MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 22, 2009 13:57:38 GMT
Well it made me smile. So I liked it
|
|
|
Post by Evil Inclination on Jul 22, 2009 13:59:42 GMT
Well it made me smile. So I liked it This. These posts are certainly long. I think we need more people debating on Skipper's side, it's not even exactly.
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 22, 2009 14:02:16 GMT
Lol, that's true although I think Skipper is probably the best at arguing his (I keep thinking she 0.o) beliefs than say somebody who doesn't support them. I can pretty much debate anything with enough time to research but it so isn't as much fun xD.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 22, 2009 16:12:37 GMT
This I must quote, but were you to not be in danger, then I suppose I'm just mistaken that there's a truck headed your way. Regardless, I believe the danger to be real, and therefore I will keep trying to show it to you. 1. Fair enough. 2. I don't base my beliefs on persecution, though it does quite prove that the disciples did, in fact, witness Jesus' ascension. That was my point initially, but then it turned into "Christians have it easy," and "No they don't!" 3. PRO 4:7 Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. ECC 1:18 For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow. These are not contradictions. To have wisdom is to have suffered, but that most certainly does not mean that it should not be had. Wisdom is a very good thing, but obtaining it requires work. Those whose long lives are filled with sorrow are likely more wise than those who've had easy lives. It's somewhat surprising that you didn't understand this much when you read that second verse -- wisdom is a big theme in the OT. And you say that parts were changed by Henry. Well, if it is so unreliable because of this, why is it that you know about it? If you know that it was changed, then so do the Christians, and that this was learned shows that those who study its origin really do study it. It's as reliable as any ancient history text book found in one's local school. That said, I really do recommend you visit that link, because it explains things better than I. That you don't visit it tells me that you don't want to open your mind (either that, or you truly think that you know everything, which makes you conceited). "I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy." (JER 13:14) "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling." As a matter of fact, you did take that out of context, and again, I do advise you read those articles I linked. If I remember correctly (and this is without looking it up, so I may be wrong), Amalek was a very sinful place, and destroying it was a just punishment -- as sin requires worse punishment than this, which is one way God was setting the scene for Jesus' atonement (a word I don't like to use, because it sounds too churchy). - Though you are not an atheist, I still see you as in danger. It's not so much a pity thing as a rescue attempt. Not necessarily. I meet lots of atheists (or non-believers) who like to slam Christianity without knowing much about it. I based that comment out of experience, thinking you to be just another "CHRISTIANS MUST DIE" kind of person. How could I know that you're dyslexic? Do not count me wrong for this. After all, if you can judge me for someone else's lie (the Church killing people), then how can you condemn me for the same? Though I do apologize. Christianity does not have laws that apply. It is not a religion. Religions have rules and laws. Even Buddhism has laws for achieving enlightenment. If, in fact, the danger is real, you must first believe that the danger exists before you can save yourself from it. If you don't want to believe, then you cannot possibly avoid the danger. How is this a law? Let's compare it to Islam. There's danger. How does visiting Mecca and bowing in a Mecca-wardly direction every five minutes help one avoid it? It doesn't, therefore Islamic rules are redundant and pointless and demanding, making it a religion. If Christianity is like this, then show me how. But don't use the Law of Moses as an example, because I've all ready explained that bit twice. This is one of the few times I would appreciate a dissect-a-post reply. Where exactly did I state opinions as facts without first supporting said opinions (which, really, makes them facts rather than opinions)? Great, turn an analogy back on itself because I didn't over-complicated it. You still haven't proven your point.
Here is a collection of my points so far. (Just to make sure no one misses anything.) Why I exist + Creator is Timeless + Time is finite + Creator is Limitless Omniscience: There Can Be Only One: Eternal God - Explanation #2: The meaning of life: Evolution Made Easy: Christians Made Uneasy: Heaven and Hell + Christianity is Not a Religion: Anything to Do with "The Church" . . . Or Catholics: The Purpose of the Law of Moses: The Meaning of Life #2: Christians Made Uneasy #2: Why I Bother: Christianity is Not a Religion #2 + Why I Bother #2 + The Purpose of the OT #2: There, now you can just refer to each one individually, and tell me why I'm wrong. Seriously, if I am wrong, then I would really like to know why.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 22, 2009 16:34:34 GMT
Ok, Nightsy's turn.
Cosmological argument or whatever. I am asserting that something without cause must have caused what currently exists, because what currently exists (except for the causeless one) is finite because it all exists within time. See, I don't exactly follow another's argument well.
