|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
posted November 30, 2009 01:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
So as I wrote to you earlier, I'm not interested in keep on comming with suggestion of that which you find a logical fallacity, is not so at all, as that'd take all eternity to prove my point in that way, no my point is on the other hand, you cannot prove completely that something is impossible, and through that, with unlimitted imagination, it's per definition possible to do anything being all-powerfull.
Sorry, there is no way a person can be being raped and not be being raped at the same time. There is no way that an object can be all blue and all green at the same time. There is not way that it can be raining and not raining at the same time [at the same location.]
That has nothing to do with God being all powerful. That has to do with logic and words being used to describe the state of objects and events.
I answered this just in the previous thread, and you just write no, it's impossible again, that's at least how it looks in my perspective.
I'll answer again, this time much shorter, if you want a debate, reply to the arguments.
Quote:
Sorry, there is no way a person can be being raped and not be being raped at the same time.
What happens to you, and what someone does to you, is a matter of perspective, in the perspective of the rapist, he's raping, in the perspective of you, you're not being raped. That way, both can happen, how two persons, whose experience of the world is defined through their senses, can sense it this way, I describe in the previous post, but shortly, it's merely about what sense impressions you send, and what you accept for both parts.
Quote:
There is no way that an object can be all blue and all green at the same time.
As we cannot describe colours in any other way than what they're, colours, and as the visible spectrum is limited, it's in no way impossible to imagine that in the entire spectrum there might exists a colour that we'd describe as being both blue and green.
Again, the only thing that limits us in this, is our imagination, all-powerfullness implies infinite imagination.
And I see you added one more, as I wrote to you earlier, I'm not interested in showing to you, why every single logical fallacity you can think up, is not absolute true, I hoped my last post made it clear that you can't be certain anything is true, except that you're, right here and now, as the one who measures.
Anyway, please respect that I use my time to reply to you, trying to learn from you and educate you as well, so as you want, I reply to this part as well, but don't expect me to accept such foul behaviour continuesly.
Quote:
There is not way that it can be raining and not raining at the same time [at the same location.]
Again, it depends on experience, from whose perspective are you talking? How do you define raining.
You see, the definition of raining, as most people understands it, requires a continually stream of rain drops to fall down, but within a give time limit, or you'd not call it raining. However the time difference as well may not be too big. Because in principle, if I simply changed you experience of time in the world, you'd call some place it rains, for a place it does not rain, and vice versa, heck I could choose the exact limit, and you'd not know whether it rains or not, for you it'd both be raining and it wouldn't be raining, cause you couldn't really tell, but observe that both is happening at the same time.
Quote:
That has to do with logic and words being used to describe the state of objects and events.
Logic is limited to the imagination, or should we say intelligent, of the person using this.
In ancient times, the Earth being round, and the planets floating in space would be illogical statements. Because back then, logic was depending on what they could imagine at the given time, and what they could imagine dependened on the word they could observe.
Heck we've examples of how movement is not logical, you know the turtle and the rabbit, yet what is really true, is that it's not illogical from that example, so again it depends on whose view, the amount of imagination there lies behind it.
Okay, now I hope I've made that clear, so if you'd be so kind, go back to my previous reply to you and answer it, thank you.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted November 30, 2009 02:03 PM |
|
|
Clearly I haven't read more than 98%, and just for the fun of it, I always thought that there are colors which are made up from a composition of other colors; e.g. yellow and red gives you orange, and in particular a color which is blue and green at the same time looks like this apparently ...
For the rest, I think it is pity and sorrow ...
____________
The empty set
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 02:05 PM |
|
|
(Also I think he meant that you would percieve as both A & B, not the combination of A & B)
Edit: I wasn't going to do this, but when even dimis, one of the posters I respect the most, have started, then please let me point the following out:
I, and I believe others as well, still takes this thread seriously, uses time in a serious attempt for a good educating debate among two to more parties. It's not very healthy for the thread, or the likelyness for those who takes the thread seriously to continue do so, that people after serious posts afterwards see other people writing stuff like "It all sucks", or something similar.
One of the things I've really been enjoying about this forum, is that the OSM and the VW is seperated, the VW is the place for fun, where I'd not take things seriuos and have some fun & entertainment. However for me, the OSM is most of all about educational debate, and when people start using comments, that's supposed to be in the VW, i.e. completely undocumentaried (doesn't reply to the arguments) "you suck" replies, then one really looses interest in using time on this.
