Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
I have read alot of things from the Bible. I am no expert on the situation for sure, but I have seen my fair share of the book on a number of occasions. I just believe that the book was written by men for men. I never looked through the book to refute it, I took it at face value for a number of years. Later on, I looked at it as literature and nothing more. I believe there is something out there, just not in the fashion that Christians believe in it. In my humble opinion, there is no way we can comprehend it at all. The bible imho is just a book to offer comfort to the fact that we will never will. If Christians turn out to be right, well I guess I am going to have to spend eternity in a fairly bad place. I don't think that is the case however.
Spartin
I don't believe even a quarter of what I hear. I still have the ability to look at someone elses arguement/position and say "Yes I understand why you feel that way, but I think you are wrong" There is a difference between skepticisim and empathy. As far as atheists tearing down the house. You shouldn't really care what they will say if your faith is a tough as you think it is. It shouldn't bother you what they have to say. You are battling with the truth (in your opinion) so you shouldn't be afraid of what they say anyway.
Spartin
Zakath, that was a low blow. The only thing I will say is this: a terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist (whether claiming to be a Muslem or a Christian). Terrorists should never be negotiated with, whether it's the IRA in Ireland; Islamic Jihad, Hamas or Al Queda in the Middle East. And the right-wing conservative Christians respond the same to each of them: don't negotiate with them. And if they didn't blow themselves up, then they should be caught and executed. That is a Christian response to terrorism.
Finally, the IRA is a political group not a Christian one.
Why is there no Foucault in this debate!? There needs to be more Foucault! It would help so much on the truth topic, let alone the morals topic. I would started with Foucault, then gone to nietzsche. Maybe you could have said I believe in truth, just not transcendant truth, so, truth is njust a battle of knowledge (Foucaut). If things keep going as they are, then it will end up in a deadlock, "well, just because we don't know what the fourth option is doesn't prove that the god option is right" and it will end up in favor of god cause that's at least and option we know, I think more offense on Zakath's side is needed. Albeit you probably have a life, all of your respoonses should be longer, I think you sorta wasted your third response (I think it was #3, i dunno, the short one). Well, that's my veiwpoint.
PureX
Well-known member
I don't know. I think Bob has run out of argument. He seems to be sliding more and more into the "my proof is that I say so" mode. What is his evidence of absolute right and wrong? ... It's the absolute nature of his God ... can't argue with that ... because he says it's so, it must be so. What is his response to the God of the gaps accusation? It's "Well, science doesn't know either!" This hardly adds credibility to his God of the gaps, though.
Now he appears to be wandering off into the land of Christian pseudoscience which will be a virtual orgy of perverted science, fantasy, and propaghanda, I'm sure. Lots of nonsense hiding behind big important sounding terminology meant to impress the ignorant. And I'm sure they will be duly impressed. *sigh*
Now he appears to be wandering off into the land of Christian pseudoscience which will be a virtual orgy of perverted science, fantasy, and propaghanda, I'm sure. Lots of nonsense hiding behind big important sounding terminology meant to impress the ignorant. And I'm sure they will be duly impressed. *sigh*
A terrorist group is like an army, only having less guns and using different battle tactics. Or stated differently, an army is a large scale terrorist group organised by the state.
The attack on Iraq was a form of large scale terrorism.
We should abolish and condemn all forms of terrorism, esp. the large scale ones.
We still need Foucault! I say more Foucault, lol. Have you noticed that Bob writes so much more than Zakath, like he has something more to lose ifhe loses the debate. I think that when they started off on the subject saying how it's an important thing to debate because so much effort iswasted if god doesn't exist, then Bob said, it would be so much effort wasted if god didn't exist, somehow I think there is more lost effort and causes on the believing side.
One Eyed Jack
New member
I don't either.
So do I.
I know that. I never equated the two.
I'm not.
SOTKForEver
New member
Spartin,
First of all, I appreciate your honesty and sincerity. I have read some of your other posts than this.
If you are an Agnostic, than you must believe in some form of a Higher Power. In other words, you probably feel that the universe was created a supreme being and also probably feel that this supreme being created man as well. So basically, you don't conform to any one religion on the planet and choose to form an image of this higher power into your own making. Am I off the mark? If I am, please let me know. When I was an Agnostic, this was how I felt.
A lot of what the Bible states was hard for me to swallow growing up. I also felt the Bible to be just a book; a book that was meant to make people feel comfortable about their current lives as well as their afterlife. I also felt that I was a pretty good guy. I had a serious problem with people as well as the Bible telling me that I had to believe something and admit to something in order for me to be accepted into heaven. So, I chose to believe that this supreme being, whoever or whatever he was, was not nearly as harsh as the Bible and Christians made Him out to be.
