MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 23, 2009 16:00:58 GMT
Not to make an excuse here but my mind is really fuzzy right now, effects of being ill. So I tell you what I will look at those links but not today, maybe tomorrow or the next day and tell you what I think. (Scratch that I just read them.) My point (which was coming across badly) is that if you already have researched something throughly then your less likely to think one more piece of very similar stuff is going to really change the way you think about it.
I don't want you to think I'm not taking on your points and think I know everything - those two things are extremely far from the truth. Also I must point out I have no preconceptions about Christians, everybody is different no matter what belief they follow so it often varies per opinion.
I'm not trying to twist what you say when you say you take Christianity as reality. To me reality means something very specific, perhaps it is not the word you are really looking for or you could explain your description of the word.
Just because something doesn't have any laws, or something demanding or pointless to it, doesn't really make it reality. Wicca doesn't. Wicca is not reality. Two things also could not be a reality, so although both have neither of the things you question, they couldn't both still be reality.
And like I said all I see is philosophy trying to define what is. Actually it is only defining what could be based on what is. Or what possibly is. Anyway I must see reality as a different thing because as I've said before: religion = a belief/faith system.
I read the sources and as expected I've read similar things before, and... I'm still sticking to my guns so to speak, since nothing in my knowledge base has changed except that tidbit of information about fire not really affecting the plants.
|
|
Nightsy
First Novelist
Back off - I know the mods.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nightsy on Jul 23, 2009 18:22:53 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.) *Is a lazy sod who can't be bothered replying the essay, quote-by-quote way* 1.) But that's the whole problem. There is nothing scientists/philosophers/mathematicians can do that can disprove infinite regress at this time. Of course, there's nothing much they can do to prove it either, but that doesn't eliminate the notion. Infinite regress = time, and thus we don't know whether time can be infinite. I myself can't see a problem with matter, and therefore time, existing forever. Or (and this relates to 3) the universe could have been created by virtual particles from a perfect vacuum, a theory totally supported by modern physics. I'm worried this might not make sense to you, so I'd advise reading up on virtual particles, vacuums and the total energy level in the universe equating to zero and why. I'll link you to a helpful essay if I think you need it. 2.) I'll accept your theory that time must have been started for a second, and say that maybe it was the God particle that was the energy? (The God particle being the single particle that may or may not exist outside of time that started the Big Bang. If you know your Angels & Demons, you might get me here) 3.) So you're NOT prepared to accept that science knows enough about virtual particles to state that they have no cause, but you ARE willing to accept the scientific observations in favour of everything having a cause? The scientific observations and equations that without, your argument would have zero basis? Sorry, dear =P, but it looks like you're just grasping for straws here. 4.) I can dig the 'age = day' thing. But I still think that if anything, Genesis is just a story saying that God created the world. I find that much more plausible, because then Man, with all its faults (and its lack of witnessing creation) would just be giving a non-literal explanation of things to make a point, like a lot of the Bible does. But back to point 4 - there are other things that exist outside of time besides a possible god. Why is it then more likely that a god exists instead of a single particle, when both would serve the exact same function of causing the Big Bang?
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 23, 2009 22:49:59 GMT
Forget reality. That seems to be distracting you from my point. My point was that Christianity is not a religion, at least by my definition of religion. I even believe atheism is a religion. I just see Christianity as a set of facts. Religions are not like this, because they have redundant and/or pointless and/or demanding requirements. There are no requirements to Christianity. Just facts. But you really shouldn't assume that you've heard it all before, even if you have heard a lot. Out of my four years with atheists, I've never heard anything about Nightsy's causeless particles until now. Nightsy, 1. Infinite regress is the part that confuses me. Define it exactly. The way I see it: given the cosmological argument, the universe must have a beginning. the notion that the universe's origin came about by the random forming of particles in space, there must have been something to first put those particles there. whatever that something is, it must exist outside of time and always exist, lest you get into a series of arguments going further and further back until you have infinite regress.
