|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Faith writes: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.GDR will probably say this but I'll also say it: "Evil" in this context means disaster or calamity, bad happenings. In English the word means either that or sinful doings, and in this case it means that. Oh, that's ok then, he's just responsible for our disasters and calamities.I rather suspect that GDR may disagree with that too; generally, he thinks God is a decent bloke. That God cannot commit sin is said elsewhere to provide context. Apart from murdering people with his disasters and calamities I suppose?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Disasters and calamities are God's judgments for sins and crimes. A decent bloke does not allow crimes to go unpunished. Today's idea of a "decent bloke" seems to be to abolish the death penalty, not make a big deal out of pedophile priests, and so on. That's not a decent bloke, that's a guy who doesn't mind letting evils in the other sense run rampant in society.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Faith writes: Disasters and calamities are God's judgments for sins and crimes. Sorry Faith but that is just another example of how vile and evil the god you try to market is. The god you try to market is worthy only of contempt or derision and must be opposed by any honest moral entity. Disasters and calamities are not discreet and effect both the sinner and the innocent, the criminal and the blameless. For disasters and calamities to be God's judgments for sins and crimes the god must be ignorant, immoral, without empathy, evil, inept and incapable of reasonable action.Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Theodoric writes: Actually they don't corroborate each other. There are several things they actually disagree on. Sure there are a number of commonalities that would have come from the same sources but they are clearly drawn from a variety of sources. As has been pointed out numerous times they are not independent sources. There is an incestuous relationship between most of the gospels and acts.They are not independent historical sources that corroborate each other. Acts is actually just a continuation of the Gospel of Luke.
Theodoric writes: Really? Evidence? Since the gospels and acts date to at least post 70CE and probably closer to 100CE how do you rationalize this? How many people lived to 70 at that time? How come there is no independent source from this time period?All of you arguments devolve to this. I believe by faith alone and do not need any evidence. I said most of the NT. Mark would have been written while eye-witnesses were still alive as well as all of Paul's Epistles. The rest of it is uncertain and actually Faith does make a good point that they do appear to be written prior to the destruction of 70AD. However the writings exist and it is evidence. By faith we accept or reject the writings as we can't know the truth in the empirical sense.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Theodoric writes: You have provided no argument to support this assertion. Why would seeds need to be contained in the initial cellular life. It is your belief that sentience has evolved from non-intelligent elements. If the potential didn’t exist in those initial cells then how did sentience become part of the evolutionary process? He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Tangle writes: You haven't shown that God exists, therefore you can't assume the resurrection. You're asserting the existence of god, then saying because god exists the resurrection is possible. Well of course it is - everything is then possible.It's a pointless, circular argument which sometimes goes anti-clockwise for you. You believe the resurrection story, therefore God must exist. So which came first for your believe in God or believe in the resurrection which then proves god? The belief in God, or even in the possibility of God has to come first. No God- no resurrection. If there is a God then resurrection becomes a possibility to be considered. It isn’t circular at all.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
Actually they don't corroborate each other. This shows the tortuous reasoning you have to use in order to shoehorn reality into your beliefs and preconceived ideas. Also, the dishonesty of your arguments. Earlier you stated that since the bible is a collection of different "books", they can be used to corroborate each other.
GDR writes:
Maybe you just don't know what the word means.
Theodoric writes:
As has been pointed out numerous times, the Bible, at is not a single source Exactly, and until there is corroborating evidence the default should be that it is a story not history. Acts is actually just a continuation of the Gospel of Luke.
And we have no idea who wrote them.
Mark would have been written while eye-witnesses were still alive as well as all of Paul's Epistles.
Another assertion with no evidence.
The rest of it is uncertain and actually Faith does make a good point that they do appear to be written prior to the destruction of 70AD.
Not really modern scholarship shows otherwise. Mark probably dates from approx 70CE. This is still 40 years post supposed crucifixion. 40 years with absolutely nothing. After 40 years it would just be stories about stories. Mark was probably written in Rome to a Roman audience. So 40+ years and 1500 of miles from site of the stories. Yeah sure. Find me some evidence, not tradition.