2. Ignoring #1, what if the God was the energy?
3. How do we know that they have no cause? Perhaps we just haven't figured out what this cause is. It could be God. It could be something related to time and space, two things we don't fully understand.
4. God is light. I believe it's Revelation 21, probably around the beginning. If it's in that chapter, you'll see it. Also, God said "Let there be light." Yet the sun wasn't there until day 4. How? He was the light.
5. I'm not saying I don't like infinity. I'm saying time can't be infinite, because it doesn't make logical sense.
That's all I've time for, so I'll pick it back up later.
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 22, 2009 18:11:45 GMT
@it proves witness to asention: How? All it proves is what I've been saying over and over again - persecution is not limited to Christians and one could equally argue that because of a followers believe through their persecution that it proves they witnessed/know that their God is real. But since this can be applied to any religion or cause it doesn't prove a thing. But I think we can safely leave this behind since I can accept that it proves belief.
@not a contraditiction: Perhaps that was a bad example, my point is that there are contradictions and no matter how much you argue that the Bible is a truthful source that point isn't going to disappear. And that there are contradictions are fact. Not opinion.
@at changes being known about: What I was doing was pointing out there changes had been made, some more obvious and known about than others. If Henry can change the bible so can other people, and if one human can interect their voice and opinion so can others - even those who wrote it. You must be aware that translations have altered it too.
@not visiting the link: Here you presume. I don't visit the link because I am confident in my knowledge this time around. If I possibly thought I could glean anything from it that I haven't already taken from numerous other debates and articles than I'd have a look. Fortunately I don't think I know everything otherwise I'd have some serious issues.
@the destruction: Well it still proves my point - God changes from all merciful and forgiving to this demand from the slaughter of "infants and sucklings." Now I know you say this was "just punishment" but then we can safely say that God and his teachers are not "all forgiving." So now we have a situation where this is hinted at many times throughout the bible but must obviously be false.
@rescue attempt: Then I must ask you don't attempt to rescue me, I do not desire it. I'm sure you can understand that.
@how could you know: You couldn't. You only presumed. And presuming is dangerous as I'm sure you know. The comment was certainly petty no matter what you thought, pouncing on a mistake of spelling to illustrate a point only you could see? And I certainly don't judge you from anything except what I see from you.
@opinions as facts: You seem to be missing my point about opinions being based on fact not being fact. Obviously you believe it as fact.
@christianity religion: I really made it clear before that Christianity is a religion. To you it is reality but it has always been reguarded and always will be reguarded as religion. There is no denying this - to classify a religion as something which "has laws and rules which are redundent and pointless" you must first classify why it is redundent. Now you say it doesn't help avoid danger. Okay, what part of being a Christian and following it does?
Religion: 4)islam, christianity, wicca, satanism, jewdism
Now you are Christian, which side of Christianity?I know very little about you or your type of Christian, but I do know that you "must follow the word of God and believe etc" which is the very basis of religion. It is a believe system - you can chose to believe it is real or chose to believe it is not, just as any other religion is a belief system and not based on anything observable. You can not touch it. You rely on faith.
"A strong belief and following in a higher/supreme being. Many follow a strict code of moral conduct which can vary from religion to religion."
"the belief, usually by a large group, which usually explains the creation of life, morals, and reason for life. often with an after-life or reincarnation which can either be bad (hell) or good (heaven). "
"I have been a practicing Christian all my life and a deacon and Bible teacher for many years. My faith is a source of strength and comfort to me, as religious beliefs are to hundreds of millions of people around the world." - Carter
Does that clear things up?
@one God: The bible actually starts off with plural Gods and ends up with only one.
@timelessness, eternal, space etc: Pure philosophy and opinion, there is no fact or science to this. You can't prove something exists with here-say.
@evolution: Since you know what natural selection is then you know that traits that are desired are passed on, those without those traits die out or move elsewhere. Science proves evolution happens, there can be no dispute about it.Over millions, billions of years, species evolved to their surroundings - after all it started with reptitles and dinosaurs and later came mammoths, apes, people.... you make it sound logical but actually it just isn't that simple.
@false Christians and True Christians: It merely evolved. All things change, all things are warped and added to by opinions, beliefs, feelings. You can't define true Christian, Christianity sprang from Paganism. Paganism being more ancient than even Christianity. This is a fact. Although what you believe is not like anything I've ever debated with others before.