example: the being 'linda' created all the particles that formed the earth, but who created linda? the being 'bill' created linda, but who created bill? etc. the argument goes on forever until there is a beginning, which was initially required according to the comological argument. Now, I've all ready explained how 'linda' had no beginning. If time/a sequence of events/a line of creators cannot be eternal, as explained by the infinite past explanation, then something not in time had to create it. This initial cause, 'linda,' cannot be part of this time, because 'linda' is outside of it. If 'linda' can be the source of the energy that began time, then 'linda' can act outside of time, able to create its own little "time"s. That last bit may seem a bit redundant, but it's an issue brought up frequently, so I explained it away for future reference. 2. So we're in agreement here? 3. I just haven't heard of these spontaneously generated particles until now. I don't think that it would make a good argument, because I don't see how they could have eliminated every possibility. In my opinion, they had to come from somewhere or something (God perhaps), but then, I may be wrong. Still, until I see the data, and the experiment used to prove that time couldn't have something to do with it, I can't believe it. 4. That's acceptable. I mean, I believe God literally created the Earth, and that humans had a choice, and chose to disobey God (which, for the record, would have happened eventually anyway, with Satan in the picture). But yeah, that's pretty much the point. The details aren't really important, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the Bible is accurate during the rest of Genesis, though I believe much, if not all of it is, the important thing to know is that God created it all. Like a universe-creating automaton? Or just some random particle? I don't think inanimate objects could start time, let alone in themselves. At any rate, the ID argument states that the universe was created with purpose. How do we know? Well, Christ would be one example, but not one that atheists would tend to accept, so we'll move onto something more sciency. Evolution. Although few are willing to admit it, common ancestry may not even be possible. Most consider it unlikely, but some believe it a complete impossibility. Natural selection reduces genetic information; you can't add to DNA, only take away from it. Because of this, the naturally increasing pattern Darwin predicted is now known to be quite the opposite. I do not believe that anything less than a sentient being could have caused life to exist at such an advanced state as it does. That is not to say that something cannot exist outside of time with God. Angels and demons, right? They exist outside of time with God. The same goes for humans who have died here, assuming I am correct about God's existence, of course. So, of course, other things can exist outside of time, but none of them are sentient. This may also sound too presumptuous, but for some reason, it just doesn't seem that two sentient, limitless beings can exist outside of time. That, and the Bible does say that there is only one God (but then it comes down to the reliability of the Bible). The trinity is an interesting concept, but one shouldn't read too much into it. It's still only one God -- He's just got three sides, so to speak. Interesting philosophy: Aristotle believed that God and matter existed in the beginning, but God is the sentient, and matter, evidently, is not. God put this matter into motion through the big bang, and thus time started.
|
|
|
Post by Ghostlymagic on Jul 24, 2009 8:27:05 GMT
Okay. Here is what I think. Religion and science can argue all they like, they can twist words right around and spit them back in each other's faces but the thing is, they're not coming up with any new proof. Science will keep saying that they have hard evidence (tests carried out) and religion will keeping saying that they have hard evidence (testimonials of people who have spoken to god) but the fact is neither of them can truly prove anything. And then people who haven't spoken to god or watched the tests being carried out will take sides, those for religion saying that people have spoken to god when they might have been phony and those for science saying that it's been proved when the tests might have been faken. I think you have to look at all the options, consider all the evidence, and pick what resonates with you. Just bear in mind that christianity isn't the only religion and it's not the 'most important' or truest. And I think you can have science and religion together. Hell, you can even pick none of them, or make up your own science or religion. In the end, does it really matter all that much?
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 24, 2009 11:48:51 GMT
But to you Christianity is reality not a religion. To you it is a set of facts.
Firstly your definition of religion can be anything you like it to be, however it doesn't change the common perception of what a religion is. I'll get to this in a minute.
Secondly you can argue all you like that Christianity is a set of facts, however this doesn't change the fact that it is also a set of opinions based on fact. Now before you say "that makes it fact" remember what I said about opinions being based on fact not always being right. There are plenty of failed prophesies, absurdities, wrong facts (you do know that some people still argue the world is flat don't you?), Contradictions etc....
Thirdly so you are saying that Christianity having no absurdities etc is reality. Then you are also saying that Wicca having no absurdities etc is reality. What makes atheism a religion - by your standards there is nothing there that can make it a religion since it has no rules per se.
Now back to what religion is.
