Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2002, 03:57   #241
ckweb
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
'excessive' skepticism?

How can there be such a thing?

What is a proper level of skepticism?

Who defines it?
Common sense. Pragmatics.

One can intellectualize all one wants but at a certain point, one has to just acknowledge that the most likely conclusion is __________.

Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
Everything is uncertain.
How do you live like that? I bet you don't live like that. I bet that everyday you assume a whole variety of things are certain. Why when you start talking philosophically are you so willing to put aside your experiential, pragmatic resolutions regarding certainity?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
We are blind men in a tiny pool of light surrounded by an infinity of darkness and it is not meant that we should venture far.
What leads you to the conclusion that we should not venture far?

Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
'God' is a meaningless word for me.
Here, let me give it some meaning, courtesy of Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: 1god
Pronunciation: 'gäd also 'god
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German got god
Date: before 12th century
1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: as a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind
2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
4 : a powerful ruler
__________________
Visit my site at http://www.anduril.ca/
ckweb is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:13   #242
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
How so? Especially if you are reading and interpreting in context . . . And, what do you mean by "directed"?
Your last question shows the other questions are based on a lack of understanding. Directed, dictated, inspired whatever you want to call it. It still comes down to wether the Bible shows the hand of Jehovah or just the hand of falible men. There is still nothing special (are going to misunderstand yet again? You have managed it at least three times so far.) in the writings of mere men.

Quote:
You misunderstood what I meant. I showed you internal evidence proving that the Creation and Flood stories are ahistorical. I didn't claim it proved the Bible.
I showed you internal evidence the the Flood was considered real. You did NOT show otherwise. You showed choices of style that you contend are a sign that its just a story. I showed people acting as if it was real. If the people in the Bible don't agree with you I see no reason to.

Quote:
I'm not trying to make up your position; only reading it as best I can. If I misread, I apologize. I'm not sure I did what you accuse me of doing, though.
I see no other way to take it. I said that if the impossible parts of the Bible were shown real I would be a christian and in reply you contradicted that statement.

Quote:
I merely questioned why the issue of the Flood, if proved to have happened, would be of any value to you?
You didn't question. You stated my postition. It didn't look like a chalenge to me.

Quote:
If science demonstrated conclusively that a universal Flood happened, it wouldn't prove that God caused it or that Noah built a ship and preserved the animals. So, I'm asking what's the point. You'd still have ample reason to be the skeptic you are.
A universal flood is physcialy impossible with some sort of literaly godlike intervention. Even one of Arthur C. Clarkes aliens would have a hard time bringing in and then removing more water than there is on the Earth. Such a flood would ALSO require that someone saved animals and men. That too would be impossible with the Ark described in the Bible but with an impossible flood it could be construed that an impossible arc might somehow be miracled into action. The genetics would be a problem but only if the genetics were the same as they really are which of course is part of the evidence that the flood did not occur. If all land animals had extremely resticted gene variation in comparison to sea animals that would be indicitive of a disaster like the flood.

[QUOTE] So, if a Flood happened that would substantiate the Bible . . . what does that mean? How does an historical Flood substantiate the Bible in a manner superior to the inscriptions I've listed that corroborate other historical events in the Bible? I'm confused by your position.[QUOTE]

I am guessing you just didn't want to think this through because it pretty obvious. If an impossible event occured that is in the Bible that at the very least lends credence to that impossible events we cannot check. The whole concept of miracles versus history seems to utterly escape your grasp. You keep making the bogus claim that the mundane justifies the impossible. It does not. It only justifies the mundane.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You are trying to apply ordinary evidence that only supports ordinary event that I haven't questioned to extraordinary claims. Anything that is outside the physical laws of the Universe like a god or a flood with more water than the Earth has is certainly extraordinary.

Quote:
If you are going to move into prophecy, please don't make the mistake of that infidels website that takes texts out of context. Many prophecies in the Bible are contigent on a response or a certain event taking place, i.e. if Israel does this, than this will happen. Obviously, if Israel does not do this, than that will not happen.
Many were not contingent on anything or were contingent on the Israelites doing things they did do.

Quote:
But if the Bible is a historically reliable source in the physical things, wouldn't it be more logical to take the position that it is also reliable in the spiritual things rather than continuing in a position of skepticism?
No. Not in the least. This is simply pleading that a few unsurprising completley possible events somehow justifies the impossible EVEN though EVERY impossible event that can be checked fails the check.

Quote:
No, they are not evidence of miracles or divine intervention. Yes, they are real evidence.
No they are not evidence for the god of the Bible UNLESS they are evidence of divine intervention. They are only confimation that the Bible has some historical events in it. Something I have pointed out to you MANY times that I don't deny.

