Is This logical

June 9, 2008

I was thinking stuff the other day. I would like to try to verbalize it here. But the thinks go something like the following.

The Human's mind and imagination are fathomless things. I mean for what ever we can imagine it may very well be being done and for every imagination that we desire to create it will be done. Example, right now someone is being murdered in any mannor your mind can imagine, or such a story is being written. Somewhere a baby that looks just like you is being born. So i am thinking we cannot think of something that does not exist.

I mean it seems that as soon as we conceptaulise and define it , it becomes. Now we come to GOD. In so many definitions and as title of so many frontal lobe zappings and mental illness, and as conceptaulised objectively and beaten with our accumen.....god definately exists.

It is an object. We cannot think of something that does not exist but, can we create that which does not exist?

June 9, 2008

Sounds very...Sartre-ish. Very existential in other words. Kierkegaard, in this leap of faith essay, says we don't start from existence but reason toward it. Sartre agreed with this point and made it abundantly clear that we fashion our essence from our existnce. To me, that more or less means we either create God or God exists outside of material purview. It all comes back to something Descartes said: Cogito, ergo sum.

June 9, 2008

There's one tiny problem with this argument. Just because we imagine something doesn't mean we've imagined something that can exist because people can imagine non-existent things,too. Take leprechauns, for instance. People imagined the existence of leprechauns, but because we imagined it, does that prove that leprechauns exist on the basis that we can't imagine anything non-existent? What about all those fantasy and science fiction authors who imagine completely unrealistic storylines with magic, aliens, and other such fairytales? Does that prove that Hogwarts must exist because Rowling imagined it so? Likewise, because I imagine the existence of a God who can cook an omelet that's so hot that he can't eat it, does that prove such a God exist? Yet suddenly if I use such an argument it's considered illogical even though it's something I just imagined and imagination must obviously means it's real.

June 9, 2008

There is nothing new under the sun and yet there is. Depends how you define it. Computers, the internet, and automobiles did not exist in Solomon's time but they do today. At one point in history they were new. But they were never shockingly new. New ideas grow out of old ones. Each person who takes an idea one hair-breadth beyond what it had previously been taken has added to the human knowledge base. And something new has been created. Shocking? Not at all.

I have imagined--and created in real life--stuff that I did not know existed. Afterward I found out that it had already existed but I personally had never known about it. Thus, I did imagine stuff that--so far as my brain was concerned--did not exist. I'm sure others do this all the time. It's the way new recipes are born and new clothing styles are created.

"I think; therefore I am." In my opinion, that is totally backwards and crazy. If I did not exist I would not be thinking. Because I exist, I think. In other words, I am; therefore I think.

To your post, insanemistress. You mention murders and births, things that are so common-place that they cannot help but be true. If I understand you correctly, then you extrapolate and compare that to whether or not god exists just because we can imagine it. You moved from one sphere of influence into another sphere of influence and imply that the same rules apply.

The Yanomame (sp?) of the Amazon jungles are Aboriginal People. Traditionally, the Yanomame ran about naked. Does this mean all Aboriginal People ran about naked traditionally and that if they didn't, they do not qualify as Aboriginal People? Not at all. The Inuit of the Far North are Aboriginal People and they would not have survived had they not dressed in heavy furs. The Yanomame, however, would not have survived had they dressed in heavy furs. Each had to dress according to the climate sphere in which they found themselves. We cannot take the rules of one sphere and apply them to another.

Likewise, it is not feasible to apply the same rules to the realm of invisible and imperceptible beings (aka gods or the divine) as we do to the realm of human activity.

June 10, 2008

Ruby...

alright...i see that. I might have also misstated the whole thing that i ment also. Just i hear it offtian " you cant proove a negitive" as a christian defence of god.

I see that i drew an anallogy that was not parralelle. *groans feeling silly*

And neon i might have said leprechans.............dang it ..... Of course, the thing we call leprechan does exist. Ask anyone they can tell you little irish guy in green lederhosen that grants wishes. No one has seen one that we know of. Santa *exists* and even Willy wanka's exists.....they made two movies.

Hogwarts? ....well the authors of hogwarts was not the first one ever to imagine a magic boarding school.

That was the mainline of my thought i guess.

But i can see i missapplied it some how both over generally and cross realmed.

But Math Geek mentioned someone..........Satire. Maybe HE thunk my think better then i attempted.

ONe of theses days i am gonna come up with a great topic............i imagine it therefore it may exisit.

Justine

June 11, 2008

A figment of the imagination or a discursive construction is, after all, real. The creations of the mind are not unreal; they simply are a different order of object from the computer you're sitting in front of--except in a few philosophies, and even in those, there's at least a surface difference. The Christian god absolutely has real, measurable effects in the actions and attitudes of people. That the order of existence to which god belongs is something that people made up doesn't diminish god being real in a way that I think might be relevant to this thread (though I'm not entirely certain, since each post so far strikes me as interpreting the base question a bit differently).

R.S. Martin, Descartes' "therefore" is "I think therefore I am" is one of logical deduction, not of causation. He's actually using the same principles you are--are more accurately, you're using his, since we implicitly learn Cartesian thinking in the modern West. Descartes was proving his own existence. As you put it, "If I did not exist I would not be thinking." Well, I can doubt all my own senses, but I know that I think. So it must be true that I exist. Cogito ergo sum.

Many contemporary philosopher considers Descartes' logic in error on this seemingly self-evident proof (self-evident because it became largely enough accepted that we take it for granted), or more significantly, they take his entire line of questioning as errant. They question the idea that the performer of an action logically precedes its performance, and many reverse the relationship so that Descartes' "therefore" would become more a causal one after all. For example, if I invent something, I thereby become an inventor, not vice versa. In this philosophy, which I'm simplifying from authors such as Judith Butler, by virtue of performing my first actions and thinking my first thoughts, I become a person, and I continually make myself anew with my actions and thoughts.

Here's where I'm going with this: this new philosophy makes room for god as a creation of ongoing human practice, but I'm not sure that a self-existent, eternal being makes any kind of sense here. Cartesian assumptions presume a subject preceding action. A being exists, and then acts. By virtue of this relationship, it is possible to imagine an entity remaining the same, eternally, if it does not choose to change and cannot be acted upon by something else. In other words, thinking like Descartes, you can argue over whether an eternal, external god does or does not exist. With authors like Butler, it's possible the very question becomes absurd. At a minimum, the way we're accustomed to thinking of the Christian god doesn't hold up. If we think of subjects continually creating themselves through action, then an eternal being just doesn't make sense. It's like a turquoise sound: the concept doesn't carry meaning. It's possible to imagine other concepts of god within this new philosophy, I think, ones which are contextual and dynamic, but an eternal god, with things like an eternal morality to go with it? No.

The Mormon god survives this critique, since they imagine him as continually growing and having once been as humans are now, but most Fundamentalist Christian gods fall by the wayside. This is a new thought to me, since I'm not aware that these twenty-first century philosophers have pursued the consequences of their thought on theology, or in the likely event that someone has, I haven't read it. Because I'm dealing with these thoughts in a summary manner and just now came up with this, I suspect my attempt to communicate here might confuse anyone who's hearing mention of Butler or her ilk for the first time. The point is that you can't prove a negative, but if both the negative and the positive are meaningless terms (plus or minus glrjy), you can point out that the question is nonsensical.

June 11, 2008

I'm not seeing an edit button for my post, otherwise I'd correct the second paragraph above to begin

R.S. Martin, Descartes' "therefore" in "I think therefore I am" is one of logical deduction, not of causation.

A single-letter typo like that can cause altogether too much confusion.

June 11, 2008

I think I have that backwards: Kierkegaard believed that was reason from existence toward the nonexistent. Hence, why he made his leap of faith. I think Pascal knew this intuitively as well, plus he likely knew that different people have different conceptions of God, hence why he likely invented his wager. Furthermore, all Sartre did (from what I've read) was formulate a simplistic criteria of how man developed his or her perceptions. It basically starts with "cogito, ergo sum" followed by use of the senses to examine the world and universe around one's self. When a person encounters a sensory perception that may be external of the actor's material existence, it is the choice of the actor to decide whether or not to act upon it. Do I accept what is occurring or do I not accept?

Point is, be one a Christian or atheist, it is that person's choice that makes them what they are. If a person decides to act in some way (like being a monogamous hockey player or a womanizing computer geek), that person molds humankind to that fraction of the human possibility (whatever ideology and sets of actions one holds to) and becomes a representative of it.

The final idea, if a person so decides to something, that person does that something for both humankind and that person.

June 11, 2008

Ruby...

alright...i see that. I might have also misstated the whole thing that i ment also. Just i hear it offtian " you cant proove a negitive" as a christian defence of god.

I see that i drew an anallogy that was not parralelle. *groans feeling silly*

No problem. It's just a mistake I see people making all the time. They extrapolate from something mundane and apply it to god. A classic example is the watchmaker argument. That argument says if we find a watch we know someone made/designed it. The argument then goes on to say that likewise we know that someone had to make/design the universe and that "someone" had to be God. That is not logical. Things don't compute that way because rules are taken from one sphere and applied to another. Highly educated Christian scholars have put forth this argument as though it were valid. That does not make it valid.

And neon i might have said leprechans.............dang it ..... Of course, the thing we call leprechan does exist. Ask anyone they can tell you little irish guy in green lederhosen that grants wishes. No one has seen one that we know of. Santa *exists*

I understand you are saying: I believe in god. Is it logical to believe in god?

I don't understand why you are posting this question. Are you trying to shame the rest of us into thinking we are stupid not to accept the logic of your beliefs?

Insanezemistress, this is the Coleseum and exChristian. You are allowed to believe what you want. In the Coleseum the rules are pretty strict about what we are allowed to say to people we disagree with. In my opinion, given what we can know (if we really want to know the truth and choose to educate ourselves), no it is not logical to believe in god. That is what I personally believe. You don't have to accept this belief.