Is/Does Christianity:
A faith A belief system Have a God - a big invisible man in the sky that seemingly is everything and yet not-everything. Completely factual and able to be proven as such without excuses such as "out of context" "misinterpretation" "is really saying something else" "confusing the issue" Supported by science utterly Never wrong
Now I must point out that despite what you say the 10 commandments were given to Moses as rules to follow, not guidelines. Actually the original ones given are different to the ones now commonly accepted. Simply because time has moved on does not change this fact. Look up the etymology of religion if you must.
|
|
Nightsy
First Novelist
Back off - I know the mods.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nightsy on Jul 24, 2009 12:50:14 GMT
Forget reality. That seems to be distracting you from my point. My point was that Christianity is not a religion, at least by my definition of religion. I even believe atheism is a religion. I just see Christianity as a set of facts. Religions are not like this, because they have redundant and/or pointless and/or demanding requirements. There are no requirements to Christianity. Just facts. But you really shouldn't assume that you've heard it all before, even if you have heard a lot. Out of my four years with atheists, I've never heard anything about Nightsy's causeless particles until now. Nightsy, 1. Infinite regress is the part that confuses me. Define it exactly. The way I see it: given the cosmological argument, the universe must have a beginning. the notion that the universe's origin came about by the random forming of particles in space, there must have been something to first put those particles there. whatever that something is, it must exist outside of time and always exist, lest you get into a series of arguments going further and further back until you have infinite regress.
example: the being 'linda' created all the particles that formed the earth, but who created linda? the being 'bill' created linda, but who created bill? etc. the argument goes on forever until there is a beginning, which was initially required according to the comological argument. Now, I've all ready explained how 'linda' had no beginning. If time/a sequence of events/a line of creators cannot be eternal, as explained by the infinite past explanation, then something not in time had to create it. This initial cause, 'linda,' cannot be part of this time, because 'linda' is outside of it. If 'linda' can be the source of the energy that began time, then 'linda' can act outside of time, able to create its own little "time"s. That last bit may seem a bit redundant, but it's an issue brought up frequently, so I explained it away for future reference. 2. So we're in agreement here? 3. I just haven't heard of these spontaneously generated particles until now. I don't think that it would make a good argument, because I don't see how they could have eliminated every possibility. In my opinion, they had to come from somewhere or something (God perhaps), but then, I may be wrong. Still, until I see the data, and the experiment used to prove that time couldn't have something to do with it, I can't believe it. 4. That's acceptable. I mean, I believe God literally created the Earth, and that humans had a choice, and chose to disobey God (which, for the record, would have happened eventually anyway, with Satan in the picture). But yeah, that's pretty much the point. The details aren't really important, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not the Bible is accurate during the rest of Genesis, though I believe much, if not all of it is, the important thing to know is that God created it all. Like a universe-creating automaton? Or just some random particle? I don't think inanimate objects could start time, let alone in themselves. At any rate, the ID argument states that the universe was created with purpose. How do we know? Well, Christ would be one example, but not one that atheists would tend to accept, so we'll move onto something more sciency. Evolution. Although few are willing to admit it, common ancestry may not even be possible. Most consider it unlikely, but some believe it a complete impossibility. Natural selection reduces genetic information; you can't add to DNA, only take away from it. Because of this, the naturally increasing pattern Darwin predicted is now known to be quite the opposite. I do not believe that anything less than a sentient being could have caused life to exist at such an advanced state as it does. That is not to say that something cannot exist outside of time with God. Angels and demons, right? They exist outside of time with God. The same goes for humans who have died here, assuming I am correct about God's existence, of course. So, of course, other things can exist outside of time, but none of them are sentient. This may also sound too presumptuous, but for some reason, it just doesn't seem that two sentient, limitless beings can exist outside of time. That, and the Bible does say that there is only one God (but then it comes down to the reliability of the Bible). The trinity is an interesting concept, but one shouldn't read too much into it. It's still only one God -- He's just got three sides, so to speak. Interesting philosophy: Aristotle believed that God and matter existed in the beginning, but God is the sentient, and matter, evidently, is not. God put this matter into motion through the big bang, and thus time started. 