Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • See ya Heino!

    Comment


    • Re: Thank you all...

      Originally posted by Heino

      I just wanted to thank everyone for interesting conversation.
      Good bye and Auf Wiedersehen for now!
      Thank YOU, Heino; I hope to see you back soon!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by bmyers
        I think this is pretty well summed up in such statements of faith as the Apostle's Creed, but if you're looking for a single-sentence sort of statement - a "sound bite," if you will - it would probably be the idea that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of God, and that his death atones for the sins of humanity; believe in these results in individual salvation.

        I don't think I could get that much shorter.
        I think that you would have to add to this the resurrection of Jesus, as that is the event on which Christianity lives or dies. Otherwise there would be a lot of people who could claim to be the failthful witness of God. Muhammed, and Joseph Smith of Mormonism, come to mind. In fact, Jesus said that the resurrection would be his final sign to Israel that he was the Christ. (Luke 11:29)
        But the more important point that you have illustrated here is that salvation is not attained by works of man (generic term), but by accepting the work that Jesus did.
        To the True Believers out there (Pure, Ex, Aussie, et al) I don't know why God requires a blood sacrifice. Just a rule He set up. Kind of gory to our way of thinking, but then to most people ( in industrialized lands) the slaughter of beef is pretty gory. Just because we don't fully understand it does not make it wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ex_fundy
          There are indeed some New Testament stories that seem to be rewrites of various Old Testament (Judaism) stories (e.g. the Jairus and his daughter story appears to be a rewrite of the Elisha OT story). But I was thinking more along the lines of influences of Greek philosophy during the early stages of christianity and various virgin birth and resurrection stories found in ancient Egyption religions. But sadly, I'm still sitting in a hotel (without my reference material) so I can't develop things more deeply at this time.
          ex_fundy,
          Did you see that thing recently on PBS?

          Comment


          • No understanding the "40 seconds" thing posted by Tye Porter.

            Anyway, be well Heino in all your affairs.

            Bmyers, I just read this in you signature, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
            - Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

            What a great saying!

            To all, much like Heino, I will be away for a while, what with the start of school and all, so I will not have the luxury of coming to converse with any sort of regularity. So I might as well kick the habit starting today lest it encroach upon my spare monents.

            Peace.

            Comment


            • quoting bymers:

              "...the one that has always seemed to be the most troubling in this respect is Jesus' dying words (according to Mark and Matthew) - "Why have you forsaken me?" - which at least appears to indicate not only disagreement with God's plans, but doubt."

              Just a comment about the statement "Why have you forsaken me?" Ironically I have been asked about this same exact thing at least three times in the past few months. So if you care here's my thoughts...

              Suppose I come up to you and I say "Knock Knock"

              You will more than likely respond with a "Who's there"

              Why? Because everyone knows from experience and repitition of the joke that the response to "Knock Knock" is "Who's there". As an aside I use "everyone" as a figure of speech becuase obviously not every single person knows this.

              I believe that similarly when Jesus was on the cross and said (Matt 27:46 and Mark 15:34)"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Everyone knew what He was talking about. No...He wasn't telling a Knock Knock joke...but in a like manner once He said that...He was telling His Jewish audience that knew the scriptures "Hey...you know what I'm quoting...think about the rest of it.

              He was quoting the lyrics to a song. Or more accurately...a Psalm. In fact it was Psalm 22:1.

              I think that when the Jewish audience heard Him so that line they began to think about the Psalm 22. More specifically starting with verse 12. In affect Jesus was telling the audience that that Psalm was about Him.

              This is where we read about no bones of Jesus were broken etc...

              So I do not believe that God left Jesus or anything along those lines. But rather He was telling them that He was fulfilling this "prophecy" written such a long time ago. Including the casting of lots for His clothing etc..."

              Just my thoughts.
              Last edited by cheeezywheeezy; August 30, 2003, 01:14 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by isaiah 1:18

                Bmyers, I just read this in you signature, "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."
                - Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha.

