15 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseIt's a good thing you will take the time to study the word. 🙂 Only one suggestion : don't let outside influences cloud your view, there's far too many people that wont ever see. Grow into the Spirit, It's waiting for you.
I'm still coming back to you with my homework, then we can discuss what Christ said about all those things. For the time being, I'm signing off. Bed time. See'y'all later. 😴😴😴😴😴😵
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderAn atheist or agnostic can believe there are independent sources of moral law that morally constrain people's actions.
Better read your own crap; you said this:
If you believe that sufficient proof has not been given for the existance of God, then surely everybody is free to do what they think good,
WRONG! An atheist or agnostic can believe there are independent sources of moral law that morally constrain people's actions. This are not depe ...[text shortened]... ndividual predilections. Google "natural law" or read any one of about a thousand Bbarr posts.
Don't you see, No. 1, how arbitrary this is? Just in using the word 'can', every other atheist or agnostic has an out when accused of some wrong doing. No system can survive long like that. The word for such a situation is anarchy and should be considered synonymous with hell. If there is an 'independent source of moral law', that said atheists can believe in, they will have to face the fact that its name is God.
15 Aug 05
2 edits
Originally posted by chinking58Baloney. Natural law isn't arbitrary as it flows from nature; what could be less arbitrary than that?? You people pull the same rabbit out of a hat anyway; if there's an atrocity commited by a Christian, they're not "true" Christians. You invent something called God and then try to make the natural world fit into your artificial creation; what someone who believes in Natural Law does is the exact opposite. That people violate ANY moral code is not a cogent argument that such a code does not exist. We've went over this time and time again, but your pigheadedness refuse to allow you to even entertain the notion that a natural law can exist without a God (which one, BTW; all religions have some kind of moral code, too; God does not solve your arbitrariness "problem"😉.
[b]An atheist or agnostic can believe there are independent sources of moral law that morally constrain people's actions.
Don't you see, No. 1, how arbitrary this is? Just in using the word 'can', every other atheist or agnos ...[text shortened]... ieve in, they will have to face the fact that its name is God.
[/b]
Note, please, that as an agnostic I do not deny the possibility that there is something like a God and such an entity may be the source of Natural Law, but I see insufficient evidence to positively accept such an extraordinary claim. Christianity is, of course, rubbish in the form promulgated by the right wing Christians here as it is internally inconsistent and contrary to observed data.
EDIT: When I used the word "can" I meant it in the sense that any person is free to believe what they individually desire, not that the fact of their believing it makes it true or not. I believe that there is a Natural Law flowing from how the universe and Man are, its and our very nature. I don't choose to believe that sometimes and not at others on personal whim; that is my belief system so far as reality is concerned.
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by HalitoseMarx also said Religion was the "opiate of the masses". How true, how true.
As Karl Marx declared: “The first battlefield is the rewriting of history.”
I say again just because somebody did something in the name of religion, doesn't make them that religion's champion.
I believe in God's justice just as much as I believe in His love. Soddom, Gomorrah, the Middianites etc are all examples of His Justice. I believe that I a ...[text shortened]... if you don't believe in God, then this is all a moot point. It all starts with THAT premise.
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by chinking58The current situation should therefore be anarchy, because even christians interpret "god's" law differently. The many variations of christianity cannot even agree on what the punishment really is or who will get it.
[b]An atheist or agnostic can believe there are independent sources of moral law that morally constrain people's actions.
Don't you see, No. 1, how arbitrary this is? Just in using the word 'can', every other atheist or agnostic has an out when accused of some wrong doing. No system can survive long like that. The word for such a situation i ...[text shortened]... t said atheists can believe in, they will have to face the fact that its name is God.
[/b]
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by chinking58come, come now chinking. i think you know exactly what i was saying. the point is that the bible will continue to persist and withstand as long as there are close-minded christians who blindly follow it without stopping to even question it's authority. it's easy to make unfounded claims and then employ the defense "la la la la la la la, i can't hear youuuuuu, la la la la..." with fingers in both ears. ignoring attacks does not mean that you are 'withstanding' them.
I'm trying to make sense of your comments LJ.
Here are some of the premises behind them, as I see it:
1) Worthless and weak defenses will always win
2) All that is required to defeat wisdom and scholarship is stubborness and intolerance
3) My stubborness and intolerance somehow limits the ability of others to test.
4) All attacks (assumed ...[text shortened]...