You have a right to believe whatever you want so long as you don't hurt anybody. I would point out that shaming people for not accepting the logic of your beliefs is not harmless. For this reason I repeat that you have a right to believe what you want, though I stand by my personal opinion regarding my own beliefs. This world is large enough for both of us, and our respective beliefs, to co-exist. Do you agree?

June 11, 2008

No Ruby...

i amnot trying to shame anyone.........i am not sure i have an agenda. First i am trying to see things from a no god perspective and i simply cant.............then i wonder if the thoughts i have had that lead me in a pro god direction have been thought by others who conversely found they had no god belief.

With this topic i guess i was trying to see wether the whole argument about god and logical ways to understand it ends in stalemate. With neither side claiming a win.

Cirtenly one of my core *beliefs* is that the world is big enough for all kinds. I didnt want to put you on defencive. I was curious about logic. I see many people useing it for a sheild and as far as i can think stuff out there isnt a logical end.

Actaully i am learning something right now. The things we life for and that give meaning to our lives are not logically defined. And i have been spinning my wheels looking for a pancea answer to my question of wether god could have a logical argument for belief.

But i see it can go so many ways, that even if each side wins or loses the individaul can only belive what they do.

And i have to learn that there isnt any redefining of terms that will make a case. Some how we are different. Your not lessor that me, just you can see a veiw i am not seeing. I was trying to see the no god veiw to test it, test wether it works for me.

I guess i was being my devils advocate. But cant even begin to actaully create that logic for god.

Ruby i am just trying to figure things out.

Jessy

June 11, 2008

No Ruby...

i amnot trying to shame anyone.........i am not sure i have an agenda. First i am trying to see things from a no god perspective and i simply cant.............then i wonder if the thoughts i have had that lead me in a pro god direction have been thought by others who conversely found they had no god belief.

I can understand that. I did that myself when I was in the process of deconverting. What helped me to see things from a different perspective was to ask myself questions that an atheist might ask and see if I could come up with a good counter to them in my mind. Like I asked myself why if God existed why didn't he leave evidence for his existence? I could only come to two conclusions that either God didn't care if we believed in him or not or he would prove himself if it was important to him, or God didn't exist. And I asked myself if God didn't care if we didn't believe in him, then what point was there in believing in him? Because if it turned out he did exist and God was really all-loving, he wouldn't care that we believed and love us anyway, so why don't I just live my life not believing in him if he'll love me anyway if I don't?

July 14, 2008

I was thinking stuff the other day. I would like to try to verbalize it here. But the thinks go something like the following.

The Human's mind and imagination are fathomless things. I mean for what ever we can imagine it may very well be being done and for every imagination that we desire to create it will be done. Example, right now someone is being murdered in any mannor your mind can imagine, or such a story is being written. Somewhere a baby that looks just like you is being born. So i am thinking we cannot think of something that does not exist.

I mean it seems that as soon as we conceptaulise and define it , it becomes. Now we come to GOD. In so many definitions and as title of so many frontal lobe zappings and mental illness, and as conceptaulised objectively and beaten with our accumen.....god definately exists.

It is an object. We cannot think of something that does not exist but, can we create that which does not exist?

Of course you can. You can create anything in your mind that cannot possibly exist outside your mind. Just think of something totally impossible and you have done it. How about a table with ten thousand legs that revolves around planet earth?

Same thing with the God in the bible. It defines itself out of existence just by it's impossible characteristics alone. It is a self-contradiction the god in the bible.

July 14, 2008

I was thinking stuff the other day. I would like to try to verbalize it here. But the thinks go something like the following.

The Human's mind and imagination are fathomless things. I mean for what ever we can imagine it may very well be being done and for every imagination that we desire to create it will be done. Example, right now someone is being murdered in any mannor your mind can imagine, or such a story is being written. Somewhere a baby that looks just like you is being born. So i am thinking we cannot think of something that does not exist.

I mean it seems that as soon as we conceptaulise and define it , it becomes. Now we come to GOD. In so many definitions and as title of so many frontal lobe zappings and mental illness, and as conceptaulised objectively and beaten with our accumen.....god definately exists.

It is an object. We cannot think of something that does not exist but, can we create that which does not exist?

Interesting point, zenmistress...

I would, however, like to point out something...

You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... It is believed by Christians (myself included,) that God left little clues to his existence in all Creation. The reason we hold to the Bible as His Word, instead of going just by what we learn from nature is, basically, the same reason we go by the research of others, along with the experiments we ourselves use...

We all see the same thing. However, due to the myriad ways we can take the evidence, there are many different theories about God and His Creation. So, what do we draw on? Do we draw on the writings of Hindu practitioners, whose writings are the oldest known to humankind? Do we draw from Buddhist teachings, which came from decades of self-introspection? Do we draw on the elusive ideas of zen, whose practitioners don't even like to use the term "zen" in a description, for fear of being chained down by labels? Do we draw from the Tao-te-Cheng, with it's high ideas of going with the flow? Do we draw from Confucious, who spent his life learning how to interact with a broken and wounded world? Do we learn from Judaism, which drew their conclusions after an endless quest for significance and definition?

Each answer holds some merits. The Hindu believers have a great concept of God (or, at least, a supreme creator), and some concept of a spiritual world beyond this one. However, they also believe that this world is no more than a mere illusion, which we can tell is not true; and they also have that ever-confusing and hard-to-believe concept of reincarnation (that a spirit, tailor-made to survive in one particular kind of body, with exact precision, can survive just as well in an entirely different kind of body). So, the concepts of a supreme creator and a spiritual world beyond (or, perhaps, woven into?) our own material one are true...

Buddhist teachings provide an intense and accurate understanding of why we suffer, and an answer as to how to end suffering. Indeed, Buddhists tend to have the greatest grasp on sanity, because of the psychologically sound foundation of it's teachings of the rejection of self-indulgence, and the adoption of charitable practices. However, Buddha himself never offered any difinitive answers about the here-after, and there is even speculation as to whether or not he himself believed in a supreme being (though it was obvious that he believed in a set of laws by which all nature and humanity could benefit). Thus, we get the general idea that self-indulgence is bad, and that it's good for us to try to alleviate each-other's suffering.

Zen teaches us the importance of seeing beyond labels, and looking at the elusive greater meaning of things. However, it - like the other pure forms of Buddhism, - teaches almost nothing about any here-after, and answers little - if anything, - about a creator or a set of clearly-defined rules for living. Thus, we see from Zen that the message is just as important as the manuscript... perhaps, even more important.

The Tao-te-Cheng teaches us that the way to achieve our highest potential in this divinely-ordered universe is to go with the flow, and accept whatever comes your way for the best it has to offer... however, it is focused more on the idea of here and now, rather than any definitive future potential. We draw from this religion the idea of serenity and contentment, and - above all, - using the rules to your benefit, rather than trying to break them or dying under them; as well as a sense of a definitive set of rules by which all that exists is governed.

Confucious was all about the rules. In fact, he spent his entire life cataloging the more detailed, but less important rules of how to be a gentleman in a society like the feudal societies of his day... and what is a gentleman or lady? One who makes others comfortable, no matter what. Thus, Confucious, while not giving us answers to the truly burning questions that have kept all of us awake at night at one time or another, has succeeded in presenting us with a set of rules we can live by quite well...

Judaism, however, answers many of the questions left unanswered by these other religions. The laws of God, as they pertain to us, are clearly defined (whether determined by studying the world around us, and how our interactions affect it; or by the intervention of some supernatural being). There is a clear lay-out of the afterlife, with a place for the punishment of people who deliberately rebel against the way things are supposed to be, and a place of reward for those who steer clear of such trouble. Since humanity is the cause of many of the problems we face today, there is even a set of temporary and decisive measures that must be taken to rectify the situation on the highest of levels, though not a very appealing one. Events that can be considered mysterious and unexplainable, even by today's standards, are explained by this religion. Important lessons are taught, and the possible future is revealed, so the people who listen to such advices can prepare for it, and survive whatever comes their way. In fact, the only things that are a problem with Judaism is an over-reliance on symbolism as the meaning, instead of pointing to the meaning; difficult-to-understand direction (hard, if you don't think about it on a deeper level than the obvious alone), and all those temporary protective sacrifices, that could potentially mislead people into superstition and idolatry of nearly-powerless creations.

That's why I believe in Christianity (as well as my personal reasons): Christ is the answer to the problems of Jewish ritualism, and His Teachings are the answer to the questions left by Judaism's hard-to-understand recorded conclusions and apparent (though misunderstood) symbolism in it's messages. Christ was a rabboni, in that He taught the full and absolute meaning of the Law and Prophets, and He taught the more important aspects of the message that the people of His day had yet to grasp for themselves. He was a healer, a preacher, a miracle-worker, a political juggernaut (though He didn't get involved in politics, He did cause an impact that changed how politics and policies in His nation and others worked forever), a social magnate, and a prophet. However, He was also the "Son" of God, which was made clear when He was born to a young virgin (apparently, by the power of the Holy Ghost), a willing sacrifice for our mistakes and rebellion against the Way things are supposed to be (so great, that His sacrifice ended the need for any greater sacrifice once and for all {though God does appreciate the sentiment when a person sacrifices something willingly to Him or His Work}), and our High Priest before God the Father constantly (when He ascended to Heaven, and sat at God's right-hand side {the position not only of the heir to the kingdom, but also the position of a trusted advisor}, to establish a way for us to get to the place of reward, and escape the place of punishment). Does that mean we can sin all we want, and just say "I'm sorry", and have it all right again? No! We are supposed to not sin deliberately any more. However, if we do sin, and we want to stop and change our ways, then we can turn to God for forgiveness, and try harder next time to not sin.

