261 replies to this topic

[LionHarted]

It gives her the right to make her own decisions about her own body.

And also whether the living thing inside of her ought to live or not, apparently.

I asked for example. Not a blanket statement.

Public school.

But something is keeping us rooted in place. Or else we would float away. Are you denying this?

No. I am saying that it does not have to be gravity.

Except for in debates and discussions, I would agree. And certain professions.

Like, say... being a member of the clergy?

The purpose of marriage, historicaly, is to pool economic resources.

In which case no one can stop it from happening, legal institution or no.

Edited by LionHarted, 04 August 2007 - 12:45 PM.

[Nevermind]

Incidents of homosexual activity in nature do not change a thing. We are also part of nature. It still does naught to assist the natural progression of life. Two guys hooking up is a little unsettling to myself as well, and I also agree that it will not affect the population in any negative way. The point was that this is not something forced upon people through Christianity alone; Christianity is merely one medium through which aversion is outspoken but that doesn't include the religion in its entirety either. Christianity has become a scapegoat for many things by people who take a generalised opinion and do not take the time or effort to truly look into the heart of what it is meant to be about. Both the religion and God are blamed for [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of fuck-ups that are caused by people in the first place. The true idea of Christianity forces nothing upon anyone; all it does is open doors and opportunities to people, nothing more, whereas science claims its theories as universal facts that should be accepted by everyone. Yes, that is the same attitude that [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of Christians adhere to, but that is by those who skim over the true meaning of it all, and only focus on certain parts. This unfortunately happens to be a majority of them, of which the rest of us are ashamed of, and apologise for.

Summary: True science is more oppressive than true Christianity.

[LionHarted]

Instances of anything in nature do not make them "natural" or "right", else murder, incest, and cannibalism ought to be perfectly acceptable.

[Stambo]

Please explain how this can be so.

Just because we have proven that bodies behave as though there is a force such as gravity, does not mean that there is such a force.

Actually it does; the experimental and theoretical evidence of this is beyond reproach, and has been since Galileo. While our understanding of the cause of this force has evolved to our current understanding based on general relativity, the force (or, more accurately, geometric warping of space-time) has been closely studied and measured. Its mathematical foundations have been proven time and again in our studies throughout the universe. What alternate theory would you put forth to replace gravitational theory?

[LionHarted]

Actually it does
[...]
What alternate theory would you put forth to replace gravitational theory?

You'll note that I'm not refuting the theory, but simply acknowledging that our knowledge, which is not unlimited, may not ever be able to suffice to explain it accurately, even if it can explain it accurately enough for our purposes.

[Reflectionist]

In case anyone happens to wonder why I'm not posting, it's because I don't want to get banned again.

Because everything I can think of to say to LionHarted about his skewed theories about fact is frowned upon by the moderation staff.

Sorry.

[SOAP]

Most of your arguments against the idea of prayer were formulated seemingly from the perspective that prayer should operate the way you want it to. Thus, I would necessarily postulate that you're simply making up straw men in order to attack the idea, which would fall into the category of "uneducated bullshit."

All your arguments for it are based on beliefs and excuses for it works for some and not others. This does not fly because not everyone shares your beliefs and nobody likes to be BSed with excuses, not even you. How can you seriously tell someone that your god answers prayers when you haven't first convinced them that your god exists in the first place. I believe, I believe, I believe. "I believe" isn't good enough. Anyone can believe any crazy thing they can imagine. It doesn't make it true, just because you believe it is. Likewise, it isn't untrue just because we don't believe it. That's why facts are so important. If you can provide a single observable piece of evidence in your favor, we can have something to go on. If you don't, all anyone has is personal opinions and everyone saying "I'm right," "No, I'm right!" Well if you think you're right and that prayer works, WHY are you right? Just because you say so?

Not necessarily.

If you're trying to prove something it is. If you're not, why are we having this debate? What is it that you expect us to do? Take your word for it?

If there is no hell, no one will burn in hell for anything, because there is no hell.
If there is a hell, and you would burn in hell for not following certain standards of living, I would be duty-bound to tell you, would I not?

Regardless of that, using hell as a scare tactic against anyone who disagrees with your beliefs isn't going to get you convince anyone your beliefs are correct. It's just baseless suspicion.

