Page 4 of 5
#121
Quote by Ninja#117
Quote by Casketcreep

Ninja this may come as a surprise to you, but churchs don't really open the floor for debate. That would be horribly detrimental to the entire organisation.
casket this may come as a suprise to you but i know that.


Actualy, that's not strictly true.
Ever heard of the Augustine tradition?

Saint Augustine of Hippon was a 3rd century bishop, and also a philosopher, and is generally considered as one of the greatest Christian thinkers of all times, especially by Christians. He said:
"Mere belief without questioning and truth seeking are not sufficient for a genuine faith."
In other words, he relished debate and the questioning of faith, because after all, what use is any religion that can't stand up to the scrutiny of debate?

That said, when most people attend church, it is actualy to attend a religious ceremony or sermon. This is not considered as the right time to suddenly stand up and start questioning the religion, infact it's considered as downright rude, which I think is fair enough, but many Christian pastors, priests and vicars welcome visits to the church from people at other times who wish to question religion because it's an opportunity to debate and possibly even convert someone.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 16, 2012,
#123
Quote by SlackerBabbath
If a political leader today said to you "We must go and wipe out such and such a nation because God says we have to." would you believe him?

If not, then why would you believe that God had anything to do with Moses ordering the slaughter of Canaanites?

I wouldn't, nor should anyone. But I was making a Scriptural argument, and that's what the Bible says about the conquest of Canaan. In the Bible it is under command by Yahweh that Moses is to drive out the Canaanite peoples and slaughter them.
Deuteronomy 7:2
"and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them."

My point was that if you believe in the Judeo-Christian god you can't just discount a seemingly divine command as not coming from him just because it causes evil like mass murder. God has ordered numerous actions we would see as atrocities today in the Bible.
#124
Quote by Casketcreep
Is that not the bloke who invented the concept of original sin as well?

No, that was Irenaeus, the 2nd century Bishop of Lyons, but Augustine certainly supported it.
Quote by Tonganation

I wouldn't, nor should anyone. But I was making a Scriptural argument, and that's what the Bible says about the conquest of Canaan. In the Bible it is under command by Yahweh that Moses is to drive out the Canaanite peoples and slaughter them.
Deuteronomy 7:2
"and when the Lord your God delivers them over to you, you shall conquer them and utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them nor show mercy to them."

My point was that if you believe in the Judeo-Christian god you can't just discount a seemingly divine command as not coming from him just because it causes evil like mass murder. God has ordered numerous actions we would see as atrocities today in the Bible.

I most certainly agree, so it's a good job that I don't follow the Judeo-Christian god.

But that said, I still don't see why anyone has to accept that God actualy ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites via Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy. It could all be down to Moses himself.

Let's not forget that Deuteronomy consists of three speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, sometime after he has already recieved the 10 Commandments from God which includes a rule against killing others and several rules against coverting the property of others, yet Moses is ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites so that they can take their property. Essentially, what Moses says in Deuteronomy totaly contradicts the very rules that God is considered to have given him.

Remember also that God apparently said:
“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."

That basicaly suggests that only God alone can kill people and it certainly says that people cannot cannot kill others in his name. Which is exactly what Moses orders the Israelites to do.

We can even consider that Moses had a motive for going against God's wishes, because at pretty much the last minute he was told by God that he would not be permitted to enter the promised land (Canaan) but would instead die on its eastern shores (Num. 20:12). Moses' reaction to this is essentially to tell the Israelites to go against God's commandments, infact, he is telling them this as his parting address. He could well have felt cheated by God (after all, he's just led the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years on the promise that he will see the promised land) and is in return cheating God by ordering the Israelites to go against God's wishes.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 17, 2012,
#125
Quote by SlackerBabbath

I most certainly agree, so it's a good job that I don't follow the Judeo-Christian god.

But that said, I still don't see why anyone has to accept that God actualy ordered the Israelites to kill the Canaanites via Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy. It could all be down to Moses himself.

