<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->We're reading about Martin Luther in History Class, and John Calvin. Luther and Calvin were SNAFU FUBAR and everything else that's bad.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Take that back, that's pretty offensive...However, if you were to only say Calvin I wouldn't have a problem with that. His idea's were pretty out there, which was why his sect of Christianity died out. Ha...crazy puritans. The more I think about it, when you say "Luther is wrong." You are also calling the Bible false (we Lutherans base EVERYTHING dogma wise off of this thing.) And because the Bible is God's Word you call God a lying ****. And lying is a sin, and God is infallible and does not sin. Therefore...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I kind of label this on a pessimist-optimist spectrum. :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Grrr...
While we are all on this air of total acceptance of each other time to launch my personal attacks...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea behind Purgatory is that heaven isn't an all or nothing thing. If you sin in life, it leaves a mark on you that has to be erased before you can enter God's presence in heaven. Repenting is only the first step - it shows that you want to scrub that sin off you. After that, you have to actually do the work in Purgatory to cleanse yourself of it. The worse your sins, or the later in life you repented, the longer it takes to purge the sin from your soul.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have any Bible versus to back this up? <span style='color:green'>*Edited to remove a personal attack which has no place in a mature discussion.*</span>
OK, if you don't want to read this, scroll down. I'll tell you when to stop. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's a good article about the validity of the Bible: <a href='http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/c...y/bible101.html' target='_blank'>http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/c...y/bible101.html</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hahaha, that was some of the most blatant trying to take the Bible out of context ever. Much more so then that Islam herald thing a while back. I've got a lot of time on my hands so I'll just do this step by step of that "Bible not all that cracked up to be."
Falsities one: The author actually tries to trick us by using completely fake references. Ezekiel 23 is talking about two actual prostitutes, NOT Judah and Israel. The author is banking on the fact you won't actually check the Bible passage. "I have a hard time accepting that kind of language as the inerrant word of God" Thats Ezekiel talking, not God.
Falsities two: "A Levite, name not given, from the hill country of Ephraim, had a concubine whose home was in Bethlehem in Judea. (Whoa, well a little editorializing is all right. Does that mean that the inerrant word of God allows me to have a concubine? My wife can't complain about my request. After all, concubinage is ordained in the inerrant word.) "
He must think that "if something is in the Bible then it's OK to do it." My take is, until God endorses it, it should not be done. Example: If God were to say "Go get a concubine." It would be O.K. in my book. Wait, what's this..? Judges 19:12 His master replied, "No. We won't go into an alien city, whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah." This is important to know here, I'll show you later on.
Edit: Although in fairness, he made a point we actually agree on. It's o.k. to have fun, but what you classify as "fun" can be sinful.
Falsities three: "Now this must really be exemplary moral behavior. The father protects his guest but is quite willing to have his daughters and his guest's concubine destroyed."
Now that's just a cultural thing. In ancient Israel, guests were very sacred and it would pretty much bring shame upon themselves if anything were to happen to them. Offering his daughter reinforces that. (Concubines are sex slaves anyways so it doesn't really matter about her.) Nowadays this situation doesn't even happen so...yep.
Falsities four: "There is not a word of God expressing his disapproval of the old man's offer."
I respond to that with the parts of the Bible passage he "accidentally" skipped over. Judges 20:12-13 The tribes of Israel sent men throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What about this awful crime that was committed among you? Now surrender those wicked men of Gibe ah so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel."
Sounds to me like God didn't approve of the city's actions at all...Remember that Judges 19 verse..? He said that the Israelites (faithful tribe right now) were alien. Therefore, he was in the same boat as the tribe of Benjamin.
Falsities five: "So after he got home, he cut her body into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent his servants to each of the twelve tribes of Israel with the message that the vile acts of the Benjamin's cried out for justice. Of course, not a word was said that he pushed her out the door knowing full well that the men who demanded to have sexual fun with him would not have a prayer meeting with the young lady."
First off, I imagine the body was used for proof. Second, see my point on disgracing guests. Third, concubines were made for sex...
Falsities six: "Well, the furor of this affair caused a terrible war that caused the death of thousands upon thousands. And then in the end, in God's name, the city of Gibeah was burned. On God's orders all the men, women, and children, as well as all animals were killed.
To completely avenge the death of the concubine, some of the other towns of the tribe of Benjamin were also torched."
It wasn't <b>just</b> because of the concubine. That's like saying the American Civil War was <b>only</b> because of slavery. The tribe of Benjamin had fallen away from God and had to be brought back.