You'll note that I'm not refuting the theory, but simply acknowledging that our knowledge, which is not unlimited, may not ever be able to suffice to explain it accurately, even if it can explain it accurately enough for our purposes.

That much I agree with. Even science does not provide all the answers. Even Issac Newton didn't have it all figured out when he came up with the Law of Gravity. Sometimes scientific facts can be proven wrong and not always by other scientists. It used to be that the scientific community believed space was perfect and a complete void aside from the celestial bodies whereas the religious community believed God threw stones from sky. Now we know space isn't void and rocks do fall from the sky. They're called meteors. Sometimes science ends up proving what the religious people knew all along. And sometimes whole scientific facts can be proven completely false. But they're always proven wrong by other facts and in the case of the meteor, the rocks couldn't have came from anywhere but space. You don't have to believe the facts presented to you. But if you want to convince other people certain facts are wrong, you need other facts to prove it.

Edited by SOAP, 04 August 2007 - 04:06 PM.

[Oberon Storm]

It gives her the right to make her own decisions about her own body.

And also whether the living thing inside of her ought to live or not, apparently.

Exactly.

I asked for example. Not a blanket statement.

Public school.

How so? By teaching the scientific method? By teaching students how to form a hypothesis and test it? It's a little messed up to teach something that is not science in a science class. If you want to teach creationism or ID then keep in a social studies class.

But something is keeping us rooted in place. Or else we would float away. Are you denying this?

No. I am saying that it does not have to be gravity.

Gravity is just a name. Switch things around if you like. Duct tape is now what gravity once was and vice versa.

The purpose of marriage, historicaly, is to pool economic resources.

In which case no one can stop it from happening, legal institution or no.

I'm not sure I follow.

Instances of anything in nature do not make them "natural" or "right", else murder, incest, and cannibalism ought to be perfectly acceptable.

And what, exactly, makes gay marriage not "right"? Nothing except some god and a personal icky feeling at the sight two men kissing.

Murder and cannibalism are not comparable to incest or homosexuality, and you know it. Anything that happens between two consenting adults is none of our business.

Incidents of homosexual activity in nature do not change a thing. We are also part of nature. It still does naught to assist the natural progression of life. Two guys hooking up is a little unsettling to myself as well, and I also agree that it will not affect the population in any negative way. The point was that this is not something forced upon people through Christianity alone; Christianity is merely one medium through which aversion is outspoken but that doesn't include the religion in its entirety either. Christianity has become a scapegoat for many things by people who take a generalised opinion and do not take the time or effort to truly look into the heart of what it is meant to be about. Both the religion and God are blamed for [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of fuck-ups that are caused by people in the first place. The true idea of Christianity forces nothing upon anyone; all it does is open doors and opportunities to people, nothing more, whereas science claims its theories as universal facts that should be accepted by everyone. Yes, that is the same attitude that [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of Christians adhere to, but that is by those who skim over the true meaning of it all, and only focus on certain parts. This unfortunately happens to be a majority of them, of which the rest of us are ashamed of, and apologise for.

Summary: True science is more oppressive than true Christianity.

The thories of science all have evidence behind them. Things that can be measured. God doesn't. If you want to attack those theories with evidence contrary to those theories then great. But to argue against science with something that isn't measurable is pointless. I guess you can still do it, but you cannot expect someone who needs that empiracle evidence to accept your position without something tangible.

I do not doubt there are people that have reservations about gay people getting married, but the only arguments ever present are from a religious, not just Christian, point of view. And just because some people are squeamish isn't enough. To create a law based on religious grounds alone is unconstitutional. It is a violation of rights garanteed by the Constitution. That is what makes these bans wrong. To amend the Constitution is like taking a step back. You might as well revoke the right to vote for women and blacks. Those milestones in our history will become meaningless.

[SOAP]

Can we not turn this in to a homosexuality debate? I should've said something earlier but as a gay guy myself, such debates tend to get pointless and boring really quick and the only person arguing against it isn't even interested in the first place. And just when I thought we were through with such debates...

[Delphi]

Take it from me SOAP: Topics in this section that annoy the Hell out of you will never stop.

[SOAP]

Take it from me SOAP: Topics in this section that annoy the Hell out of you will never stop.

Yeah but... It's a one-sided debate. Where's the fun in taht?

