, so it's unnecessary.).
Also, thank you for taking your time to answer my post.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 12:13 PM |
|
|
I have looked and It has confirmed my beliefs that the whole of fox news is nothing more than a bunch of sensationalist, hard right turtles, playing with themselves whilst deciding anything to the left of mussolini is evil and must be purged with fire and salt. you know, the kind of thing Joe mccarthy would have an erection over.
you're probably a angry/mellow kind of religious stoner, in that you have failed to get the point of anything I have said about why I view religion as an opiate, and instead choose to call my statements wrong, false, demand links for a personal view etc.
even now your calling me a liar. look at the above statement.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 12:23 PM |
|
|
It took 44 scrolls of my middle mouse button to get through this page....just in case anybody is interested.
Did I miss anything important?
____________
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 12:33 PM |
|
|
Bixie - That is exactly what I have been saying. People post opinions as FACT, then get mad when you can not disprove an opinion. There is no proof that christianity is the 'correct religion' so everything is opinion. A bazillion quotes from the bible won't change that.
I don't think that any religion is like a drug, but that is my opinion. People are beating a dead horse here. Arguing opinion as if it is cold hard fact.
Bina - Nope, hasn't been anything new for quite some time.
____________
Message received.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 01:13 PM |
|
|
@Shares
Interesting viewpoint, but I've a hard time grasping it, unless you'd be so kind to define what you exactly mean when you use the term religion.
To make it clear what I mean by define, I decided to show my own definition, this way it'll hopefully help to show what I'm trying to get (and don't worry, it's not stevee this time  ):
I define religion as ideas that cannot be justified through a logical proces, neither made likely to be true. I.e. it depends entirely on an irrational belief, however it is still considered true.
I think to make the distinction clear, I'd also like to define science, which I define very likewise religion, with the only exception that it actually does not depend on irrational belief, but rational belief, i.e. you can make it probable to be true, or to say, it obeys a logical process.
God is part of religion, because God cannot be put any likelyness on.
The bible is likewise something I put as part of religion, because the statements of the bible are illogical. Yes even the ones I agree with are illogical, because they've no truth value, for truth value to be, you need to explain why something is true, because anyone can guess, and a guess is worthless.
Many think the distinction lies in that religion seems not to change over time, whereas science does.
Whereas science is forced to change for every new data we get, whether religion changes or not, is up to the individual, because religion is nothing absolute, as it's founded on irrational beliefs in the first place. Just look at the diversity of religious people, it's by far much much larger than that of science, and it's because science gets a rational limit when requiring rationality, so any kind of wild fantasi interpretation will not be accepted.
So for some, religion, or to say their religious beliefs, i.e. unsupportable beliefs (and they've to be supported through the context they're derived, not through random luck), are unchangeable, simply because they choose so. For others, it changed all the time as the world gets more data, they change it to fit to the data, which have a truth value of zero and thereby is still a religious belief.
Whereas science likewise changes everytime the world gets new data, if your change is not logical, or probable, through the system of which we've defined these terms, then you've gone from science to religion.
I've made many claims throughout the 3 months I've been at this homepage, and many are more a type of religion than science, because it's not something we can measure, if I were to make these claims in a scientific community, I'm certain I'd most likely be ignored, and in the best case, be the laughing stock of the community.
If I should find a community where I should make these claims, I've been making of consciousness, free will, freedom, and suggestion of these to happen, I believe I'd do so in a philosophical community, because until I, or anyone for that matter, can make the measurements required to find out if the ideas holds true in the real world, they've no probability over them to be true.
At least I hope, that by making these claims various places on the internet, it'll interest the people who tries to do the best for their loved ones, and themselves (most often included in the previous term), to actually doing these measurements and find out how we can achieve a better future for all of us.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 01:14 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:17, 30 Nov 2009.
|
Quote:
So as I wrote to you earlier, I'm not interested in keep on comming with suggestion of that which you find a logical fallacity, is not so at all, as that'd take all eternity to prove my point in that way, no my point is on the other hand, you cannot prove completely that something is impossible, and through that, with unlimitted imagination, it's per definition possible to do anything being all-powerfull.
Sorry, there is no way a person can be being raped and not be being raped at the same time. There is no way that an object can be all blue and all green at the same time. There is not way that it can be raining and not raining at the same time [at the same location.]
That has nothing to do with God being all powerful. That has to do with logic and words being used to describe the state of objects and events.
Quote:
I have looked and It has confirmed my beliefs that the whole of fox news is nothing more than a bunch of sensationalist, hard right turtles, playing with themselves whilst deciding anything to the left of mussolini is evil and must be purged with fire and salt. you know, the kind of thing Joe mccarthy would have an erection over.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMa3l23-rRc
Van Jones was a founding member of Marxist groups. He is a racits, communist, ans radical environmentalist. You will see quotes of him calling himself a communist.
Quote:
you're probably a angry/mellow kind of religious stoner, in that you have failed to get the point of anything I have said about why I view religion as an opiate, and instead choose to call my statements wrong, false, demand links for a personal view etc.
You again continue to insult me. I'm not an angy person or a stoner.
I called your statments about what I said false because you made false statments about what I said. Since you continue to do so and offer no link proving what I said, you have seemingly chosen to engage in a campaign of lying about me.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 01:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I define religion as ideas that cannot be justified through a logical proces, neither made likely to be true. I.e. it depends entirely on an irrational belief, however it is still considered true.
There is nothing irrational about Christianity. Atheism, on the other hand, is very irrational in my opinion.
Quote:
The bible is likewise something I put as part of religion, because the statements of the bible are illogical.
Perhaps you could say what exactly is illogical and why.
Quote:
Just look at the diversity of religious people, it's by far much much larger than that of science, and it's because science gets a rational limit when requiring rationality, so any kind of wild fantasi interpretation will not be accepted.
Really? There have been all kinds of things "Science" has said that is true that have turned out to be untrue.
Currently there are scientists who say that there is man made global warming and those who say there is not man made global warming. Science can be very much ruled by political correctness. And of course "Science" is based on certain assumptions.
____________
Revelation
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