At least, that's what I believe. I'm sure there are other ideas that are just as well-explained, with which I might differ in opinion, but I outlined my stand on the issue as best I can.

In short, while there might be certain aspects of God we could imagine that are not true, the existence of God is nonetheless possible enough to believe in safely... as to the idea of leprechauns... Leprechauns were originally based on legends about demons/imps, faeries, midgets and Irish shoe-makers, which were all rolled into one. The pot of gold thing was because the Irish shoe-makers didn't trust banks much, and some would hide gold in a cauldron, where few would think to look for it (saying it was at the end of the rain-bow was a clever ruse, because there is no end of the rainbow. Wherever you go, you're still somewhere in the middle). The idea of magickall powers being attributed to these shoe-makers was based on the cunning they used in their business practices, and their affinity with such minor spirits of dischord as mentioned above. In other words, people thought that they resembled imps, demons, and faeries, so they classified them as such... and what is such a being without at least some illusory power? To wrap things up: while the supernatural aspect may not fit, there were leprechauns... they weren't what one might think, in every aspect, but they did - and possibly do still, - exist. It's the same with God: we might view God as being a "kid with a magnifying glass", but we could be wrong on that as well.

God bless,

~AOH~

Resource for my talking points here:

"The Religions of Man" by Huston Smith

and, of course, the Holy Bible.

July 14, 2008

Judaism, however, answers many of the questions left unanswered by these other religions. The laws of God, as they pertain to us, are clearly defined (whether determined by studying the world around us, and how our interactions affect it; or by the intervention of some supernatural being). There is a clear lay-out of the afterlife, with a place for the punishment of people who deliberately rebel against the way things are supposed to be, and a place of reward for those who steer clear of such trouble. Since humanity is the cause of many of the problems we face today, there is even a set of temporary and decisive measures that must be taken to rectify the situation on the highest of levels, though not a very appealing one. Events that can be considered mysterious and unexplainable, even by today's standards, are explained by this religion. Important lessons are taught, and the possible future is revealed, so the people who listen to such advices can prepare for it, and survive whatever comes their way. In fact, the only things that are a problem with Judaism is an over-reliance on symbolism as the meaning, instead of pointing to the meaning; difficult-to-understand direction (hard, if you don't think about it on a deeper level than the obvious alone), and all those temporary protective sacrifices, that could potentially mislead people into superstition and idolatry of nearly-powerless creations.

Given the problems with Judaism that you admit, why should we accept their explanation for the "questions left unanswered"?

I believe that you minimize the differences between Christianity and Judaism, which, after all, was what the purported apostles intended to try to do when they wrote their gospels. They succeeded beyond their wildest expectations when Constantine became emperor of Rome and theirs became the approved religion of the realm.

Did Judaism EVER anticipate a messiah in the sense that Christianity presents? I say NO. When verses out of the Jewish scriptures (especially Isaiah) are taken out of context by New Testament writers and twisted in their meaning in order to conform to a Christian understanding of what the messiah was, I say it is manipulation and out and out deception. For example, Isaiah meaning that a "virgin" shall conceive a son. The word was "young woman." Why should we believe anything they say? Did the Jews have a clue that there would be the second person of a triune God that would be the Messiah? If they did, I say prove it.

As for your comments on sin, see the present thread on the question of sin - http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...c=25099&hl=

July 14, 2008

You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... It is believed by Christians (myself included,) that God left little clues to his existence in all Creation. The reason we hold to the Bible as His Word, instead of going just by what we learn from nature is, basically, the same reason we go by the research of others, along with the experiments we ourselves use...

This makes no sense. So, if I look at creation and decide that an alien engineer must have created humans, does that prove humans were created by aliens? If the universe is so complex that its creation needs a creator, then what was it that created the creator? If god created the universe, then he would have to be just as complex as his creation. If complex beings need complex creators, what was the complex creator that created the complex god? And if god created the universe, why are humans designed with so many flaws? Take wisdom teeth, for example. Ultimately wisdom teeth serve no purpose at all and we end up having to have them removed through pointless and painful surgeries that cost a ton of money that could be used for other more productive things, like giving to the poor. So, why did god create something as useless as wisdom teeth only for us to go through such costly and painful surgeries when we could be using the money for that surgery to give to poor starving children in middle eastern countries? And if we were created so perfectly by a perfect god, why did he require the Jewish males to remove the foreskin of their penis through a painful and pointless circumcision? I thought we were supposed to have been made in god's image, so why did god have Jewish males remove a part of that god-like image from their bodies?

Each answer holds some merits. The Hindu believers have a great concept of God (or, at least, a supreme creator), and some concept of a spiritual world beyond this one. However, they also believe that this world is no more than a mere illusion, which we can tell is not true;

How do you know this? Can you prove that the world is not an illusion? Do you have evidence that it isn't an illusion?

and they also have that ever-confusing and hard-to-believe concept of reincarnation (that a spirit, tailor-made to survive in one particular kind of body, with exact precision, can survive just as well in an entirely different kind of body). So, the concepts of a supreme creator and a spiritual world beyond (or, perhaps, woven into?) our own material one are true...

Going by this "logic", Christianity must be false because nothing about the bible makes sense to me, therefore Yahweh isn't real.

Buddhist teachings provide an intense and accurate understanding of why we suffer, and an answer as to how to end suffering. Indeed, Buddhists tend to have the greatest grasp on sanity, because of the psychologically sound foundation of it's teachings of the rejection of self-indulgence, and the adoption of charitable practices. However, Buddha himself never offered any difinitive answers about the here-after, and there is even speculation as to whether or not he himself believed in a supreme being (though it was obvious that he believed in a set of laws by which all nature and humanity could benefit). Thus, we get the general idea that self-indulgence is bad, and that it's good for us to try to alleviate each-other's suffering.

So because the Koran has teachings about what the Muslim afterlife is like, does that mean Islam is true and Christianity is false? I find it interesting that you conveniently left Islam out of all this.

Zen teaches us the importance of seeing beyond labels, and looking at the elusive greater meaning of things. However, it - like the other pure forms of Buddhism, - teaches almost nothing about any here-after, and answers little - if anything, - about a creator or a set of clearly-defined rules for living. Thus, we see from Zen that the message is just as important as the manuscript... perhaps, even more important.

If Christianity offers a clearly-defined set of rules for living, why is it that Christians can never agree on what those rules are? Why are those many countless numbers of Christian denoms that all claim to know what the correct way of living is yet they all disagree with each other on how to live? Going by your "logic", Christianity must be false because Christians cannot clearly define what its set of rules for living is since Christians can never agree on what those are. Or maybe those aren't "true" Christians and you know what the clearly defined set of rules of Christianity are because you're a "true" Christian and everything you say is right because you say so?

The Tao-te-Cheng teaches us that the way to achieve our highest potential in this divinely-ordered universe is to go with the flow, and accept whatever comes your way for the best it has to offer... however, it is focused more on the idea of here and now, rather than any definitive future potential. We draw from this religion the idea of serenity and contentment, and - above all, - using the rules to your benefit, rather than trying to break them or dying under them; as well as a sense of a definitive set of rules by which all that exists is governed.

Wasn't it Jesus who said to not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself? I guess that must mean Jesus is false since he taught the same thing you claim of Taoism.

Judaism, however, answers many of the questions left unanswered by these other religions. The laws of God, as they pertain to us, are clearly defined (whether determined by studying the world around us, and how our interactions affect it; or by the intervention of some supernatural being). There is a clear lay-out of the afterlife, with a place for the punishment of people who deliberately rebel against the way things are supposed to be, and a place of reward for those who steer clear of such trouble.

No, they didn't. The Jews didn't believe in hell. They believe in Sheol, which simply means the grave and has nothing to do with a set of punishments or rewards in an afterlife and hell is something that the Christians made up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol Your claim that the laws of god were clearly defined to the Jews makes no sense, either. If they were clearly defined by god, why were the Jews always constantly disobeying the rules? If the rules were clearly defined, what was the point of Jesus? You still have no evidence for any of your claims, either. The rest of your post isn't even worth bothering with responding to because you clearly do not understand a thing about how illogical it is to expect people to prove a negative and you're trying to shift the burden of proof because you know you have no actual evidence for your claims.

July 15, 2008

You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... It is believed by Christians (myself included,) that God left little clues to his existence in all Creation. The reason we hold to the Bible as His Word, instead of going just by what we learn from nature is, basically, the same reason we go by the research of others, along with the experiments we ourselves use...
This makes no sense. So, if I look at creation and decide that an alien engineer must have created humans, does that prove humans were created by aliens? If the universe is so complex that its creation needs a creator, then what was it that created the creator? If god created the universe, then he would have to be just as complex as his creation. If complex beings need complex creators, what was the complex creator that created the complex god? And if god created the universe, why are humans designed with so many flaws? Take wisdom teeth, for example. Ultimately wisdom teeth serve no purpose at all and we end up having to have them removed through pointless and painful surgeries that cost a ton of money that could be used for other more productive things, like giving to the poor. So, why did god create something as useless as wisdom teeth only for us to go through such costly and painful surgeries when we could be using the money for that surgery to give to poor starving children in middle eastern countries? And if we were created so perfectly by a perfect god, why did he require the Jewish males to remove the foreskin of their penis through a painful and pointless circumcision? I thought we were supposed to have been made in god's image, so why did god have Jewish males remove a part of that god-like image from their bodies?