[Nevermind]

The thories of science all have evidence behind them. Things that can be measured. God doesn't. If you want to attack those theories with evidence contrary to those theories then great. But to argue against science with something that isn't measurable is pointless. I guess you can still do it, but you cannot expect someone who needs that empiracle evidence to accept your position without something tangible.

I do not doubt there are people that have reservations about gay people getting married, but the only arguments ever present are from a religious, not just Christian, point of view. And just because some people are squeamish isn't enough. To create a law based on religious grounds alone is unconstitutional. It is a violation of rights garanteed by the Constitution. That is what makes these bans wrong. To amend the Constitution is like taking a step back. You might as well revoke the right to vote for women and blacks. Those milestones in our history will become meaningless.

As I said, there is always an unknown factor. I am neither dismissing scientific evidence, nor am I trying to convince you to accept my way of seeing things. All I am saying is that despite the overwhelming evidence presented by science, there is always, and I don't doubt it's even in the back of your mind as well, the tiniest of twinges that make you think "But maybe....". Even just for a split second. That such a thought is even able to exist takes away from science and fact as we know it being completely, truly 100% correct. Fair enough, science has proven [img]http://forums.legendsalliance.com/public/ALOT.png[/img] of things, and at this point in time I cannot argue with it. We are a long way from true knowledge, though, and it is the intangible aspects that I focus on.

As for the rest, well the best I can say is that the amount of people that I am at least 80% sure would vote no to gay marriage, just in my town alone - and are a far cry from any religious type - is...massive. But you know, as SOAP as pointed out, that's not the argument here. You just gotta realise that it's not religion alone condemning people and affecting lives; it's just....people. Most, if not all, of them would not be able to tell you why they don't like the idea of homosexuality, but they'll tell you they don't like it anyway. The best answer you could hope for from them is "It's just wrong", with the best follow-up to that being "'Cos it just is".

[SOAP]

As I said, there is always an unknown factor. I am neither dismissing scientific evidence, nor am I trying to convince you to accept my way of seeing things. All I am saying is that despite the overwhelming evidence presented by science, there is always, and I don't doubt it's even in the back of your mind as well, the tiniest of twinges that make you think "But maybe...."

Maybe it's something you ate? I kid I kid. Actually such a feeling isn't a bad thing and in fact, it's crucial for people to skeptical when it comes to science. Science wouldn't have gotten as far as it has if everyone just accepted theories flat out. Just because something is established a fact doesn't there aren't people still trying to disprove it. The deal is, they're disproving old facts with new facts, not personal beliefs. And they're not out going disproving things just because they personally don't like the idea. Science can't survive with personal bias. People may feel science is bias but that's only because they feel it doesn't cater to their own personal beliefs. They, themselves are bias.

Also:


If that doesn't end the homosexuality debate, maybe this will:


His other videos are worth looking at too.

Edited by SOAP, 04 August 2007 - 11:57 PM.

[MikePetersSucks]

*Bookmarks that first video* Pwnage.

[LionHarted]

All your arguments for it are based on beliefs and excuses for it works for some and not others.

Actually, they aren't. All my arguments for it fall into the category of restating "everything happens for a reason" in various forms.

That's why facts are so important. If you can provide a single observable piece of evidence in your favor, we can have something to go on.

Any "observable evidence" I could present would be chalked up to coincidence.

If you're trying to prove something it is. If you're not, why are we having this debate?

I'm trying to defend Christianity against attacks by people who refuse to accept it as it presents itself, and instead resort to misrepresenting its beliefs, such as beliefs about prayer, in order to invalidate it.

Regardless of that, using hell as a scare tactic against anyone who disagrees with your beliefs isn't going to get you convince anyone your beliefs are correct. It's just baseless suspicion.

I'm not using hell as a scare tactic, so why are we even discussing it?

But if you want to convince other people certain facts are wrong, you need other facts to prove it.

Precisely.

So this debate is effectively useless; no one is dealing with facts.

And what, exactly, makes gay marriage not "right"?

Use of sexual pleasure outside of its natural and intended context is a perversion of the act itself.

Anything that happens between two consenting adults is none of our business.

Oh, I agree. It's absolutely none of my business.

I'm not sure I follow.