Let's not forget that Deuteronomy consists of three speeches delivered to the Israelites by Moses on the plains of Moab, sometime after he has already recieved the 10 Commandments from God which includes a rule against killing others and several rules against coverting the property of others, yet Moses is ordering the Israelites to kill the Canaanites so that they can take their property. Essentially, what Moses says in Deuteronomy totaly contradicts the very rules that God is considered to have given him.

Remember also that God apparently said:
“See now that I myself am he! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand."

That basicaly suggests that only God alone can kill people and it certainly says that people cannot cannot kill others in his name. Which is exactly what Moses orders the Israelites to do.

We can even consider that Moses had a motive for going against God's wishes, because at pretty much the last minute he was told by God that he would not be permitted to enter the promised land (Canaan) but would instead die on its eastern shores (Num. 20:12). Moses' reaction to this is essentially to tell the Israelites to go against God's commandments, infact, he is telling them this as his parting address. He could well have felt cheated by God (after all, he's just led the Israelites through the wilderness for 40 years on the promise that he will see the promised land) and is in return cheating God by ordering the Israelites to go against God's wishes.

That is a good point, Moses is the one speaking about killing the Canaanites rather than Yahweh. I did notice that when I was looking for that verse. I suppose I could have used a verse where Yahweh is actually speaking about a genocide, like the conquest of Amalek by Saul in 1 Samuel 15:5
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Granted it is a prophet speaking for Yahweh, but I'm attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends.

And that's an interesting theory about Moses' feelings toward Yahweh. I could imagine him feeling a little vindictive after that, though most people will view him as the ever-faithful prophet of God.
#127
Quote by Tonganation
That is a good point, Moses is the one speaking about killing the Canaanites rather than Yahweh. I did notice that when I was looking for that verse. I suppose I could have used a verse where Yahweh is actually speaking about a genocide, like the conquest of Amalek by Saul in 1 Samuel 15:5
"Now go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But kill both man and woman, infant and nursing child, ox and sheep, camel and donkey."

Granted it is a prophet speaking for Yahweh, but I'm attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends.

And that's an interesting theory about Moses' feelings toward Yahweh. I could imagine him feeling a little vindictive after that, though most people will view him as the ever-faithful prophet of God.

That's actualy 1 Samuel 15:3, not '5', but your point (which is also a good one in my opinion) still stands, it's a prophet speaking for Yahweh to the people instead of Yahweh addressing them himself, in exactly the same way that Moses speaks for Yahweh rather than Yahweh speaking for himself, as we can see when we include the verse leading up to your quote.

'Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the Lord sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the Lord. This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’” (1 Samuel 15:1-3)

Y'see the problem of 'attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends'? Pretty much all of what Yahweh apparently says to the people actualy comes out of the mouths of 'men who may be using belief in him to their own ends' rather than from Yahweh himself.

Remember, the definition of a 'prophet' is a person who claims to serve as an intermediary between people and God.
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 18, 2012,
#128
"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict."

-Mark Twain
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
Sadly this is Ultimate-guitar, not Simple-guitar. We can't help you.


#129
Quote by mystical_1
"I have no special regard for Satan; but I can at least claim that I have no prejudice against him. It may even be that I lean a little his way, on account of his not having a fair show. All religions issue bibles against him, and say the most injurious things about him, but we never hear his side. We have none but evidence for the prosecution and yet we have rendered the verdict."

-Mark Twain


That's actualy quite ironic because Satan's role before his apprent fall is pretty much 'God's prosecutor', the figure who accuses the unfaithful.
#130
I think when people read the Bible they tend to focus too much on little details and take it way too literally (or in the case of a lot of commenters on youtube, don't read it at all except for maybe a couple verses, and say they've read it extensively), so they may believe but refuse to accept any thoughts that may challenge their perspective, or on the other hand, they just dismiss it as a "fairy tale" without bothering to understand the bigger picture.

To me, Satan is not some fallen angel (or I should say some pale white guy that likes to wear angel wings and a black robe), or red horned devil that looks like a minotaur or a steroid-using Pan from Greek mythology for ****-if-I-know-why. Satan is just the personification of evil. What Satan "looks like" just depends on your imagination.