Quote:
They do not quote Jewish claims. They are wholly independent inscriptions that corroborate a variety of historical events in the period of the Israelite Kings. Some of the evidence certainly allows the possibility of a divine intervention.
Or the complete lack of interventioin. Its possible that the unatural events in Exodus occured. We have no evidence that they did not. Neither do we have any that they did. You pulled this fallacy before. You are acting as if a possibility somehow magicaly becomes a reality if no one can disprove it. Its the other way around. You make the extraordinary claim so you must prove it.

Quote:
True. But, doesn't it suggest the Bible is reliable source and the authors were not attempting to mislead people?
No. However when the heck did I claim anyone was trying to mislead? All it does is show that the Bible tends to have some real events in it. So does the writings of Snorri Sturleson but the fact of the existance of people like Hrolf Kraki in those writings does not costititute evidence for the existance of Thor or Odin who I think may be in Hrolf Saga Kraki. I am going on Poul Anderson's books on this. I can't read Icelandic.

Quote:
They are not irrelevant. They add weight and value to the Bible as an historical source.
Only on historical matters. Not on religious ones or devine interaction.

Quote:
Why does god have to make a book written about him by imperfect humans perfect?
Because otherwise it remains what I think it is. A book written by fallible men with no special value.

Quote:
But you are reading the narratives as a Fundamentalist, just diagreeing on their accuracy, so yes you are misinformed and you do have misconceptions.
I am reading them as they are written. You have a lot of misconception about logic as your claims that real historical events imply that impossible events happened.

Quote:
You reject the Bible because you think it makes claims in Genesis 1-3 and 6-10 that contradict science and the "real world." But, if read as the text demands, one realizes the text does not make the claims you insist it does.
As you demand. Not the text. I showed you that the people in the Bible don't agree with you on the flood. You are using modern ideas to claim that the ancients thought as you do.

Quote:
No strange problem: why can't imperfect men write something special, imperfectly, about a real relationship with a real god?
They can. But there is no reason to believe if all the extraordinary claims that can be checked fail the checks. Don't pretend I am misinterpreting. They most certainly thought the Flood was a real event as it is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible and in every instance it was treated as real and nowhere is treated as a story.

Quote:
Again, why would a world wide flood be one point for the Bible while you reject the efficacy of other historical events the Bible accurately portrays?
You are being amazingly dense on this. And making things about yet again. I never claimed the Bible is inaccurate on historicaly verifiable events. I only said that such events have no relevence to the validity of extraordinary claims.

Yet again since you seem bound and determined to ignore this:

Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.



Mundane events are not in question. So they are irrelevant. Only the extraordinary claims are relevant and some of them can be checked. Those that can fail the checks. Again your interpretations are yours. I am not beholden to them and in any case I have ample evidence that your interpretations would be denied by many of the Bibles authors since they treat the Flood as real in every passage where it is mentioned outside of Genesis.


Quote:
What would make a world wide flood, supported by scientific evidence, so special? I don't understand.
And you claim I have misconceptions. How can you not understand that an extraordinary event that is shown to REAL when tested would enhance the possibility of reality in the cases that can't be tested?

Third time since you evaded it in all previous discusions you must be having a hard time with this very basic concept.

Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinarly proof.

My extension to Sagans statement:
Not mere mundane evidence for things that no one is questioning.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:23   #243
Lars-E
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 237
I'm a christian. And I have that book "Jesus Freaks". It's very good. Almost a must imo.
Lars-E is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:24   #244
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by ckweb

How do you live like that? I bet you don't live like that. I bet that everyday you assume a whole variety of things are certain. Why when you start talking philosophically are you so willing to put aside your experiential, pragmatic resolutions regarding certainity?
Its easy. I know I live like that so I don't see why he couldn't.

Everything I think I know is tentative and subject to change. GIVEN sufficient cause. An assumption is not the same thing as knowing with absolute certainty. In many cases the level of uncertaintity is quite low. I am more than reasonabley certain the Earth will continue to rotate. I see no reason to think otherwise. However if you can show how it could happen then I would have to change that assumption. So far I am pretty sure the Sun didn't really stop as claimed in the Bible. That one cannot be checked though, despite a fairy story that occasionaly makes the rounds of Fundamentalists.