I'll have you know that nowhere in the United States is gay marriage illegal, nor can it be illegal.

It's a little messed up to teach something that is not science in a science class.

Why does there have to be a science class?

Exactly.

Isn't that overstepping?

The thories of science all have evidence behind them. Things that can be measured. God doesn't.

A man died, claimed he was the son of God, indeed, that He was God, and rose to life again.

Disprove me.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 August 2007 - 07:35 AM.

[SOAP]

Actually, they aren't. All my arguments for it fall into the category of restating "everything happens for a reason" in various forms.

Which is one one of the excuses I'm talking about. When something terrible happens and when people need answers the most, we're supposed to just sit back and believe "everything happens for a reason" or "God will come through on his time, not ours" or something to that extent. Basically they're all pretty ways of saying "Your life sucks and you can't do a damn thing about it." I don't see how it's supposed to be comforting to be told that I'm completely impotent without God there to hold my hand all the time.

Any "observable evidence" I could present would be chalked up to coincidence.

Humor me then.

I'm trying to defend Christianity against attacks by people who refuse to accept it as it presents itself, and instead resort to misrepresenting its beliefs, such as beliefs about prayer, in order to invalidate it.

That's very noble but then again nobody likes to be told their beliefs are wrong. If say you were a Muslim defending Christianity, I would care a little more.

I'm not using hell as a scare tactic, so why are we even discussing it?

Hell is a scare tactic. There's no other way it CAN be used.

Precisely.

So this debate is effectively useless; no one is dealing with facts.

Not everyone has to. I'm asking YOU to prove prayer works. If you ask me to prove it doesn't, without first proving to me it does, the debate just ends up a circular battle of opinions. But at least now you see why facts are so important. Opinions alone SUCK. Yours and mines.

[LionHarted]

I don't see how it's supposed to be comforting to be told that I'm completely impotent without God there to hold my hand all the time.

That's not my fault.

I, for one, find it immensely comforting to know how utterly powerless I am, and yet that I can, at the same time, prove myself able of doing so much, with a little bit of help.

If say you were a Muslim defending Christianity, I would care a little more.

I often champion causes that are not my own, so long as they do not involve matters that I would consider sinful. I defend the prayerful aspects of Islam, and the concept of a God-centered culture, but I do not defend most Islamic regimes.

Hell is a scare tactic. There's no other way it CAN be used.

The idea of punishment for wrongdoing is a scare tactic? I would have thought that it conformed with the natural order of things. Do harm, and harm be done to you.

I'm asking YOU to prove prayer works.

I have proven it to myself enough times.

It is of no consequence to me whether you will not believe in it. Only your own experience and your own outlook can do that for you.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 August 2007 - 09:16 AM.

[SOAP]

That's not my fault.

I, for one, find it immensely comforting to know how utterly powerless I am, and yet that I can, at the same time, prove myself able of doing so much, with a little bit of help.

Well that's slightly better than the run-around I usually get with Christianity.

The idea of punishment for wrongdoing is a scare tactic? I would have thought that it conformed with the natural order of things.

The thing about Hell, at least the Christian Concept of Hell, is that it has less to do with wrongdoing and more to do with subscribing to a certain belief. A murder can enter heaven if he repents and has Jesus in his heart but a person who strive to be a moral person will still go to Hell if he doesn't profess Jesus Christ as his or her Lord and Savior. Also, hell as punishment does not mesh with the natural order of things at all, because judging by how it's described Christians, even one second of hell would be overkill for the even most sinful, depraved man among us. Hell as an eternal punishment is totally unreasonable because our human lives are far too short to commit enough sin to deserve such a fate. And this somehow makes sense to you?

I have proven it to myself enough times.

It is of no consequence to me whether you will not believe in it. Only your own experience and your own outlook can do that for you.

WEll then I guess I have no choice but to respect your stance and leave it at that.

[LionHarted]

The thing about Hell, at least the Christian Concept of Hell, is that it has less to do with wrongdoing and more to do with subscribing to a certain belief.

That's precisely the reverse of what I've always been taught.

Hell as an eternal punishment is totally unreasonable because our human lives are far too short to commit enough sin to deserve such a fate.