                What a great saying!

                Peace.
                Really Isaiah, this is not a good saying at all. It is a restating of what God rebuked Israel for: everyone was doing what seemed right in their own eyes. This gives license to all the evil people out there who want to abuse people who they see as a "problem" in their lives.

                Comment


                • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                  Originally posted by PureX
                  Even the Jesus of the bible (the only one we have outside of our own imaginations) did not claim himself to be God. All the quotes used to support this idea are metaphorical and are being interpreted to imply this. Yet in fact he did not say "I am God".
                  True, Jesus did not say "I am God", but then again Hitler did not say "kill all the Jews".
                  How do you know that all the references Jesus made to being God were only metaphorical ? Did you get some special revelation ? What was the charge brought against Jesus that was worthy of death ? How about blasphemy, making himself equal to (being) God.
                  I will be leaving this forum, since nobody seems to be able to offer any concrete proof of where birds, or any other group of living organisms, came from.

                  Comment


                  • Bigotboy,

                    I will be leaving this forum, since nobody seems to be able to offer any concrete proof of where birds, or any other group of living organisms, came from.
                    Is this the most banal, ridiculous, childish statement any one has EVER made here..

                    Boo Hoo poor BB.. we have told you a million times where these things come from. They evolved from earlier species. The original life was probably formed from a mix of chemicals and environmental conditions. You just choose not to listen.

                    Your mind is closed to anything but a mythological explanation of “God did it”

                    When clearly God didn’t do it..

                    A bird comes from its parents. One provides the Egg and the other the sperm.. God clearly does not manufacture every living creature.. we know they come about naturally.. why would anyone assume he ever did ?? It doesn’t make sense.

                    BTW Cya BB.. it not like you added much of any relevance anyway..LOL..jk !

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Bigotboy
                      Really Isaiah, this is not a good saying at all. It is a restating of what God rebuked Israel for: everyone was doing what seemed right in their own eyes. This gives license to all the evil people out there who want to abuse people who they see as a "problem" in their lives.
                      I find it absolutely incredible that any person could so utterly and completely fail to understand the meaning of this quotation. Hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with "everyone doing what seemed right in their own eyes."

                      Comment


                      • Bmyers,

                        I think we have established that BB (as if the user name wasn’t already a clue) is not the sharpest knife in the drawer !
                        Last edited by Aussie Thinker; September 3, 2003, 08:56 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                          Originally posted by Bigotboy
                          True, Jesus did not say "I am God", but then again Hitler did not say "kill all the Jews".
                          How do you know that all the references Jesus made to being God were only metaphorical ? Did you get some special revelation ? What was the charge brought against Jesus that was worthy of death ? How about blasphemy, making himself equal to (being) God.
                          It's impossible for us to know. Just like it's impossible for we humans to be certain about most anything. Yet we still have to make choices, to live. And we do this all the time by extrapolating probabilities. For example: it's very probable that gravity will be in effect tomorrow. We can't actually know that it will be, but from all our past experiences, it would appear very probable that it will be. We make our decisions in life based on many of these kinds of extrapolated probabilities. We have to, because we actually know very little.

                          Now what would be the probability of some guy down the street actually being God, whether he says he is or not, do you think?

                          Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely. And there are very good reasons that people require so much more justification. If we accept these wild claims without any supporting evidence, then we can become the victim of all sorts of lies and delusions. If we are going to accept Jesus as God without any evidence, then why not accept that space aliens are living among us disguised as humans? Or maybe that evil demons are living among us disguised as humans, and it's our job to destroy them? You can see where this is going. Skepticism is an important and necessary component of our own sanity. Religions that teach people that skepticism is against God's will are lying, and are promoting mental ill-health just so they can get people to follow their dogma blindly. If they actually cared about other people, they wouldn't do this. But instead all they care about is gaining converts that they can manipulate.