There's no "forgiving" Satan, or any need to sympathize for him, as he's just doing what his creator created him to do. Why was Satan created? Well, what is good without evil? Light without darkness? Where is the free will without at least two decisions to choose from? Satan is necessary.
Last edited by MrDo0m at Oct 18, 2012,
#131
Quote by SlackerBabbath
That's actualy 1 Samuel 15:3, not '5', but your point (which is also a good one in my opinion) still stands, it's a prophet speaking for Yahweh to the people instead of Yahweh addressing them himself, in exactly the same way that Moses speaks for Yahweh rather than Yahweh speaking for himself, as we can see when we include the verse leading up to your quote.


Y'see the problem of 'attempting to characterize the god rather than the men who may be using belief in him to their own ends'? Pretty much all of what Yahweh apparently says to the people actualy comes out of the mouths of 'men who may be using belief in him to their own ends' rather than from Yahweh himself.

Remember, the definition of a 'prophet' is a person who claims to serve as an intermediary between people and God.

Well, how else are you suppose to characterize a god like Yahweh, who only speaks through prophets, except by looking at what those prophets say about him? There's no other source of information on the ideals and desires of such a god, at least as far as I know. What the prophets say about Yahweh is all we have to go on if we're using the Bible as a source (as Christians do). For a counter example, how am I to characterize Zeus except by the stories that we know of from Greek mythology? I'm putting Yahweh on the same level. To say these are not an accurate source of information on what people thought (or still think, in the case of the Judeo-Christian god) of a god is to say that we can't know anything about a particular god, it seems.
#132
Quote by Tonganation
Well, how else are you suppose to characterize a god like Yahweh, who only speaks through prophets, except by looking at what those prophets say about him? There's no other source of information on the ideals and desires of such a god, at least as far as I know. What the prophets say about Yahweh is all we have to go on if we're using the Bible as a source (as Christians do). For a counter example, how am I to characterize Zeus except by the stories that we know of from Greek mythology? I'm putting Yahweh on the same level. To say these are not an accurate source of information on what people thought (or still think, in the case of the Judeo-Christian god) of a god is to say that we can't know anything about a particular god, it seems.


You just hit the nail squarely on the head. Y'see, several of the prophets contradict each other and, as we've seen, even themselves, (such as Moses telling the Israelites that God doesn't want them to kill, then ordering them to kill the Canaanites in God's name) so how can we possibly tell which prophet, if any, is accurately depicting God's wishes? By definition, the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescent Abrahamic God is supposedly so much more advanced than us or any other god that we have depicted that humans attempting to understand anything about him at all would be akin to the average bacterium attempting to understand ourselves.

In comparison, Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods, and other polytheistic pantheons too, are much easier for us to understand because they are basicaly depicted as human-like gods with human egos, desires, squabbles, ect. If they contradict themselves it's understandable because they have human-like flaws of character, but if the Abrahamic God appears to be contradicting himself, then we have to consider that the sources of information we have about him are themselves flawed, which then leads us to consider that it's possible that nothing that has been said about God by the prophets is actualy accurate.

Remember, in a court of law, when a witness contradicts themselves, or if their evidence is discovered to be flawed in any other way, they are often considered as an 'unreliable witness' and their testimony is often deemed as untrustable and inadmissible. Should we treat the prophets any differently?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 19, 2012,
#133
Quote by SlackerBabbath
You just hit the nail squarely on the head. Y'see, several of the prophets contradict each other and, as we've seen, even themselves, (such as Moses telling the Israelites that God doesn't want them to kill, then ordering them to kill the Canaanites in God's name) so how can we possibly tell which prophet, if any, is accurately depicting God's wishes? By definition, the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescent Abrahamic God is supposedly so much more advanced than us or any other god that we have depicted that humans attempting to understand anything about him at all would be akin to the average bacterium attempting to understand ourselves.

In comparison, Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods, and other polytheistic pantheons too, are much easier for us to understand because they are basicaly depicted as human-like gods with human egos, desires, squabbles, ect. If they contradict themselves it's understandable because they have human-like flaws of character, but if the Abrahamic God appears to be contradicting himself, then we have to consider that the sources of information we have about him are themselves flawed, which then leads us to consider that it's possible that nothing that has been said about God by the prophets is actualy accurate.

