Are you saying that would be to difficult for a god that is all powerful?Originally Posted by MalfunctioningHuman
Are you saying that would be to difficult for a god that is all powerful?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Book of Revelation
The Book of Revelation is the final book of the New Testament. The title came into usage from the first word of the book in Koine Greek: apokalypsis, meaning "unveiling" or "revelation" (the author himself not having provided a title). It is also known as the Book of the Revelation of Saint John the Divine or the Apocalypse of John, (both in reference to its author) or the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ (in reference to its opening line) or simply Revelation, (often dubbed "Revelations" in contrast to the singular in the original Koine) or the Apocalypse. The word "apocalypse" is also used for other works of a similar nature in the literary genre of apocalyptic literature. Such literature is "marked by distinctive literary features, particularly prediction of future events and accounts of visionary experiences or journeys to heaven, often involving vivid symbolism."[1] The Book of Revelation is the only apocalyptic document in the New Testament canon, though there are short apocalyptic passages in various places in the Gospels and the Epistles.[2]
The author of Revelation identifies himself several times as "John."[3] The author also states that he was on Patmos when he received his first vision.[4] As a result, the author of Revelation is sometimes referred to as John of Patmos.
You see Gillvane John was exiled to the Island of Patmos and it was there where he authored the book of Revelations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein
Ok, so you're convinced that Shakespeare didn't writhe Hamlet.
Let's say I agree with you.
How does that help prove the Bible is credible?
The Bible can't be verified by ANY standards.
The author is anonymous, so we can't say if the author is credible, not credible, if the author heard the story from someone, was actually there, read the story somewhere, or just made it up. The Bible is silent on this issue.
There are no first hand accounts that corroborate the events in the Bible.
I'm not saying the Bible doesn't hold up to my strict standards of credibility.
I'm saying there is NOTHING at all credible about the Bibles account of history.
You can argue about Plato, Shakespeare, etc, and whether they wrote this or that.
There's nothing to even argue about with the Bible.
The author is anonymous, and there are no credible first hand accounts that corroborate the story in the Bible.
What's there to even argue about?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Ok, prove it's not a crappy plan.
Do you want to drink a glass of water that's only 1% urine? We're discussing the 1% of disasters that ARE natural, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Earthquakes, etc.
How does a war created by Man negate that? It doesn't. "Oh look, that's bad too!" that doesn't make something else ok does it?
You think the only way to make people learn is to make them suffer?
Maybe in school would should torture children so they learn something?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Yea, no.
I'm not a cat and neither are you.
Furthermore, God is all powerful.
I can't communicate with a cat. But I"m not God, am I?
Presumably if I were all powerful, I COULD communicate with a cat if I wanted to.
God can either communicate with me, OR he's not all powerful.
you're telling me God created me so stupid that He can't communicate with me?
Yea, that's a great plan.
OR, he doesn't want to, which means he's a dick.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
There is no such thing as an "illogical" definition.
Your second example need only be descriptive, not logical. It must be intelligible, not "logical". You must follow the rules of grammar and be coherent. Coherent is not the same as "logical". You made an incoherent statement, so of course it's not a definition since it communicates nothing. You cannot describe anything if you are incoherent. For example, a fastest as the subject of the sentence is incoherent. You are using an adjective as a noun, which is incoherent in the English language.
It's not descriptive, nor coherent, which is why it's not a definition.
Logic is not a prerequisite of a definition.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Showing people will do unreasonable things doesn't really help your case.
People had nothing to gain, and everything to lose by following Jim Jones into the jungle and committing mass suicide, yet they did it.
"Deaths in Jonestown
Later that same day, 909 inhabitants of Jonestown,[88] 303 of them children, died of apparent cyanide poisoning, mostly in and around a pavilion.[89] This resulted in the greatest single loss of American civilian life in a non-natural disaster until the September 11, 2001 attacks.[90] No video was taken during the mass suicide, though the FBI did recover a 45 minute audio recording of the suicide in progress.[91]"
So because these people did something that caused them great harm, I guess according to your logic this proves Jim Jones was correct?
Or I guess strapping a bomb on and blowing yourself up proves that Allah is the only God?
After all, they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, right?
And that's your evidence for proof, right?
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
The Bible is no more "data" that The Lord of the Rings is data.
It's a story that is written by an anonymous author. Stop calling it "data".
Definition of DATA
1
: factual information (as measurements or statistics) used as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or calculation <the data is plentiful and easily available — H. A. Gleason, Jr.> <comprehensive data on economic growth have been published — N. H. Jacoby>
2
: information output by a sensing device or organ that includes both useful and irrelevant or redundant information and must be processed to be meaningful
3
: information in numerical form that can be digitally transmitted or processed
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
I believe this is the pot calling the kettle black.