Actually, considering that all it takes to not be there is a little bit of help (see my last post), I would say that not putting in the frankly minimal effort that seems to be required, in several doctrines, in order to get there would constitute rejection. Hell, in concept, essentially comes to those who reject God, not necessarily in principle but in action. Since hell is essentially a state of being without God, I would think that's actually a rather fitting fate for those who choose it.

"I don't want to follow you, God."
"Then you can't come with me."

Or, my personal favorite:
"Well, it's obvious he doesn't want to be here."

For the sake of metaphor: heaven is like a party to which everyone is invited. Some choose not to come, and some try to get in drunk, but the bouncers keep them out. Others come willingly, and still others find it entirely by accident (the greatest miracles of all, IMO).

WEll then I guess I have no choice but to respect your stance and leave it at that.

Indeed. *shakes hands*

Edited by LionHarted, 05 August 2007 - 10:25 AM.

[SOAP]

Hell as an eternal punishment is totally unreasonable because our human lives are far too short to commit enough sin to deserve such a fate.

Actually, considering that all it takes to not be there is a little bit of help (see my last post), I would say that not putting in the frankly minimal effort that seems to be required, in several doctrines, in order to get there would constitute rejection. Hell, in concept, essentially comes to those who reject God, not necessarily in principle but in action. Since hell is essentially a state of being without God, I would think that's actually a rather fitting fate for those who choose it.

"I don't want to follow you, God."
"Then you can't come with me."

Or, my personal favorite:
"Well, it's obvious he doesn't want to be here."

For the sake of metaphor: heaven is like a party to which everyone is invited. Some choose not to come, and some try to get in drunk, but the bouncers keep them out. Others come willingly, and still others find it entirely by accident (the greatest miracles of all, IMO).

Well see here, that's ENTIRELY different anything I've been taught at church or told by other Christians. I actually like it.

Just for the record, I'm the type of person who rejects God on principle. I just don't see how such a being can exist or any reason why he should. I just don't. I prefer answers to life I can actually observe for myself and use practically in my daily life. Believing God did it might give one the warm fuzzies, but to me it always seemed like another way of saying "I don't know." I look at the universe and see a random, unintelligent, chaotic mess and frankly I LIKE it like that. Chaos is beautiful and has an order of it's own. Believing an intelligent being created it all and has his ever-watchful eye on me isn't a comforting thought at all. I actually find it creepy.

I wouldn't reject God by action though. I'm not a perfect person, but I'm not intentionally out to harm people or live a life of debauchery. I don't think any atheist or agnostic is. Well most anyways. Some are down right malicious like my step-dad. But assholes can exists in any social group.

I assume people like the concept of a higher power having their back through the good times and the bad. I t makes them feel special and that there's a plan for them. At least Christians have always told me God thinks I'm special and has a plan for me. Funny though, that God hasn't told me himself. I've prayed to have Jesus enter my heart many at least three times in my life and meant every one of them and never once have I felt this Holy Ghost enter my life. I've experienced crazy things in my life and I wasn't always as skeptical as I am today. If the Holy Ghost appeared before me as Spongebob, I wouldn't have questioned it. Is there some sort of special requirement besides repentance of sins and baptism that I'm missing or is God supposed to get back on me with that later on?

Edited by SOAP, 05 August 2007 - 04:45 PM.

[LionHarted]

This is, of course, just speculation, but it seems, from observation, that the universe cannot "create" anything not of itself. Matter comes from matter; energy comes from energy; et cetera, et cetera. I would think that "life" (the stuff of life, that which makes something alive as opposed to the mechanical and chemical components of beings). And the same for intelligence, emotion, and so on.

God, then, you could say, is rather ordinary. He is the life from which all life springs; the intelligence from which all intelligence was born; the emotions from which all emotions came.

But assholes can exists in any social group.

And this is a fundamental reason why it is necessary for faith alone to factor very little compared to conduct and works. The theory being, of course, that perfect faith is necessary for perfect conduct and works (perfect faith being, of course, nigh unattainable, and so the other two by consequence). Because, of course, if you KNOW God exists, you KNOW exactly what it takes to attain salvation, and you KNOW, with every fiber of your being that you CAN and WILL make it there, with God's help, how could you possibly falter?

But that'd be way too easy. We tend to make things difficult for ourselves.

I've prayed to have Jesus enter my heart many at least three times in my life and meant every one of them and never once have I felt this Holy Ghost enter my life.