I changed my mind, obviously, about these beliefs when I learned the truth about God. I learned the truth after He helped me with something. What I came to realize about myself is that I was guilty of being arrogant by thinking I knew God's (the supreme being) mind. I mean, I am obviously not a supreme being. My knowledge is limited to earthly things and my emotions as well are earthly. The supreme being, who I now choose to believe is God or Jesus Christ, is tremendously above me and my petty thoughts. Who am I to claim what God is all about? Who am I to questions his motives and plans? After all, he is Supreme. He made the universe, he made the earth, and he made man.
After coming to this realization, I also realized that God does love me and wishes for me to be saved. He wishes to have communion with me. However, in order for this to happen, I need to accept His son, who he sent to pave the way for his children to have communion with him again. We lost this communion with the original sin. Since God gave us freewill after this, we can choose to believe in His son or not. Again, God wishes for all men to be saved. Remember, humans are ones who screw up and not God. It is up to us to make amends for our sins. We do that by accetping the awesome gift of Jesus and asking for forgiveness. I suddenly realized what a tremendous gift God gave. I stopped looking at the "harshness" of this choice and realized it was a gift because there was no way for man to repair the damage which was done and still is done to this relationship with God. Jesus was and is the only way.
Also, if you are willing to believe in some form of a higher power, isn't it safe to assume that He or It is tremendously more powerful than you and I are? I mean, sheesh, he made the universe. What I am getting at here is that common sense would dictate that we should be obdient to this higher power just as a child should respect the parents as an authority figure. It's ok to fear God. We should fear Him. Fear motivates me to be accountable for my actions and behaviors; to take ownership for these behaviors and ask for forgiveness. I think I am a "good guy" for the most part but I still screw up quite a bit. I am very far from being perfect. So, if God says I should do something, or not do something, or to believe that the things He says as being exactly what he means, than I better do it. Just because I am a Christian and know that I am going to heaven, doesn't mean that I am not accountable to God for the things I've done while on earth.
So, Spartin, to answer your question, "Will I go to hell for not believing what Christians believe eventhough I am a good guy?", yes, you will unfortunately. We have all been told what Jesus said and we should all know why he existed. We have the choice to believe in this or not. Remember, God wants everyone to be saved but you are going to have to believe in His son and be obedient to Him if you want to have communion with Him.
Sorry, I know I got on my soap box but I hope I wrote something that may be of use to you.
Sincerely,
SOTKForever
That is not an Agnostic. An agnostic is someone who lacks knowledge of any deities. They do not know whether or not any deities exist. On one side, an agnostic is a searcher -- continuing to look for enough evidence in a deity. They could spend lots of time trying to do just that. However, on the other side, an agnostic might believe that there is no way anyone could ever have sufficient knowledge to know that a deity exists. The latter agnostic does not spend time searching for something he sees as fruitless.
From the sound of it, you would have been a "deist" -- you believe in some form of deity -- a god -- but did not have firm beliefs in what or who it was.
--ZK
Fiendishjester..
Bob has to write more because if he put his arguments in simple form they would look ridiculous.
Here are very simplified versions of Bobs arguments.
1. Because consciousness exists it must have had a creator (but the creator itself is not bound by the same rule)
2. Things like logical laws or absolutes cannot exist without a God (but a god who uses them can)
3. Science can never answer certain questions therefore the answer to those question is God !
Broken down and simple they look very lame don’t they ?
SOTK,
Do you understand how offensive and arrogant it is to condemn 70 % of the worlds population to hell for not “knowing” Jesus. If there was a God who would do such a thing he is worse than the worst of human tyrants who ever lived.. but then I guess back in Noahs day he didn’t hesitate to destroy every man woman and innocent child on the planet.. Of all the fantasy Gods man has come up with.. how can you (or why would you want to) swallow that one !
Bob has to write more because if he put his arguments in simple form they would look ridiculous.
Here are very simplified versions of Bobs arguments.
1. Because consciousness exists it must have had a creator (but the creator itself is not bound by the same rule)
2. Things like logical laws or absolutes cannot exist without a God (but a god who uses them can)
3. Science can never answer certain questions therefore the answer to those question is God !
Broken down and simple they look very lame don’t they ?
SOTK,
Do you understand how offensive and arrogant it is to condemn 70 % of the worlds population to hell for not “knowing” Jesus. If there was a God who would do such a thing he is worse than the worst of human tyrants who ever lived.. but then I guess back in Noahs day he didn’t hesitate to destroy every man woman and innocent child on the planet.. Of all the fantasy Gods man has come up with.. how can you (or why would you want to) swallow that one !
- Status