However the writings exist and it is evidence.
But what is it evidence for? For the historical existence of Jesus and a resurrection it is thin gruel. For people believing a story it is evidence.
By faith we accept or reject the writings as we can't know the truth in the empirical sense.
So why are you arguing with me? We both agree that the only thing that justifies your beliefs on this is faith and faith alone.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
GD writes: The belief in God, or even in the possibility of God has to come first. No God- no resurrection. If there is a God then resurrection becomes a possibility to be considered. It isn’t circular at all. Exactly. You have to have a god before it's even worth considering the resurection. So, for some reason you chose the Christian God - why was that? There are so many to choose from but only one - afaik - relies on the resurrection for confirmation. Did you research all possible gods, choose one and THEN accept the resurection?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
It isn’t in any way conclusive but it is evidence.
I can settle for that. So, when you say we can either accept it or reject it, you can see why many do reject it. Because it's not conclusive.
The point was simply that if cells are nothing more than a collection of perceivable base elements the it indicates that things like consciousness, emotions, and morality which are not perceivable aren’t part of a material world. This sounds like mystical nonsense. Emotions are chemicals in your body that you experience. Morality is nothing more than a set of guidelines that is group specific - what's moral to you might not be seen as moral by someone from another country. And we don't know what consciouness is yet, so we can't speak either way with any assurance. But here again you put the cart before the horse because you know of no such thing as a non-material world. Whatever these things are they quite obviously exist in reality.
f sentient life evolved from single celled life then that cell must have had within its DNA the potential for sentient life to evolve from it. It would also need in it the potential for all of the life forms that have evolved over 4 plus billion years. Well clearly it had the potential to do so since we're all here. When chemicals react it has the potential to do A LOT of things. Again even IF god did it, chemistry and evolution are clearly the way he did it. Everything looks to play out naturally. The only reason you assume a creator had a hand in it is because you start with the premise that god exists - cart before the horse, begging the question - instead of waiting for conclusive evidence, which you agree doesn't exist. It's like with the unicorns - the only reasonable position is to start with the premise that they don't exist.
You would need a reason to consider their existence first. Call it evidence if you like. That evidence would need to be conclusive, right? You wouldn't accept as evidence only stories written about unicorns, right?
There is no evidence for that. All we can do is observe what has transpired and we can observe natural forces at work. There is no objective evidence one way or another as to why or how those natural forces exist. That's not an answer to the question I asked. I asked you NOTHING about why anything exists. You admit that we can observe natural forces, and obviously we don't observe any god guiding anything. So by your own words the only objective evidence is natural forces. Why they are here is what plays out in the world of theoretical physics - the nerdiest of the nerds work there. I'm not going to pretend I fully grasp String Theory or multiuniverse and m-theory, but, I will say from the words of the experts that they have pretty good math to back up their theories. So we may yet know why the laws of physics and reality exist. But again, this has nothing to do with my question about objective evidence.
Not that I am aware of. But again the Bible is a collection of books compiled into one. It isn’t just one source. So no evidence outside of the Bible. It then remains non conclusive as far as evidence goes. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined:
|
Sure if it is me doing it the only option is to fake it.
So it's easier to fake it. Now you understand.
If it is God doing it then not so much. I would guess not. But this had nothing to do with the question. Flying is hard for me to do without some kind of machinery. But if you're Superman doing it then not so much. Yeah I can create an entity that can do anything too.
It would be very difficult to fake something like that with the Roman soldiers around you had to get rid of the body and not be caught. That's pure speculation on your part. You couldn't possibly know those details.