For instance I used to think that electrons orbited the nucleus of the atom. Now I know to a higher degree of certainty that they don't. Things would be different if they did.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:26   #245
Lars-E
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmytrick
Do you folks know anything about the blood of Christ?
Yes.
Lars-E is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:42   #246
Lars-E
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Good ol' Troll. If you aren't for his god you will burn forever. But its not personal. After all its doesn't have a thing to do with a person's behaviour just belief. So Hitler goes to Heaven and a 3 year old child in New Guinee goes to Hell because it never even heard of a Christian.
The last part there must be catholic. It certainly is not protestant. You seem to be suffering from your catholic school/upbringing? Turned you into a godhater?
Lars-E is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:48   #247
Robert Plomp
admin
DiploGamesBtS Tri-LeaguePolyCast TeamC4WDG Team Apolyton
Administrator
 
Robert Plomp's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 11,635
Quote:
Ethelred: So far I am pretty sure the Sun didn't really stop as claimed in the Bible. That one cannot be checked though, despite a fairy story that occasionaly makes the rounds of Fundamentalists.
I can see your idea, but you're not following it the honest way. There is no way you can be sure that the sun didn't stop. You were not there at that moment, and it's scientific impossible prove it never happened.

It morely depends on the question if a super-natural force exists that commit these things.

*IF* such a force does exist all those things 'fundamentalists' believe in, are suddenly realistic.

The thing is that we, 'fundamentalists' do actually believe in such a force. To us it is realistic. To you it is not realistic, because you don't believe in such a force.

Neither you or me can prove such a force does or does not exist. We can trow our personal arguments into the debate, like we say "look at his actions, you can see the force through it's actions" and you say "but those actions are not committed by a force but by natural causes" and that's what our debate is.

It's defenitely not a clean way of debating to title us 'fundamentalists' because of our believe system.
A fundamentalist is someone who wants to push his ideas through the troat of others. Pherhaps by violence, or pherhaps by complaining all the time to his neighbour that he's not supposed to do that and that.

I will agree with you if you name *some* christians who actually do that, fundamentalists.
But you can't push that title through our troats, because we are debating, like you are debating.

If we are fundamentalists, than so are you. Both of us are sure about our cases, and both of us try to convince the other. I think that's the purpose of a debate.

Me myself think it's very un-christian to push our believe system through troats of others. Of course I want to spread the message, but I will never do so against the will of people. And I will for sure never tell people what to do and what not to do. That's not my 'mission'.

Conclusion: stop the personal insulting.
Pherhaps someone might look like a fundamentalist in YOUR eyes, but again, that's only because that someone's opinion differs from your opinion. And pherhaps the majority of the people right now shares your opinion, that still doesn't mean you have the right opinion.

CyberShy
__________________
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Robert Plomp is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 05:57   #248
Sikander
King
 
Sikander's Avatar
 
Local Time: 00:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Posts: 1,417
Quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I find it amazing so many people in the world have so many different faiths and every single one of them honestly believes they're picking the right one.
There's a good reason for this.
__________________
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
Sikander is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 07:32   #249
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E


The last part there must be catholic. It certainly is not protestant.
Its Protestant. You simply don't know all of the varieties. You haven't read the thread either. It was Troll that was saying that eveyone that isn't christian goes to Hell. He then backed off a bit for three year olds. There are plenty of Protestants that wouldn't. I guess you haven't run accross the type.

Quote:
You seem to be suffering from your catholic school/upbringing?
Now that is pure Protestant. False too. I am not suffering from having a Catholic upbringing. I simply noticed that not only were the Protestants wrong the Catholics were too.

Quote:
Turned you into a godhater?
I can't hate something I don't think exists. I know a lot of people have a hard time accepting this but it really should to be obvious. You have to believe in a god to hate it. I suspect some Atheists may fit your preconception. I am Agnostic. If given REAL evidence for a god I think I could manage to accept it. I have found however most Christians have rather loose ideas about what constitutes evidence. Some don't. Those are the ones that know that the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 08:07   #250
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Yet another poster attacking for their own misunderstanding. In this case Cybershy seem to laboring under the impression that "Fundamenalist" is an insult and he has taken to task for his own mistaken idea.



Quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I can see your idea, but you're not following it the honest way. There is no way you can be sure that the sun didn't stop. You were not there at that moment, and it's scientific impossible prove it never happened.
I didn't say I was sure and that can be seen even in what you quoted. I said I was pretty sure. It scientificly impossible for it to have happened through natural law. You seem to have missed my saying there was no way to check it.

Quote:
It morely depends on the question if a super-natural force exists that commit these things.
There is no evidence for any such entity. If one exists it has gone out of its way to hide the evidence.