And I'll end it there because otherwise I'm going to lose track. I think the major point for me right now is the diffenciation between religion and reality, because so long as you persist in the believe that Christianity is reality arguing that God doesn't exist becomes pointless.
|
|
Nightsy
First Novelist
Back off - I know the mods.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nightsy on Jul 22, 2009 18:28:10 GMT
Ok, Nightsy's turn. Cosmological argument or whatever. I am asserting that something without cause must have caused what currently exists, because what currently exists (except for the causeless one) is finite because it all exists within time. See, I don't exactly follow another's argument well. 2. Ignoring #1, what if the God was the energy? 3. How do we know that they have no cause? Perhaps we just haven't figured out what this cause is. It could be God. It could be something related to time and space, two things we don't fully understand. 4. God is light. I believe it's Revelation 21, probably around the beginning. If it's in that chapter, you'll see it. Also, God said "Let there be light." Yet the sun wasn't there until day 4. How? He was the light. 5. I'm not saying I don't like infinity. I'm saying time can't be infinite, because it doesn't make logical sense. That's all I've time for, so I'll pick it back up later. 1.) Yes, but is time infinite? Because something existing within infinite time can certainly be infinite. But we're confusing the definition of 'time' here. Time is not a thing. Time is simply the label given to the motion of matter - and thus a sequence of events. [You're thinking of time as a measurement - hours, etc. But that's measuring time, not time itself, and infinity is not a measure of time. It's a concept.] So we are left with what we started with: an infinite regress. Now whether time (and so infinite regress) can be infinite, or whether actual infinites exist, is an unresolved matter of mathematics, but there is nothing to say an infinite regress cannot exist. 2.) Then God would be energy, not an intelligent creator. So, what if the energy was the energy? 3.) It's scientific fact that virtual particles have no cause. It's been tested and verified and thus classes as evidence. There's no way around it. 4.) I was giving an example of a particle that exists outside of time. Light could not be your 'uncaused cause' because light could not have started the Big Bang, dear =P Besides, references to God as 'light' in the Bible usually means the kind of light that guides you, not actual physical light. And that Genesis reference is redundant, because I thought we were agreed that the Big Bang happened? You're not a 7 day creationist who takes OT literally, are you? 5.) Refer to 1.) We don't know whether actual infinites exist. mathematicians are/have been forever trying to solve this problem.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 22, 2009 21:13:42 GMT
1. It is a theory, but not a law, so we don't necessarily know that time isn't a thing. That said, there can't have been an infinite amount of sequences of events before this one, because that's an infinite past, now isn't it? If matter cannot be created nor destroyed, then it must have been here forever, and something must have moved it. Perhaps this was the start of time -- matter put into motion. We know it couldn't have always been moving. Was this through the Big Bang? Possibly, but what began the big bang? Clearly, whateveritwas is something we know very little about. Still, time is finite, no matter how you put it, and the one the started it could not be part of that same time. 2. You missed the point. Let me rephrase it. What if God were the source of the energy? Energy must have existed in whateveritwas that began time, because it could not otherwise be started (logicallly). 3. Really? So they know everything there is to know? That's rather presumptuous. They can't test time in a manner that constitutes a particle moving impossibly quickly through it only to come to a complete halt for no apparent reason. Time is a fabric, how do we know two points of it can't meet? Magnetism. Explain this to me scientifically. Why to iron particles align to a magnet, and why would this attract the two? Where is this magnetic energy coming from? It isn't gravity. They're a bit too small for that. Sorry, this is all a bit random, but my point is that I just don't think they've studied it that thoroughly. Science does not offer the insight philosophy and logic does. The latter provides definite conclusions, while science is limited only to what can be perceived. Some things are just too big to test. But if you can show me this case, I'd love to look at it. If they can somehow eliminate every logical possibility, I'd be impressed. 4. And I was telling you that I'm okay with that, because God is His own light. And yes, actually, it was quite literal with that in a few places. In some areas, it was metaphorical, such as Psalms 119:105, which describes God as a lamp to one's feet/a light to one's path. That is a metaphor. Revelation 21 takes place after the world ends, at which point, no one needs guidance. Dear. And yes, I do quite take the Bible literally in the creation account. The Hebrew word used for "day" can also mean "age." The author could have easily used the word that definitely meant "day," and there are about two of those, but instead, he chose to use the one that could be translated "age" just as much as it could "day." Day is the metaphorical term. Age is the literal term. Ancient poetry is rather interesting, isn't it? I'll get to your rant, MJ, as soon as I can. I'm finding myself with less and less time now, so I'll only have time for a few points. That said, I'm beginning to question if I should debate with you at all, as you have seemed so unwilling to agree on anything. You don't want to listen. No, that's wrong. You're a know-it-all, and I mean this in the most polite way. You say that you're confident that you can't be proven wrong, so much so, that you won't bother reading the sources I've provided for you. You don't even appreciate what I'm doing as an evangelist. Most would be offended by a Christian who did not try. I'm sorry, but I don't understand. You won't turn from your beliefs, because you are so wrapped up in what you see as Christianity that you can't see past this religious aspect the world tries to place upon it. I doubt you even consider or read what I've written. Are you here to learn, or are you here merely to argue? Although this all may seem like flaming, I just don't see a reason to keep debating with you. I honestly want to help you see Christianity for what it is, but if you won't listen, then nothing will be gained from explaining it to you. I'm not going to preach to those who won't hear it. I hope you understand. (But, this bothers me: The "plural Gods" in Genesis aren't really plural Gods. It's the trinity.)
