288 replies to this topic

[Doopliss]

(If you want to interpret it that way.)

The way I see it is that we can't believe in what the apostles said because they didn't have any mean to prove it and because we know that there is no way to explain how someone could revive. What I am doing is to accept what is the most logical to think basing on everything that humans know and have proved true.

Many people claim to have seen Jesus resurrected, but they claim to have seen him after the time the apostles said that they saw him and after Jesus himself said that he would resurrect. So the people could have easily took advantage of teh situatiion to say that as the people who claim to have seen aliens or have seen ghosts.

By the way, may I add any of you to my instant messenger to have a religion-free discussion? I feel rather lonely.

[Korhend]

Let me point out that nothing once in the bible is "scientifically impossible". God is an untested force to science, he is an X factor. Science can't make laws about stuff it hasn't seen yet.

[Doopliss]

But then, why believe in it?

[Korhend]

I don't. Just pointing out these things are unproven, not impossible.

[Doopliss]

That's why I don't believe in them, they are a mere possibility from an infinite number of them.

[Nevermind]

You know Doopliss, people used to believe the earth was flat. They used to believe the sun revolved around the earth. In those times, if you believed otherwise, you would've been thought crazy. So yeah.....why believe in stuff you haven't seen yet?

[arunma]

Yes, Korhend has many talents. One of them is the ability to practice Christianity of his own free will without believing in it.

[arunma]

how do you do that?

Wouldn't we all like to know. I don't get it. But hey, whatever works for Korhend.

[Nevermind]

It's easy. You don't have to believe in God, but just the moral values pertaining to Jesus and his acts.

[Fyxe]

Considering this is a 'Christian Bashing thread', it's interesting how many heavy Christians have camped out here to defend their beliefs using the all-powerful scripture of ultimate infallibility as effectively their sole arguement.

[arunma]

Considering this is a 'Christian Bashing thread', it's interesting how many heavy Christians have camped out here to defend their beliefs using the all-powerful scripture of ultimate infallibility as effectively their sole arguement.

If you're attempting to argue Christian theology, then Scripture is a perfectly valid basis for most arguements. Would you have us argue Christianity without reference to the Bible?

[Fyxe]

Yes. Give it a go.

There is no point in arguing with a serious Christian if they hide behind a book they believe is infallible, yes knowing at the same time it can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. It's a veritable 'godmode', pun not intentional.

Why even come into this topic if you're not going to change your mind about what you believe in? Do you wish to convert others? Save them from their sinful lives of infamy?

Seriously, try arguing without the scripture for a bit. I'd like to see how it goes. I'd like to see you argue with your OWN thoughts rather than what a book has told you to think. Prove your own humanity by exercising your own mind on the subject.

[Fyxe]

EEEEVIL NONBELIEVERS. Because they don't believe in the infallibility of a book and the existence of a surpreme being they must be sent to heeeell!!

Pshaw. If that's the case, then God is quite simply a jackass.

I don't particularly want to believe in a God who'd send me to hell for not believing in him and having my own perspective on the world rather than blindly following the ideals of other people.

dragon's wrath, plenty of people pray and get nothing. Those examples you stated are just plain BS. There was a storm. So what. I don't seriously think the entire weather system of an area was changed because one man prayed. I think the weathermen would of been somewhat confused. A plane didn't suddenly explode. So what? How often does that happen anyway?

Oh, and by all means convert me now!! You felt better the next day!? After you prayed to yourself to give yourself a positive outlook? REALLY!?! I would never of guessed.

[arunma]

There is no point in arguing with a serious Christian if they hide behind a book they believe is infallible, yes knowing at the same time it can be interpreted in a variety of different ways. It's a veritable 'godmode', pun not intentional.

We don't "hide behind" the Bible. The Bible is the central source of all Christian doctrine. There's absolutely no way to discuss Christianity without it. If you throw out the Bible, you're not discussing Christianity anymore.

Why even come into this topic if you're not going to change your mind about what you believe in?

Because no one has yet given me a good enough argument to convince me to change my mind. But I'm giving you the opportunity. It's your job to produce the argument.

Do you wish to convert others? Save them from their sinful lives of infamy?

That's possible, but highly improbable.

Seriously, try arguing without the scripture for a bit. I'd like to see how it goes. I'd like to see you argue with your OWN thoughts rather than what a book has told you to think. Prove your own humanity by exercising your own mind on the subject.

I think you may be missing the point. Without the Bible, there's nothing to argue. Besides that, my interpretation of the Bible does constitute the exercise of my own mind on the subject. It's not as if we're responding to all arguments with nothing but Scripture references.

[Fyxe]

I thought, at least when it comes to the New Testament, Jesus was mean to be the source of the doctrine, not a book written by men.

And arunma, my point is that when you have the ability to hide behind a book you believe is infallible (for reasons that you never explain), you are never, NEVER in a million years going to listen to an arguement properly when you always have a counter arguement that doesn't require your own original thought.

[Nevermind]

Wait, wait. I wanna see someone discuss physics....without reference to physical laws and/or equations.

[Fyxe]

Wait, wait. I wanna see someone discuss physics....without reference to physical laws and/or equations.