Quote:
*IF* such a force does exist all those things 'fundamentalists' believe in, are suddenly realistic.
Only if you ALSO assume the force made the Earth so it looks exactly like the Fundamentalists are wrong. If the god was deceptive with the world why not the Bible instead? I see no way to decide which once you assume the world was created by something so devious. That is why Fundamentlists usually try to obfuscate the evidence instead of claiming that Jehovah created the world to look like the Bible is wrong.

Quote:
The thing is that we, 'fundamentalists' do actually believe in such a force. To us it is realistic. To you it is not realistic, because you don't believe in such a force.
Its unrealistic because there is zero evidence in the world around us to support the idea.

Quote:
Neither you or me can prove such a force does or does not exist. We can trow our personal arguments into the debate, like we say "look at his actions, you can see the force through it's actions" and you say "but those actions are not committed by a force but by natural causes" and that's what our debate is.
No. Our debate is over the lack of evidence for the world you think we live in. Evolution is a real thing. The evidence is overwhelming. For the world to look the way it does and the Bible to be correct requires a god that is so deceptive that there is still no reason to believe the Bible.

Quote:
It's defenitely not a clean way of debating to title us 'fundamentalists' because of our believe system.
A fundamentalist is someone who wants to push his ideas through the troat of others. Pherhaps by violence, or pherhaps by complaining all the time to his neighbour that he's not supposed to do that and that.
You have that wrong too. While some Fundamentalist do that not all do. A Christian Fudamenalist is simply someone that believes the Bible is literaly true. Ckweb claimed that was mostly a US idea. I think he may have gotten over that by now considering how many Europeans he has disagreed with on the Bible. Some fundamentalists are not Young Earth Creationists but most are. Either way if you believe in Adam and Eve and the Flood and the Tower of Babel you are pretty much a Fundamentalist.

Quote:
I will agree with you if you name *some* christians who actually do that, fundamentalists.
But you can't push that title through our troats, because we are debating, like you are debating.
Its a word Cybershy. Its a way to refer to people without a massive circumlocution like 'the people that think the Bible is literly true wether they are pushy about it or not'. I think typing that out once should be enough. If you think the Bible is literaly true then you are by definition a Fundamentalist. If you don't then you arene't and I am not refering when I talk about Fundamentalists.

Quote:
If we are fundamentalists, than so are you. Both of us are sure about our cases, and both of us try to convince the other. I think that's the purpose of a debate.
I can't be a fundamentalist. I don't believe the Bible is literly true. I know that there has never been a world wide flood for instance. You seem to have a problem with the word. Perhaps you simply didn't understand its meaning.

Quote:
Me myself think it's very un-christian to push our believe system through troats of others. Of course I want to spread the message, but I will never do so against the will of people. And I will for sure never tell people what to do and what not to do. That's not my 'mission'.
Pushing is to some christians not a good thing. But the Bible does say to spread the word doesn't it? Some people put their emphasis in different parts of the Bible. Not surprising since on this issue you can find quotes in the Bible going either way. Yes its another thing the Bible contradicts itself on.

Quote:
Conclusion: stop the personal insulting.
Where did I do that except in the case where Troll insulted me first?

Fundamenatlist is not an insult. If you have a problem with the word that is YOUR PERSONAL problem rather than an insult from me.

Quote:
Pherhaps someone might look like a fundamentalist in YOUR eyes, but again, that's only because that someone's opinion differs from your opinion. And pherhaps the majority of the people right now shares your opinion, that still doesn't mean you have the right opinion.

CyberShy
You need to look the word up Cybershy. If you find the word insulting that is your problem. Few Fundamentalists would agree with you.

Now 'Fundy' is derogative to some degree and I never call anyone that. Its a lot easier to type though.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 08:18   #251
Gangerolf
Prince
 
Gangerolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: KULTUR-TERROR
Posts: 958
you god-belivers; do you laugh at people who believe in UFOs, ghosts, Father Christmas, little people, trolls, unicorns and so on?
__________________
CSPA
Gangerolf is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 08:22   #252
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
My mother told me that one of my great grand aunts put milk out for the Little People. That was when my mother was pretty young so maybe she was having her leg pulled.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 08:46   #253
Gangerolf
Prince
 
Gangerolf's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: KULTUR-TERROR
Posts: 958
what's more bizarre:

a) putting out milk for the little people

or

b) going to church every sunday
__________________
CSPA
Gangerolf is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 08:55   #254
Robert Plomp
admin
DiploGamesBtS Tri-LeaguePolyCast TeamC4WDG Team Apolyton
Administrator
 
Robert Plomp's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 11,635
I looked it up in the dutch dictionairy, I'm sure it won't be different than the english one. it says:

Fundamentalist:
follower of an orthodox unliberal religion.

conclusion: you're wrong.
Besides that: you don't get half of what I said. Reread it.
__________________
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Robert Plomp is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 09:07   #255
Jack the Bodiless
King
 
Jack the Bodiless's Avatar
 
Local Time: 07:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Converted underground reservoir tank.
Posts: 1,345
...Uh, CyberShy:

"Orthodox" and "unliberal" means they follow the Bible and don't allow loose, "liberal", allegorical interpretations.