Remember, in a court of law, when a witness contradicts themselves, or if their evidence is discovered to be flawed in any other way, they are often considered as an 'unreliable witness' and their testimony is often deemed as untrustable and inadmissible. Should we treat the prophets any differently?

Ok, I'm willing to give you that we are agnostic about a particular god unless he truly speaks for himself. I should have taken the route of characterizing how people think or thought about said god rather than the actual god himself. This is how he's characterized in the literature that Jews and Christians believe, and these people put stock in the prophets. That seems to be the way to argue my original point with them, since to deny a part of the Bible is to put their faith on the line.

And I always thought Yahweh had his share of human flaws, like jealousy, at least when he was still part of a polytheistic "pantheon" of gods around 1000 or so BCE. Was he considered to be so great and incomprehensible to humans then, or was that a development that happened when true monotheistic Judaism began around 600 BCE?
#135
Hail Santa
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 46-49
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 0-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 0-0
#136
Quote by Tonganation
Ok, I'm willing to give you that we are agnostic about a particular god unless he truly speaks for himself. I should have taken the route of characterizing how people think or thought about said god rather than the actual god himself. This is how he's characterized in the literature that Jews and Christians believe, and these people put stock in the prophets. That seems to be the way to argue my original point with them, since to deny a part of the Bible is to put their faith on the line.

And I always thought Yahweh had his share of human flaws, like jealousy, at least when he was still part of a polytheistic "pantheon" of gods around 1000 or so BCE. Was he considered to be so great and incomprehensible to humans then, or was that a development that happened when true monotheistic Judaism began around 600 BCE?

Yeah, I'm willing to agree with that.
#137
Quote by Tonganation
So God would never order an act of mass murder? The fact that God orders Moses to slaughter the Canaanites in the books of Exodus and Numbers, plus his command of Joshua to slaughter those in the city of Jericho seems to contradict that.


You are referring to the Yaweh, the God who is mentioned in the Old Testament. Back then there was a lot of murder and mayhem, but once the New Testament came out, then God was supposed to become "a loving God."

It is the God of the New Testament that I am referring to, not the Old Testament God.

ron666
#138
Quote by ron666
You are referring to the Yaweh, the God who is mentioned in the Old Testament. Back then there was a lot of murder and mayhem, but once the New Testament came out, then God was supposed to become "a loving God."

It is the God of the New Testament that I am referring to, not the Old Testament God.

ron666


Considering that the New Testament relies upon the Old Testament to be true, then surely it's the same 'God'?
Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 22, 2012,
#139
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Considering that the New Testament relies upon the Old Testament to be true, then surely it's the same 'God'?


Hmmm, that's a good point. But have you ever read the Old Testament? God seems like an angry vengeful type of god, but in the New Testament, he suddenly becomes a loving God. It is probably the same God, but our interpretation of His intentions has probably changed from one to the other.

That is probably one possibility, but there might be others.

ron666
#140
Umm. I'm Jesus, and like, my Dad works in like super wack ways bro, so it's like, total bullshit, but ya know, with enough faith it makes sense. Drugs don't hurt much either though.
WARNING:
The above is most likely sarcasm, so fuck yourself if you're offended.
Quote by shavorules42
Hey look! An intelligent post!
Quote by WCPhils
One time I saw a religious person eating so I don't do that anymore.
Quote by Joshua Garcia
Save water. Drink alcohol.
#142
Quote by ron666
Hmmm, that's a good point. But have you ever read the Old Testament?

Read it? I've studied it and scrutinised it to an extreme degree.
Quote by ron666

God seems like an angry vengeful type of god, but in the New Testament, he suddenly becomes a loving God. It is probably the same God, but our interpretation of His intentions has probably changed from one to the other.

That is probably one possibility, but there might be others.

ron666

According to Christian doctrine, it is the same God, only the events in New Testament brought about a New Covenant in which God basicaly promises not to be an angry vengeful type of god who is always smiting sinners anymore but instead promises to be a forgiving God.

The Old Testament actualy prophecises a New Covenant.

"Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more." (Jeremiah 31:31–34)

Quote by jetfuel495
He may as well have wrote it.

Last edited by SlackerBabbath at Oct 29, 2012,
#144
idk about you but i think that the "forbidden fruit' was just eves vagina and the "serpent" was just adams dick. i dont think its any more complicated than that.
#145
Quote by ron666
Hmmm, that's a good point. But have you ever read the Old Testament? God seems like an angry vengeful type of god, but in the New Testament, he suddenly becomes a loving God. It is probably the same God, but our interpretation of His intentions has probably changed from one to the other.

That is probably one possibility, but there might be others.

ron666

The only way that would make sense is if you reinterpret the actions of Yahweh in the Old Testament in a loving light, since Yahweh himself says he is unchanging. And I don't see how you could interpret ordering the wholesale slaughter of entire cities to be loving in any regard.

This does remind me of an interesting early Christian thinker named Marcion who developed a different Christian theology in the 2nd Century from the orthodoxy that is professed today. The modern conception of Jesus and Christianity hasn't always been the only view, there have been several interpretations of what "true" Christian beliefs were in its early history. Marcionite Christianity was just one of a few.
Marcion believed that the god of the Old Testament, the original Creator of the world, was an evil god who was in opposition to the god of Jesus. Marcion preached a theology that included two gods: the tribal God of the Jews and the God of Jesus. This, for him, explained the contrast and contradictions between the vengeful, punishing god of Moses and the merciful, loving god of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was actually meant to be the world's savior from this god.

Of course Marcion also didn't believe Jesus to be at all human, but that he was fully divine and only appeared to have human qualities. That makes his theology very incompatible with modern Christian teaching. I thought you might find some interest in Marcion since you do clearly realize some of the contention between the Old and New Testaments.
#146
Quote by embi
I liked Anne Rices story of the devil that once was an angel who critizised gods plan of evolution and got banned to earth/hell. God gave him the task to help the lost and confused souls of the dead to accept what happened and get into heaven.

So god and satan is just the same breed :p


I'm against religions but some stories about all that crap are pretty cool


But that's not Anne Rice, that's Paradise Lost.
Due what you want as long as you vote Due!
#148
I'm not the hardcore Christian I used to be, but the Christian answer to TS' question is that God is selflessness and love and Satan is selfishness, and therefore the difference between a divine miracle and a demonic one is that a divine miracle will serve a loving, selfless purpose.
Death to Ovation haters!
#150
Quote by Tonganation
The only way that would make sense is if you reinterpret the actions of Yahweh in the Old Testament in a loving light, since Yahweh himself says he is unchanging. And I don't see how you could interpret ordering the wholesale slaughter of entire cities to be loving in any regard.

This does remind me of an interesting early Christian thinker named Marcion who developed a different Christian theology in the 2nd Century from the orthodoxy that is professed today. The modern conception of Jesus and Christianity hasn't always been the only view, there have been several interpretations of what "true" Christian beliefs were in its early history. Marcionite Christianity was just one of a few.
Marcion believed that the god of the Old Testament, the original Creator of the world, was an evil god who was in opposition to the god of Jesus. Marcion preached a theology that included two gods: the tribal God of the Jews and the God of Jesus. This, for him, explained the contrast and contradictions between the vengeful, punishing god of Moses and the merciful, loving god of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus was actually meant to be the world's savior from this god.

Of course Marcion also didn't believe Jesus to be at all human, but that he was fully divine and only appeared to have human qualities. That makes his theology very incompatible with modern Christian teaching. I thought you might find some interest in Marcion since you do clearly realize some of the contention between the Old and New Testaments.


Marcion's thoughts were probably related to Zurvanism, which was a (now extinct) dualistic branch of the ancient Persian religion 'Zoroastrianism'. Most scholars believe Zoroastrianism strongly influenced Judaism, which, as we know, Christianity developed from.
#151
Quote by triglide5
No such thing as miracles.


Ahhh but why not label epic things that happen as miracles?