So if you'd please be so kind, keep these kind of comments for the VW, make threads there and write there if you want, and let us who still tries to be serious in this thread, answering to arguments, to continue doing so.
If there's anything you disagree with, comment on the arguments, I'd reply to your arguments, and I'm certain others would as well, if you're replying to the arguments of others.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 02:42 PM |
|
|
As an answer to your answer Ohforfsake:
I somewhat agree. Religion is a belief or thought that is at least partly beyond human perception as well as the "laws" of nature. I think that believing in ghosts could be seen as a religion.
In the end, religion is just a way to explain the things you can't explain. As why was the universe created? Then religion is just a way to answer that.
I have experienced things that could be explained as random events, but I don't believe that. I choose to explain these events with a higher entinity, whos existance I explain with our existance. Wether it makes any sense at all doesn't matter. In sience it does.
So it's pretty much the same I guess. The difference is that religion has to have something beyond nature or humans. What that is on the other hand is discussable (gravity?)
____________
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 03:06 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What happens to you, and what someone does to you, is a matter of perspective, in the perspective of the rapist, he's raping, in the perspective of you, you're not being raped. That way, both can happen, how two persons, whose experience of the world is defined through their senses, can sense it this way, I describe in the previous post, but shortly, it's merely about what sense impressions you send, and what you accept for both parts.
I'm sorry, but you either consented to sex or you did not. Non-consenual sex is rape. It is not both rape and not rape. Saying a person can be raped and not raped at the same time by the same person is a logical fallacy.
Quote:
As we cannot describe colours in any other way than what they're, colours, and as the visible spectrum is limited, it's in no way impossible to imagine that in the entire spectrum there might exists a colour that we'd describe as being both blue and green.
Again, the only thing that limits us in this, is our imagination, all-powerfullness implies infinite imagination.
No, it has nothing to do with perception. An object can't be both entirely blue and entirely green at the same time. If you are color blind and don't see the blue object as being blue that has nothing to do with the properties the object has.
Quote:
Again, it depends on experience, from whose perspective are you talking? How do you define raining.
You see, the definition of raining, as most people understands it, requires a continually stream of rain drops to fall down, but within a give time limit, or you'd not call it raining. However the time difference as well may not be too big. Because in principle, if I simply changed you experience of time in the world, you'd call some place it rains, for a place it does not rain, and vice versa, heck I could choose the exact limit, and you'd not know whether it rains or not, for you it'd both be raining and it wouldn't be raining, cause you couldn't really tell, but observe that both is happening at the same time.
Either water droplets are falling from the sky onto the location or they are not. It can't be both raining on a 1 foot square piece of land and not raiing on the same land.
A stake in the ground can't be both exactly 100 feet high and exactly 1 inch high at the same time. It is the same exact height regardless of who perceives it to be what height.
Quote:
Logic is limited to the imagination, or should we say intelligent, of the person using this.
In ancient times, the Earth being round, and the planets floating in space would be illogical statements. Because back then, logic was depending on what they could imagine at the given time, and what they could imagine dependened on the word they could observe.
Facts like if an object is exactly 100 feet tall or exactly 1 inch tall have nothing to with a person't perception of the object. It is either 100 feet tall or 1 inch tall.
A person's perception of what is true does not change what is actually true.
A person can reach a wrong conclusion that he thought was logical because he misperceived the facts. A delusional person who thinks a match stem stuck in the ground is 100 feet tall does not change the fact that the match stem stuck in the ground is only 1 inch tall.
The match stem is not both exactly 1 inch tall and 100 feet tall.
Quote:
Words might have meaning, but only the meaning God chooses correct? If God wanted, he could rewrite the entire definition and logical steps from there on, to make any reality true, true?
No, mankind has invented various languages. The match stem is either exactly 1 inch tall or exactly 100 feet tall regardless of what words you use to describe it. If you speak a language where the word "bobamulacholeee" describes one inch that does not not change the acutal length of the match stem. Saying it is one inch tall or one bobamulacholeee tall would be saying the same thing.
You can "imagine" it to be whatever height you want it to be, but it is still one inch tall.