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 23, 2009 10:38:11 GMT
Actually I've conceeded a few points in this debate, but of course I'm unwilling to agree on most things you say - this is a debate. My view of debate is two strong views debating against each other, not trying to convert the other to their belief. You are as unwilling to budge as I am, and I'm enjoying this debate because you are so strong in your faith which I respect.
No I won't read the sources, not because I belief I can't be proven wrong, but okay. Would you be happy to read a book I ask you to read on Wicca? And embrass the belief even though you might already have formed an opinion on other very similar sources whose views you've already heard and read and formed an opinion on? If you read that book then I'll read your sources.
No I don't appreciate it, but I do respect it. Actually that's wrong I do appreciate it, but not on the same level as you want or in the same way as most people might.
In my life I've been more offended by Christians who do try because they've persecuted my beliefs or not accepted I can't be swayed. I only enjoyed (before this debate with you) debating with one other Christian who had equally strong views as you. She lent me religious video's that I watched and each morning and afternoon on the bus we debated. It was fun, we became close friends.
Unfortunately Christianity is a religion so that is all I'm going to see it as. Actually I have very loose beliefs so apart from my belief about the bible not really being completely fact (some things are fact but they are wrong about the cause - like the plagues.)
I'm here to debate and perhaps learn - but not to change my beliefs unless I find /them/ to be adequetly disproved. At this point I will re-evalutate. I certainly do read and consider what you've written, I couldn't debate against it if I didn't. You have some very unique debating points - unfortunately one of these is one I just can't accept and until one of us gave way to the other the debate of God existing can't even be gone after.
And I think you realise that is out thoughts about whether Christianity is a religion and not a reality. I think I said enough in my other post but you seemed to view it as a rant not a debating post.
So, point one: religion is a belief system, a faith. Christianity is a belief system, a faith. I went into this in more detail in my other point.
point two: Father Christmas - this has religious connotations but the focus is the spirit, heart etc of christmas. And for children centers around Santa Claus. For them Santa is a reality, and certainly at one point he did exist (St. Nick) but this reality was embellished to form a belief. Much like many beliefs, such as the bible which was written by men. Things like the plagues were embellished to be the work of God when in fact there are explanations for them which have been proven.
Well forgive me, I haven't read a bible in a long time. But isn't Genesis before the trinity comes into existence. Perhaps I have a muddled view of what the trinity was.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 23, 2009 15:13:29 GMT
Well I know you've decided to leave points alone in the debate, but others I doubt you really want to open your mind to. That, and/or you just think that you know everything there is to know about it, so you don't bother to look at an article I researched for you that might have information beyond what you all ready know. The fact that you think you know enough is enough to discourage me from debating with you. I've met others like you, and not to say they were bad people, some of them are my friends, but I know that there's no point in arguing with such people. Still, I'm willing to try a little longer. And yes, I would read an article or book or whatever about Wiccan beliefs, provided I don't have to go out, find a book, and buy it. I only gave you a link to an article, and the only thing required of you was that you click on the link and consider what the article said. That you can't even do that shows me that you think you all ready know everything. A main part of debating is knowing and accepting that you don't know enough -- no one can ever know enough. You can't honestly believe that you've argued long enough to know everything there is to know? You have to be open minded to others' beliefs. Otherwise, why should I bother? Nothing can be gained from a debate with a closed-minded person. (And you shouldn't offended by a Christian trying to change your mind. We see it as truth. As one comedian said, "If you're offended by the truth, you deserve to be offended." Opinion though it may be, it's true.) But how do I know you'll listen to me if you won't even read an article I provide for you? I learned from Nightsy during my last post, and I thought I had everything down perfectly. Turns out, I hadn't considered it all. (Granted, I'm younger than you, but I've studied and debated this stuff with adults for four years, so I've got some background.) So, all I'm asking is that you drop all previous stereotypes of Christianity, and that you accept that you don't know everything. Just read the article. The author knows more than I do. I realize that you're taking my use of the word "reality," and changing it (whether or not you know it). I don't mean it like that. I referred to it as a rant, not because I viewed it as such, but because it was the first short word to come to mind. "Debating post"? You know, it's unlikely I'll ever use that term in coversation or debate. ;D The trinity did exist while God created the Earth. "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." - John 1:1 (I think). The Word was Jesus, in case you didn't know. Sorry, I lost my Bible, so I'm just going by memory, here. Why isn't Christianity a religion? 