Conclusion: he's right.
Jack the Bodiless is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 09:08   #256
ricketyclik
Call to Power PBEMCall To Power SuperLeagueIron CiversCivilization IV PBEMC4WDG Delian LeagueCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
ricketyclik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally posted by Asher
I find it amazing so many people in the world have so many different faiths and every single one of them honestly believes they're picking the right one.
We all grasp as best we can with our finite minds toward the infinite. "God" communicates with each of us with what our minds will allow us to hear.
ricketyclik is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 09:23   #257
ricketyclik
Call to Power PBEMCall To Power SuperLeagueIron CiversCivilization IV PBEMC4WDG Delian LeagueCivilization IV: Multiplayer
Emperor
 
ricketyclik's Avatar
 
Local Time: 17:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 8,736
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred


I don't think Ming would like the appropriate comment to that. So I will just allude to it.



Only one Jimmy in those lines. The original song wasn't Jimmy. It was a women's name which acounts for some odd conflicts in the song. "Oh Jimmy your so pretty" for instance always struck me as an odd thing for a women to say about a guy. Especially a women past thirty. I think she should have made a few more changes.

I liked it anyway.

I think its

Hey Jimmy your so fine you blow my mind

HEY Jimmy.
Oh Mickey you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind
Hey Mickey
Hey Mickey

Oh Micky you're so fine,; don't you understand?
You take me by the heart when you take me by the hand
Oh Mickey you're so fine something something something
It's guys like you Mickey...
etc
ricketyclik is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 09:25   #258
Lars-E
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 237
Quote:
Originally posted by Ethelred
Its Protestant. You simply don't know all of the varieties. You haven't read the thread either. It was Troll that was saying that eveyone that isn't christian goes to Hell. He then backed off a bit for three year olds. There are plenty of Protestants that wouldn't. I guess you haven't run accross the type.
Name one branch. And I read the thread. It was you who brought up the 3-year old IIRC.

Quote:
Now that is pure Protestant. False too. I am not suffering from having a Catholic upbringing. I simply noticed that not only were the Protestants wrong the Catholics were too.
You seem to bring up catholic issues concerning when arguing against christianity. You also mentioned a catholic school when arguing against ckweb on "godly issues". So it seems your upbringing in catholicism is your starting point for critizing religion/christianity.

Quote:
I can't hate something I don't think exists. I know a lot of people have a hard time accepting this but it really should to be obvious. You have to believe in a god to hate it. I suspect some Atheists may fit your preconception. I am Agnostic. If given REAL evidence for a god I think I could manage to accept it. I have found however most Christians have rather loose ideas about what constitutes evidence. Some don't. Those are the ones that know that the existence of god can be neither proven nor disproven.
Being a agnostic you could say: If there is a god i would hate...
Lars-E is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 09:48   #259
Thrawn05
King
 
Local Time: 02:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Constantly giggling as I type my posts.
Posts: 1,735
I don't call myself a Iesus freak. I keep to myself. This is the first and last time I will list where I stand:

Traditional Latin-Rite SSPV
Roman Catholic.
__________________
I drink to one other, and may that other be he, to drink to another, and may that other be me!
Thrawn05 is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 10:13   #260
loinburger
Apolytoners Hall of Fame
Emperor
 
Local Time: 03:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jul 1999
Posts: 5,605
Quote:
Originally posted by Seeker
'excessive' skepticism?
How can there be such a thing?
What is a proper level of skepticism?
Who defines it?
Everything is uncertain.
Bear in mind that I'm pretty skeptical myself, but I've gotta disagree with you here. It's possible for skepticism to be so severe that it interferes with one's life. F'rinstance, I don't know with absolute certainty that I even exist, but that is irrelevant--nihilism is a destructive belief system, so for practical reasons I make the assumption that I exist. I don't know with absolute certainty that you or anybody else exists either, but that is again irrelevant--if I assume that nobody else exists (and am wrong) then I have the potential of causing a great deal of harm through my assumptions, but if I assume that everybody else exists (and am wrong) then I'm no worse off. Pascal's Wager is worthless as a theological justification for believing in something (or making certain assumptions), but is excellent as a practical justification for believing in something (or making certain assumptions).