1.) Infinite regress is a valid flaw in the Cosmological argument. We can't use the Cosmological argument to try and disprove it, for starters. Infinite regress defined is a never-ending chain of events going back and back, for as long as matter has existed, which we're presuming to be infinity. I seriously think you're getting mixed up with what time actually is. Define it for me please, so I can check we're on the same page. 2.) No. I'm proposing a particle could have exist out of time and started the Big Bang, and you're proposing that the only thing that could have started the Big Bang and be 'outside of time' is God. 3.) A person who argues for the Cosmological argument, who has written an essay on the matter of the origin of the universe and one who claims with absolute certainty that God not only might, but must exist because of the principles of causality, who has never heard of virtual particles? I've never come across this before. Nonetheless, you may find the following link helpful: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.htmlAlso, this next link applies virtual particles and the vacuum theory, which you haven't responded to, to the origin of the universe. This is good if you've never heard that theory before (though since you've asserted multiple times that God must exist, I'm sure you'll have done your research on other theories besides your own, and refuted them all, no doubt): www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html4.) Natural selection reduces genetic information, and therefore cannot be accountable for complex DNA and genes that we have today?! BAHAHAHA. Please stop watching Expelled. Natural selection reduces genetic variability, not information. But seriously, you think NS is the only evolutionary process? Gene flow? Mutation? Recombination? Exchange from simbiotic organisms? NS works with hand-in-hand with mutation (which, despite what you may have heard in Expelled, does not just 'destroy' information. There are many types of mutations, some very handy) to become the two driving forces of evolution. Go to any evolutionary site or book worth its salt and you'll get the drift (and that's not just a pun on neutral genetic drift =P). They'll all tell you the exact same thing. However, I recommend the site 'Expelled Exposed', for obvious reasons. Don't fret, I know all about the Trinity being one in three and three in one. I was a Christian for 13 years. It doesn't need to be sentient, it just needs to be able to create the Big Bang. Aristotle's theories are fascinating, but he didn't know much about modern quantum mechanics.
|
|
Nightsy
First Novelist
Back off - I know the mods.
Posts: 38
|
Post by Nightsy on Jul 24, 2009 12:57:13 GMT
Okay. Here is what I think. Religion and science can argue all they like, they can twist words right around and spit them back in each other's faces but the thing is, they're not coming up with any new proof. Science will keep saying that they have hard evidence (tests carried out) and religion will keeping saying that they have hard evidence (testimonials of people who have spoken to god) but the fact is neither of them can truly prove anything. And then people who haven't spoken to god or watched the tests being carried out will take sides, those for religion saying that people have spoken to god when they might have been phony and those for science saying that it's been proved when the tests might have been faken. I think you have to look at all the options, consider all the evidence, and pick what resonates with you. Just bear in mind that christianity isn't the only religion and it's not the 'most important' or truest. And I think you can have science and religion together. Hell, you can even pick none of them, or make up your own science or religion. In the end, does it really matter all that much? Erm, in the end, it matters quite a bit If I'm going to doubt/deny the existence of God, I'd like to be quite sure of it, so I don't face the prospect of eternal hellfire. Likewise, if I'm going to devote my life to God, I would have myself justified, so I know I'm not wasting my time.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 24, 2009 15:00:27 GMT
Pay attention, if you would, MJ. Look, the Law of Moses does not apply to Christians. It was law, but then again, I never said Judaism wasn't a religion. They're guidelines now. Fatherly advice. It did serve another purpose at one time. Must I repeat it again, or can you find it? No, I'm not saying that Christianity is a set of facts "to me." I'm saying that it is a set of facts, but that doesn't mean that you have to believe they are. "To you," God's non-existence is a fact, but that doesn't mean everyone believes it -- I don't. But you've completely missed my point. If you consider Christianity a religion, then it is different than any other religion in that it has no pointless or redundant or demanding requirements. If you don't consider it a religion because of the previous statement (such as in my case), then Christianity is a set of "theories," so to speak. Now, just as you believe the theory of evolution to be true, I believe the theories of Christianity to be true. Are religions just sets of theories? No, because theories at least have some support. Traveling to Mecca, in no way, relates to going to Heaven. It's just a redundant and pointless and demanding rule. Therefore, Islam has pointless and redundant and demanding requirements, which makes it different than Christianity. It also makes it a religion I would not prefer to follow, though Sharia law does quite scare me. Besides, if you look it as a religion, you will not want to consider it. If I look at it as a religion, I will not want to consider it. It's a repelling word. Christianity is different than any other religion in its lack of pointless/redundant/demanding requirements, but how am I to show this difference if it is called a "religion" just like other beliefs such as Islam, Buddhism, and Atheism (which I do believe has rules, but that's a rant, and a different one at that). On another note: There are no false prophecies. Show them to me. I've probably seen all your "absurdities." They're most likely just clips of the Bible taken right out of context or misunderstood. And for goodness' sake, MJ, the Bible does not claim the Earth to be flat! What wrong facts?