A human being is a human being. You can imagine the human being to be an elephant but he will not be an elephant, He will be a human being no matter how you imagine him.
Quote:
If Allah had had all the needed characteristics of God, so that you'd not be able to see the difference of those two, yet you'd know they're different, how would you choose who to follow then?
I already showed the Qu'ran describes Allah very differently than how the Bible describes God. The Qu'ran also has historical inacuracies in it. And about 20% of the words in teh Qu'ran are unknown (can't be decipherd.)
Like I said, when the Spirit of God moved in my heart I acted. Allah was not being preahed, God was. I know Jesus lives. I have received the Spirit of Christ.
Quote:
Now it's clear that independent of your free will, the consequences will vary, and that's exactly my point, because the consequences tells about the freedom you've not the free will
.
No, the fact that there are consequences for your actions does not mean you are not free to commit the actions. You can chose to drive your car off a cliff, but there will be consequences. You will most likely die or be severely injured and your car will most likely destroy your car and kill whoever is in the car with you and possibly somone who is below the cliff.
The fact that there were consequences to you driving off the cliff did not inhibit your freedom to chose to drive off the cliff.
Quote:
Because, being all-powerfull, you've the ability to makes this persons life wonderful, despite this person not agreeing with you.
God works for the good of all. Not everyone will receive what he desires to do for them. Your choice. Allow God to work in your life or do your own thing. If you reject God's working in your life, you have only yourself to blame.
God desires for the life of everyone to be wonderful. But everyone has free will. That means other people are free to chose to do evil things and their choices will affect you.
God being all powerful in no way obligates him to make the life of for example Hitler to be wonderful in eternity. God has chosen that our live on earth has meaning and purpose. What you do here determines your eternal destiny. The all-powerful God created it to be so because that is what he wanted.
It is illogica to say that because there are consequences to a person's actions God is not all powerful.
Quote:
Of course you don't accept it, but what you do, is you forgive none the less, that's a very important part of love, if you truely love someone, you can always forgive them.
So you would allow the son I described to continue living in your house, beating up your wife, smoking dope in your living room and raping your daughter?
Quote:
If you're all-powerfull however, you can choice to let your son have all this characteristics, yet without the consequences you write.
Hogwash. Either your son is smoking dope or he is not. Either he is beating up your wife or he is not. Either he is raping your daughter or he is not.
Quote:
I can understand the confessing and forsaking part, as that's character building (if I understood the words correct), but the obeying part seems unneeded to be honest.
Mankind has limited knowledge and wisdom and needs guidance from God. The things God has instructed us to do are for our benefit.
Quote:
Ah you see, I wrote in the sense of all-powerfullness, where I believe every problem can be solved, otherwise it wouldn't be all-powerfullness to begin with. That you'd willingly limit the power of God to be able to reply to me in a way that makes sense surprises me, but on the other hand, I also find it positive.
I've not limited the power of God. I said certian things make no sense and cannot occur. You are either being raped or not being raped. The object is either exactly 1 inch tall or exactly 100 feet tall. Ect.
Quote:
But we could make it even simplier, how about absolute free will? Simply let any kind of disturbance, i.e. environmental -, or genetically decided gradients go away, that way the choice would be your completely, no lust to drive you.
You do have absolute free will. Only you chose what you do.
Quote:
So we could very well imagine that you're actually being raped right now, for all eternity, you just don't know it, because the one who does it, is not senseable in anyway, not for you, not for anyone, except this person self.
Why do you think God should make it possible for you to "secretly rape" someone? That is a terrible, immoral idea, not a good idea.
____________
Revelation
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 03:29 PM |
|
|
@ Elodin
Quote:
There is nothing irrational about Christianity. Atheism, on the other hand, is very irrational in my opinion.
This is a pretty good example why I sometimes have problems with the way you express your religious beliefs and at the same time "disqualify" non-christians.
Maybe it is due to me not speaking english as native language, so I probably have a different meaning refering to "rational".
How can something, which mostly only exists in someone's mind be rational at all?
Why on the other hand is believing in something different than God and/or Jesus named "irrational"?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 03:46 PM |
|
|
Elodin what is wrong with being a radical environmentalits?