1. Was Jesus Christ Who He said He was? Yes. This is proven through both scriptural prophecy, such as from Isaiah, and Psalms (to name only two), which existed long before Christ was born. There is also proof of witness. When Christ performed all His miracles, many people saw Him, and became His disciples. Later, 511 of them witnessed Jesus ascend to Heaven. This is proof both in that Jesus had died three days earlier, making Him the only man to ever rise from the dead Himself, and that He was ascending (people don't usually ascend like that for no reason). They all watched Him rise until they could no longer see Him, around which point, an angel that they all saw (all 511) told them to stop watching, and start evangelizing. So they did. Every one of them died terrible deaths. One death was crucifixion, the worst possible way to die. Another was by the heated pincers, which sank through the skin and allowed Romans to break off entire limbs, though they usually start with the fingers and hands. The wounds would usually be sealed up by the heat as the skin melted over the area, so the victims could last quite a while. They would usually die around the time their upper legs were torn off (that's pretty much the last, except for the head, which would be removed if they still lived after all limbs were gone). Christians would also be placed on stakes in such a manner that their own weight eventually caused them to impale themselves. It often ended when the point of the stake was found inside their skulls. These stakes would line the street of Roman cities, so that all the citizens could watch, and mock the Christians (which they did quite often as nice family activities, believe it or not). One disciple, Peter, was crucified upsidedown, because he felt that he didn't deserve to die the way Christ died. Another had his brains dashed out with a club. And I forget who, but someone was sawed in half. I'll have to look up what happened to the others if I can find the book. Anyway, the above is proof that Christ was Who He said He was. 2. Heaven and Hell People, according to philosophy, were created to love and be loved by the creator, Whoever this may be. Why? Because an impersonal creator would have no reason to create the Universe. This eliminates every religion except for Judaism. Even Islam believes in an "untouchable" Allah. I don't know about Wicca, but moving on... We know that it was made with purpose, as indicated by Intelligent Design. Here is an article concerning ID to prove my point (...and how the scientific community in the US prohibits any ideas that aren't their own.). There's positive, and there's negative. Likewise, there's 'God,' and there's 'not God.' When people die, they either find themselves in God (Heaven), or not God (Hell). It makes sense that God created us to be with us, but He gave us a choice, which makes us closer to Him than dinosaurs. Angels can choose, too, but they start out being with God, which makes them farther from God than us. Humans, upon death, are closer to, or farther from, God than any other creature, because we couldn't have had more of a choice. And angels have been around since before dinosaurs. A creature's time spent on Earth doesn't constitute its salvation. You think that I deserve to go to Heaven more than you just because I've been around longer? Again, this isn't religion. It's Christianity. Reality. Religion has rules. Christianity has guidelines. Even the worst of people can become a Christian just before death, and still be saved, despite the fact that they had no chance to "make up for" their "bad deeds." So, it makes logical sense that Heaven and Hell exist, and that there was a reason for our creation. We've also proved that Jesus was Christ, which also proves that God is personal, unlike any religion's god(s). Based on the above points: 1. God must be personal 2. There is such a thing as Heaven and Hell 3. Jesus was Who He said He was. So how does one get to Heaven? Well, you basically just choose sides. Are you with God, or not? He'll accept any who choose to be with Him, but He isn't going to force you to Heaven, because that would reduce humans to animals. It would be wrong for God to choose for you, because someone with a choice should be allowed to choose. Otherwise, He wouldn't have given us a choice, and we'd be nothing more than animals who don't choose their eternal fate. If choose to be on God's side, then you have chosen to walk to Heaven. If you don't, or perhaps you don't believe that God exists, you have chosen to walk yourself to Hell. So, you can choose to either walk to Heaven (with God forever), or Hell (away from God forever). You can choose to move out of the way of the careening truck, or you can just stand there. It's pretty black and white. You can change your mind at any time while you still exist in the temporary. But there's plenty of time to choose, though that doesn't mean there's a lot of it. Now tell me, which part of this sounds like law to you? Is any of this demanding or pointless or redundant?
|
|