1. By my definition, time is a thing. By yours, it is a sequence of events. No matter how I look at it, there couldn't have been an infinite amount of time before this point, nor an infinite line of sequences of events before this point. Either way, it's like trying to jump out of a bottomless pit. I'm not using the cosmological argument. Just get your mind out of doctrines and pre-stated arguments. I'm different, and therefore have a different way of explaining things. a. Time had to start because an infinite past (infinite regress?) is not logically possible. b. Whatever started time, did so with a single action: the big bang. c. In order to start time (keep in mind, there is no time yet), Who/Whateveritwas had to be outside of the time it was creating -- otherwise it couldn't have created it, logically. d. If, in fact, this being was not in the time it created, and we know it had to be, then this being is timeless. Being timeless, it is also limitless in both knowledge and power. How do we know this? Time's a jar on God's coffee table, and God did begin the creation of everything, which implies omnipotence. e. This being was sentient. How so? Intelligent Design, plus the fact that it seems to intervene every so often, fulfilling prophecies left by those who claim to write for this being. Christ fulfilled many, of these prophecies. The only prophecies to be fulfilled now are those of the End Times. That should prove it quite nicely. 2. ID. I have a link for that if you'd like to visit it. 3. Sounds to me like the virtual particles come from charged particles. In modern physics, there is no such thing as "nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of accuracy. Great. So they exist, but we just don't know why? They can't directly observed them. As a matter of fact, they've never seen them -- they only see their effects. Radiowaves (or something like that) can be carried through a vacuum too. But from what I read, they form out of energy. That's a cause. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this, though. 4. I get the idea of cross breeding affecting Natural Selection, but honestly, I don't actually remember hearing of any mutation that adds to DNA. Just give me an example. And I saw "Expelled Exposed." Hated it. I don't like sites created for the purpose of slamming people. But none of this could change the fact that we've never seen real evolution occur. Oh, a few cells mutated? So? Now, if a cell turned into a fish, then a monkey, then a human? That would be impressive. But if humans evolved from monkeys and apes, then according to natural selection, monkeys and apes wouldn't exist. Two species cannot occupy the same niche. And I still don't see any proof of pre-human species. We find a tooth, and the evolutionists project this picture of a whole family of missing-links. I just don't buy into that junk.
|
|
MJBlack
Experienced Novelist
Posts: 136
|
Post by MJBlack on Jul 24, 2009 18:06:52 GMT
@the law of Moses does not apply to Christians:
"The reason I am bringing this up is because Christianity, if it is not to be antinominian, must have its own laws;"
Okay I've done some research about this point now, since the first time I've ever heard that the ten commandments don't apply to Christians is from you. It seems there are even more variations to your religion than I actually knew about (not surprisingly.) However believe I can argue successfully that Christianity does have laws/commandments.
Firstly some (vaguely relative) passages
Matthew 22:37 Deut. 6:5: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Luke 6 " 27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 2" " 37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged."
Romans 7:12 "Therefore the LAW IS HOLY, and the COMMANDMENT HOLY and just and good."
Exodus 24:12 "Then the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the LAW AND COMMANDMENTS WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN, that you may teach them."
Exodus 31:18 "And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, TABLETS OF STONE, WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD."
Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: FEAR GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS, FOR THIS IS MAN'S ALL."
Jesus said in John 14:15 "IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."
Now, you say there are now rules to Christianity, but I say that there are. I say that the ten commandments are still rules not guidelines. It isn't "you shouldn't kill" it's "thou shall not kill".
You do realise that most Catholics and Protestants are taught the ten commandments, and that Catholicism/Prodestents falls under Christianity right? And that the Pope gives rules and laws that you should follow, and that in the bible there are many instances were it is said "you must do this or you will go to hell."
The popes commandments supersede the new testament commandments which supersede the laws of Moses. It could be argue that any other breed of Christianity is defunct.... of course I'm sure the other sides of Christianity would argue otherwise.