Each answer holds some merits. The Hindu believers have a great concept of God (or, at least, a supreme creator), and some concept of a spiritual world beyond this one. However, they also believe that this world is no more than a mere illusion, which we can tell is not true;
How do you know this? Can you prove that the world is not an illusion? Do you have evidence that it isn't an illusion?

and they also have that ever-confusing and hard-to-believe concept of reincarnation (that a spirit, tailor-made to survive in one particular kind of body, with exact precision, can survive just as well in an entirely different kind of body). So, the concepts of a supreme creator and a spiritual world beyond (or, perhaps, woven into?) our own material one are true...
Going by this "logic", Christianity must be false because nothing about the bible makes sense to me, therefore Yahweh isn't real.

Buddhist teachings provide an intense and accurate understanding of why we suffer, and an answer as to how to end suffering. Indeed, Buddhists tend to have the greatest grasp on sanity, because of the psychologically sound foundation of it's teachings of the rejection of self-indulgence, and the adoption of charitable practices. However, Buddha himself never offered any difinitive answers about the here-after, and there is even speculation as to whether or not he himself believed in a supreme being (though it was obvious that he believed in a set of laws by which all nature and humanity could benefit). Thus, we get the general idea that self-indulgence is bad, and that it's good for us to try to alleviate each-other's suffering.
So because the Koran has teachings about what the Muslim afterlife is like, does that mean Islam is true and Christianity is false? I find it interesting that you conveniently left Islam out of all this.

Zen teaches us the importance of seeing beyond labels, and looking at the elusive greater meaning of things. However, it - like the other pure forms of Buddhism, - teaches almost nothing about any here-after, and answers little - if anything, - about a creator or a set of clearly-defined rules for living. Thus, we see from Zen that the message is just as important as the manuscript... perhaps, even more important.
If Christianity offers a clearly-defined set of rules for living, why is it that Christians can never agree on what those rules are? Why are those many countless numbers of Christian denoms that all claim to know what the correct way of living is yet they all disagree with each other on how to live? Going by your "logic", Christianity must be false because Christians cannot clearly define what its set of rules for living is since Christians can never agree on what those are. Or maybe those aren't "true" Christians and you know what the clearly defined set of rules of Christianity are because you're a "true" Christian and everything you say is right because you say so?

The Tao-te-Cheng teaches us that the way to achieve our highest potential in this divinely-ordered universe is to go with the flow, and accept whatever comes your way for the best it has to offer... however, it is focused more on the idea of here and now, rather than any definitive future potential. We draw from this religion the idea of serenity and contentment, and - above all, - using the rules to your benefit, rather than trying to break them or dying under them; as well as a sense of a definitive set of rules by which all that exists is governed.
Wasn't it Jesus who said to not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself? I guess that must mean Jesus is false since he taught the same thing you claim of Taoism.

Judaism, however, answers many of the questions left unanswered by these other religions. The laws of God, as they pertain to us, are clearly defined (whether determined by studying the world around us, and how our interactions affect it; or by the intervention of some supernatural being). There is a clear lay-out of the afterlife, with a place for the punishment of people who deliberately rebel against the way things are supposed to be, and a place of reward for those who steer clear of such trouble.
No, they didn't. The Jews didn't believe in hell. They believe in Sheol, which simply means the grave and has nothing to do with a set of punishments or rewards in an afterlife and hell is something that the Christians made up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheol Your claim that the laws of god were clearly defined to the Jews makes no sense, either. If they were clearly defined by god, why were the Jews always constantly disobeying the rules? If the rules were clearly defined, what was the point of Jesus? You still have no evidence for any of your claims, either. The rest of your post isn't even worth bothering with responding to because you clearly do not understand a thing about how illogical it is to expect people to prove a negative and you're trying to shift the burden of proof because you know you have no actual evidence for your claims.

Firstly, you would still be believing in a creator of sorts. Secondly, what does the evidence tell you? Does it tell you that there is a creator, or that the universe just magically appeared out of nothing? Which is more plausible? If the Creator has always, and will always, exist outside of the laws that govern creation (such as time and space), who's to say that the Creator didn't just always exist? The Egyptians used the symbol "infinity" to express this unknown and unrestricted state. Actually, if God created the universe, then He would have to be more complex than His creation... at least, in being understood. Existing outside the boundaries of our universe's laws, God would be of a surprisingly simple construct (if God could be considered to have a construct). See, we can't explain what we don't know, but we can try to explain what we do know. Again, if God exists, He would exist eternally beyond time and space. Thus, always existing, He wouldn't need a creator. No creation can say that of itself. Who says they're flaws? Human lifestyles have changed so much over the millennia, that it is impossible to tell if at some earlier time we might have needed some of the supposedly "vestigial" parts of ourselves. I can certainly see your point about wisdom teeth (having had mine removed when I was 19). However, even medical doctors and dentists will tell you that medicine isn't an exact science. Wisdom teeth might have some other use that we don't know of, because they would have been used millennia ago... How do you know that the human diet was so similar to ours, that we wouldn't need them at some point? Maybe, we ate something during our development that required those teeth. As for circumcision, Paul tells us that circumcision was for the purpose of a symbol: a sign of the Jews denying their baser impulses, to serve the one true God. The reason God gave Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses seems to fit with that idea. We are, in the construct of our spirit and soul, made in God's image (or, to clarify, after His likeness). Our spirits and souls can't die by natural means, and we have the ability to use memories to stimulate whatever it is we imagine. Our bodies, however, are no more made in God's image than those of animals. We spay and neuter animals, don't we? Besides, God eliminated the need for the physical symbol of circumcision, by replacing it with baptism... since the sentiment of the symbol remained unchanged, circumcision isn't done-away with; it's just that it's no longer a spiritual requirement.

We can prove that this world isn't an illusion, because it isn't perfect. Why would we want this world, in the shape it's in? That alone should convince you that this world is all too real: if it were illusion, we could change it to suit ourselves... of course, we would also be destroyed, since it is the laws that govern this existence that allow us to continue in this manner.

There is plenty of evidence that could be understood to confirm the Bible's teachings. Thus, even if you don't believe in it's teachings, you can't rule them out as a possibility.

Islam is partially based on Christianity. If Islam is true in any part, that would support Christianity's claims.

There are many possibilities. Many Christians choose to believe that only one possible understanding is correct, or even possible, when the fact is that many of them are possible, and each fits a certain scenario. Essentially - and, it's a real shame that it's true, - many Christians can only see things from one point of view. I'm not in a position to say whether or not they're true Christians. If they deliberately disobey Christ's teachings, then they are not true Christians. If they didn't repent sincerely, then they never were Christians in the first place. However, I am not God, so I can't judge them.

Didn't I just say in the beginning that other religions do have their merits? Perhaps you didn't catch that part, where I pointed out that Taoism's merit was the Christian idea of going with the flow...

Actually, it was mainly the Sadducees that didn't believe in Heaven, Hell or the afterlife. They believe in Sheol, which simply means the grave and has nothing to do with a set of punishments or rewards in an afterlife. I would point out that Wikipedia isn't always the best resource, since just about anybody and their grandma can go on there and change any entry to fit their definition. The prophets tell us that the reason for the Jews constantly disobeying is because they are a stubborn people, and would rather follow their own way than the Way that God showed them. My point was that the rules were clearly defined, but the Jews tried to change them to suit their own purposes... which, of course, left confusion among the Jewish people as to what their sacred scriptures actually meant. Hence, the four different sects: Pharisees (who took the entire Law and Prophets, as well as adding their own rules), Sadducees (who neglected parts of the Law and Prophets), Ascetics (who believed in the literality of the Law and Prophets, and didn't believe that there could be any deeper meaning), and the Zealots (who believed that the prophecies could only mean a literal and politically/militarily directed goal for God's people). Like they say, "the proof is in the pudding". Just because Christianity didn't seem to work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. If you are going to discard most of my post, and only pay attention to what you think you can successfully dispute, how can we believe that you understand my point, or that you got any of the "information" that you used right? The fact is that, if you can't get through a post all the way, but you're still willing to post a reply against it, you can't say that you have enough ammunition to make your point convincingly enough.

God bless you anyway,

~AOH~

July 15, 2008

Interesting point, zenmistress...

I would, however, like to point out something...

You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... It is believed by Christians (myself included,) that God left little clues to his existence in all Creation. The reason we hold to the Bible as His Word, instead of going just by what we learn from nature is, basically, the same reason we go by the research of others, along with the experiments we ourselves use...

We all see the same thing. However, due to the myriad ways we can take the evidence, there are many different theories about God and His Creation. So, what do we draw on? Do we draw on the writings of Hindu practitioners, whose writings are the oldest known to humankind? Do we draw from Buddhist teachings, which came from decades of self-introspection? Do we draw on the elusive ideas of zen, whose practitioners don't even like to use the term "zen" in a description, for fear of being chained down by labels? Do we draw from the Tao-te-Cheng, with it's high ideas of going with the flow? Do we draw from Confucious, who spent his life learning how to interact with a broken and wounded world? Do we learn from Judaism, which drew their conclusions after an endless quest for significance and definition?

Each answer holds some merits.

At least, that's what I believe. I'm sure there are other ideas that are just as well-explained, with which I might differ in opinion, but I outlined my stand on the issue as best I can.

In short, while there might be certain aspects of God we could imagine that are not true, the existence of God is nonetheless possible enough to believe in safely... as to the idea of leprechauns... Leprechauns were originally based on legends about demons/imps, faeries, midgets and Irish shoe-makers, which were all rolled into one. The pot of gold thing was because the Irish shoe-makers didn't trust banks much, and some would hide gold in a cauldron, where few would think to look for it (saying it was at the end of the rain-bow was a clever ruse, because there is no end of the rainbow. Wherever you go, you're still somewhere in the middle). The idea of magickall powers being attributed to these shoe-makers was based on the cunning they used in their business practices, and their affinity with such minor spirits of dischord as mentioned above. In other words, people thought that they resembled imps, demons, and faeries, so they classified them as such... and what is such a being without at least some illusory power? To wrap things up: while the supernatural aspect may not fit, there were leprechauns... they weren't what one might think, in every aspect, but they did - and possibly do still, - exist. It's the same with God: we might view God as being a "kid with a magnifying glass", but we could be wrong on that as well.