                          I can't know for certain that Jesus was or was not God. But then I can't know for certain that YOU are not God. What I do know is that it's very dangerous and unhealthy to call ANY man a god. Even a dead man. And I won't do so without a ton of evidence. More evidence than could ever humanly be produced. We don't even come close to having this evidence with Jesus. Stories that have certainly been exaggerated over many years of retelling do not constitute evidence. And I really doubt that God himself would expect them to.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                            Originally posted by PureX
                            It's impossible for us to know. Just like it's impossible for we humans to be certain about most anything. Yet we still have to make choices, to live. And we do this all the time by extrapolating probabilities. For example: it's very probable that gravity will be in effect tomorrow. We can't actually know that it will be, but from all our past experiences, it would appear very probable that it will be. We make our decisions in life based on many of these kinds of extrapolated probabilities. We have to, because we actually know very little.
                            Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.

                            Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.

                            Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely.
                            Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.

                            In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.

                            In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.

                            Religions that teach people that skepticism is against God's will are lying, and are promoting mental ill-health just so they can get people to follow their dogma blindly. If they actually cared about other people, they wouldn't do this. But instead all they care about is gaining converts that they can manipulate.
                            I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
                            Last edited by Scrimshaw; September 5, 2003, 02:07 PM.
                            SCRIMSHAW

                            "Passions act as winds to propel our vessel; our reason is the pilot that steers her, without the winds she would not move; and without the pilot she would be lost". - The French

                            Comment


                            • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                              Originally posted by Scrimshaw Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
                              Except that it's obvious that God (if God exists) has not done so. At least not in a way that we have been able to grasp. How to be a human being is written into our genetic code, but why human beings exist is not; at least not that we know of. Or maybe it is there, but we haven't been able to recognize it, yet, sort of like not being able to see the forrest because of all the trees.

                              Another possibility is that there simply is no "reason" that we exist other than that we can. Maybe the answers we keep looking for belong to questions that are moot. Maybe being itself is the 'why'.
                              Originally posted by Scrimshaw Acknowledging that probability is the basis for looking for possible ways that our Creator might have communicated those things to us......If is it highly probable that God would have communicated to his creation, (which I think it is) then we have no reason to dismiss all historical accounts of such divine communications out of hand.
                              Well, I'm not a god, but even I know that if I want person "M" to know something, telling person "W" and expecting person "W" to convey the idea accurately to person "M" is foolish. The message will ALWAYS get garbled, and as often as not, person "W" will use the fact that he has information that person "M" needs to manipulate person "M" or to puff himself up falsely.

                              I have to believe that whatever "God" wants us to know. We already know. Because I can't assume that a god that could create all that exists would be so stupid or weak that he couldn't put in our minds what he wanted to be there.
                              Originally posted by Scrimshaw "Extraordinary claims require far more justification than ordinary claims because they are so much more unlikely."

                              Agreed, but what makes that idea somewhat meaningless is the fact that each individual may have a different idea about what is "extraordinary" and what is not. Evolutionists, for example, do not find it extraordinary to believe that the universe exploded, and from this chaotic explosion, molecules mindlessly assembled themselves into human beings over billions of years of lucky accidents. Yet, this "extraordinary" idea is taught every day in most educational institutions throughout the world.
                              First, I don't know of any "evolutionists". Evolution is a scientific theory, not a philosophical proposition. There are no "evolutionists" except maybe for scientists or historians who study the theory of evolution itself. If they exist, I have never met one.

                              If you are referring to people who generally accept the theory of evolution as the most plausable and workable concept of biomechanical change, then as one of those people I can safely say that I do find it quite extraordinary. And although the Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolutionary theory I'm guessing that even most cosmologists find the Big Bang extraordinary, too, even though they know that chemicals "mindlessly assemble themselves" into all sorts of new compounds all the time. How much luck or accident is involved in this process, though, none of us can really say.