@christianity is a set of facts:
Facts and opinions. Don't forget the opinions. And really you can't say it is a set of facts only that you view it as a set of facts. It isn't proven to be a set of facts otherwise this debate would not be happening. I really can't be asked to keep debating this point since it seems obvious to me that you aren't going to change your mind no matter how many facts or examples that I supply.
And just so you know I regard a lot of the rules of Christianity to be pointless. FOr instance one group of Christians believe that you must attend church every sunday.
Lets get that last comment out of the way first. There are Christians out there who use the Bible to prove that the world is flat. They still believe it is falt. Ergo in at least one interpretation of the bible the world is flat. Trust me on this because I found it really amusing. When I say something you can be certain I'm taking about something I know not something I think I know.
Yes you probably have heard everything before because everything given to you guys is "out of context" "not meant that way" etc.
Anyway.
There are different version of the bible, different creation accounts too.
The Ark is almost certainly a parable, it can't be true.
I can't be bothered with multitudes of passages but the bible things bats are birds and that hares chew cud. People aren't surprised when animals suddenly start talking to them, and the bible alludes to the fact that the sun moves around the earth (should be vice versa) because at that time it was believed that way - so apparently God didn't do some things like make the sun stand still.
Damacus is still a standing city not a ruinous heap. (Isaiah 17:1) The Canaanite language was never spoken in Egypt (Isaiah 19:18) This place was never overthrown (Jonah 3:4)
Matthew 27:32 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
None of the four gospels agree as to what the sign above Jesus' head said.
Mark: THE KING OF THE JEWS Luke: THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS John: JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS
I've mentioned again and against these wrong facts, and here's yet another example of something science has since explained that was attributed to God.
1st Plague. River ran red LIKE blood. But there is a common algae plume called the Red Tide. This makes the river, or any water, look red like blood. This happened because of the eruption of a volcano, which science confirms erupted around the apparent time of the plagues of Egypt.
10th Plague. Death of First born. In Egypt the first born was king. They would be the one to lead the family after the father died. When food was scarce the first born ate first and some times was the only one to eat. After locusts ate every thing there was only grain locked in vaults. The hail got it wet, locust feces, it made it moldy. And so when only the first born ate, they were the only ones killed by moldy grain.
I'm not very well informed on this but better than you it seems.
Natural Selection passes on genetic information that it needs to survive, you seem to accept this.
Gene flow: Gene flow—also called migration—is any movement of genes from one population to another. Gene flow includes lots of different kinds of events, such as pollen being blown to a new destination or people moving to new cities or countries. If genes are carried to a population where those genes previously did not exist, gene flow can be a very important source of genetic variation. So this explains a part of it.
Mutation provides all initial change. A mutation occurs when the DNA does not replicate perfectly. When a mutation occurs, a new allele is created. This adds variation to the gene pool. As with Recombination. Now because I'm not really knowledgable about this I'd take the below with a hint of salt.
I'll take something I'm more familiar with .
Humans from apes - at least what was through the last time I looked at this.
In different enviroments different things are needed, and those with the suvival skills needed will live to reproduce and those that aren't won't. This leads to evolution, such as why some monkey's/apes/whatever began to walk on two legs. Over time the brain developed and new skills were needed to survive. Such as finding food, getting meat...what wasn't needed was discarded in the genetics and what was needed was passed on.
It is clear that humans for all their intelligence and society are nothing more than apes beneath the surface. There are major similarities in the way things still do operate beneath the pretense of civilisation.
f**k it I can't be bothered, I just realised how futile this debate is when nobody will back down. Myself because I believe you are too entrenched in what you believe to actually think anything said changes anything, and you because you believe that I'm not willing to learn, agree or accept anything that you say.
I think I'd rather debate one point rather than a multitude because it gives the debate more focus. I don't think I can challenge what you belief in a general debate.
|
|
Skipper
Beginner Novelist
Posts: 22
|
Post by Skipper on Jul 25, 2009 3:19:08 GMT
I did not say that the Ten Commandments don't apply. They're just not LAW anymore. They're guidelines. And based on what I've read so far, your research is lacking. You're just using what others have said. Did you even read the Bible where you're quoting it? I don't think you know nearly enough about Christianity. But, we'll see... Matthew 22:37 Deut. 6:5: 36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
Luke 6 " 27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 2" " 37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged."