Sometimes skepticism is the best option, though. F'rinstance, if I were to believe that God exists, then through this belief I'm generally saddled with certain ethical presuppositions that are difficult (perhaps impossible) to release myself from. If I were to believe that God does not exist, then I'm again saddled with certain ethical presuppositions. By believing neither position, I'm freed from restrictive ethical presuppostions that would otherwise prevent me from living my life as it ought to be led. It's not necessarily impossible to be freed from such presuppositions while holding a negative or positive belief in the existence of God, but at the least it's extremely difficult.

Also, while everything may be uncertain, that doesn't mean that everything is equally probable. I might die of a heart attack tomorrow, but it's not very likely to happen so I live my life under the assumption that I'm not going to die of a heart attack tomorrow. It's extremely likely that I'll die within the next eighty years, though, and so I'll plan accordingly.
__________________
"For just twenty cents a day, we'll moisten your dreams with man urine." -Space Ghost

Last edited by loinburger; September 11, 2002 at 10:20.
loinburger is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 10:21   #261
Robert Plomp
admin
DiploGamesBtS Tri-LeaguePolyCast TeamC4WDG Team Apolyton
Administrator
 
Robert Plomp's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Delft, The Netherlands
Posts: 11,635
Quote:
Jack the Bodiless: "Orthodox" and "unliberal" means they follow the Bible and don't allow loose, "liberal", allegorical interpretations.
Orthodox does not refer to the bible, but to a certain interpretation of the bible. This interpretation is a very strict law-system with ceremonies and all that.

Unliberal refers to a system in which the opinion of the persons does not count, and everybody has to obey to what the leader says.

If you want to group people like CivNation and me together, you're really going very short.
I very disagree with the biblical interpretation that we have to live a very strict live to laws and rules, and all that.
__________________
Formerly known as "CyberShy"
Carpe Diem tamen Memento Mori
Robert Plomp is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:00   #262
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Gangerolf
what's more bizarre:

a) putting out milk for the little people

or

b) going to church every sunday
I think its a matter of

A) the Little People lived in Ireland and my Great Grand Aunt was living in the Mid-West.


B) That is common enough to seem normal.


C) I suspect she did both. We are talking about an Irish-Catholic.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:04   #263
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
I looked it up in the dutch dictionairy, I'm sure it won't be different than the english one. it says:

Fundamentalist:
follower of an orthodox unliberal religion.

conclusion: you're wrong.
Besides that: you don't get half of what I said. Reread it.
How does that become an insult?

I got what you said. You still don't understand evolution one tiny little bit.

I will continue to call Fundamentalists exactly that. If you want to pretend its an insult that will remain your problem as it simply is no such thing. It's like calling it an insult to a person is a Catholic or a Jew.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:08   #264
Traianvs
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Traianvs's Avatar
 
Local Time: 09:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Belgium, land of plenty (corruption)
Posts: 2,647
Quote:
quote:
going to church of course, if you believe in trolls, all you've got to do is put out some milk, christians have to waste an entire morning in church before they can get drunk in the pub (though nowadays they don't do that anymore, cos it's mainly old ppl going to church, and they can't handle booze )
__________________
"An archaeologist is the best husband a women can have; the older she gets, the more interested he is in her." - Agatha Christie
"Non mortem timemus, sed cogitationem mortis." - Seneca
Traianvs is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:21   #265
Switch
Prince
 
Switch's Avatar
 
Local Time: 02:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Waterloo, Ontario
Posts: 687
I'm a Christian, born (again) and raised. I believe in God, Christ, and all such related things mentioned in the bible. I also know what you mean by the blood of Christ, but no, I am not a Catholic either.

I suggest everyone check out Answers in Genesis Ministries. It is a great site with a lot of resources regarding creationism, evolution, and anything else which is based off of Genesis. It can be a great help for apologetics.

God bless!
__________________
I AM.CHRISTIAN
Switch is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:21   #266
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by Lars-E


Name one branch. And I read the thread. It was you who brought up the 3-year old IIRC.
I used a three year old as an example of an innocent. Prior to that Troll had NO limiter at all on non-christians going to Hell. If you really read the thread you would have seen it.

As for the Branch. You don't live in the US. A lot of people here don't actualy belong to any particular branch especially the sort that think that way. I have had many people tell me that all is needed to go to Heaven is to accept Jesus as your own personal savior, that works don't matter, that everyone every one else goes to Hell. You not having run across this does not make this false.