I tend to look at it as though praying for such things is, for all practical purposes, useless, since Jesus is already dwelling in the heart of everyone each and every time they do a good deed, every time they have faith in something they cannot know, and every time they give someone a second chance. Praying for strength is similar. God gave you all the strength you need when He created you.

Really, this seems to make prayer useless. But does it really? Or does simply wanting to be good, wanting to be close to Jesus, all that it takes for you to find it within yourself to make these things actually come about (effectively, since for all practical purposes these things should really be true already)? Such is the power of prayer. It is an engine through which we can find, if we put in a little faith, things that already exist in ourselves that we simply couldn't recognize without that deep desire to do so.

[SOAP]

This is, of course, just speculation, but it seems, from observation, that the universe cannot "create" anything not of itself. Matter comes from matter; energy comes from energy; et cetera, et cetera. I would think that "life" (the stuff of life, that which makes something alive as opposed to the mechanical and chemical components of beings). And the same for intelligence, emotion, and so on.

God, then, you could say, is rather ordinary. He is the life from which all life springs; the intelligence from which all intelligence was born; the emotions from which all emotions came.

Yes, matter comes from matter and energy from energy, but emotions and intelligence are another thing entirely neither needn't have existed at the creation of the universe. It could have been a vague, unintelligent surge of energy that created us, possibly originating from an universe that existed before our own, and we would have been none the wiser. Then you get into things like String Theory and M Theory where you have the possibility of our universe resulting in the clash of two parallel realities that colliding into each other, the resulting explosion causing the Big Bang. IMHO, since M Theory goes above my head I just believe same universe is like a rubber band that keeps expanding and expanding till it can't expand anymore and snaps back on itself and starts all over again from the Big Bang. Who knows how many times our universe has done this. It could've always done this.

And this is a fundamental reason why it is necessary for faith alone to factor very little compared to conduct and works. The theory being, of course, that perfect faith is necessary for perfect conduct and works (perfect faith being, of course, nigh unattainable, and so the other two by consequence). Because, of course, if you KNOW God exists, you KNOW exactly what it takes to attain salvation, and you KNOW, with every fiber of your being that you CAN and WILL make it there, with God's help, how could you possibly falter?

But that'd be way too easy. We tend to make things difficult for ourselves.

Well that I can agree with. I know things are always complicated with me at least. Nothing life is is ever that simple, IMHO. If it's not somehow complicated I have a hard time accepting it. In fact this I usually feel whenever Christians try to make salvation into this simple thing:

I tend to look at it as though praying for such things is, for all practical purposes, useless, since Jesus is already dwelling in the heart of everyone each and every time they do a good deed, every time they have faith in something they cannot know, and every time they give someone a second chance. Praying for strength is similar. God gave you all the strength you need when He created you.

Really, this seems to make prayer useless. But does it really? Or does simply wanting to be good, wanting to be close to Jesus, all that it takes for you to find it within yourself to make these things actually come about (effectively, since for all practical purposes these things should really be true already)? Such is the power of prayer. It is an engine through which we can find, if we put in a little faith, things that already exist in ourselves that we simply couldn't recognize without that deep desire to do so.

It's a nice thought but I don't know if that's true. If Jesus was in me all along then what is the point of asking him in my heart in the first place and why don't I feel his presence like all my Christian friends seem to. Also, why can't I do good things without guidance from another being? Why can't I do good things just for the sake of wanting to do good?

[LionHarted]

Yes, matter comes from matter and energy from energy, but emotions and intelligence are another thing entirely neither needn't have existed at the creation of the universe.

So where did they come from?

If Jesus was in me all along then what is the point of asking him in my heart in the first place and why don't I feel his presence like all my Christian friends seem to.

Because you're a skeptic. And that's an answer to both questions.

And it's speaking from experience, since I also tend to be a skeptic.

Also, why can't I do good things without guidance from another being? Why can't I do good things just for the sake of wanting to do good?

In order to do good, one must have the capacity to do so.
In order to have the capacity to do so, one must have been created with the capacity to do so.
In order to have been created with the capacity to do so, that which resulted in the creation of that one must ultimately be responsible for the installment of that capacity.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 August 2007 - 05:38 PM.

[SOAP]

So where did they come from?