Oh, wait, it's against freedom to stop some incredibly obstinant people from destroying the planet that we are all standing on?
also, if he was a racist, do you think Barack the wonderboy would have him in his cabinet?
and he think's he's a communist? please, I could find people more communist in the Student union bar.
but to you, he's probably considerably worse than satan and needs to be purged!
and everyone seems to be taking my use of the term Opiate as a bad thing! I mean't it as a neutral thing! I have had some wonderful times on pot, and some horrible ones. Religion is not an placebo, nor is it anthrax, it is a drug that people have different reactions to! some of the greats songs were written on drugs, here comes the sun, hotel calfornia, Lucy in the sky with Diamonds, as well as some truly appalling renditions. the same goes with Religion, without it we wouldn't have the hallejulah chorus, livin' on a prayer, and gospel choir, whilst the church of england turn out some truly mind numbing rubbish.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 06:13 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@ Elodin
Quote:
There is nothing irrational about Christianity. Atheism, on the other hand, is very irrational in my opinion.
This is a pretty good example why I sometimes have problems with the way you express your religious beliefs and at the same time "disqualify" non-christians.
Maybe it is due to me not speaking english as native language, so I probably have a different meaning refering to "rational".
How can something, which mostly only exists in someone's mind be rational at all?
Why on the other hand is believing in something different than God and/or Jesus named "irrational"?
Of course my statement that you quoted was in response to:
Quote:
I define religion as ideas that cannot be justified through a logical proces, neither made likely to be true. I.e. it depends entirely on an irrational belief, however it is still considered true.
No proof was offered that religion is irrational or can't be justified through logic.
Some anti-religion people love to throw around words like delusional, irrational, ect in application to religious people yet the facts show otherwise. As I quoted the studies that showed religious people have far less mental disorders, commit suicide less, and help people more than atheists do, in general.
Sorry, religious experiences don't mostly exist in the minds of religious people.
I did not say everyone who believes differntly from me is irratinoal. I said atheism is irratinal. The concept that matter and energy is eternal (has been disproven) and the concept that the universe produced itself (violation of the laws of thermodynamics) are irrational concepts. Materialistic atheists have to believe either the universe is eternal or the universe produced itself. Like I said, irrational.
And certainly if an atheist says "There is no God," that is a completely irrational statment because he has no proof that God does not exist. The best he could say is "I don't believe God exists." Then he has made a statement of faith.
Quote:
Elodin what is wrong with being a radical environmentalits?
He believes animals should have lawyers appointed to represent them in court to advance the radical environmentalist agenda. Sorry, a bird does not have equal rights with a human being.
Quote:
also, if he was a racist, do you think Barack the wonderboy would have him in his cabinet?
He did. You obviously have not been listening to the links that I have posted. He was a member of the Black Panthers and helped found several communist groups. I'll post a link to some text so I can copy and paste since you are evidently not listening to the you tube links of Van Jones speaking.
Clicky
Mr. Jones, was revealed to have called himself a “communist” in 2005, referred to Republicans as “snows” just 6 months ago in a speech, signed a 9/11 petition essentially blaming the Bush Administration for the terror attacks, blamed “white people” for pollution and polluting minority communities, called former President Bush a “crackhead,” and stated that only “white kids” shoot up schools, not black children.
Clicky
Quote:
but to you, he's probably considerably worse than satan and needs to be purged!
No, of course I don't think he should be killed. I am glad he was forced to resign as a result of Beck exposing him and the public outcry that came afterwards.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 06:51 PM |
|
|
@JollyJoker:Quote:
And this nonsense has exactly what to do with your wrong claim, Elodin wasn't exactly saying Christianity (and specifically his own little brand of it) was the true way? Because he IS saying that and has saying that as long as I've read his posts.
Yeah but this is what you said:Quote:
He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way
Now of course now I get what you mean, but at first, I assumed you meant logically (not satirically) that he is not saying Christianity is the "true way" while his branch is, which is a logical contradiction. Hope that makes more sense now.
Quote:
Death, just as a last observation, how much sense of logic would you expect a person to have, that starts a post with "Jolly Joker, you clearly have no sense of logic at all", just to go on and write some paragraphs about what that person seems to think is logical?
Actually that was supposed to be sarcastic. I know you're a smart man, my guess is that you were just playing dumb.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 07:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now of course now I get what you mean, but at first, I assumed you meant logically (not satirically) that he is not saying Christianity is the "true way" while his branch is, which is a logical contradiction. Hope that makes more sense now.