You state I'm "filling in teh gaps" and then you do the very thing you accuse me of.
Did I state anywhere that I'm angry? If not, why do you assume that I am?
I will tell you bluntly I'm not angry. Of course you can choose to believe I'm lying to you if you wish.
Why do I discuss the issue?
I enjoy logical discussions. I like to learn about and point out fallacies such as circular logic, appeals to authority, ad hominems, and other logical fallacies.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
I enjoy when people point out my logical fallacies as well.
I enjoy the discussion just like someone might enjoy playing with a rubics cube. Is there any point to solving it? Not really.
I get no more angry about the discussion of the existence of God than you might get angry solving a rubics cube. Oh sure, I might get frustrated now and then, but it's certainly not anger.
The only time I'm angry at Christians is when they try to legislate their belief to control or discriminate against others. Those are more political issues than religious.
For example, I will get angry at Christians if they want to create laws to deny gays the right to marriage, even though I'm not gay, or if they want to deny a woman a right to choose, even though I'm not a woman.
I abhor discrimination and intolerance, so those sorts of things do tend to make me mad.
If you dont' like gay marriage, don't marry someone gay. If you don't like abortions, don't get one.
If you want to go to Church and pray all day to Jesus, that's quite alright by me. It doesn't' harm anyone.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Maybe. Maybe not.
"My name is John Carter. I'm writing this now, as I sit on Mars, the Red Planet...."
That's paraphrased from "A Princess of Mars", written by Edgar Rice Burroughs.
That doesn't mean John Carter is the author of A Princess of Mars. Edgar Rice Burroughs used the Character, John Carter, stating he was the author of the book you're reading. But actually, Edgar Rice Burroughs is the author, with his name on the cover.
Sherlock Holmes is written from teh perspective of Watson. But Watson isn't the author of the book, that's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
The book says "My name is Dr. Watson. I first met Holmes in London..."
Do we then conclude that Watson is the author of the book? No, because it doesn't say written by Dr. Watson.
Writing something in the first person perspective of a character is not the same thing as authorship.
It would be "My name is John Carter. I'm writing this as I sit on Mars" signed, or written by, John Carter.
That's taking claim of authorship, not just an author using a character in the writing stating they are the author.
So in the case of the Bible, it would be, The Book of Revelations written by John of Patmos.
But it isn't. You're just referring to passages in Revelations written in the first person.
That's no different than me writing "I, Ian-T, believe in God the Father and the Holy Ghost."
It's written in first person, but YOU didn't write that. YOU arent' the author. I am.
that's why "SOMETIMES" the author of Revelations is referred to as John of Patmos.
Last edited by Gillvane; 2012 April 18th at 14:11.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
....wow....
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein
Gillvane....I am not talking about fictional characters in a book (like your examples). I am talking about a historical figure. Someone that actually existed.
No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life...Albert Einstein
The guys who wrote the Principia Discordia at least confessed they were on a trip. To me the book of revelation wasn't written by John, but rather by some very magical mushrooms (well, not literally I mean).
"It is dark the other side. Very dark!" - "Oh, shut up and eat your toast!"
Well, I wouldn't say the discussion is absolutely pointless. I think the opinion of some people involved in it is pretty much made up, and we are trying to defend our point of view. Hopefully somebody finds the discussion useful.
That being said, the discussion is too time consuming for me personally, so I am going to try to step back a little from it. I had a week off from work, but I cannot continue discussing at this pace (and even if I could, I wouldn't want to.)
Regarding the "Miracle of God" thing, I can see how it is offputting to some people. I believe in God, and I strangely find it offputting myself some times.
I part from the premise that the Universe (and we) are created by God (a miracle of God if you will), so to state that that armless organist is a miracle of God is somewhat redundant.
Last edited by MalfunctioningHuman; 2012 April 18th at 19:36.
A little explanation: I am going to try to gather my responses to each person in single posts (instead of replying to every single post.) I hope to address most of the main points which have been raised. I apologize if it seems as if I am cutting corners and not putting as much time into it as every post deserves. Hopefully this will be much more efficient and appropriate enough. If you feel I'm not addressing something specifically let me know.
Second, I've been giving some thought about some of my early posts in this thread. Especially regarding the issue of abortion. I understand that for many outside observers some of my posts might have been a little extreme. I haven't changed my position regarding abortion in the least, but at the same time I think that tact and care is very important when discussing this matter. I apologize if anybody was offended. I hate abortion, and I'm sincerely convinced that women (along with their children) are the main victims. Although I am sure there are plenty of irresponsible (and perhaps even malicious) women, I think in general ignorance or fear is to blame in the decission to abort a child. Everybody (including women who abort) deserves compassion and love. However, I still hate the act itself, and I think it is evil.