Wait, then wouldn't that be a miracle?
##I Am Making A S**tload Of Money Online!## - Click that link and I will show you how I quit my job and can now play Guitar all day! (and I can help you do it too)

I also spend far too much time shopping for new gear online haha
#152
Quote by silverguitar
Ahhh but why not label epic things that happen as miracles?

We often do.
Although the general definition of a miracle is an event attributed to divine intervention, in casual usage a miracle is often defined as any event that is statistically unlikely but beneficial.
#153
Quote by SlackerBabbath
Marcion's thoughts were probably related to Zurvanism, which was a (now extinct) dualistic branch of the ancient Persian religion 'Zoroastrianism'. Most scholars believe Zoroastrianism strongly influenced Judaism, which, as we know, Christianity developed from.

Huh, I've never heard that before, but the connection makes sense. Didn't Zoroastrianism inolve something like a conflict between light and darkness similar to the Manichaean beliefs? I'm probably wrong, I don't know much about Zoroastrianism.
I've been reading Bart Ehrman's textbook on the New Testament and it didn't say anything about Zoroatrianism in relation to Marcion. It did say Marcion wrote his own gospel based off of the Gospel of Luke and that he believed Paul was the true interpretor of Jesus.
#154
I love reading the arguments in here. All of it is pointless (due to being based in bullshit religious garbage) but still good information and good to see people still wage wars with words and not just steel.
Knowledge is power
#155
Quote by SlackerBabbath
You just hit the nail squarely on the head. Y'see, several of the prophets contradict each other and, as we've seen, even themselves, (such as Moses telling the Israelites that God doesn't want them to kill, then ordering them to kill the Canaanites in God's name) so how can we possibly tell which prophet, if any, is accurately depicting God's wishes? By definition, the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniescent Abrahamic God is supposedly so much more advanced than us or any other god that we have depicted that humans attempting to understand anything about him at all would be akin to the average bacterium attempting to understand ourselves.

In comparison, Zeus and the rest of the Greek gods, and other polytheistic pantheons too, are much easier for us to understand because they are basicaly depicted as human-like gods with human egos, desires, squabbles, ect. If they contradict themselves it's understandable because they have human-like flaws of character, but if the Abrahamic God appears to be contradicting himself, then we have to consider that the sources of information we have about him are themselves flawed, which then leads us to consider that it's possible that nothing that has been said about God by the prophets is actualy accurate.

Remember, in a court of law, when a witness contradicts themselves, or if their evidence is discovered to be flawed in any other way, they are often considered as an 'unreliable witness' and their testimony is often deemed as untrustable and inadmissible. Should we treat the prophets any differently?


Sometimes i finish reading these posts and find myself staring into the distance without noticing.
Knowledge is power
#156
Quote by Ninja#117
I love reading the arguments in here. All of it is pointless (due to being based in bullshit religious garbage) but still good information and good to see people still wage wars with words and not just steel.


It's all very fascinating though, even if it isn't true. Many people are enamored by stories from Greek mythology and other mythological stories even though a vast majority of people don't believe them as truth any longer. I wouldn't say discussing such stories is pointless. I like to try to understand what the beliefs of ancient peoples were because it informs our understanding of history and how they have affected the religious ideals of today. And because there are many perspectives on what these beliefs were and what influence it had in history you often need to argue.

Plus, since the majority of people are still religious, arguing about theology or whatever can be important if you actually do manage to change someone's mind.
#157
My basic gripe with most arguments from religions are they (1) have to make assumptions (2) to make arguments (3) against their assumptions (4) and counter arguments (5) forming conclusions (6) which they find self evident (7) if you followed their assumptions (8) which had no initial validity (9) and which at the outset were preposterous (10) if not outright moral fables for children.
#158
Quote by rockingamer2
God does it: miracle

Anyone else: Witchcraft/devil work

Yeah. Healing through the divine power of God: Miracle
Reiki: OMFG NO PAGAN WITCHCRAFT HINDI SHIT! BAD!

End of the day? Same result.
#159
If God is omniscient, then we have no free will. If we have no free will, we are not responsible for our actions. If God puts us in hell for our actions, he has put us in hell even though we don't deserve it. Therefore, if God is omniscient and the mainstream Christian theology is correct, he is evil.