However, his claim was false. I never said only Christians who have my beliefs are true Christians. I challenged him to link to where I said it and he could not.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 07:04 PM |
|
|
Yes, you may be right (I don't know myself), but that's not what we were arguing about. 
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 07:56 PM |
|
|
Right, let's get involved a last time in this. I'm pretty sick of your tap-dancing, Elodin; you are usually not so shy to share your beliefs. Let's see whether we can get this sorted out:
You said this:
Quote:
I've never said only my denomination of Christianity will be saved.
But I never said, you had said that only your brand of Christianity will be saved.
You said this as well:
Quote:
I never said only Christians who have my beliefs are true Christians.
But I never sad, you had said only Christians who have your beliefs are true Christians.
What I said was:
Quote:
he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way
Obviously you can solve this now very easily:
Do you say that your specific brand of Christianity - you are a member of the Pentecostal Church, if I'm not wrong, but correct me here if it's another one - is the true way?
Yes or no? It is as simple as that. YES or NO?
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 08:20 PM |
|
Edited by bixie at 20:29, 30 Nov 2009.
|
what, and white people aren't responsible for global warming?
the bush administration wasn't responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks, but we all know that they knew about them and didn't do anything to stop them/didn't act fast enough (take your pick of the least offensive)
calling republicans (stupid HC censoring service, making sentences make no snowing sense!) "B@stards" doesn't make him a communist, and if he calls himself a communist, that does not instantly make himself one. What he is a liberal, a word the american hard right associate with peaceniks, hippies, commies, socialists and anything to the left of the thatcher government.
if he was a member of the black panthers, then good on him, at the time MLK was seen as the white mans lapdog, and so those who wanted a more extreme reaction got their fill.
if he's resigned, then good, Obama no longer surounds himself with socialists and communists, and obviously made a mistake with that one. I mean, it's not like Bush never made mistakes in the people he surrounded himself with, like cheney, rumsfeild, the saudi princes etc etc.
but this is getting off topic, I note that you have not quibbles about me explaining why I used an opiate as a fair analogy to religion. surely my explaination was satisfactory. unless of course you think me so off my face that it somehow makes some sort of sense for the octopus inside my brain, talking chair.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
What I said was:
Quote:
he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way
Obviously you can solve this now very easily:
Do you say that your specific brand of Christianity - you are a member of the Pentecostal Church, if I'm not wrong, but correct me here if it's another one - is the true way?
Yes or no? It is as simple as that. YES or NO?
I do not say that only Pentecostals will be saved. I do not say Pentecostals are the only true Christians. Jesus it the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Do I believe that Pentecostal beliefs most closely match what is taught in the New Testament? Yes. Do I believe that my particular denomination has all the truth? No.
So your statement remains false.
Quote:
if he calls himself a communist, that does not instantly make himself one
So Van Jones lied and actually never was a communist? Why did he help found several different communist organizations?
Quote:
what, and white people aren't responsible for global warming?
No, that is a racist statement and also man does not cause global warming. Also, the Earth's temperature has been dropping over the past 10 years. Global temperature follows sunspots. But that is for the global warming topic.
Quote:
the bush administration wasn't responsible for the 9/11 terror attacks, but we all know that they knew about them and didn't do anything to stop them/didn't act fast enough (take your pick of the least offensive)
False statement. Bush did not know the terrorist events were going to occur.
Quote:
if he was a member of the black panthers, then good on him, at the time MLK was seen as the white mans lapdog, and so those who wanted a more extreme reaction got their fill.
Sorry, I don't think being a racist is a good thing.
Quote:
if he's resigned, then good, Obama no longer surounds himself with socialists and communists, and obviously made a mistake with that one. I mean, it's not like Bush never made mistakes in the people he surrounded himself with, like cheney, rumsfeild, the saudi princes etc etc.
Several socialists have also been forced to resign, but ther are still some left in his administration.
Quote:
but this is getting off topic, I note that you have not quibbles about me explaining why I used an opiate as a fair analogy to religion. surely my explaination was satisfactory. unless of course you think me so off my face that it somehow makes some sort of sense for the octopus inside my brain, talking chair.