Emotions come from chemical responses to certain hormones released in our bodies. Intelligence comes from learning through interaction with the external world. It's how all living things evolved in response to their environment.

In order to do good, one must have the capacity to do so.
In order to have the capacity to do so, one must have been created with the capacity to do so.
In order to have been created with the capacity to do so, that which resulted in the creation of that one must ultimately be responsible for the installment of that capacity.

I've seen good done by those who never knew Christ or even want anything to do with Christ. And I've seen evil things done by those who claim Christ is in their heart. Either some Christians aren't really Christians and some non-Christians are possessed by a being they never asked for to begin with, or all humans born with the capacity for both good and evil. At least the latter is what taught by every major religion in any case. Except Christianity which preaches all humans have only the capacity to do bad unless they have Jesus in their heart. If we're made in God's image why does Christ have to go in and do something extra to us order to have the capacity to do good. Shouldn't it already be innate?

Edited by SOAP, 05 August 2007 - 06:00 PM.

[LionHarted]

Emotions come from chemical responses to certain hormones released in our bodies. Intelligence comes from learning through interaction with the external world. It's how all living things evolved in response to their environment.

Really, now?

Emotions come from chemical responses? Given that emotion is an abstract, can you test this hypothesis? Or is it simply true that certain chemical hormones are associated with and have effects on certain emotions? I'm asking for the origin of emotion itself.

I've seen good done by those who never knew Christ or even want anything to do with Christ. And I've seen evil things done by those who claim Christ is in their heart. Either some Christians aren't really Christians and some non-Christians are possessed by a being they never asked for to begin with, or all humans born with the capacity for both good and evil.

Naturally. And since God literally is goodness, and life, and being itself, then every human being is literally born with God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, whatever, inside of them.

It is innate. And expressed through inward and outward action, like faith, or good works.

Edited by LionHarted, 05 August 2007 - 06:05 PM.

[SOAP]

Really, now?

Emotions come from chemical responses? Given that emotion is an abstract, can you test this hypothesis? Or is it simply true that certain chemical hormones are associated with and have effects on certain emotions? I'm asking for the origin of emotion itself.

Emotions are simply a psychological process that is expressed physically and are responses to either external or internal stimuli. There's nothing supernatural about them. God isn't up there making people feel Love or Hate or Sadness. Our hormones do that. If you inhibit these hormones or your body just doesn't produce enough of them, you do away with emotions. As someone who has suffered with depression all his life, I know this.

Naturally. And since God literally is goodness, and life, and being itself, then every human being is literally born with God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, whatever, inside of them.

It is innate. And expressed through inward and outward action, like faith, or good works.

That's not Christian doctrine though.

Christianity teaches two main things:

Firstly that ALL of us have sinned and have fallen sort of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)
Basically it's our nature to do evil. No amount of good works on our own merit is good enough to negate that but one single sin is enough to condemn us permanently.

Secondly, the ONLY way to be right with God and enter heaven is to accept Christ as your Lord and savior, which is the next verse after that. Which is having to accept a certain doctrine. It has nothing to do with good works, wanting to do good, or faith in God alone. You have to believe Jesus is God's son, that he died for your sins, and rose again. For those who cannot accept that, perhaps because they belong to another religion or they simply don't believe Jesus was anything more than just a really good man with good ideas, they're doomed forever. All because they believe something else.

There are also other passages that calls whosoever doesn't believe in Christ fools. So they're fools for not believing in something that has yet to be proven to them?

Edited by SOAP, 05 August 2007 - 07:09 PM.

[LionHarted]

As far as the emotions: I'm not talking about the psychology, the physical and chemical; I'm talking about the abstract. Where did the emotion, the sense of "feeling", come from?

That's not Christian doctrine though.

It is essential to Christian doctrine. Truly, do you think we say "we are the Body of Christ" without meaning it?

True, we have all sinned, and that separates us from that glory and goodness, but that's what forgiveness is for. That's what Jesus came to die for.

You have to believe Jesus is God's son, that he died for your sins, and rose again.

What's important to note is why one would have to believe this. Believing in such a thing in and of itself accomplishes absolutely nothing, after all. It is less a faith in Jesus as God, then, and more a faith in the redemptive power in giving oneself. A faith in the power of sacrifice. It is through that faith that men become like Christ, and therefore attain salvation. A faith in Jesus as God, as a historical figure, is perhaps the most perfect expression of that faith, because it represents a belief in the actual, spiritual power in the sacrifice.