Falsities seven: "It was discovered that these men did not have any prospects of getting married because all the women of their tribe had been killed. So the elders of the tribe of Israel, with God's approval one must assume, authorized the surviving Gibeonites to kidnap some women from Shiloh to take as their wives. Everybody lived happily ever after."
There had to be 12 tribes, if there weren't all the prophecies about Jesus coming from 12 tribes would be undone. Here's an analogy from NS. The commander can see the entire game, you can't. If he tells you to do something there is a reason for it. (Forgoing the idiot commanders anyway.) One city of non virgins sure beats everyone who ever lived to be sent to Hell because Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies.
OK that took a real long time but I won't finish counter pointing him. You all get the basic gist of his lies, right? Ahh, taking the Bible out of context is one of my pet peeves. Sorry for the rant.
----------> STOP SCROLLING!!!!! KNOCK IT OFF I MEAN IT! <------------
So anyways, to get back on to the topic. What do I believe? 1. The Bible is 100% true. Go read C.S. Lewis "More then a Carpenter" if you don't believe me. 2. Grace is not earned, but given freely. 3. There is only one way to heaven, through Jesus. That's pretty much it. Easy eh?
I went to a private catholic school from K-1st grade. Only two years, because I told my mom that it was a hollow money making scheme. Afterwords I did public school. Freshman year I had strong right views, and now I am...well...you know...not much extreme-right. anymore <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> After doing a lot of reading, research, two social science classes, and a political science class, I am the socialist you see today. A lot of people don't like that, especially in my mostly republican town...then again, people are supposed to hate things that are superior. At any rate none of my beleifs are from parents or school. I believe what I believe because in my heart I know its right for me.
<!--QuoteBegin--Frikk+Sep 4 2003, 02:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frikk @ Sep 4 2003, 02:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I typically just sit at work and periodically read through these forums, since my job is rather boring, but I haven't taken stock in my values for a while, so here goes.
I'm what you'd consider a logical person. My mind is just geared totally for science, and I have an intense difficulty just believing things on blind faith. I basically turned out exactly like my father, except that he believes and I don't. Both of my parents were Presbyterians, but we rarely went to church, just Christmas, and Easter, and maybe a few times in-between. The focus of family discussions when I was young were about science.
When I got into middle school I joined the Catholic Boy Scout troop in my hometown of Ann Arbor. I really only did this because it was one of the few troops, and because all my friends went into it. As it was an insanely active troop, we went on outings nearly every other weekend. It being a religious troop, we went to church every time that we weren't surrounded by 200 miles of wilderness. I think I've been to more Catholic masses than I have been to Presbyterians. After these I'd nearly always get into a discussion with the Scout Master at the time about God, and what was said during the mass. The Scout Master was this great guy who had this endless supply of physics. It became pretty clear that I didn't buy into the whole religion thing, and thankfully this troop was open enough not to kick me out (I wouldn't have been able to get my Eagle had I tried, but that's a story for another time.). It got to a point where I just flat out asked him to define god for me, because we'd gone round and round about an all powerful deity. He said, "What do you think God is?" I've been stuck on that ever since.
I guess that whole thing can be summed up in simply stating that I can't place faith in something controlling me. If I tell myself to life my hand, I lift my hand. My faults are my own, and my successes are my own.
Free will's a tricky one, haven't quite got that one yet. I used to believe that physics was the answer to this question. I figured that through chemical interactions in your brain, thoughts were created. These controlled your body. These chemical/electrical interactions can be simplified to formulas, which dictate your behavior. Problem there is that once you get a computer powerful enough you can basically tell the future. Sounds cool, eh? Yeah, but once you know what you're going to do, you're presented with a choice. Do I follow the formulas, or do I not? Best answer that I can come up with is our thoughts are a just something that we don't understand yet. Like some way of distorting physics.
If I had to go to one of the American political parties, I guess I'd be a dem, but I'm much more comfortable listing myself as an independent.
I'm defiantly fine with **** rights, marriage, etc.
In a perfect world, abortion would be judged on a case-by-case basis. I've heard too many horror stories from my mother about it (she worked as a Nurses Aid for a couple years). I'm totally against using it as a form of birth control, but there are times where it's a safety issue/sexual molestation. It's much more complicated than a yes/no in my opinion.
I'm against legalization of drugs. One of my close friends is literally tearing apart his life piece by piece. I, with total and complete conviction, can place ALL of the blame on marijuana. It's really painful to watch. With that in mind there's no way I can justify ever legalizing them, in my mind.
It's not a simple matter of good vs. evil. There are plenty of shades of gray about it. Individual circumstances are all important.