Attacks have been refuted succesfully because the claims of believers about the Bible are true.
from your post, i gather the impression that you subscribe to the old standard defense 'well you can't prove me wrong, so that must mean i am right'. however, even if i am 'ill-equipped' to 'prove' you wrong, that doesn't change the fact that you have demonstrated insufficient evidence to support your case. if i were to make the claim that all of your thoughts are controlled by magical invisible elves, i doubt you would be well-equipped to prove me wrong. hmmm, i guess i can 'withstand' all your attacks, then. see how easy that is.
...the claims of believers about the Bible are true.
prove it. put your money where your mouth is. step up to the plate. make known your evidence. live in the now, and demonstrate why it is sufficiently likely that god exists and that the bible is his word. do it now. don't keep us all in suspense. take as many posts as you want, and settle the dispute. i am not looking for absolute proof; i will take any persuasive argument that demonstrates it is likely that god exists.
failing that, i have no choice but to conclude that your beliefs are, in a word, arbitrary. if you cannot even demonstrate god's existence as likely, then you certainly have no justification for saying that your beliefs about the bible constitute propositional knowledge. they are simply beliefs, which may or may not be true (yes, i fully acknowledge that they may be true. the claim about invisible elves also may be true.). i honestly don't care that you hold them; but i take objection to the fact that you boldly wave them around as knowledge without so much as a shred of evidence to back you up.
the christian's argument for the bible is the standard textbook example of begging the question.
If simple 'stubborness' is all the Church had, it would have been overwhelmed long ago.
don't be so sure.
15 Aug 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderBaloney. Natural law isn't arbitrary as it flows from nature; what could be less arbitrary than that??
Baloney. Natural law isn't arbitrary as it flows from nature; what could be less arbitrary than that?? You people pull the same rabbit out of a hat anyway; if there's an atrocity commited by a Christian, they're not "true" ...[text shortened]... al whim; that is my belief system so far as reality is concerned.
If you are suggesting there is a natural law without a god, that is merely semantics at play. A natural law without a mind behind it is impossible. That's like saying that objects are drawn together, but there is no gravity. You can call it something else if you wish, but it is still gravity.
You people pull the same rabbit out of a hat anyway; if there's an atrocity commited by a Christian, they're not "true" Christians.
I don't see the relaition here No. 1. We readily admit that there are bad people in the world, some who call themselves christian. How does this relate to the goodness of God actually? It doesn't. Like Palmero is a 'bad' baseball player. That doesn't mean the commisioner is bad. (It is his ownnegligence in discipline that makes him bad.)
You invent something called God and then try to make the natural world fit into your artificial creation; what someone who believes in Natural Law does is the exact opposite.
Actually, the God revealed in the Bible; all of His characteristics and the history that only He could have observed, are found to be in accord with what any of us observe. When I walk into the kitchen and find water boiling in a pot on the stove, I can know that someone was recently there. When I observe the order of the universe I know someone put it there. I find deceit and pride in my own heart, and see these things evidenced in others so regularly, and then I find the perfect description and explanation in God's revealed word. If I were to invent God in a way that would truly explain everything there was, visible and invisible (my thoughts for example); lo and behold the only model I could possibly come up with is the one described in the Bible. (Of course, without His revealing the origins, there is no way any of us could come up with the truth of that time.)
That people violate ANY moral code is not a cogent argument that such a code does not exist.
Maybe we're misunderstanding each other here. People do always violate the moral code (the one written on our hearts, so to speak, that we all agree with at the basic level). We don't always admit it when we ourselves break it, but we sure know it when someone else does! We may argue over whether so and so actually was selfish, but noone ever defends selfishness itself as a high value.
Furthermore, if it isn't plain yet, I think the existence of moral law, or natural law, is an argument for a designer.
We've went over this time and time again, but your pigheadedness refuse to allow you to even entertain the notion that a natural law can exist without a God (which one, BTW; all religions have some kind of moral code, too; God does not solve your arbitrariness "problem"😉.
I'm not sure what the size and shape of my head has to do with anything (nor do I know where you saw my picture!), but it is my rationality that convinces me you can't have a naturallaw among men without God having given it to us.
I am convinced that there is nothing arbitrary in the reality of God's moral law. Nor do I see what the various man made interpretations and extensions of God's principles have to do with anything. Sometimes we will follow the spirit of God's direction correctly, and sometimes we digress trying to rationalize our behavior. But the perfect and true standard is still there; sometimes visible and clear,and sometimes buried and fogged in.