Then you have to get numerous people including the 500 that Paul talks about to go along and try to convince neighbours and then you have to get Paul who is the sworn enemy to do a 180 and believe in the hoax and become one of the greatest advocates for it. I'm sorry, did Paul actually see the real Jesus or did he claim to see Jesus on the way to Demascus? So you have Paul who says "Oh yeah he appeared to me" which is not evidenced, and 500 people who believed him. And you're saying that's hard to fake?
So yes- before we consider the veracity of the resurrection stories we individually have to come to our own conclusions about the existence or non-existence of God, knowing that there is no empirical proof one way or the other. The horse is firmly secured in front of the cart. No empirical proof for the non existence of god? That's silly. How do you provide proof for something that has no objective evidence for it's existence? How do you disprove there are no unicorns? You don't. There is no evidence for unicorns therefore it is reasonable to conclude unicrons don't exist. Without conclusive evidence for god, starting with the premise that there is a god and from that concluding the resurrection is possible is putting the cart before the horse.
Yes In the face of your reasoning being a fallacy, saying you're satisfied with it is baffling to me. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4
|
It is your belief that sentience has evolved from non-intelligent elements. If the potential didn’t exist in those initial cells then how did sentience become part of the evolutionary process?
Maybe you should read up a little on evolution.There was a time when there was no intelligent life, now there is. Ergo, intelligent life evolved from non-intelligent precursors. In order for you to argue this could not have happened you must show another way. In other words you need to provide evidence of this out side agency.
Argument from Incredulity is just another one of your many logical fallacies.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Faith writes: Disasters and calamities are God's judgments for sins and crimes. A decent bloke does not allow crimes to go unpunished. Today's idea of a "decent bloke" seems to be to abolish the death penalty, not make a big deal out of pedophile priests, and so on. That's not a decent bloke, that's a guy who doesn't mind letting evils in the other sense run rampant in society. I only have a minute but I just can't let this pass. The God you worship then is no different than the god that the fundamentalist Muslims worship. It is a vengeful God that demands absolute obedience, or he'll bring suffering to the good and evil alike. The only difference between your Christianity and the beliefs of the Pharisees that Jesus riled against is that you have changed one set of laws for another. It is so different than the God whose Word we see incarnate in Jesus Christ.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
GDR writes:
Do we have any record of people dying within a few hours without even having their legs broken? Do we have any record of people surviving crucifixion even when nails weren't used. The story of the crucifixion, as written, is unconvincing. Even with your embellishments, it's only barely plausible. Logic certainly does not "dictate" that the story is true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Faith writes:
According to the Bible, God's attempts to prevent evil from running rampant in society have been a dismal failure. The flood accomplished nothing; it took five minutes for evil to run rampant again. Confounding the languages at Babel accomplished nothing; it took five minutes for multilingual evil to run rampant again. The Assyrians and Babylonians could trample Israel under their feet time and time again and still evil ran rampant in society. That's not a decent bloke, that's a guy who doesn't mind letting evils in the other sense run rampant in society. How may times does the plan have to fail before you and your God can see that it isn't working?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Amazing. So many here consider it "vile and evil" that sin be punished, apparently believing that liars, thieves, adulterers, murderers, rapists, torturers, should be free from punishment. Remarkable.
Or there's this other view put forth by Ringo that the punishment hasn't worked anyway, the Flood and the rest of it, which just makes me wonder how he knows that, since things might be hundreds of times worse than they are if those punishments hadn't occurred, so depraved is the human race since the Fall. I'd also add that as long as the human race is fighting God's judgments instead of making them the basis for our own laws things are going to get even worse as time goes on. And now GDR can't seem to notice that Jesus Christ was sent by this very same God who is required by His own righteousness to punish sin, and sent to PAY for the sins we all commit if we'll only turn from those sins and trust in Him. If we were not all sinners deserving of punishment there would have been no need for Christ to die for us. Does nobody here have any sense at all of how GUILTY we all are for all the wrongs we commit every day, and how much we DESERVE to be punished for those wrongs, and therefore how wonderful it is that God has provided a way for us to be forgiven for those wrongs by the death of His Son? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024