God bless,

~AOH~

Resource for my talking points here:

"The Religions of Man" by Huston Smith

and, of course, the Holy Bible.

I personally believe that the healthiest approach is to concider the wisdom of others. I snipped all but i think the jist of your statements. The rest of it was examples. But not the depth of all that the other Teachings have, each one stands on its own for a method. And we can get ourselves confused with much religion. But i believe there is an undercurrent to all that man has ever expressed about the mystical and the humane. That wish is to explain wisdom and understanding how to operate in the world. And i see many simularities in spiritual behaviour between those who stayed faithfull in their chrisitan faith and grew into deep wisdom, and those who discovered *god* according to themselves. And even the lessons of human life and the good sensations an atheist experiecnes and learns to be wise by. Theses are all the exact same wisdoms and abilities. From the same true source.

I do know that a person can have a ultimately false answer to any given thing, yet can get many other working ideas form the mistakes gernerated on the way. Doesnt changethe fact that the answer doesnt work consistantly..like our physicis beyond the singularity.

So can humans have a vauge clue about what they think god might be and then go off and create all kinds of working ideas of hwo to observe him an dadd their knowledge to others and so forth. They may yet be ultimately wrong.

But each int heir own words where discribieing some sensations or wisdom or preception that humanity since the bigging of awareness has saught to discribe. We all have it. Some people call it god. We fall into errror when we try to conform our whole beings into the mental imaginations of someone else and create religion.

[/rant]

God or reality itself is far more than any of us know. we each only possess a part. And drive ourselvs mad with wondering if ours is a right part of a false part. Justine

July 15, 2008

"You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... "

.... yes, and many of these primitive ideas have changed dramatically with the advent of travel, the media, and the increase in mankind's knowledge.

Take for instance a scenario of medical staff arriving by plane for the first time at some remote post in the remotest areas of the Amazon (for instance) where there had been absolutely no outside human contact. The medics also bring with them "white mans" medicine. The fact of their ability to fly, let alone the magic their medicine was able to perform.... working with your concepts just of observation and ideas already held by by that group .... the medical staff would naturally be regarded as gods. As we know there is a perfectly natural explanation for their "magic."

One has to recognise the extremely limited knowledge held in the era of history when such ideas as gods were formed!

July 15, 2008

Firstly, you would still be believing in a creator of sorts.

How does this answer my question at all?

Secondly, what does the evidence tell you? Does it tell you that there is a creator, or that the universe just magically appeared out of nothing? Which is more plausible?

Nobody ever said that the universe magically appeared out of nothing. The Big Bang Theory is an expansion of mass and the universe even now is still expanding, not that the universe appeared out of nothing. Question, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how can god create matter?

If the Creator has always, and will always, exist outside of the laws that govern creation (such as time and space), who's to say that the Creator didn't just always exist?

This is a double standard. First, you try to use the laws that govern creation (the teleological argument), but then when I try to disprove your claims, suddenly you say god is outside these laws. Which one is it? Either laws of creation can prove and disprove your claims about god or god exists outside the laws of creation and so your argument from design is invalid. You can't have it both ways or else that would be a hypocritical double standard. Furthermore, proclaiming that a complex god doesn't need a complex creator because god is immortal still does not answer why a complex god doesn't need a complex creator. You've only explained your reason for it, but not the why and your answer is a non sequitur. It'd be like me asking you how are invisible pink unicorns invisible and you respond with "it's because they're pink!" That might be an "answer", but it doesn't explain anything and is essentially a useless answer.

Actually, if God created the universe, then He would have to be more complex than His creation... at least, in being understood. Existing outside the boundaries of our universe's laws, God would be of a surprisingly simple construct (if God could be considered to have a construct).

First, you say that god is more complex than its creation if it created the universe, then you turn around and say god is a simple construct outside the boundaries of our universe. Either god is complex or god is simple. You can't have it both ways. And if god is simple, why are god's ways above our understanding like the bible claims it is? If god is so complex in being understood, how can you understand god to be simple? What evidence do you have that god is a simple construct? What evidence do you have that there is another universe outside ours at all? How do you know god exists outside our universe? If god exists outside our universe, how was it able to cross into ours? There are clear instances in the bible where god crossed into our universe. So, when god crosses into our universe, does that mean the laws of this universe then apply to god? If they apply to god when he crosses into the universe, how can god exist in our universe even though there are instances in the bible where god exists within our universe since you say that god is exempt from the laws of our universe because it exists in another one?

See, we can't explain what we don't know, but we can try to explain what we do know.

What evidence do you have that you know anything at all?

Again, if God exists, He would exist eternally beyond time and space. Thus, always existing, He wouldn't need a creator. No creation can say that of itself

You still haven't answered anything as to why don't complex gods need complex creators.

Who says they're flaws? Human lifestyles have changed so much over the millennia, that it is impossible to tell if at some earlier time we might have needed some of the supposedly "vestigial" parts of ourselves. I can certainly see your point about wisdom teeth (having had mine removed when I was 19). However, even medical doctors and dentists will tell you that medicine isn't an exact science. Wisdom teeth might have some other use that we don't know of, because they would have been used millennia ago... How do you know that the human diet was so similar to ours, that we wouldn't need them at some point?

What evidence do you have to support these claims? There's far more evidence to support the fact that our ancestors that humans evolved from had bigger jaws than ours and that wisdom teeth are leftovers from evolution. Even if we accept your premise as being plausible, it still doesn't answer why do we have wisdom now. If we had a use for wisdom teeth before but no longer need them now, why doesn't god just use his magical powers to zap wisdom teeth out of existence? Wouldn't that make more sense for an all-powerful god to do? Also, please watch this video

As for circumcision, Paul tells us that circumcision was for the purpose of a symbol: a sign of the Jews denying their baser impulses, to serve the one true God. The reason God gave Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses seems to fit with that idea. We are, in the construct of our spirit and soul, made in God's image (or, to clarify, after His likeness). Our spirits and souls can't die by natural means, and we have the ability to use memories to stimulate whatever it is we imagine. Our bodies, however, are no more made in God's image than those of animals. We spay and neuter animals, don't we? Besides, God eliminated the need for the physical symbol of circumcision, by replacing it with baptism... since the sentiment of the symbol remained unchanged, circumcision isn't done-away with; it's just that it's no longer a spiritual requirement.

That still doesn't answer my question, if we're created in god's image, why did god have us remove apart of that image through circumcision? Why didn't god just create the penis already circumcised if that's what god wanted the Jews to be and we're in god's image?

July 15, 2008

We can prove that this world isn't an illusion, because it isn't perfect. Why would we want this world, in the shape it's in? That alone should convince you that this world is all too real: if it were illusion, we could change it to suit ourselves... of course, we would also be destroyed, since it is the laws that govern this existence that allow us to continue in this manner.

How do you know that the illusion of the world can be changed by us? When someone sees an illusion of an oasis in the desert, can they control the illusion? No, that's why it's called a hallucination. So, what proof do you have that the illusion of the world can be changed? Although this begs the question. If the world isn't perfect, why is god perfect? Why didn't god create a perfect world? If humans would create a perfect world, why didn't god? Does that mean humans are more perfect than god because you admit that the world god created is imperfect but we would create a perfect world?

There is plenty of evidence that could be understood to confirm the Bible's teachings. Thus, even if you don't believe in it's teachings, you can't rule them out as a possibility.

How does this answer my question at all?

Islam is partially based on Christianity. If Islam is true in any part, that would support Christianity's claims.

If Islam is true, then it does not support Christianity at all because Islam teaches that Jesus was not the messiah but that he was a prophet. It also teaches that you go to Islamic hell if you don't believe in all the laws of the Koran, so you're in pretty big trouble if the Koran is true.

There are many possibilities. Many Christians choose to believe that only one possible understanding is correct, or even possible, when the fact is that many of them are possible, and each fits a certain scenario. Essentially - and, it's a real shame that it's true, - many Christians can only see things from one point of view. I'm not in a position to say whether or not they're true Christians. If they deliberately disobey Christ's teachings, then they are not true Christians. If they didn't repent sincerely, then they never were Christians in the first place. However, I am not God, so I can't judge them.

So, according to you, if Christians deliberately disobey Jesus' teachings, they'll go to hell, but as long as you have the right mindset, it's ok to do whatever you want as long as you're a Christian but the same doesn't apply to non-Christians? And how do you know you're not deliberately disobeying Jesus' teachings? What makes you so arrogant as to think you got it right? What if you're wrong and the Catholics are right and you go to purgatory because you didn't believe in the pope? And how do you know god wouldn't judge Christians who didn't deliberately disobey Jesus' teachings?

Actually, it was mainly the Sadducees that didn't believe in Heaven, Hell or the afterlife. They believe in Sheol, which simply means the grave and has nothing to do with a set of punishments or rewards in an afterlife.

That's nice. It still has nothing to do with the fact that the original Hebrew word used in the OT is not hell but is Sheol.

I would point out that Wikipedia isn't always the best resource, since just about anybody and their grandma can go on there and change any entry to fit their definition.

I'll stop using Wikipedia if you stop quoting Christian apologetics and the bible since Christian apologetics aren't always the best resource and the bible has been changed from its earliest manuscripts before, so it's not reliable either.