Note, please, that as an agnostic I do not deny the possibility that there is something like a God and such an entity may be the source of Natural Law, but I see insufficient evidence to positively accept such an extraordinary claim. Christianity is, of course, rubbish in the form promulgated by the right wing Christians here as it is internally inconsistent and contrary to observed data.
Go for it No. 1! What is so extraordinary about what should be obvious. What else besides a God (a personal mind) could there be behind the kind of natural law we observe? And by the way; the natural laws that the inanimate world around us knows so well and obeys perfectly is a little different than the one we are challenged to obey isn't it? When held over a canyon and released, a rock never even thinks about whether it will obey the natural law of gravity. But when we are called upon to rescue a drowning man, knowing we should, knowing that the whole world honors such a risk taker because he put aside his own interests for someone else; we have the freedom to choose.
EDIT: When I used the word "can" I meant it in the sense that any person is free to believe what they individually desire,
So....then he are free to be wrong...right?
not that the fact of their believing it makes it true or not.
I agree with you. This is a good argument for the free will we all have.
God even allows us to be wrong, if for some reason we must be.
I believe that there is a Natural Law flowing from how the universe and Man are, its and our very nature. I don't choose to believe that sometimes and not at others on personal whim; that is my belief system so far as reality is concerned
Agreed; except that I can't see any consistently beneficial law flowing from a man like myself. Am I the only one? Or would the natural law flow and ebb with only my hormones? And wouldn't some things be ok for me but not for my daughter's boyfriend? No. The natural law we know (and both love and hate) can only have come from a one true God.
whew.
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by chinking58Circular arguments and preaching; all we ever get from you Christians. Good bye.
Baloney. Natural law isn't arbitrary as it flows from nature; what could be less arbitrary than that??[/b]
If you are suggesting there is a natural law without a god, that is merely semantics at play. A natural law without a mind behind it is impossible. That's like saying that objects are drawn together, but there is no gravity. You can ca ...[text shortened]... he natural law we know (and both love and hate) can only have come from a one true God.
whew.[/b]
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by chinking58Look at what you have just said from an objective viewpoint:
Actually, the God revealed in the Bible; all of His characteristics and the history that only He could have observed, are found to be in accord with what any of us observe. [snip] When I observe the order of the universe I know someone put it there. I find deceit and pride in my own heart, and see these things evidenced in others so regularly, and then ...[text shortened]... His revealing the origins, there is no way any of us could come up with the truth of that time.)
If I were to invent God in a way that would truly explain everything there was, visible and invisible (my thoughts for example); lo and behold the only model I could possibly come up with is the one described in the Bible.
Right.
all of His characteristics and the history that only He could have observed, are found to be in accord with what any of us observe
OK.
I find deceit and pride in my own heart, and see these things evidenced in others so regularly
Did you ever stop to look at it the other way 'round? That all of this is perfectly explained by man having created 'god'?
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by LemonJellob]come, come now chinking. i think you know exactly what i was saying. the point is that the bible will continue to persist and withstand as long as there are close-minded christians who blindly follow it without stopping to even question it's authority.[/b]
come, come now chinking. i think you know exactly what i was saying. the point is that the bible will continue to persist and withstand as long as there are close-minded christians who blindly follow it without stopping to even question it's authority. it's easy to make unfounded claims and then employ the defense "la la la la la la la, i can't hea ...[text shortened]... ness' is all the Church had, it would have been overwhelmed long ago.
don't be so sure.[/b]
So.......people who believe the Bible is God's word will keep on believing it. And your claim is that since you don't believe in it, then they shouldn't? The fact that we don't fold in the face of LJ's grass-hut theory, then that means we are closed minded? Why assume that our reasons for accepting the Bible's authority are so weak?
it's easy to make unfounded claims and then employ the defense "la la la la la la la, i can't hear youuuuuu, la la la la..." with fingers in both ears. ignoring attacks does not mean that you are 'withstanding' them.
I thought your point from page one was that we are withstanding attacks. And that we did so by having no defenses........
from your post, i gather the impression that you subscribe to the old standard defense 'well you can't prove me wrong, so that must mean i am right'.
No, I was pointing out the weakness of your claim that it was purely our stubborness and the indefendable nature of the Bible that has caused it to endure for so long.
however, even if i am 'ill-equipped' to 'prove' you wrong, that doesn't change the fact that you have demonstrated insufficient evidence to support your case.