No, saying religion is a drug is just false. You are entitled to your opinion however, no matter how silly it is.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 09:16 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also, the Earth's temperature has been dropping over the past 10 years.
Temperatures over the past 12 years are 0.4 of a degree warmer than the dozen years leading up to 1997.
straight quote from article in that thread.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Do you say that your specific brand of Christianity - you are a member of the Pentecostal Church, if I'm not wrong, but correct me here if it's another one - is the true way?
Yes or no? It is as simple as that. YES or NO?
I do not say that only Pentecostals will be saved. I do not say Pentecostals are the only true Christians. Jesus it the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Do I believe that Pentecostal beliefs most closely match what is taught in the New Testament? Yes. Do I believe that my particular denomination has all the truth? No.
So your statement remains false.
Elodin, that's just pitiful. I have to admit that I didn't think you were such a coward. You are behaving like a 5$-solicitor. You certainly don't squirm this way when you throw stones against sinners, abortionists, socialists, atheists, communists, non-Americans, Democrats, Moores, Obamas, you name it.
On the other hand I feel a sick satisfaction to see you squirm; you have brought that onto yourself.
For me, you have lost every bit of credibility you may have had. Bark at whoever you want. I don't care anymore.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 10:21 PM |
|
|
don't feel sick, JJ, he's deserved it.
Elodin, I call your religion silly! a man who was nailed to a tree because he said "wou;dn't it be good to be nice to people for a change" is declared the son/incarnation of an omnipotent, allpowerful, allknowing deity who crafted the world from nothingness, killed more people in the first couple of episodes than anyone else in the story and is labeled as the good guy?! all this from a book which is a translation of a translation of a translation that were written by some people this "son of god" happened to bump into along the way?
but hey, you're entitled to your oppinions, no matter how silly they may be.
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted November 30, 2009 10:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, that's just pitiful. I have to admit that I didn't think you were such a coward. You are behaving like a 5$-solicitor. You certainly don't squirm this way when you throw stones against sinners, abortionists, socialists, atheists, communists, non-Americans, Democrats, Moores, Obamas, you name it.
On the other hand I feel a sick satisfaction to see you squirm; you have brought that onto yourself.
For me, you have lost every bit of credibility you may have had. Bark at whoever you want. I don't care anymore.
Yet more insults and falsehoods from you, eh? I am not a coward. I have always stated exactly what I believe and I don't squirm.
Oh, if anyone told you I thew stones at anyone call them a liar please.
You flasely claimed "He's indeed not exactly saying Christianity is the true way; instead he is extremely exactly saying that his specific brand of Christianity is the true way."
Your claim was false. You can not produce a single quote where I said that my denomination is "the true way" or that only Pentecostals will be saved or that Pentecostals have all of the truth.
|
|
ohforfsake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 02:16 AM |
|
|
@Shares
Quote:
In the end, religion is just a way to explain the things you can't explain.
I agree, and that's what makes religion truely meaningless. If you cannot explain it, no explanation can be regarded true, otherwise you could explain it to begin with.
@Elodin
Quote:
No proof was offered that religion is irrational or can't be justified through logic.
Not that it'd be hard to prove, read the bible, and you'll find that, but it's not a debate I'm interested in, and that's why I did not reply to your reply to my reply to Shares.
Also, I see that you refuse to accept my points about that you cannot truely know for sure, eventhough you do not explain why.
That's your decision, I regard that part as the debate meaningless, as it's a "No you can't, yes you can because of this, no you can't".
If you see it otherwise, and wishes to continue said part of the debate, then please attack the arguments and explain why they're wrong, in stead of keep on making unclaimed, already in my opinion disproved arguments again and again (i.e. you're repeating yourself with something I already answered).
So I'll continue in the assumption that you've defined God to have all for human possible power, i.e. not able to break logic. Then I hope that I'll not break the limits of your imagination with my logic and make them seem false in that sense, in this aspect, it's probably for the best that I'm as direct as possible.
Quote:
Quote:
if Allah had had all the needed characteristics of God, so that you'd not be able to see the difference of those two, yet you'd know they're different, how would you choose who to follow then?
I already showed the Qu'ran describes Allah very differently than how the Bible describes God.
Notice the if part, it's like saying that given what you just wrote had not been the case, but what I wrote had been the case, then what would you do in regard to what I wrote?