                              But I agree that human beings often do not view reality the same way, and so what one will see as unlikely, another will see as commonplace. There is nothing I can do about this, nor should I have to. I guess we will each have to decide for ourselves what we think is extraordinary, and what is not. Just as we will have to decide for ourselves what is evidence for the probable and what is not. But the fact that we are so easily confused doesn't negate the fact that the process of following established probabilities is mostly all we have to go with, and is worth trying as best we can.
                              Originally posted by Scrimshaw In the realm of philosophy.....(and origins is a philosophical topic, btw) people pick and choose what they believe is "extraordinary" and what is not.
                              Science is science, and philosophy is philosophy. One is not the other. Both may sometimes investigate the origins of humanity, but that doesn't mean they become the same endeavor. They don't, and they aren't.
                              Originally posted by Scrimshaw In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God, and this God chose to make known Himself, and his will, through a man such as Jesus Christ. If a Creator God exists, it would be within his desire to communicate with us, and it would be within his ability to communicate to us through a human representative of His choosing. These are not extraordinary ideas at all. In fact, they are very likely possiblities if theism is true.
                              Well, sure, if I'm right about concept "X", then it will be VERY likely that I am right about concept "X". But if I am not right about concept "X", it will be very unlikely that I am right about concept "X". But it's the "if" that carries all the weight, here, not how right I think I am.

                              When people believe that myth and magic are reality, and that science and experimentation are just fantasy and wishful thinking, they will very like view their myths as "history" and magic as commonplace. So of course to those folks science and whatever evidence it produces will always appear "wild" and "unbelievable" and too extraordinary to accept. Likewise, to people who believe that the scientific process is the most unbiased and reasonable way to learn about the world around them, myth and magic will appear to be very poor evidence for any realistic view of existence. People are different, but the difference itself doesn't make anyone more right or more wrong.
                              Originally posted by Scrimshaw I agree. The "religions" that teach skepticism is wrong are usually what are called - "cults". Christianity, as well as the other world religions are not cults; but may have extremist cult-groups within them. It is important to understand that difference, lest in one's attempt to be rational they inadvertently become prejudicial by slapping a false stereotype on an entire religion.
                              I do understand the difference. But I have to tell you that I have encountered so many Christians who are of the "cult" variety that I have ceased to even call myself a Christian, anymore. It's been made overwhelmingly obvious to me that what is currently being called Christianity is in reality and practice just another blind cult based on myth, magic, and willful ignorance.

                              Comment


                              • Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bribery or justice?

                                Originally posted by Scrimshaw
                                Exactly, and what is the probability that a God would create an elaborate universe, complex lifeforms, sentient personal beings (like humans), and NOT communicate with his creation? Even yo-yo makers label their product and include instructions for how to use it. If there is a God that created an amazingly complex "product" like human life, it seems extremely probable that this God would have done no less than yo-yo makers do, and included at least some kind of instructions regarding his purpose in creating us, as well as how human life was designed to be used.
                                I don't think that your analogy is necessarily a good one. First of all, yo-yo makers do not include instructions for the benefit of the yo-yo, but rather for the user who will be using the product in the absence of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer of a product is going to stick around while that product is being used, then why give instructions indirectly? Why not simply continue to communicate explicitly, "training" the users at all times?

                                Further, though, this argument assumes a particular intent on the part of the manufacturer. Since we cannot know with certainty what God's intent was (assuming there is a God) in creating the universe, the world, or human beings, it is impossible to assign any probability to what "should" happen in the context of this creation. For one possibly disturbing, but not dismissable, example - rats in a laboratory experiment are not given instructions regarding the nature of the experiment, or how they are "supposed" to get through it.



                                In my view, I find the molecules-to-man evolution myth to be far more "extraordinary" than the idea that there is a Creator God,
                                Why do you believe these must be exclusive of one another?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X