If one does not believe precisely the three things you listed, one can still believe in the power of sacrifice, albeit to a less real, actual extent. And that faith can still lead one down the right path.

It's just a hell of a lot harder, I'd think, if one doesn't know or refuses to accept that there is a divine presence that has a hand in things.

[Reflectionist]

LionHarted, do you actually read the Bible, or did you just regurgitate the condemning so called "Important" Verses from your preacher and leave the rest up to your imagination?

What part of John 3:16 do you not understand?

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only SON that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

And have you ever read "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." ??


Seriously kid. Go check your sources.





And for Freak's sake, it's a debate, try to use a Teensy weensy bit of empircal proof, and try not to sound like you're just pulling it all out of your ass as you type. You're really not making a good case for Christianity. And to be fair, SOAP is utterly pwning you right now.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

No, science doesn't subscribe to a belief system.

Science subscribes to an organized pattern of beliefs; they call it "logic" and the "scientific method."

A belief is...

1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.

Neither logic not the scientific method are mental acts of placing trust in something or someone. If anything, scientists must be sceptical of something. They must approach a subject with the utmost scepticism. If they don't, they risk being biased. That is why when a scientist tries to prove something, they come up with a null hypothesis (which states the opposite of what they're trying to find) and then try to prove the null hypothesis to be true.

So if a scientist believes that gravity must make things fall to the ground, he must set out to prove that gravity does not make things fall to the ground.

2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.

See my point above.

3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Tell me is logic believed to be accepted as true? What does that even mean? It's a nonsensical statement. What do you mean by saying, logic is true or that the scientific method is true? These are non-statements. They mean nothing. Logic is a concept. The scientific method is a concept. They are not beliefs, but tools. If they're beliefs, then spanners are beliefs, computers are beliefs...

Believing that something A will achieve B does not mean A is a belief system, anymore than saying a car is a belief system. I believe a car would get me from London to Brighton, does that mean driving is a belief system?

That's a belief system. A number of unprovable explanations are equally possible. The belief that explanations should be empirically testable is not absolute. Facts are not always observable through empirical means.

If I met someone in the street and they told me they came from Brighton, I could believe they took the train. However, that isn't the only explanation possible. They could have taken a car too. Does that make it a belief system? Is driving or taking the train a belief system?

You are twisting the definition of a belief. Logic and the scientific method are not belief systems. They are tools used to find out something. That explanations should be empirically testable is not a belief, but a necessary assumption. It is a method to screen out spurious explanations that may be untrue. That you believe it to be a good system, does not make it anymore a belief system than believing a car is a good way to get from A to B.

As for the rest of your post, fair enough.

[LionHarted]

A belief is...
[...]
Neither logic not the scientific method are mental acts of placing trust in something or someone.

By subscribing to both, scientists are placing their faith in both. Scientists believe in both.

Tell me is logic believed to be accepted as true?

The tenets that build up logical and scientific thinking are accepted by scientists as correct and valid ways of thinking; typically the only correct and valid ways of thinking, as this conversation would tend to support.

I believe a car would get me from London to Brighton, does that mean driving is a belief system?

Believing that the car will get you from London to Brighton is a matter of faith. There are thousands of different variables that will prevent the car from getting you there.

You are twisting the definition of a belief. Logic and the scientific method are not belief systems. They are tools used to find out something.

God and worship are not belief systems, either. They are tools used to attain eternal salvation.


So, in short, your entire post is a giant straw man, or you just misunderstood.

For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only SON that whoever believes in Him will not perish but have everlasting life.

And have you ever read "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me." ??

Did you ever stop and think how utterly restrictive it would be if we took that to mean that one actually has to believe in Christ Jesus and His sacrifice? Did you ever stop to think how this must necessarily exclude those people who have never heard of Him, and those people who have never come to understand the truth of the matter, even if those people have essentially, through their actions and conduct, followed Him to the end anyway?

Isn't our God merciful? Then why would He condemn people who have done as much as they can be expected to do?

Edited by LionHarted, 06 August 2007 - 07:19 AM.