Quote:
No, the fact that there are consequences for your actions does not mean you are not free to commit the actions.
I think you're confusing terms again, here're the terms I use, if you don't like them, redefine to fit the two categories and we can continue, otherwise accept my defintions of the terms please.
Free Will -> The ability to choose what you want.
Freedom -> The ability to get what you want.
Quote:
God being all powerful in no way obligates him to make the life of for example Hitler to be wonderful in eternity.
Yes it does, otherwise he's not "good", as he did not use all of his ability to make a wonderful life in all eternity.
Had it merely been due to a lack of power that he's not able to, then he's of course not to blame. Had he not been truely "good", then of course it wouldn't matter. But both been "good", and having the power to do so, it's the right thing to do.
Quote:
God has chosen that our live on earth has meaning and purpose.
God did also create logic, meaning and purpose follows from causality and consciousness, however God can choose what we remember, as being all-powerful, making causality nothing more than an illusion. This on the other hand mean that any type of consequence, is only so, because God would not be truely "good".
Quote:
The all-powerful God created it to be so because that is what he wanted.
I.e. not making him truely "good", or loving if you want.
Quote:
Quote:
Of course you don't accept it, but what you do, is you forgive none the less, that's a very important part of love, if you truely love someone, you can always forgive them.
So you would allow the son I described to continue living in your house, beating up your wife, smoking dope in your living room and raping your daughter?
The underlines should make it easy to understand that what you believe I wrote, was not what I wrote. No you would not accept it, i.e. stop it, but it does not mean you'll kick your son out of your house, or stop loving him for that matter.
Quote:
Mankind has limited knowledge and wisdom and needs guidance from God.
If you'd grown up in a paradise, would you still say man needed said guidance? Would God at all be necessary? For what?
Also, guidance is not obeying, it's reflecting upon, either you're confusing these two terms, or you'll have to tell me how obey becomes equal guidance.
Quote:
I've not limited the power of God.
You wrote God was all-powerfull, afterwards you limited the all-powerfullness into being limited by the laws of logic, i.e. not being able to lift a stone which is created as too heavy.
This clearly limit Gods power, because it means God can create a being more powerfull than God, which would, no matter what God did, destroy God for all eternity, just as well. This being is thereby more powerfull than God, and God is not all-powerfull anymore.
So you see, all-powerfullness is impossible, unless you'll go all the way, but if you go all the way, you'll have to accept what I wrote, that logic is no barrier as well.
Quote:
You do have absolute free will. Only you chose what you do.
No, no one has, we're affected by our emotions, i.e. we're affected by the contribution from our environment, being other living beings and effects from nature phenomena, such as radiation, or fresh air. Likewise we're affected by the way our genes are coded to produce certain substances in certain situation, it's again a combination of environment and genes, and it does mean that ultimately, you may be an observer in a machine, but having complete control of the machine, you do not have.
Quote:
Why do you think God should make it possible for you to "secretly rape" someone? That is a terrible, immoral idea, not a good idea.
It was an explanation to how come your example of logic (And again, I've seen you've come with another example. I told you once, I even told you twice that I'm not interested in counting every example you come up with. Because even if I convince you each and every time (and you don't just say no, not countering the arguments), then as you can come with infinite amount of examples, it'd take me infinite time to actually convince you.) was not logical at all, as it depends on your imagination.
So what I think, or do not think, on the matter of rape, have nothing to do with this example, and doesn't really matter for this debate.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 01, 2009 04:00 AM |
|
|
Quote:
You wrote God was all-powerfull, afterwards you limited the all-powerfullness into being limited by the laws of logic, i.e. not being able to lift a stone which is created as too heavy.
This clearly limit Gods power, because it means God can create a being more powerfull than God, which would, no matter what God did, destroy God for all eternity, just as well. This being is thereby more powerfull than God, and God is not all-powerfull anymore.
So you see, all-powerfullness is impossible, unless you'll go all the way, but if you go all the way, you'll have to accept what I wrote, that logic is no barrier as well.
Aren't you a bit too "arrogant"? I mean, you use your "fallible" logic (by your assumption) to get to the all-powerfulness conclusion. This is the God paradox, but maybe it's only a paradox from our viewpoint.
As for the rest, I argued with you in another thread (about afterlife). It's the thought that matters. Not the action.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
