Originally posted by lucifershammerAre you saying Krishna and Vishnu are an historical person(s)? Flesh and blood? Please expound on the difference between a person and a being.
I said Krishn was the same person as Vishnu, not merely the same being (there's a difference).
The Logos (the Son) is the same being as God (the Father), but not the same person. Jesus is the same person as the Logos, but not the same being.
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedOkay, apology accepted, even if I don't know if it was me you called it.
ok i admit idiots was too heavy of a word. just forget i ever said that thing.
I cant keep up with your arguments.
list the problems you have with the Bible, heaven, God, or anything else like that in a neat bulleted list and i will respond to each one of them as they come.
(Strongly done, I might add!) Not long ago I was called a hypocrite by someone ho clearly think he is better than me without even knowing me...
I don't have any problems with the Bible. Nor the Koran nor any other sacred scriptures. I think there is as many different interpretations of the bible as there is Christians on this earth, so any absolute truth can't be found about it. It is written by man and should be interpreted as a historical document from its own times.
Originally posted by FabianFnasYes, it was written by man, but why on earth should it be interpreted as "history"? It's clearly some sort of dramatic fiction interspersed with some minor historical elements.
It is written by man and should be interpreted as a historical document from its own times.
Originally posted by David CThe holy books pattern history, itself a text under construction. Doesn't matter if the plot has holes in.
Yes, it was written by man, but why on earth should it be interpreted as "history"? It's clearly some sort of dramatic fiction interspersed with some minor historical elements.
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat you identify sorrow when you're sad has something tautological about it. Besides, that's not my point, as it does not deal with absolute truth.
The difficulty in defining a "self" does not mean it is any less clear what it is or make it impossible to speak of it. I can't define "sorrow" clearly to a person who never has any emotions; that doesn't mean I have trouble identifying it when I'm sad!
The sentence 'I exist' can be false be denying the existence of what is being defined as 'I'. If not, then it is a tautology. All I'm saying is that it can be false and that is enough for my point.
Originally posted by David CPerhaps I used a wrong term trying to describe the Bible.
Yes, it was written by man, but why on earth should it be interpreted as "history"? It's clearly some sort of dramatic fiction interspersed with some minor historical elements.
I wrote: "It is written by man and should be interpreted as a historical document from its own times." and what I meant was that it is not scientific facts as some Christians want it to be. It depict very well how the philosophies man had at these ages and cultures. As such it is very interesting historical document even if it was not meant to be at that time it was written.
The Gospel of the FSM came through a Physics undergrad from Kansas who was protesting intelligent design.
Could still have been divinely inspired.
Paul, from the Bible, was given a view of Jesus.
Well, not a view of Jesus because he was blinded, but he heard Jesus' voice and from this was converted.
Lots of schizophrenics hear very convincing voices telling them strange things. I'm not intending to suggest that Paul was a schizophrenic but I hope you take my point.
You guys argue well. I have to give you some credit for bashing me on some points.
Well sometimes I do, other times I'm a bit crap!
The Koran was given to Muhammad by what he thought was an "angel", but would an angel give you seizures when it came upon you?
No. That is more the characterization of a demon.
Would you be able to stay coherant and in full control of your body on the sight of the Archangel?
Scripture interprets history correctly.
There are over 120 prophecies on Jesus in the Old Testament. There was 400 years between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT. then the 120 prophecies all came true...
There are also mention of prophesies in the new testament that are not in the old and the same prophesy is sometimes given twice in different books with the two versions disagreeing. I'd have to do some research to see if there are any prophesies that are then never mentioned again. Can anyone reading this enlighten us?
Similarly, are there any testable prophesies that predict events after the NT?
The Koran can't say that. It has no prophecies.
Again I'd need to do some research before commenting.
I stopped being a smart-...you-know-what. You should too.
I'm not entirely sure that you have.
--- Penguin.
I've have earlier written:
"One of my principles is to respect every one that respects every one else."
lucifershammer comments this:
"Either you're a hypocrite for saying that you only respect those who respect "everyone else" (since you clearly don't respect everyone else); or you simply mean that you respect those who respect you and your views."
There is a saying, taken from both the Bible and the Koran, that says something like: “What you want others to do to you, you should do to others.”. Right?
My principle is a somewhat extension to this: “If you want respect, then give respect.” Right?
Okey, what about those who don’t respect me for my religion or principles? If they don’t give me respect for having this principle, do they deserve any respect from me? I don’t think so. Those who dont give respect but demand respect in return, what about them? What should we do about them?
Does this mean that I don’t allow others to have their view about things, even if it contradicts my views? No, not at all. And this is the nice part of it all. Others view have of course influence of my views, I refine my views with others if it make my views more solid. But I don’t share others views just for politeness or something. But I am very interested of others views. You know this if you know me.
Respect is a symmetric operation. I give, I get. I get and I give. And I think that I get most respect if I give respect. So I give respect to everyone who is able to handle this respect properly and not giving disrespect back.
You call me a hypocrite. Perhaps you’re right. If I didn’t say that I am at least a hypocrite to some level I would certainly be a hypocrite.
The question is: Are you a hypocrite? (This is a test of your humbleness.)
Originally posted by FabianFnasAnd there can be also a third alternative: Neither X nor ~X might be The Truth.
I don't understand your scenario. If one religion says X and the other says ~X then evidently at most one of them can hold The Truth. But who can say wich hold The Truth? And there can be also a third alternative: Neither X nor ~X might be The Truth. Neither cannot ever have the monopoly of The Truth.
If any God makes a message on the sky with a force ...[text shortened]... and then I would no longer strive for The Truth.
Is this going to happen? I don't think so.
No, there can't be. Logically one and only one of X or ~X can and will be true.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI'm trying to remember some of my high school physics, maybe you can help me. Is light a wave or a particle?
[b]And there can be also a third alternative: Neither X nor ~X might be The Truth.
No, there can't be. Logically one and only one of X or ~X can and will be true.[/b]
Originally posted by lucifershammerOh, we're talking about logic? And religion at the same time?
[b]And there can be also a third alternative: Neither X nor ~X might be The Truth.
No, there can't be. Logically one and only one of X or ~X can and will be true.[/b]
This is a contradiction.
I thought that you meant 'opposite to' with your ~-symbol.