Romans 7:12 "Therefore the LAW IS HOLY, and the COMMANDMENT HOLY and just and good."Let's have a go at this, shall we? 1. If you don't love God, then you aren't a Christian. Commanding it just reinforces admonition. 2. A real Christian wishes to save everyone. If a Christian doesn't, then they are selfish, and selfishness is a sin. Sin always has consequences, therefore God advises/"commands" us not to commit them. The second verse is common sense. 3. You took this out of context. The Law of Moses no longer applied as law once Christ came. His death paid for our sins, which meant that we no longer "atoned" for them "ourselves." Yes. The Law is good and just. No. It no longer applies as law. Exodus 24:12 "Then the Lord said to Moses, "Come up to Me on the mountain and be there; and I will give you tablets of stone, and the LAW AND COMMANDMENTS WHICH I HAVE WRITTEN, that you may teach them."
Exodus 31:18 "And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, TABLETS OF STONE, WRITTEN WITH THE FINGER OF GOD."
Ecclesiastes 12:13 "Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: FEAR GOD AND KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS, FOR THIS IS MAN'S ALL."That's OT, id est, the Law of Moses. We've been over this. Guidelines now. Law then. Ecc is also common sense; if one is a Christian, one will strive to keep God's commandment, because if one is a Christian, one will love God. Otherwise, one isn't a Christian. The same goes for: Jesus said in John 14:15 "IF YOU LOVE ME, KEEP MY COMMANDMENTS."Why do you speak so condescendingly when you, yourself, know nothing of my beliefs? The Ten Commandments were written in the Old Testament, during which time, the Law of Moses applied as, well, law. Jesus changed that. The Ten Commandments are still to be followed, though, as disobeying them will have natural consequences. Consequences come naturally to those who sin, because sin is basically a form of rebellion toward God. If you rebel against goodness, the only kind of consequence you'll get is a bad one -- duh. Catholicism is stupid.* It's just man-altered Christianity. Protestants don't listen to the pope. Look at the etymology. "Protestant" came from the word "protest." Get it now? We disagree with the Catholics. Catholicism was the result of people wanting rules and religion instead of Christianity as it was. Once a religion, the leaders of the churches found that they could use it as an excuse to manipulate the masses and achieve what they wanted. It went from real, to religion, to government. You realize "the Church" was a hierarchy? If anyone represented Christianity poorly, it was most certainly them. They make up laws that were never in the Bible. You can't find Purgatory in the Scripture, you know? That was just a way for the pope to make himself rich. As for the last part: When one lives in sin, one will inevitably go to hell. This is not a law. This is just a natural consequence to sinning. "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." You could compare what you're saying to this: "Avoid putting a fork into an electrical socket. Do this or you will die." That's not law. Just fact. The popes have no authority over the Bible. They add to and take away from the Bible as they please, and, forgive for saying this, but their corrupt actions make them a disgrace to Christianity. So... yeah, I disagree with Catholicism. Are you seriously saying that because we're arguing about it, I must be wrong? That my beliefs can't be proven because we are debating about them? People don't generally want to accept that they're wrong, which is why atheism still exists. It's why there are still people who say that the Earth is flat. It's why regardless of whether or not Christianity is proven to be 100% accurate, there will still be tons of people who still don't believe it. Your examples were bad. Your research wasn't really research, as you clearly didn't study the verses you quoted (nor the passages around them). And only now have you brought up the claim that the Bible is full of opinions. It isn't, you know. It's just got facts/statements. It does have analogies, stories, examples, and more poetry than you know. It's getting hard not to flame, and that's coming from me. Going to church is not a rule of Christianity. It is NOT in the Bible. I do go to church every Sunday and Wednesday, but not because it's required. I go because I find it refreshing, inspiring, and sometimes uplifting. It's healthy for me, and I enjoy being around others who go through all that I do. You'd be surprised how many amazing stories you can find in a church (at least, where I come from). That some people say that Christians must go to church, does not make it true. Some believe that baptismal water is holy. But that's not in the Bible, so it's not part of Christianity. It's not magic water. Baptism is a public display of one's belief. This was commanded by Christ (and if you want to get real specific, He said "immersion," so sprinkling isn't technically accurate). Oh no, a commandment! It must be