The prophets tell us that the reason for the Jews constantly disobeying is because they are a stubborn people, and would rather follow their own way than the Way that God showed them. My point was that the rules were clearly defined, but the Jews tried to change them to suit their own purposes... which, of course, left confusion among the Jewish people as to what their sacred scriptures actually meant. Hence, the four different sects: Pharisees (who took the entire Law and Prophets, as well as adding their own rules), Sadducees (who neglected parts of the Law and Prophets), Ascetics (who believed in the literality of the Law and Prophets, and didn't believe that there could be any deeper meaning), and the Zealots (who believed that the prophecies could only mean a literal and politically/militarily directed goal for God's people).

But if the law was so perfect, why would the Jews have to be stubborn at all? And why did god need to send Jesus to change the law if it was perfect? Why didn't god just send Jesus from the start instead of wasting everyone's time?

Just because Christianity didn't seem to work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. If you are going to discard most of my post, and only pay attention to what you think you can successfully dispute, how can we believe that you understand my point, or that you got any of the "information" that you used right? The fact is that, if you can't get through a post all the way, but you're still willing to post a reply against it, you can't say that you have enough ammunition to make your point convincingly enough.

God bless you anyway,

~AOH~

If Christianity only works for some people but not everyone, what's the point in it? I thought Jesus came to save the lost, so why wouldn't Jesus make it work for everyone? And why would a supposedly all-loving god send people to hell for something as small as disbelieving in it? If god is truly all-loving, why doesn't it save everyone regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs? Are we just toys for god to play with? Does god just create us and send us to hell because it didn't leave convincing evidence for its own amusement? And you completely missed the point of why I discarded the last bit of your post. I stated specifically that the reason why I discarded it was because it didn't make sense. How can I respond to something that you said that was confusing? Either make your post less confusing and explain it clearly for us or we can't respond to it. How does whether or not I respond to all of your response have anything to do with whether or not my argument is convincing enough? Going by your "logic", unless you've read the entirety of the bible, read every Christian apologetic book in existence, and respond to every single one of our posts at this site, then you must not have enough ammunition to make your point convincingly enough and therefore you must be wrong. It's your words, not mine.

July 15, 2008

You understand that, in order to create a concept, we have to work with ideas we already have. Those ideas come from observation. That observation, in turn, comes from experimentation. Hence, the idea of God as who He is... It is believed by Christians (myself included,) that God left little clues to his existence in all Creation.

Alright, stop right there. Go no further. Let's talk about that. "God left little clues"? Why? Why pray tell me would the Almighty, Eternal, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, God of the entire Universe, Heavens and Hell, past, present, and future.... leave "little clues"? Doesn't this sort of make God sound more like some sort of little pixie sprinkling little bits of star dust around that if you look hard enough you might see??? God left little clues? Doesn't Psalm 19 say, "The heavens declare the glory of God, the firment shows his handiwork, day unto day uttereth speach, night unto night showeth knoweldge." And Romans 1:20, "The invisible things of Him through the Creation are clearly seen and made known"?

Think about it. Imagine that if God were in fact God, that you wouldn't be seeing "little clues" of the Almightly hiding himslef in a corner somewhere, you see it written accross the sky with a huge unmistakable hand "GOD". The Psalmist thought so. The Apostle Paul thought so. But the difference between them and you, is that today, with our knowledge of the natural world through the tools of science, it's not the huge mystery it used to be where you could easily sign the name GOD on it, like David and Paul did. Today, it seems you're left looking for "little clues", like your on a quest to find the ever elusive Yeti living in the Himalayas.

So if it turns out that we finally find evidence for God in the microbes that grow on a special moss only found once a century on a certain type of tree North Ireland during the month of June, then I'd be forced to ask Him, "WTF??"

The reason we hold to the Bible as His Word, instead of going just by what we learn from nature is, basically, the same reason we go by the research of others, along with the experiments we ourselves use...

You know what the problem is with this? Going with the Bible is NOT like going with the research of others, as in the sciences. Why? Peer review. There is no external corroborating evidence that the things it claims are really true. What you have is a bunch of interpretations. You can use it a starting point, a book of metaphors and allegories to spark some thought, but then at the end the message you get is one you created. That's the power of myth. That's the Bible at its best. At its worst however, its a case of the blind leading the blind, and such is the case in the majority of those who are literalist and claim it as authoritative in addressing issue of how to live ones life.

Remember the analogy I gave you of the oak and the willow?

July 15, 2008

The more I see Christians attempt to argue their ridiculous ideas the more I realise why I am no longer one of them!!

July 16, 2008

Firstly, you would still be believing in a creator of sorts.
How does this answer my question at all?

Secondly, what does the evidence tell you? Does it tell you that there is a creator, or that the universe just magically appeared out of nothing? Which is more plausible?
Nobody ever said that the universe magically appeared out of nothing. The Big Bang Theory is an expansion of mass and the universe even now is still expanding, not that the universe appeared out of nothing. Question, if matter cannot be created nor destroyed, how can god create matter?

If the Creator has always, and will always, exist outside of the laws that govern creation (such as time and space), who's to say that the Creator didn't just always exist?
This is a double standard. First, you try to use the laws that govern creation (the teleological argument), but then when I try to disprove your claims, suddenly you say god is outside these laws. Which one is it? Either laws of creation can prove and disprove your claims about god or god exists outside the laws of creation and so your argument from design is invalid. You can't have it both ways or else that would be a hypocritical double standard. Furthermore, proclaiming that a complex god doesn't need a complex creator because god is immortal still does not answer why a complex god doesn't need a complex creator. You've only explained your reason for it, but not the why and your answer is a non sequitur. It'd be like me asking you how are invisible pink unicorns invisible and you respond with "it's because they're pink!" That might be an "answer", but it doesn't explain anything and is essentially a useless answer.

Actually, if God created the universe, then He would have to be more complex than His creation... at least, in being understood. Existing outside the boundaries of our universe's laws, God would be of a surprisingly simple construct (if God could be considered to have a construct).
First, you say that god is more complex than its creation if it created the universe, then you turn around and say god is a simple construct outside the boundaries of our universe. Either god is complex or god is simple. You can't have it both ways. And if god is simple, why are god's ways above our understanding like the bible claims it is? If god is so complex in being understood, how can you understand god to be simple? What evidence do you have that god is a simple construct? What evidence do you have that there is another universe outside ours at all? How do you know god exists outside our universe? If god exists outside our universe, how was it able to cross into ours? There are clear instances in the bible where god crossed into our universe. So, when god crosses into our universe, does that mean the laws of this universe then apply to god? If they apply to god when he crosses into the universe, how can god exist in our universe even though there are instances in the bible where god exists within our universe since you say that god is exempt from the laws of our universe because it exists in another one?

See, we can't explain what we don't know, but we can try to explain what we do know.
What evidence do you have that you know anything at all?

Again, if God exists, He would exist eternally beyond time and space. Thus, always existing, He wouldn't need a creator. No creation can say that of itself
You still haven't answered anything as to why don't complex gods need complex creators.

Who says they're flaws? Human lifestyles have changed so much over the millennia, that it is impossible to tell if at some earlier time we might have needed some of the supposedly "vestigial" parts of ourselves. I can certainly see your point about wisdom teeth (having had mine removed when I was 19). However, even medical doctors and dentists will tell you that medicine isn't an exact science. Wisdom teeth might have some other use that we don't know of, because they would have been used millennia ago... How do you know that the human diet was so similar to ours, that we wouldn't need them at some point?
What evidence do you have to support these claims? There's far more evidence to support the fact that our ancestors that humans evolved from had bigger jaws than ours and that wisdom teeth are leftovers from evolution. Even if we accept your premise as being plausible, it still doesn't answer why do we have wisdom now. If we had a use for wisdom teeth before but no longer need them now, why doesn't god just use his magical powers to zap wisdom teeth out of existence? Wouldn't that make more sense for an all-powerful god to do? Also, please watch this video

As for circumcision, Paul tells us that circumcision was for the purpose of a symbol: a sign of the Jews denying their baser impulses, to serve the one true God. The reason God gave Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses seems to fit with that idea. We are, in the construct of our spirit and soul, made in God's image (or, to clarify, after His likeness). Our spirits and souls can't die by natural means, and we have the ability to use memories to stimulate whatever it is we imagine. Our bodies, however, are no more made in God's image than those of animals. We spay and neuter animals, don't we? Besides, God eliminated the need for the physical symbol of circumcision, by replacing it with baptism... since the sentiment of the symbol remained unchanged, circumcision isn't done-away with; it's just that it's no longer a spiritual requirement.
That still doesn't answer my question, if we're created in god's image, why did god have us remove apart of that image through circumcision? Why didn't god just create the penis already circumcised if that's what god wanted the Jews to be and we're in god's image?

Regarding your question of how God created the matter and energy that exist... I am not so highminded as to pretend that I know how God does everything He does. Being beyond the rules that govern us and, thus, beyond our limited comprehension, there is no way I could possibly be able to tell you with any certainty how He created anything. Perhaps there was a "big bang", but wouldn't that be more of a result of an action? Where would the material and energy come from to cause the "big bang"?

Regarding what you perceive to be my "double standard", perhaps I wasn't clear... The laws that govern Creation prove that there was, at some point, a law-giver: one who constructed the laws of all that exists, and gave them a clear sequence. However, it is entirely possible that the one who made the laws is beyond them. It's like how an artist doesn't follow the same laws as his art, even though the art does. However, when he changes something in his masterpiece, he still uses the same methods he used to create the art, so that he doesn't destroy it. It seems that you're trying to get me to say that God exists by the laws He set for us. That isn't so: if He did, He would be no different from us. We would be gods, if God followed the same rules we follow, during all of His existence. Just because He obeyed those rules for a short time, mind you, doesn't mean that He is still the same as we are. When Christ was resurrected, His human nature was still dead. We can't be gods, because we have to follow the rules of Creation: God can be God, because He doesn't have to exist by them. How does saying that God doesn't need a creator, because He exists outside the laws of Creation - and, specifically, time, - not answer your question? Your question, as I understand it, was how God could exist without a creator, and laws to govern Him. How is the reason, the "what for", not the "why"? Both types of questions can be used interchangeably, so they must refer to the same question. Your analogy doesn't fit my response. The reason has nothing to do with an unrelated side-effect, but the cause and effect themselves. God doesn't need a creator, because He has always existed. He has always existed, because He exists beyond the jurisdiction of time. If time loses it's authority where God is, and time is one of the most basic laws that govern existence, it follows that God exists beyond the laws of Creation. That's how He can exist without a creator: He is not only not weak enough to require one, but He exists in a sort of loop (always has, connecting to always is, connecting to always will be, connecting back to always has, etc). If it doesn't explain anything, how can it really be an answer in the first place? Wouldn't it be a mere statement? By calling it an answer, you admit that I have answered your question. Why you don't want to accept it is beyond me.

