|
IamMe
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2007, 12:40:56 PM » |
|
No it's not the set up to a joke.
We all know that there's some pretty horrible stuff in the Old Testament. But most Xians don't burn witches etc. So why do atheists keep bringing it up?
1) It shows that most Christians don't follow the Bible 100% - so why follow it at all?
2) It shows that these things are there and are a danger if Christianity goes the way Islam has in some places.
If you wanted a good example of why you are a religious bigot... What because I disagree with Christianity? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2007, 12:49:37 PM » |
|
Because God should be able to make things clear - especially since we get an eternity in Hell if we misinterpret. That sounds like an opinion you hold. How can we know it is truth? Are you saying God, the creator of the universe and all that resides within it is unable to make himself clear? No, I suspect God is perfectly clear. I find all the trouble with the receiver. You would. In any case, fortunately salvation does not depend on ones ability to interpret scripture. Salvation only requires a choice to believe in God and your own inability to save yourself. If you believe, you can ask God yourself and he will answer, you do not need his word to accept his gift.
Unless you interpret it in such a way that it makes belief in him impossible. Just a hunch, but I suspect those people had their minds made up already. I wouldn't be so sure. The state does not commit murder. It kills. Our soldiers do not murder and capital punishment (whether right or wrong) is not murder.
It is: deliberate killing is murder. You may want to research the legal definition of murder. I know a special case is made for soldiers and executioners but I still consider it murder. Scripture gives one or two examples of a sorceress if I recall. I don't know why they can perform signs, scripture does not say. I am quite happy that those social laws don't apply to me.
So what do you do if a sorceress comes to your house? I'm pretty sure there's one in mine: I heard some scurrying. The same thing I do when an atheist or a homosexual comes to my house. I invite them in. But what if she puts a curse on you? OK, so all punishments set down in the Bible no longer apply but the morals behind them do. Are there any other parts of the Bible that we can selectively ignore? Also, on what basis do we dismiss the covenant and the punishments therein? We ignore none of it. We recognize the intent and we follow the intent. We can know about these social laws and the covenant by the NT scripture instruction. Paul and Peter and John have quite a bit to say about this topic. What about the fact that Jesus said he wanted to uphold the law not overturn it? Finally, what if one of your kids were gay? What would you say/do? (If you find this too personal then I'm sorry.)
Not at all. I contemplate such things. If one of my daughters announces she is gay I will treat it the same as when (especially my younger) tells me she hates me or does some other deed of disrespect. I will tell her I love her and then I will not allow the behavior in my domain and I will tell her why it is wrong. I'm amazed that you would think that a child's sexuality would in some way be a rebellion against you. You are reading too much into my example. Sorry. I find the research faulty and the conclusion unjustified. I do too. Yet it still seems plausible that there would be genetic risk-factors (for the want of a better term). |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2007, 06:12:01 PM » |
|
Are you saying God, the creator of the universe and all that resides within it is unable to make himself clear?
No, I suspect God is perfectly clear. I find all the trouble with the receiver. You would. Thank you. You may want to research the legal definition of murder.
I know a special case is made for soldiers and executioners but I still consider it murder. Yes, but you also consider agnostics atheists too, and you seem to have some problem with truth but I can't put my finger on it just yet. So what do you do if a sorceress comes to your house? I'm pretty sure there's one in mine: I heard some scurrying. The same thing I do when an atheist or a homosexual comes to my house. I invite them in. But what if she puts a curse on you? Then it might not have been a good idea after all. What about the fact that Jesus said he wanted to uphold the law not overturn it? Right, The law was completed not overturned. When he said that he had not completed (upheld) was he came to accomplish. I find the research faulty and the conclusion unjustified.
I do too. Yet it still seems plausible that there would be genetic risk-factors (for the want of a better term). Yes, I suppose it is possible. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 31, 2007, 04:00:55 PM » |
|
All the moral principles from the OT still apply. The social laws and covenant laws have been completed.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #19 on: November 02, 2007, 11:13:55 AM » |
|
No, I suspect God is perfectly clear. I find all the trouble with the receiver.
Can we return to this for a moment? If I make a speech and I have it perfectly clear in my own mind what it is I want to say but I mumble my way through the speech, get my words wrong and the audience is unable to understand what I'm saying is the trouble with the audience or with me? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 02, 2007, 03:13:01 PM » |
|
You perhaps.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Biker Dude
A TRUE Liberal!
Forum Administrator
Hero Member
Karma: +156/-117
Posts: 2,103
Live to Ride, Ride to Live
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 02, 2007, 04:17:12 PM » |
|
I would say it lies with you, specially if every member of the audience fails to get you.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
 Who will watch the watchers?Now that it is over, what are we going to talk about? |
|
|
|
IamMe
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 04, 2007, 01:48:08 PM » |
|
You perhaps.
So then if people are incapable of correctly interpreting God's word who's fault is it? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"Anarchism is the ideal to which all societies should approximate\\\\" - Bertrand Russell
If you strike me down I shall become more dead than you can ever imagine.