Don't be an ass, you know precisely what I'm talking about.

[arunma]

I thought, at least when it comes to the New Testament, Jesus was mean to be the source of the doctrine, not a book written by men.

Actually, Jesus is considered the Word of God, which is quite a bit more important than a source of doctrine. I suppose it could be said that Jesus is the focus of all doctrine. In any case, we believe that the Holy Spirit has inspired the apostles to write true doctrine into the Scriptures, which is why those Scriptures are integral to Christianity.

And arunma, my point is that when you have the ability to hide behind a book you believe is infallible (for reasons that you never explain), you are never, NEVER in a million years going to listen to an arguement properly when you always have a counter arguement that doesn't require your own original thought.

Every argument I've presented is my own original thought. Of course you could argue that I'm not really thinking for myself, since my opinions are shaped by the Bible, the church fathers, and other Christian writings which I've read. But then, all people are the products of the information to which they have been exposed.

Don't be an ass, you know precisely what I'm talking about.

While he could have put it nicer, I had the same thing in mind. Indeed, asking one to discuss Christianity without the Bible is like asking one to discuss physics without the laws of physics.

[Fyxe]

There's a difference between having an outlook on life based on personal judgements, even if they are somewhat influenced by outside forces (and hell, they should be, otherwise no judgements could be made about anything), and reading a set of doctrine and believing precisely what it says.

I mean, it's certainly convenient that the Bible is infallible. I suppose I might as well give up arguing now. The Bible is the word of God, and it says he exists, so he must exist.

Do you spot the flaw in this arguement?

I hope so. I could say that my imaginary friend, Hubert, who is a robotic pig, exists, because he TOLD me he does, and he also told me he's never wrong.

A crude comparison but it makes the point.

[Nevermind]

The source of Christianity as a religion is the compiled accounts and articles of events and people. Without the Bible, modern Christianity would not exist, because there would be nothing to draw from. Just like physics would not exist without the laws of physics.

[arunma]

There's a difference between having an outlook on life based on personal judgements, even if they are somewhat influenced by outside forces (and hell, they should be, otherwise no judgements could be made about anything), and reading a set of doctrine and believing precisely what it says.

People do that all the time. Korhend, for example, has read the works of the fascist Benito Mussolini, and has taken them to heart. Lobbyists adhere to the political ideologies of either the Democratic or Republican parties. The point of religion is not to pick and choose your own beliefs. People join religions in order to conform their own beliefs to a predetermined doctrine. There isn't anything unprecedented about this.

I mean, it's certainly convenient that the Bible is infallible. I suppose I might as well give up arguing now. The Bible is the word of God, and it says he exists, so he must exist.

Well first of all, no one has presented the argument that God exists, so I'm not sure why you brought that up. Secondly, we know that no one will be convinced by "...because the Bible says so." That is why we've created other arguments. For example, there are many teleological arguments contending that God exists.

[Fyxe]

To be quite frank Lazuru, I think that comparison is a great big pile of bulls twizzle. I hate those sort of simplistic comparisons. They just don't work when it comes to real issues.

I think both of you know exactly what I was intending to say. I should hope so.

Hold it, arunma. Telelogical? Explain.

[Nevermind]

No I really don't, actually. All I'm seeing is you wanting someone to try and defend Christianity without going back to the source that hosts the entire basis of their beliefs.

As for my example, it is simple, and it works. You may still have physics without physical law, but it is then "just the way the world works" and no one knows about physics. Much the same as without the Bible, without Christianity, God could still exist, it's just no one knows about Him.

[Fyxe]

Lazuru, I would love to spend forever arguing against a book that's impossible to argue against, I really, reeeeally would, but I'd like to turn this topic to more... Normal reasons for believing or not believing in god. The sort of questions that are often ignored.

It's not like I expect people not to use the positions of the Bible as a reference. They can't avoid that, it's what they believe in. But I'd like a bit more original thought rather than simple scripture quotes whenever a complex issue comes along.

[Nevermind]

See, NOW I get you.

Ask away.

[arunma]

But I'd like a bit more original thought rather than simple scripture quotes whenever a complex issue comes along.

I don't think anyone was arguing otherwise. It's rarely permissible to respond to someone's argument with nothing more than a Scripture quote. If I'm not mistaken, I believe that doing so is against the forum rules (and if not, I'll add a rule about it). What we're trying to say is that it is absolutely essential that we reference the Bible. No one wishes for Scripture references to outweigh original arguments.

Lazuru, I would love to spend forever arguing against a book that's impossible to argue against, I really, reeeeally would

You can argue against the Bible, but that's not really the topic of discussion at the moment. If we were arguing about the veracity of the Bible, then it would be perfectly reasonable to make arguments indicating that the Bible is fallible. But at the moment, we're arguing about liberal beliefs which misportray the Bible for something that it is not (for example, claiming that Jesus preached tolerance for other religions). In other words, we're arguing about what the text means, not whether it's right or wrong. If you want to discuss veracity, that's an issue for another thread.

Hold it, arunma. Telelogical? Explain.

Teleology is the study of why the Divinity created the universe. For example, the statement "humans have eyes so that we can see" is a teleological belief.