Have I even entered into that case?
if i were to make the claim that all of your thoughts are controlled by magical invisible elves, i doubt you would be well-equipped to prove me wrong. hmmm, i guess i can 'withstand' all your attacks, then. see how easy that is.
Can someone explain this point to me?.
...the claims of believers about the Bible are true.
Here is what I fully said (it took me some time to go find it. Do you thnk you could include more of what you are quoting?)
"Attacks have been refuted succesfully because the claims of believers about the Bible are true."
I agree that this is merely an opening assertion. It was good enough in the previous post to summarize my conclusions about your claims. That is, the refutation has been succesful not because of indefensibility, but because of truth.
prove it. put your money where your mouth is. step up to the plate. make known your evidence. live in the now, and demonstrate why it is sufficiently likely that god exists and that the bible is his word. do it now. don't keep us all in suspense. take as many posts as you want, and settle the dispute. i am not looking for absolute proof; i will take any persuasive argument that demonstrates it is likely that god exists.
Prove what? The claims about the Bible? Or that God exists?
failing that, i have no choice but to conclude that your beliefs are, in a word, arbitrary. if you cannot even demonstrate god's existence as likely,
Whoa! You are not even up to the idea that God is likely? If you can't look outside the window or inside your own life long enough to admit that God is 'likely', then I don't know about proving something deliberately made uprovable to you.
then you certainly have no justification for saying that your beliefs about the bible constitute propositional knowledge. they are simply beliefs, which may or may not be true (yes, i fully acknowledge that they may be true. the claim about invisible elves also may be true.).
Do you really think such a claim 'may also be true'? This is a reality check.
i honestly don't care that you hold them; but i take objection to the fact that you boldly wave them around as knowledge without so much as a shred of evidence to back you up.
I think you honestly do care 'that I hold them'. We are both, as you say, waving our beliefs around, so what real offense can my doing so be to you?
the christian's argument for the bible is the standard textbook example of begging the question.
[b]If simple 'stubborness' is all the Church had, it would have been overwhelmed long ago.
don't be so sure.[/b][/b]What does this mean?
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by David CYou are right David, but only at first glance. One might suggest that it is the other way around, but then he has to test that hypothesis.
Look at what you have just said from an objective viewpoint:
[b]If I were to invent God in a way that would truly explain everything there was, visible and invisible (my thoughts for example); lo and behold the only model I could possibly come up with is the one described in the Bible.
Right.
all of His characteristics and the history that on ...[text shortened]... it the other way 'round? That all of this is perfectly explained by man having created 'god'?
If it were the other way around, would the creators of Jesus have given him such hard sayings? Like, love your enemy? Verses like Matthew 5:28...
'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ' never would have been included.
If man came first, and created god, he would be only nice. He would never judge sinners, but would coddle them.
If only a man invented the creation story, surely the sun would have been created before light! Sometimes we beleivers cringe at the things God might expect us to explain, but that's the way it is sometimes. We must take it all or we take none.
My observation that we find what the Bible says is true does not mean we invented it. It corroborates the Bible.
15 Aug 05
This whole discussion, as well as most of these discussions are so nutty. I mean the author of this thread wrote why is the Bible so hated and I have not really heard the hatred for the book itself. I haven't even heard the hatred for the people who believe it is the word of God. Speaking on behalf of all atheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians...that is wonderful you love the Bible and we have no interest in changing that.
So let me get this straight: Those of you who regard the Bible as the Word of God think it is strange that the rest of us question all of it? That even though it was written thousands of years ago, in an extremely primative time and "adapted" into European translation (which of course due to the integrity of many monarchs) there is NO WAY that they could have manipulated any of the passages? That somehow the authors of that time were above reproach and scandal and would be above creating or manipulating any of the writings for their own selfish purposes? Yeah that makes more sense....sure 😲
15 Aug 05
Originally posted by chinking58If there's one thing man loves, it's passing judgement on his fellow man. It's not surprising that man's god is the ultimate judge.
You are right David, but only at first glance. One might suggest that it is the other way around, but then he has to test that hypothesis.
If it were the other way around, would the creators of Jesus have given him such hard sayings? Like, love your enemy? Verses like Matthew 5:28...
'But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has a ...[text shortened]... at we find what the Bible says is true does not mean we invented it. It corroborates the Bible.
The verses with a ridiculously tight moral code (looking at women, for example) would be included. Man enjoys pretending to be more moral than his fellow man.
Man could let his imagination run wild on the creation story, because by his own admission, he wasn't even around to see most of it.