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #23 on: November 04, 2007, 02:24:49 PM » |
|
You perhaps.
So then if people are incapable of correctly interpreting God's word who's fault is it? In scripture it says that misinterpretation is caused by people who harden their hearts and minds to Gods message. Scripture indicates that people are capable but many are unwilling. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #24 on: November 04, 2007, 03:43:13 PM » |
|
You perhaps.
So then if people are incapable of correctly interpreting God's word who's fault is it? In scripture it says that misinterpretation is caused by people who harden their hearts and minds to Gods message. Scripture indicates that people are capable but many are unwilling. ¿Scripture? ¿Which scripture? Here in my hand I have a Harry Potter book, ¿should i believe in what is written there? The argument 'this book says' is worth nothing: i can get another book which says the opposite or write it myself. You should better say: someone wrote X and Y in a book about 2000 years ago and i believe that fictional book accurately describes facts because of no reason. PD: I don't want to be harsh with the following, but i think that your nick is misleading: reason and faith are completely unrelated things. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #25 on: November 04, 2007, 03:58:43 PM » |
|
You perhaps.
So then if people are incapable of correctly interpreting God's word who's fault is it? In scripture it says that misinterpretation is caused by people who harden their hearts and minds to Gods message. Scripture indicates that people are capable but many are unwilling. ¿Scripture? ¿Which scripture? Here in my hand I have a Harry Potter book, ¿should i believe in what is written there? to In the context of IamMe's question and the discussion in general it should be clear what scripture we are referring. The argument 'this book says' is worth nothing: i can get another book which says the opposite or write it myself. Yes but then we would be talking about a false God. You should better say: someone wrote X and Y in a book about 2000 years ago and i believe that fictional book accurately describes facts because of no reason. But then I would be misstating the facts. PD: I don't want to be harsh with the following, but i think that your nick is misleading: reason and faith are completely unrelated things.
I beg to differ. I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #26 on: November 04, 2007, 06:07:39 PM » |
|
Yes but then we would be talking about a false God.
Is it there any other kind of god? I have no proof of the opposite, perhaps you can show me the proof of the existante of another kind of god. PD: I don't want to be harsh with the following, but i think that your nick is misleading: reason and faith are completely unrelated things.
I beg to differ. I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic. So did Decart, but his 'demonstration' was faulty and indeed lacked of logic. Obviously, that is the same case for yours, if you have any. You can try to demonstrate that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic, but i just won't discuss it or listen to it, what would be the point? It's just crystal clear that your demonstration will be faulty. No one has ever demonstrated such a thing and it looks like we'll have to wait a little bit more (maybe forever) until someone demonstrates if god does or not indeed exist. Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. If i had as the starting hypothesis that anything can exist, i could for example say that, as a first hypothesis, there's a dumbo flying out there around the galaxy, and that's no use to me. Btw, i don't seek to make you change your mind, i know you won't. Just like i know you are wrong. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 04, 2007, 06:09:48 PM by Findeton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #27 on: November 04, 2007, 06:35:36 PM » |
|
Yes but then we would be talking about a false God.
Is it there any other kind of god? I have no proof of the opposite, perhaps you can show me the proof of the existante of another kind of god. You have no proof one way or the other, and yet you choose by presupposition to favor one viewpoint unless you say you do have proof that the Christian God is false. I beg to differ. I contend that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic.
So did Decart, but his 'demonstration' was faulty and indeed lacked of logic. Obviously, that is the same case for yours, if you have any. You can try to demonstrate that absent the creator God there can be no reason, or logic, but i just won't discuss it or listen to it, what would be the point? It's just crystal clear that your demonstration will be faulty. No one has ever demonstrated such a thing and it looks like we'll have to wait a little bit more (maybe forever) until someone demonstrates if god does or not indeed exist. Good day to you then. Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. Yes and then when faced with evidence that a particular something does exist, if you choose to ignore the evidence then you are free to continue believing it does not. Quite a convenient approach. If i had as the starting hypothesis that anything can exist, i could for example say that, as a first hypothesis, there's a dumbo flying out there around the galaxy, and that's no use to me. Yes that would be quite unusual. Btw, i don't seek to make you change your mind, i know you won't. Just like i know you are wrong.
I can see that your presuppositions allow you to be quite confident in your conclusions. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 07:57:30 AM by Reasoned Faith »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Findeton
Jr. Member
Karma: +7/-14
Posts: 53
|
|
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2007, 01:21:12 AM » |
|
Meanwhile, i will suppose as a first hypothesis that god doesn't exist, as i do with everything else: as the starting hypothesis, nothing exists, until we have evidence on the contrary. Yes and then when faced with evidence that a particular something does exist, if you choose to ignore the evidence then you are free to continue believing it does not. Quite a convenient approach. The case is that there's no evidence that god exists. If we choose now the hypothesis that says god exists, we should also choose the hypothesis that states there's a dumbo flying all around the galaxy. BTW, i'm not the creationist here, don't tell me about 'ignoring evidence'  |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: November 05, 2007, 01:29:39 AM by Findeton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