a law. No, it isn't. I can become a Christian just before I die, and if I die just before I touch water, I'm still going to Heaven. Why? Because water has nothing to do with it. Baptism is just a way of announcing one's Christianity. If a Christian is not willing to confess that he is a Christian, that "Christian" isn't really a Christian. Case solved. No, you're quite mistaken. It is NOT IN THE BIBLE. The Bible does NOT say that the Earth is flat. Some people might claim that the Earth is flat, but that does not make it true.These versions are made so that the Bible can be understood by people of many levels of literacy. Not everyone can understand King James Version, you know. There's even a Street Version of the Bible, also called, and I quote, the "Gangsta Version." Why? It appeals to a different audience than the New Internation Version does. Some are more accurate than others, and some even have the original script next to the English translation so that it can be studied. Not you too... 1. Do you even know what you're talking about here? In context, this doesn't make much sense. 2. One word: Poetry. The Bible tends to repeat things, though I suppose you wouldn't know that, as you don't seem to have read it much at all. This repitition, when compared with Ancient Mesopotamian/Middle-Eastern literature, turns out to be a form of poetry. Or perhaps the "second creation account" was just the author's way of making things easier to understand. Yeah, yeah, so I've refuted... Adam and Eve weren't surprised, because they spoke with God, Whom they couldn't even see. I'm sure weirder had happened to them. The instance with the donkey in the NT was a parable, if I remember correctly. Ah, should have guessed. You're one of those people... Just kidding. But no, the Bible is not anti-heliocentricism. That much has all ready been proven. A lot. For a long time. I'm surprised it's still an issue with you. Damacus is still a standing city not a ruinous heap. (Isaiah 17:1)D'you think perhaps they could, I don't know, rebuild Damascus? Or maybe it's a different Damascus. There have been cities in the Bible that later appeared at a different location. The Canaanite language was never spoken in Egypt (Isaiah 19:18)Except by Canaanites. This place was never overthrown (Jonah 3:4)That, I'll return to later. Don't have time, y'see. Different authors = different points of view + different memories + possible paraphrasing.* Enough to call contradictions? Not so much. They all mean the same thing. * They didn't exactly have all the time in the world to write every little detail out. They each left out many miracles, only writing down what they could remember, and what they had time to write. I think I recall hearing that theory. 1. I don't believe that theory to be true -- it's far too unlikely. And no, they didn't confirm it -- it's mostly just speculation. 2. Even if it was true, don't you find it kind of odd that it happened so soon after Moses predicted it? 3. Where was the volcano? 4. Sorry if you don't mean to, but you sound rather condescending at times. Cool. But when was it established that God couldn't act through reality? Since when did everything have to be supernatural? It's interesting, isn't it, that this would also explain how the Israelites' firstborns would not die, as they were somehow protected from the other plagues. I understand natural selection, gene flow, and mutation. What I don't understand is how you get from a fish to a human. I know how minute changes occur, but this doesn't necessarily mean that everything gets better and better. I received a mental disorder from my mother's side of the family. 3.3 million Americans suffer from it, and it can be quite debilitating. It has existed since at least the Middle Ages and the time of the Roman Catholic Church. It has survived a very long time, yet hasn't disappeared yet. How is it that evolution would allow this to continue existing? It's useless, yet it never went away. On the contrary, it is growing. The percentage of people who suffer from it has been rising for thousands of years. Explain that away. And why is there no proof of these fish-monkeys' existence? Why do we not find evidence of ape-humans? In retrospect, you didn't answer my question. Language, missy. You assume that I don't want to listen, but, of course, you're wrong. I believe that I am right, and I believe that you are wrong. I actually have some support for this, so it would take work to convince me. I still want to learn, and I have done just that in my debate with Nightsy. I believe what I believe, and I have lots of reasons to believe it. But I'm not going to apologize for feeling so strongly about my beliefs, and having so many reasons to believe it. But I agree. This is going nowhere. I don't believe you listen, and you don't believe I listen. Frankly, you know far too little about my beliefs to be attacking them (based on your last post). You have a lot of researching to do. If you're willing to end our argument here, I'll comply. Hope you change your mind.
|
|