If I remember properly, I stated that either possibility could fit. Thus, I didn't claim to know for sure. I have never seen God face-to-face, so how can I claim to know what His construction looks like? You are correct in saying that either God is of a complex construct, or a simple one (if "construct" can even be applied to the description of Him). God's ways are beyond our understanding, because He is beyond us. How could we understand the ways of our leaders; unless they either explain it to us, or they don't, and we are left to guess. My point, exactly, was that God is beyond us. We can't pretend to understand Him as well as we understand ourselves, and we don't even have a complete understanding of ourselves! I never claimed that there was "another universe", per se. However, Einstein theorized that the universe as we know it has boundaries, and something must lie beyond those boundaries. Then, there are the theories of quantum foam and quantum immortality. I don't claim to be a physicist, but here's what I know of it: quantum foam is a disruption of sub-atomic particles on the quantum sea (a microparticular plane), which tear open what could be considered quantum singularities. Quantum immortality, from what I understand, is basically the idea that vibrations and energies can transcend the quantum sea, and continue to exist beyond the material plane, by going through quantum singularities into that place. I would ask you how you know that God doesn't exist outside our universe. The main idea is that God exists beyond our universe, so there are three parts that interact with it: the Father is the aspect that remains outside Creation. The Son/Word goes between Creation, and whatever lies beyond. The Holy Ghost would be like a bi-location of the Father into Creation, but still separate from it. You're right in saying that, at least, some aspect of God has interacted with Creation. If God were not, in some part, detached from Creation, the laws that govern it would apply to all of God. However, since there is always some aspect of God beyond Creation, that means that they don't apply unless He chooses to follow them... which, thankfully, for our sakes, He is not unwilling to do: either in interacting with us, or in living among us. God can exist in our universe, by the same laws that govern us, because there is always a part of Him beyond the laws that govern us. That means that, at any time when it is in our best interests, God can shed those laws in favour of His rightful position.

You ask what evidence I have that I know anything at all. I ask you, what evidence do you have that I don't know anything at all? I can't claim to know it all, but I do know some things. What I don't know, I have to take on faith, until it is definitively disproved beyond the shadow of a doubt.

You ask why I believe that gods would need a Creator beyond them. Ever heard the saying, "there can be only one"? Essentially, if God is all-powerful, then there can be no other gods along with Him. There can be parts of Him, but they would be part of Him, and thus not other gods. If there are other gods, they can't be all-powerful. Thus, they exist by some kind of rules. That means that they must have a Creator that is beyond them, and all the laws of Creation, because it wouldn't make sense for an existence that functions in the span of time - which has a beginning, middle, and end, - to have an eternal set of causes, stretching back as far as eternity among those creations.

I didn't claim to have evidence to support my claim of the use of wisdom teeth. However, neither do doctors that claim that the appendix could have been used to filter out poisons in food. If our ancestors evolved smaller jaws, why is it that most of the people who have abnormally large jaws are the result of inbreeding? Take the royal family of Britain... especially prince Edward. He had an unusually large lower jaw. However, he was not a "missing link", but rather the result of inbreeding for several generations among the British royal family. We might have wisdom-teeth now, because God doesn't want to interfere with something we can interfere with for ourselves. God isn't some cosmic baby-sitter. He intervenes when the intervention is too great for humans to achieve, and blesses us when we try to intervene for ourselves, as long as we do it for the right reasons. However, God would be unfair if He bent and broke the rules on every little thing, just because it's more convenient for us. Besides, as if that were not enough, God does cause some people to be born without wisdom teeth. If I may suppose, you seem to believe that an all-powerful God doesn't have to be a just God, a loving God that gives us second chances when we're willing to change, or a God that would let His creations do what they are perfectly capable of doing on their own. I plan to watch the video you have provided, if for no other reason than that I do like to learn from both sides of the debate.

To re-answer the question, God wanted to use circumcision as evidence that we are willing to change our minds and do what He recommends. The reason for circumcision was one of a symbolic dedication, not a design flaw. It is up to us to decide if we want to be circumcised, or not. Why would a loving God force us to all conform, when He obviously would know (being all-knowing,) that we wouldn't be able to truly love Him or appreciate His Way, without understanding that it's better than the alternative?

I respond with all due respect, and I don't mean to offend you, but you seem to misunderstand what I'm trying to say. I hope this helps.

God Bless,

~AOH~

July 16, 2008

Regarding what you perceive to be my "double standard", perhaps I wasn't clear... The laws that govern Creation prove that there was, at some point, a law-giver: one who constructed the laws of all that exists, and gave them a clear sequence. However, it is entirely possible that the one who made the laws is beyond them. It's like how an artist doesn't follow the same laws as his art, even though the art does.

Didn't read much, caught this little gem, thought I'd respond before sleepytime.

Laws, where science is concerned, are more or less basic observations. Without the theories that explain them, they are largely empty. They do not require a "law-giver", but no one can operate in this universe outside the physical constants these laws describe. However, if our observations are inaccurate, there may be room for operations that appear to violate them, but which don't necessarily.

In other words, the laws of this universe are as WE are best able to see and codify them. They come from us, and are subject to revision as new info about the way the universe works becomes available.

July 16, 2008

We can prove that this world isn't an illusion, because it isn't perfect. Why would we want this world, in the shape it's in? That alone should convince you that this world is all too real: if it were illusion, we could change it to suit ourselves... of course, we would also be destroyed, since it is the laws that govern this existence that allow us to continue in this manner.
How do you know that the illusion of the world can be changed by us? When someone sees an illusion of an oasis in the desert, can they control the illusion? No, that's why it's called a hallucination. So, what proof do you have that the illusion of the world can be changed? Although this begs the question. If the world isn't perfect, why is god perfect? Why didn't god create a perfect world? If humans would create a perfect world, why didn't god? Does that mean humans are more perfect than god because you admit that the world god created is imperfect but we would create a perfect world?

There is plenty of evidence that could be understood to confirm the Bible's teachings. Thus, even if you don't believe in it's teachings, you can't rule them out as a possibility.
How does this answer my question at all?

Islam is partially based on Christianity. If Islam is true in any part, that would support Christianity's claims.
If Islam is true, then it does not support Christianity at all because Islam teaches that Jesus was not the messiah but that he was a prophet. It also teaches that you go to Islamic hell if you don't believe in all the laws of the Koran, so you're in pretty big trouble if the Koran is true.

There are many possibilities. Many Christians choose to believe that only one possible understanding is correct, or even possible, when the fact is that many of them are possible, and each fits a certain scenario. Essentially - and, it's a real shame that it's true, - many Christians can only see things from one point of view. I'm not in a position to say whether or not they're true Christians. If they deliberately disobey Christ's teachings, then they are not true Christians. If they didn't repent sincerely, then they never were Christians in the first place. However, I am not God, so I can't judge them.
So, according to you, if Christians deliberately disobey Jesus' teachings, they'll go to hell, but as long as you have the right mindset, it's ok to do whatever you want as long as you're a Christian but the same doesn't apply to non-Christians? And how do you know you're not deliberately disobeying Jesus' teachings? What makes you so arrogant as to think you got it right? What if you're wrong and the Catholics are right and you go to purgatory because you didn't believe in the pope? And how do you know god wouldn't judge Christians who didn't deliberately disobey Jesus' teachings?

Actually, it was mainly the Sadducees that didn't believe in Heaven, Hell or the afterlife. They believe in Sheol, which simply means the grave and has nothing to do with a set of punishments or rewards in an afterlife.
That's nice. It still has nothing to do with the fact that the original Hebrew word used in the OT is not hell but is Sheol.

I would point out that Wikipedia isn't always the best resource, since just about anybody and their grandma can go on there and change any entry to fit their definition.
I'll stop using Wikipedia if you stop quoting Christian apologetics and the bible since Christian apologetics aren't always the best resource and the bible has been changed from its earliest manuscripts before, so it's not reliable either.

The prophets tell us that the reason for the Jews constantly disobeying is because they are a stubborn people, and would rather follow their own way than the Way that God showed them. My point was that the rules were clearly defined, but the Jews tried to change them to suit their own purposes... which, of course, left confusion among the Jewish people as to what their sacred scriptures actually meant. Hence, the four different sects: Pharisees (who took the entire Law and Prophets, as well as adding their own rules), Sadducees (who neglected parts of the Law and Prophets), Ascetics (who believed in the literality of the Law and Prophets, and didn't believe that there could be any deeper meaning), and the Zealots (who believed that the prophecies could only mean a literal and politically/militarily directed goal for God's people).
But if the law was so perfect, why would the Jews have to be stubborn at all? And why did god need to send Jesus to change the law if it was perfect? Why didn't god just send Jesus from the start instead of wasting everyone's time?

Just because Christianity didn't seem to work for you doesn't mean it doesn't work at all. If you are going to discard most of my post, and only pay attention to what you think you can successfully dispute, how can we believe that you understand my point, or that you got any of the "information" that you used right? The fact is that, if you can't get through a post all the way, but you're still willing to post a reply against it, you can't say that you have enough ammunition to make your point convincingly enough.