If I hadn't called Troll on his post his stand on this thread would still have EVERYONE not a christian going to hell. He still has everyone over a certain(unspecified) age going there if you will bother to notice.

Quote:
You seem to bring up catholic issues concerning when arguing against christianity. You also mentioned a catholic school when arguing against ckweb on "godly issues". So it seems your upbringing in catholicism is your starting point for critizing religion/christianity.
Maybe that is something you are sensitive on. I bring up the Genesis and other parts of the Bible which aren't even close to being purely Catholic issue. I have noticed that some Protestants have a hot button about Catholicism. I guess you are one of them.

Quote:
Being a agnostic you could say: If there is a god i would hate...
YOU could I suppose. Especially if you feel the need to distort someone's position to avoid what they really said.

As for me. I am not into hate especialy hating things I suspect are merely superstition. That is just your imagination at work. Similar to Cybershy trying to invent an insult where there is none when the term Fundamentalist is used. Notice how he directed it at me instead of Ckweb who is pretty disdainful of Fundamentalists and used the word as well.

Any time you want to address what I have said instead of avoid it by attacking me as a person go right ahead Lars. I like debate and will even debate with people that have called me a "God-hater" without bothering to think first.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:35   #267
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by CyberShy
Orthodox does not refer to the bible, but to a certain interpretation of the bible. This interpretation is a very strict law-system with ceremonies and all that.
What ceremonies? You are mistaking the Eastern Orthodox rites for the generaly term orthodox. On top of which its not a good definition. Fundamentalists aren't all that orthodox.

[QUOTE]
Quote:
Unliberal refers to a system in which the opinion of the persons does not count, and everybody has to obey to what the leader says.
Fundamentalists don't have a leader in most cases. They tend to go with their own personal interpretations of the Bible.

Quote:
If you want to group people like CivNation and me together, you're really going very short.
I very disagree with the biblical interpretation that we have to live a very strict live to laws and rules, and all that.
So do the Fundamentalists. Try and find one that doesn't eat pork. Ham is really popular in the Southern US which heart of Fudamentalism in the US.

How about I use an American dictionary as I speak American and not Dutch.


fundamentalism

SYLLABICATION: fun·da·men·tal·ism
PRONUNCIATION: fnd-mntl-zm
NOUN: 1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism. 2a. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture. b. Adherence to the theology of this movement.

Even they get it wrong in part though. Its often not organized in that respect. Especially in the US where many people are Fundamenatlists and never go to any church. They do it on their own. I think it comes from the time when people were spreading into new land and were often far from any organized churches.

I still haven't seen you offer an alternative term.
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 16:40   #268
Ethelred
King
 
Ethelred's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:44
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Anaheim, California
Posts: 1,083
Quote:
Originally posted by SwitchMoO


I suggest everyone check out Answers in Genesis Ministries. It is a great site with a lot of resources regarding creationism, evolution, and anything else which is based off of Genesis. It can be a great help for apologetics.

God bless!
Its a really bad source for stuff on Evolution. It is a bit more sophisticated in its distortions than other Creationist sites though. They like to start their articles quoting real science (always out of context) and then warp over their version of things in an effort to imply some sort of science in what they say.

For real information on evolution try this site:

http://www.talkorigins.org/
Ethelred is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 17:05   #269
Lars-E
Warlord
 
Local Time: 08:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N/A
Posts: 237
Quote:
As for me. I am not into hate especialy hating things I suspect are merely superstition. That is just your imagination at work.

Any time you want to address what I have said instead of avoid it by attacking me as a person go right ahead Lars. I like debate and will even debate with people that have called me a "God-hater" without bothering to think first.
Not my imagination...I was thinking of Rom 1:21-32, especially the bold parts:

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

It seems like your attitude towards christianity is colored by your childhood experiences? That's alll I am trying to indicate. Nothing more.

Anyways my definition of a fundamentalist is a person who believes in certain fundaments. A christian believes in certain fundaments or dogmas if you will. Most ppl have an outlook of life which includes certain fundaments. If you're a jellyfish, then I guess not.
Lars-E is offline  
Old September 11, 2002, 17:12   #270
ckweb
Settler
 
Local Time: 00:44
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 10
Ethelred. I read your response to my last post. I think you simply respond to my posts and forget what my posts were responding to. And, then you lay all sorts of slight ad hominen attacks on me . . .

Another tactic you use is if I ask a question several times in my response, you'll answer it the first time and then when you get to the question again, you'll accuse me of being dense for not getting your answer. For pete's sake, you only answered the question in that post!

