1 edit
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkDo I accept that there is a God in the kind of terms laid out by you - or by my Muslim neighbour, for that matter? No, I don't. I can't accept what you attempt to propagate: it's too far fetched and too rooted in circular logic and parochial mythology. I do, however, think your convoluted ideology is very much part and parcel of the human condition though, and not some surprising or shocking obsession.
Do you accept that there may be a God? Simple yes or no answer. Saying I have a gut feeling a million times does not answer the question.
My feeling that there may be a god, or gods, or perhaps some source of natural order that can't even be characterized as a figure or being, as such, is a highly personal gut feeling that has basically nothing to do with the kind of elaborate theology you trot out and is not based on any evidence, or logic, or revelation.
If, to you, my capitalization of the word god has led you to believe that maybe I "accept" the kind of "God" figure - in your case [or sonship's], a torturer "God" or gangster "God" - that you talk about - on some level, then that has been careless of me.
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkI am waiting for you to perhaps ask me if I "chose" or "decided" to have a gut feeling or perhaps to ask me how I can claim to have only a gut feeling when a gut feeling cannot constitute "the absolute truth" that you know about, and when it pertains to something that is, in fact, "real" and "universal", as defined by you, and does so in a "wrong" way..
Saying I have a gut feeling a million times does not answer the question.
Originally posted by sonshipYour post still leaves me unclear why the 'bible' alone is God's revelation and none of the others. - You've said that reading the Koran for example is not pleasant to your spirit, and made some attempt to discredit the unsavory content of the other writings. - But playing devil's advocate I could equally point to large parts of the Bible (OT in particular) that I find deeply unpleasant to my spirit and could easily set out to discredit its content.(2 Kings 2:23-25 for example).
[quote] The Bible
The Koran
The Vedas
The Talmud (Torah)
Guru Granth Sahib
Why have you chosen the Bible as evidence of God's revelation, as opposed to the other religious writings in the above list? You were not around when 'any' of the above were written, so on what basis do you build your evidence that the Bible alone carries this revelation? ...[text shortened]... Guru Granh Sahib, i know nothing about yet.
Do his disciples claim that he rose from the dead ?
What if, heaven forbid, Dasa was right all along about the Vedas? The best you can say about them is 'I think they believe' and have readily stated you don't know much about them. What if the actual divine revelation is contained within them, rather than the Bible? How do you know with such certainty that you have the right book? You have no first hand evidence that this is the case.
Originally posted by Ghost of a Dukehave you been practising your bungra steps yet?
Your post still leaves me unclear why the 'bible' alone is God's revelation and none of the others. - You've said that reading the Koran for example is not pleasant to your spirit, and made some attempt to discredit the unsavory content of the other writings. - But playing devil's advocate I could equally point to large parts of the Bible (OT in part ...[text shortened]... h certainty that you have the right book? You have no first hand evidence that this is the case.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSorry Robbie, meant to say thanks for posting that.
Sikhs are quite interesting, their founder Guru Nanak was actually born in what is now present day Pakistan and it was originally a peaceful religion. He went around towns and villages with a Hindhu and a Muslim and tried to preach peace and reconciliation to them. Later on the Sikhs became militarised under Guru Gobind Singh and were essentially a ...[text shortened]... h praises them for being fair skinned and difficult to entice.
[youtube]kKh9jWWZVew[/youtube]
Originally posted by FMFNo actually I have a gut feeling that I am right. 😛
And er... so how does this work? What just so happens to "make more sense" to you also just so happens to be "universal", "perfect" and "real" and "the absolute truth", is that right? Have I understood your endless assertions correctly? 😕
Originally posted by FMFSo when you said that you accept things, "on the basis of evidence and the plausibility of the logic and arguments that proponents of those things", you were uttering a falsehood.
Do I accept that there is a God in the kind of terms laid out by you - or by my Muslim neighbour, for that matter? No, I don't. I can't accept what you attempt to propagate: it's too far fetched and too rooted in circular logic and parochial mythology. I do, however, think your convoluted ideology is very much part and parcel of the human condition though, and n ...[text shortened]... God" or gangster "God" - that you talk about - on some level, then that has been careless of me.
Originally posted by FMFYour acceptance or rejection of something is not an act of your will. So you say.
I am waiting for you to perhaps ask me if I "chose" or "decided" to have a gut feeling or perhaps to ask me how I can claim to have only a gut feeling when a gut feeling cannot constitute "the absolute truth" that you know about, and when it pertains to something that is, in fact, "real" and "universal", as defined by you, and does so in a "wrong" way..
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistJust because a wave can supposedly be shown to have dual properties, doesn't means the statements "Jesus died" and "Jesus didn't die" can both be true.
Its a paradox because of the contradiction. My point is that sometimes a contradiction between sets of data doesn't necessarily imply that either set is wrong.