God bless you anyway,

~AOH~

If Christianity only works for some people but not everyone, what's the point in it? I thought Jesus came to save the lost, so why wouldn't Jesus make it work for everyone? And why would a supposedly all-loving god send people to hell for something as small as disbelieving in it? If god is truly all-loving, why doesn't it save everyone regardless of their beliefs or lack of beliefs? Are we just toys for god to play with? Does god just create us and send us to hell because it didn't leave convincing evidence for its own amusement? And you completely missed the point of why I discarded the last bit of your post. I stated specifically that the reason why I discarded it was because it didn't make sense. How can I respond to something that you said that was confusing? Either make your post less confusing and explain it clearly for us or we can't respond to it. How does whether or not I respond to all of your response have anything to do with whether or not my argument is convincing enough? Going by your "logic", unless you've read the entirety of the bible, read every Christian apologetic book in existence, and respond to every single one of our posts at this site, then you must not have enough ammunition to make your point convincingly enough and therefore you must be wrong. It's your words, not mine.

I'm sure you've heard of a phenomenon called "lucid dreaming". Even though you're in a realistic dream, and would otherwise believe in it's reality, there is a part of you that says it's fake... and thus, by exerting concentration through that part of yourself, you can change how your dream works out. As for the mirage, isn't it something our minds conjure up to alleviate our suffering? I have had hallucinations before, and worked through them, so I do know that you can change how you see things with enough effort (except in some extreme and tragic cases). God did create a perfect world. Everything was supposed to work together, and every creation was supposed to read from the same page their parts. The only problem is that we decided, as humans, to do our own thing. The illusion is perfect for us as individuals, because we want it to be a certain way. When we try to make it so in real life, it rarely works out that way... especially in the long run. God is beyond all that, so God wouldn't create an imperfect world. Essentially, we got ourselves into this mess; and, if we're all sincere, we'd better do whatever we can to get out of it (not just sin per se, but pollution, crime, corruption, and all of the mess in general).

If I remember correctly, you wanted to know how we can be sure the Bible is true. That is how your question was answered. Take, for example, the recent finds. In an area that was about 150 miles from the Dead Sea, a 4,000 year-old Sumerian tablet was found, which paralleled the story of the destruction of the Cities of the Plain in Genesis (Sodom and Gomorrha). Plus, archaeologists have discovered an ancient, underground temple in Sudan that was dedicated to the worship of the star Sirius, with what they believe is the Ark of the Covenant. Testing still has to be done, but it fits the Biblical parameters, has remains of ancient sacrifices on it, and was found in a temple that has remained undisturbed for thousands of years (I wish I had the links to the online news articles about this, but you should be able to find them on Yahoo! archives, under the Associated Press articles). Thus, if there is historical evidence of the "stories" of the Bible, then why not believe what they have to say in their entirety? I know you'd probably bring up how some people use the Gilgamesh epic to prove the Ark story, but I think that's just a Babylonian spin on the historical data. An artifact in the exact parameters of the Biblical Ark, however, was photographed by NASA satellites within the past few months, in the mountains of Ararat. Isn't it, therefore, possible that the Bible is right?

I didn't mean to insinuate that everything in Islam is true. I meant to point out that the parts adopted from Judaism and Christianity were adopted because they were proven to be right. Why, then, would they not be right in their entirety, if other religions are taking parts that are obviously right to them, and putting them together to suit their own beliefs? They needed something to base their beliefs on, and they saw something right in the Bible, so they took bits and pieces of the Bible's teachings, and used them to confirm their beliefs.

Actually, according to me and what I have learned from the Bible, if you're willing to change your ways from deliberately disobeying Christ's message, then there's always the possibility of being forgiven and accepted back. The point is to repent; not to make excuses. Christians don't have the license to sin, if that's what you're trying to say. Paul made that perfectly clear. Christians can do what is easiest for them to do, in obeying God's Word, because God doesn't want people to have a problem with following His Way. That's why it's the reason that matters just that much more than the act.The key word, here, is "deliberately". I don't mean to disobey, but if I do, I will try to change my ways. That's all God can expect from us, because we are limited beings. You ask what makes me so arrogant as to think I have it right. I ask what makes you so arrogant as to believe I can't have anything right. Is the Pope Christ? If he were, wouldn't that make the Bible a lie? If so, what makes you think that Catholicism can be absolutely right, if they get something wrong? As an ex-Christian, you should remember that Christians have to realize that they're not perfect... in fact, that's one of the requirements for salvation. Why would God judge people who don't know any better? Doesn't Ezekiel say that God will judge each of us according to our works, and doesn't Paul tell us that God will judge us according to why we do what we do as well as our faith? Did the prophets and servants of God get tormented in Hell because they didn't know any better? That's not what the Bible teaches happened. It says they got whatever they deserved: if they were doing the best they knew how, they weren't punished. If they were doing what they knew was wrong, just for their own sakes, they were, because they disregarded the welfare of the rest of Creation, and the Way of God.

You are referring to Sheol as though it were meant to refer to some other destination of the soul besides Hell...

Which apologist have I quoted? Tell me. I honestly don't know, because I don't study them. As for the Bible, it is only your opinion that the Bible is unreliable. It is not necessarily fact. It is a fact that Wikipedia articles can be changed by anyone with a computer and access to the site. It is your belief that the Bible is so easily manipulated. While I respect your right to believe what you believe, I would ask that you respect my right to believe what I believe... especially since I can't prove to skeptics the validity of the Bible (as they are not willing to listen), and they cannot prove the invalidity of the Bible. Am I prejudiced in favor of it? You bet... just as much as you are prejudiced against it. However, if you ask anyone who has used Wikipedia, you will find out from most of them that it is too easily changed for you to take their articles alone as the basis for your point. In fact, most colleges won't allow you to use Wikipedia as a reference: they would rather, if there is a reference in the Wikipedia article, you use that reference (or, at least, the one I "go to" has that requirement).

The Jews were people, as are we all... and, like anyone, they too were susceptible to prejudice, misunderstanding, and obstinate pride, which is why they would rebel against it. To put it simply, it wasn't what they wanted, though it was what they needed. Jesus didn't change the perfect Law: Jesus revealed it's deeper meaning. There is a difference. Why would God not wait until there was no other way? Isn't Jesus His only begotten son? You might ask why He would then send Him at all, but I ask you this: if God loved us just that much more, and Christ offered to be sent for our sakes, why wouldn't God let Him do it? Thus, God would let Christ sacrifice Himself for us, but not until we absolutely had no other hope.

If only some people can stand to follow it, why would God let anyone follow it? Isn't that, essentially, your question? Why give anyone the chance, if some people don't want it, or can't stand the terrible pain that we all might face for the sake of what we believe in? Doesn't the song go, "if you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything"? Not to insinuate that those who left Christianity are weak, or unrepentant, but can't we all get swept away in the moment? Then, you ask why Christ, all-loving, wouldn't violate our free will by forcing salvation on us. Is that your point? Are you contradicting what you believe (I don't mean to offend, but it just seems that way to me as an outside observer to your points)? Then, you ask why an all-loving God, who is also supposed to be a just God, would let people go their own way - which leads into Hell, - if they don't want to do what they know is best for everyone involved? Then, you go back to the idea that an all-loving God would force something on a person that doesn't want it? If we were toys for God to play with, would He give us a choice at all? Does God just let everyone into Heaven, no matter what kind of mistakes they might decide to make, regardless of the consequences? It wouldn't be Heaven, if it were imperfect, would it? You, yourself, said you disregarded many parts of my last post, because you didn't want to deal with them... not that you wouldn't be able to, but you felt you had better things to do. If so, why respond at all? Even if it didn't make sense, why wouldn't you at least try to dispute it, so that we can all learn from what you have the infinite wisdom to claim is one of my infinite mistakes? It would seem to be an opportunity that a debater wouldn't want to miss, in a debate against an opponent. Why not try to respond, at least to show me where my huge and obvious error was? Please, enlighten me, as I apparently am absolutely void of knowledge and understanding, and can't be considered to have a valid point, even though anyone else can! Seriously, am I supposed to believe that everything I say, do, think or feel is absolutely wrong? That's just impossible for anyone... especially from a statistical viewpoint... or am I "misunderstanding" the idea of statistics and basic math, as well? Forgive me if I find your condescension to be irritating and offensive!

I have tried everything I can think of to explain what I mean, but you seem to not want to understand. You don't even seem to care. How can I expect someone debating me to debate me properly, if he doesn't read everything I have to say, and make an effort to understand my point? And then, you exaggerate my point entirely. There is such a thing as taking a point out of context, you know.

Before you respond, I would ask you first of all to at least try to understand what I'm saying. I may not be the best communicator, but nobody else has this much trouble understanding me when I talk to them in person... and they can't possibly all think the exact same way I do! Secondly, before you post something, try to think: would you want to read something like this, directed to you, in such a way as you present it? If not, at least try to put it in a less offensive way. I try not to offend anybody. I would ask you do the same.

~AOH~

Is This *logical*

Recommended Posts

insanezenmistress

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

MathGeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neon Genesis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

insanezenmistress

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heavenslaughing

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Heavenslaughing

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MathGeek

Link to comment

Share on other sites

R. S. Martin

Link to comment

Share on other sites

insanezenmistress

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neon Genesis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

EdwardAbbey

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Angel of Hope

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Deva

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neon Genesis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Angel of Hope

Link to comment

Share on other sites

insanezenmistress

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Realist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neon Genesis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Neon Genesis

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Antlerman

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Realist

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Angel of Hope

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dhampir

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Angel of Hope

Link to comment

Is This logical