With this being said, let me see if I can get started with the discussion again.
OK, this one I have to respond to directly.
The Nazis were not Christians. They claimed to be Christian. They appropriated Christianity as a symbol, with the purpose of benefitting. That the German people didn't see through this is appalling, but the fact is Hitler and the Nazis were consumate liars.
In order to be a Christian you must (or at least must try to) behave in accordance with the teachings of Jesus Christ. All of us are imperfect people. Some of us very flawed, even. But a true Christian will never lie and appropriate Christ's words while at the same time engaging in acts of unspeakable cruelty that are basically radically opposed to what Christ taught us through His love and sacrifice.
I will not stand for this lie that Hitler and the Nazis were Christian. I know that many (most of them) were raised in Christian families. That is irrelevant, because ultimately they clearly betrayed their faith.
You can't claim somebody is a Christian when their core beliefs support hatred and murder on an industrial scale. Claiming to be a Christian is not being a Christian. Plain and simple.
Tell me what part of Hitler's philosophy, politics, and actions, would Christ approve of.
I am not a historian, but if what you say of the Vatican and Pius XII is true, then he wasn't a Christian either.
All of the above clearly explains why Jesus made it a crucial point of his teachings that his kingdom wasn't of this Earth. Power in earth will corrupt anybody, and any human institution is suspect. Beware of human institutions, always (including the Vatican.)
Last edited by MalfunctioningHuman; 2012 April 18th at 19:58.
I take it you're a male. I often wonder what right a male has even THINKING about the rights and wrongs of all this. It's quite easy for males to stand in judgment and shoot the mouth off.... because we can walk away when we do. Heck.... it's not my belly which gets fat.... it's not my life which will be turned upside down.
You're trying to skirt around the truth again.
Here's a grammatically cohesive but illogical definition.
Squarclagro- An angry square circle.
It is, if the definition is claimed to be not illogical
Last edited by HueyNRolf; 2012 April 18th at 21:24.
The Korova milkbar sold milk-plus, milk plus vellocet or synthemesc or drencrom, which is what we were drinking. This would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultra-violence.
Halsu:
- Regarding the theory that the Romans actually didn't execute Jesus:
First, to point out that there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest this. Not only there is no evidence, but the idea hat Jesus would survive, then remain underground and let so many of his followers be executed for a lie is so unbelievable to me I'm not even going to address it. It surprises me that you would even suggest this. The only explanation I can think of is your absolute lack of knowledge about the New Testament, and of Jesus Christ himself. Remember also that Jesus could have very easily avoided crucifixion at multiple times, but he refused to.
Also, remember that crucifixions were performed in public (hence, in front of potentially hundreds or thousands of witnesses.)
- As for your fascination as to why people like Ian and I have faith and believe in these "wild claims", I must confess I am just as fascinated by your inability to impartially observe the evidence and at least understand how it would be reasonable to believe. The difference between you and I is that you dismiss the New Testament as a lie, a hoax, or a fairy tale. I take it as an account of real facts involving real people, told from the perspectives of multiple witnesses, and passed down to us through multiple written transcriptions. The historicity of Jesus and his death in the cross is not debatable (at least, no more than Shakespeare authorship of Hamlet.) Accounts outside the Bible by Roman historians refer to this fact. On top of it, there is all that we know of early Christianity. Historically, an explanation of Christianity is unsustainable if you don't accept Jesus' life, death, and resurrection. It simply doesn't make sense. You can't explain early Christianity (before the hand of man corrupted the institution known as the Church) without accepting Christ as a historical fact.
- Science cannot explain the Universe fully, but what we know doesn't contradict a theory of creation. I already addressed why it's impossible for the Universe to have always existed. The Universe as we know it is in a path of irreversible expansion (that's what scientists' best guesses tell us at the moment.) This being said, to me it's completely irrelevant, because we simply cannot trust science's observations to always be accurate. That's why the model of the Universe is a continuous evolving model, and why extracting abstract conclusions is not possible. Given the fact that science cannot even explain the Universe (creation), to expect for us to even begin to understand the Creator is rather unreasonable.
- Regarding Dawkins: Perhaps he has done his best to familiarize himself with religious texts. Obviously, he doesn't look at the Bible and Jesus with the same perspective as I or any other person of faith does. He believes God to be a delusion. By extension, he implies that either Jesus is a delusion himself, that His words (as recorded in the Bible) have been grossly distorted, or that He was a liar. He is extracting a conclusion based on a poisoned perspective. Perhaps he can be admired as a scientist, but as a theologian the guy is a moron.
