Jump to content

dr_funkenstein

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    431
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About dr_funkenstein

  • Rank
    Strong Minded
  • Birthday 11/15/1978

Contact Methods

  • MSN
    jaycee@kingfarook.com
  • Website URL
    http://kingfarook.com
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    Sydney, Australia

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    �sdoG ynA
  1. They'll probably say that you were predestined for destruction - just like Paul speaks of in Romans. Sick sons of bitches. Anyway thanks for posting - it was a great read and resonated with my own experience at many points. Glad to hear you're doing well!
  2. Wow, what a moving testimony. All throughout reading it I was nodding and thinking "yep, know THAT feeling..." Welcome to Ex-C!
  3. Quasimodo dies, so the Bishop of Notre Dame cathedral is looking for a replacement bell-ringer. After a day of auditioning many hopeful candidates, he's left disappointed as none of them were quite able to match the beauty of the tone that Quasimodo was able to achieve. At the end of the day, a young man with no arms approaches the Bishop and says "Pardon me, Bishop but I'd like to audition to be the bell-ringer." "But my poor son," the bishop replies "how will you ring the bell?" "Watch" the armless man replies, and with a quick run-up proceeds to strike the bell with his face. The bell intones a note of such beauty and majesty, that the bishop beams with joy, and asks the man to do it once more. The man once again takes a run-up, but just as he's about to reach the bell, he trips and falls headlong out the window. The bishop, mortified, runs down to discover a crowd - drawn by the dulcid tone of the bell - surrounding the poor armless man. They part to allow the bishop to approach. One person asks him: "Bishop, did you know this man?" The bishop replies: "No, but his face sure rings a bell..." Aaaaand another one: Q. What's the worst part about learning to rollerblade? A. Having to tell your parents that you're gay.
  4. I have no problem accepting harmony of gospels where there are omissions of certain details. I get that. It's easy to see how the gospels writers would want to place emphasis on certain themes, perhaps not mention certain things because they weren't important to the point they were trying to get across. Here's what I'd like you to do dario: Look at the easter account - starting on the morning of easter sunday - from each gospel. For each gospel's account, write down a list in order of the events that each gospel writer chose to include. After you've done this for all four gospels, try and come up with one harmonic account of what happened that day. I will accept omission as non-contradiction. Will you accept the challenge?
  5. Dario: Have you ever looked into the pagan origins of Christ? Do you know anything about Dionysus, Mithras, Horus or the other pagan "god-men" that predate Christ? When you look at the elements of the Jesus story you find none that are unique. All are reflected in other religions of the time. I'm talking about elements like: - Virgin birth - Divine father, mortal mother - Performs miracles - Provides salvation through substitutiary sacrifice - Resurrection from the dead - Ascension to heaven To name but a few. Not only that, but did you know that there were many "mystery religions" at the time that promised salvation to their followers, but the knowledge of salvation was secret? We see evidence that early Christianity followed this same pattern with ideas such as the parables which made no sense except for those to whom the explanation was given.' Indeed, early Christianity, viewed in context, is very much like many of the other religions of the time. It's apparent that it borrowed heavily from its predecessors and contemporaries. How do you respond to this?
  6. So when you look at the beauty and uniqueness of a snowflake do you believe that God stretched out his hand and formed it by a direct act of creation? A snowflake is beautiful and complex, and yet the processes by which it is formed are well understood and happen naturally. This example is merely a microcosm of the universe itself. The universe is complex, and beautiful, but it requires no creator to be so. Besides - if the universe is complex and beautiful, and it requires a creator, then surely the creator is much more complex and beautiful. Who created the creator? So are you saying that God deliberately set up a system whereby the only evidence for his existence is dubious at best? Do you not claim that God loves us and wants us to be saved? Why would he not provide ample evidence for his existence if that were the case? Why is the only source of knowledge we can have of him a book whose reasoning is circular? You have a very liberal attitude towards your bible, LoT. It seems as though you like to pick and choose the passages that suit you, and the ones that don't you have no problem discarding as "one individual's attitude". Let me pose you another question. I'll start by quoting from Romans 9:15-21 Paul says here essentially that God himself is the one who wills people to have certain attitudes towards him. He "hardens their hearts" against him. If this is true, then what kind of God is it that you worship? A God that deliberately makes beings with emotions and sentience, but removes their free will and makes them disbelieve in his existence, because he wants to destroy them? This God is barbaric! EDIT: I just saw the reveal. Oh Jesus Christ you fucking.... MWAARRGHH!!!
  7. Actually there is evidence that a fairly major flood event did happen due to a cometary impact around 3270BC (I think). There's a book called Uriel's Machine that goes into some detail regarding this. Some of that evidence is the plethora of flood myths throught a variety of diverse cultures. This points to the possibility of a real flood event, though there are natural causes for this.
  8. How do you feel that because the universe has laws that bind it together that this is evidence of a supernatural entity? You have neatly summarised the essence of a circular argument, yes. Your bible claims that God created man, and that man wrote the bible inspired by God. Essentially the bible says that it was written by God itself, but provides no evidence either for the existence of God (it claims that God's existence is self-evident when it is patently not so) nor for the claim that any divine being had any hand in its writing. And as regards my earlier point, Christianity definitely has a tendency to deprecate this life. One has only to look at the attitude of Paul in Phillipians chapter 1:
  9. Not at all, I'm simply pointing out that your claim of an eternal life after death has some pretty high stakes. I'm saying that you should therefore be pretty damn sure of the position you've taken, because believing in such an eternal life after death has a tendency to make one devalue this life. This is my point. What if your God doesn't actually exist? If so then all that time spent learning about God and preaching about God and reading the bible and praying and listening to sermons and reading christian literature would be a huge waste. IF. What I'm trying to do is get you to realise what's at stake. The question is important. Make sure you get both sides of the story before you pitch your tent in one of the camps. And don't close your mind to the possibility that you might be wrong. I certainly don't - if someone were able to prove to me using a logical consistent argument that God exists then I would have no choice but to change my beliefs.
  10. But how are we to have any knowledge of your God if not for the bible? The universe and everything it contains... or "Creation" as you call it has rational explanations for its origin. I certainly see no evidence for a creator when I look at the universe, but rather the outcome of a set of well-defined, logically consistent rules. Rules like gravity, or natural selection. Your argument is circular. The bible is a work of men that describes God.
  11. You do realise that he was playing devil's advocate right? He doesn't actually believe in the biblical story of the flood. He was using it as an illustration that the God of the bible - if he did exist - is a being so barbaric and horrible as to be unmeritorious of worship.
  12. LoT have you read my posts? Care to respond?
  13. I guess I'm in a lovey dovey mood. If you caught me yesterday I was arguing so vehemently against militant fundies on CF I got permabanned.
  14. Yeah no wonder he left. I would have left if I was spoken to that way too. I know that fundies get really frustrating sometimes and you think that nothing you say gets through to them. But honestly, I think it does. They won't let on, they'll keep arguing with you until they're blue in the face, but sometime in the future that thought might have taken root. And maybe one day under the right circumstances, it might shake them loose from their prison. I'm just saying...
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.