I also find you evade and deflect the issue alot. I find it amazingly difficult to continue the conversation we start because you seem to slightly modify its direction.

Anyways, I am still going to try a give you a response to your post:

Quote:
Your last question shows the other questions are based on a lack of understanding. Directed, dictated, inspired whatever you want to call it.
My last question did no such thing. You simply chose to think it does so you didn't have to answer the first two questions.

Quote:
There is still nothing special (are going to misunderstand yet again? You have managed it at least three times so far.) in the writings of mere men.
I am not misunderstanding anything. I have challenged this argument. Why is there nothing special in the writings of mere men? Why can't men write imperfectly about a perfect god? Please answer.

Quote:
You showed choices of style that you contend are a sign that its just a story.
This is what I mean . . . You simply refuse to believe that it is so.

I have clearly demonstrated that the Flood is a composite text and that its stylistic choices indicate that it was a mythic story. And, as I mentioned way back then, it is irrelevant whether some later biblical writers thought it was real or not. Undoubtedly, Babylonians thought the Gilgamesh Epic was real but that does not imply that the author thought it was real.

Quote:
I said that if the impossible parts of the Bible were shown real I would be a christian and in reply you contradicted that statement.
I did no such thing. I only asked why the historicity of the Flood made such a difference to you.

Quote:
You didn't question. You stated my postition. It didn't look like a chalenge to me.
Did you miss the question marks????

Quote:
You keep making the bogus claim that the mundane justifies the impossible. It does not. It only justifies the mundane. . . . You are trying to apply ordinary evidence that only supports ordinary event that I haven't questioned to extraordinary claims.
No I am not. I am using ordinary evidence to support ordinary events. Once doing so, all I have suggested is that, if the Bible is reliable to recounting ordinary events, why not give it the benefit of the doubt on its extraordinary claims? No where did I write that ordinary evidence supports the extraordinary claims; or the mundane justifies the impossible.

Quote:
No. Not in the least. This is simply pleading that a few unsurprising completley possible events somehow justifies the impossible EVEN though EVERY impossible event that can be checked fails the check.
My point, which seems to elude you, is that there is no impossible event that fails your check. There are only Fundamentalist claims that fail your check.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ckweb
Some of the evidence certainly allows the possibility of a divine intervention.
Quote:
Originally posted by EthelredOr the complete lack of interventioin. Its possible that the unatural events in Exodus occured. We have no evidence that they did not. Neither do we have any that they did. You pulled this fallacy before. You are acting as if a possibility somehow magicaly becomes a reality if no one can disprove it.
I am not pulling a fallacy and I am not acting as if the possibility proves the reality. All I have suggested is that available evidence does not disprove it; in other words, the sequence of events the Bible presents is not excluded by extra-biblical sources. I have in no way suggested that it means anything more than that. You are simply accusing me of such so you can avoid argue on the core issue, just like you will probably respond to this last sentence rather than the explanation I have given.

Quote:
However when the heck did I claim anyone was trying to mislead?
By implication.

Quote:
Only on historical matters. Not on religious ones or devine interaction.
But, if the course of history is the religious matter . . .

Quote:
Because otherwise it remains what I think it is. A book written by fallible men with no special value.
Your opinion. Prove that it is so. Why can't fallible men write a book of special valuel about their real relationship with a real god?

Quote:
I am reading them as they are written.
No. You are reading them as they appear in English, as Fundamentalist argue that they should be read, and completely divorced from their historical context.

Quote:
You have a lot of misconception about logic as your claims that real historical events imply that impossible events happened.
I never did so. But, by saying I did, it makes a nice throw in on a particularly weak point on your part . . .

Quote:
You are using modern ideas to claim that the ancients thought as you do.
No. I am reading literature contemporary to the writing of Genesis. I am also learning and appreciating how ancient people thought about their world. I am also learning the literary techniques used in ancient writing. And, I am learning the language used in that story. Could you show me where you have taken into consideration such relevant issues to the meaning of the text?

Quote:
You are being amazingly dense on this.
Ad hominen attacks do not make your point. It is also disingenuous to suggest I am not getting your point when you only gave your answer to this question earlier in this post.

BTW, you have not proved that all the biblical authors believed the Flood was real. You have failed to show that the author of the Flood Story himself thought it was real and you have not shown that all the others require a real event. Simply because they mention it, does not mean they thought it was real.
__________________
Visit my site at http://www.anduril.ca/

Last edited by ckweb; September 11, 2002 at 17:17.
ckweb is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team