- We need to end with that "Hitler was a Christian" discourse because it is stupid. Hitler (or any proud Nazi) couldn't be farther from being a Christian, and anybody that doesn't see that has a serious problem. A Christian is not somebody that has toured the Vatican, or that has a cross hanging from his neck. A Christian is somebody with actual, honest faith in Jesus Christ. Hitler obviously wasn't that.
- Your theory that the most advanced societies are just secular is a bunch of crap. Secularism is the current step in the evolution of most technologically advanced societies. The reason why that's the case is very complex, but has nothing to do with intelligence. In the surface, it would seem that most people (even if in a vague or even quasi-unconscious way,) think that the belief in God has been rendered as an archaic remnant of past times by modern scientific advances. Many people, in awe of scientific advances, have tended to substitute Science for God. Technology has become for many modern day's religion. I am saddenned by all this and I don't claim to understand the ultimate reason, but I do believe there is a reason for all of this.
- Jesus didn't advocate for injustice or defend unfair social practices. You completely misunderstand the meaning of Jesus' words if you think he did. We can discuss this in more detail if necessary, even though I have already set the basis for explaining what you perceive as this "social callousness" of Christ.
- As for Mother Teresa being amongst the most evil people in recent history, I would appreciate it if you could try to make your case a little more explicitly. I know a couple of very well known atheists that even made it a point to go to the Vatican when the beatification was being discussed in order to vote against it (why would a couple of atheists care about somebody's beatification is beyond me, by the way.) My thoughts about it? Mother Teresa tried to do good the best way she knew how to. And she did a lot of good to a lot of people. Was she perfect? Of course not, no person is perfect (only one person ever born was perfect, and that is Jesus.) This is part of a common pattern: People without faith (like atheists) criticizing the flaws of faithful and good people, and blowing them out of proportion, in order to bring doubt not just to the person, but to all that they represent by extension.
Incidentally, Mother Teresa was tormented with doubts about her faith for most of her life. Doubts in one's faith are the norm amongst believers. The essence of faith is not certainty. Faith is the will to believe in the absence of proof. Contending with doubts along the way is normal.
- Evidence to believe in Jesus Christ and His divinity is abundant. Of course, if you completely disregard the Bible, that evidence is greatly diminished. And if you disregard the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, the credibility of U.S. Democracy as a historical fact would be greatly diminished too.
Males are actually the prime beneficiaries of abortions, in case you didn't know that. Plenty of women have been coerced into performing this abominable act by their husbands, boyfriends, or lovers. Abortion is not only disgusting from the point of view of the unborn child, but it is also incredibly traumatic to the mother (both physically and psychologically.) What trauma is there to the biological father of the unborn child in those cases? None. Not only that, but you don't have to pay child support to a dead fetus.
So, it seems to me that some people should think about that perspective before running their mouth off too.
The difference between you and I is that you don't trust the Bible to be true in essence, and I do.Yes... but to go out on a limb and suggest that some ultimate superior power swooped down from the heavens above and took time out to write the bible through humans while never dropping ONE SINGLE SHRED OF PROOF of existence in thousands of years..... well....
Hey... I've got a really great bridge to sell you!
Something I have no reason to doubt???? Are you kidding me??? Do you have any idea how far stretched my above sentence sounds??? The only conclusion I can come to when I hear some one believing in something so outrageous... is that HERE is a jaded and distrustful person who has completely lost faith in society and their fellow man and therefore relies on fairy tales to get them through the day.
And this BTW is where the trouble starts... take these delusional fairy tales to another level (which is entirely possible if you're so far out on that limb) and you have the makings of a suicide bomber (or similar).
As for becoming a suicide bomber, I'm pretty sure it's far easier to exterminate people when you don't believe in God and just think of other human beings as animals without souls. If, on the other hand, you are thinking of religious radicals, you must be thinking of that other religion.
Please provide proof of that.
What you completely missed in your speech was the trauma and upheaval an unwanted pregnancy has on the woman. Of course you being a male you wouldn't think of such things..... which was my entire point above.... and you just proved it.
No, you are the one who missed my point: The problem of abortion is a very complex one. Making it sound like a right that liberates women from male oppression is an oversimplification if I have seen one. It works the other way around too.
Children are already born. You can't abort them.
"beautiful girls are the cheapest special effect"
- Roger Corman
Gillvane, I promise I will reply to all of your posts tomorrow.
I will reply to this one now though.
This is just semantics. Of course the degree of development of a human being is gradual (from the time of insemination to the time of birth, and further outside the womb through infancy, childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.)
But, intrinsecally, a human being is a human being. A child 5 minutes before being born is a fetus, and 5 minutes later is a child? I don't think so. That's why I think "unborn child" is an accurate term. But you are free to disagree based on the fact that this is a semantics issue, and not a philosophical issue (whether a human being is a human being or not.)
Posting Permissions