I'm going to stop there and try and get back to work. It's going to fail horribly, but I've got to at least try. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A girl I used to think I loved ruined herself doing it. Telling her never to speak to me again was a tough choice for me. But I do NOT want someone who associates themselves with something harmful around me. She became everything I hate....for popularity, and now I see she realizes she mad a bad...bad choice
I'll stick to religion for now, although I will mention in passing that I'm conservative on both political and economic issues.
Beliefs: Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, Jehovah if you will (the Judeo-Christian God). I believe that he died on the cross for our sins, and I believe that his death created a new covenant of life for us. I believe that we will be judged not by our works or good deeds, but our knowledge of Christ and our relationship with him.
I believe that we have all sinned and are imperfect, and are therefore unworthy of being in God's presence, but for His son becoming a man and dying for us, and that should we repent and come to know Christ, God will see Jesus' blood as atonement for our sins come the day of Judgement. I believe that nothing we can do, besides coming to know Jesus, will save us on Judgment day, unless you manage to keep all of God's commandments perfectly, as well as loving the Lord with all your heart, strength, and mind, as well as being credited with righteousness by the Lord. I also believe that's impossible for us (well, me at least).
I believe all of Jesus' teachings, and I believe the Bible is the truth, whether passages of it are metaphoric or literal. I believe that the Old Testament is as relevant today as it was before Jesus; however, I believe that by the grace of God, we are spared from punishment for the times we have failed to keep the Lord's commands.
I do not believe that we should hate sinners; after all we are all sinners and equally unworthy in God's eyes. Therefore, I think that we should not judge others. HOWEVER, this does not mean that we should lack judgment, only that we should not place ourselves higher than others. I believe we are free to distinguish between good and evil, as our conscience dictates. I believe we have every ability to judge who we fellowship with, and who not to.
I don't believe in being politically correct.
I do not believe we have any "God-given rights", but rather free will and free responsibility to do what we will. However, I believe that the Church should also keep from interfering with the government, while allowing individual members of government to use their moral judgement and code of ethics to help them make decisions. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's".
I believe that my belief in God is logical and sound, and I believe that all people should examine their faiths and ask themselves whether they can say the same.
Alright....well to preface this I was raised a Chirstian, sort of. Religion was never a big part of my family's life, we never attended church, and only rarely would my dad pull down the dusty Bible and try to instill some good Christian morals in to us kids, usualy shortly after we had done something wrong.
Later on in life, I decided I was going to become a scientist and rejected all forms of religion. Near the end of high school however I began to actualy explore what I had cast asside with out really knowing much about it.
I became kinda agnostic.... though not really as I belived there was a god or gods......as opposed to true agnosticism, which preachs that God can niether be proven, nor disproven......but I was unable to sort through the religions I knew about to decide which one was right. They all had aspects of what I precieved as truth and meaning in them, but all also had places where I took excpetion to them.
Alright, at this point your all probably groaning to yourself, "God, not another "it doesn't matter what you belive in, as long as you have faith" argument." Trust me its not. I never belived that, but rather tried to live my life as seemed to be the correct way to me. To do what my heart told me was right, and trust that whatever divine being is out there, would have the wisdom and mercy to look favorabley upon my actions.
But this summer a new idea has hit me. It started because my inabilty to find a job led to alot free time, most of which I spent outside, as far away from civilization as possible. Being continualy surrounded by nature I think it is impossible to not be able to see where animism, native american religous ideas and other "primitve" religous ideas come from.
If you are a city bound person, I think it is impossible to explain to you the power unblemished nature has. There are only two places I know of where perminate human habitation on the land hasn't completely destroyed the power of it, those being the Black Hills in South Dakota, and the Galatin Valley in Montana. I can hardly imagin what they must have been like before white people settled them. Incidently both were scared places to the Native Americans.......
The Black Hills are to the Sioux (the Lakota tribe of them anyways, though I think they all have fairly similiar religous ideals) the center of all creation and as such the most holy place in the world. Remeber that next time you see a picture of Mt. Rushmore......We carved the "greatest" men of the nation that ruined their way of life into a rock that is in the middle of the holyest of holys....a place where people were forbiden to live in, just vist and pray. We Americans really are arrogant *#$holes aren't we?
The Galatin Valley was a sacred hunting ground that all the tribes in the area shared and despite their differences and wars on the outside there was no fighting in the valley. I'd vist both sometime in your life if you possibly can.
Anyways, back to the topic.....it was on a trip to the Boundry Waters in Northern Minnesota...... about as untouced a place as one can easily get....where I became convinced that there is a Pantheon of Petty Dieties
The Dieties are relativly weak in power, in comparison to a more traditional monotheistic all-powerful all-knowing god. Each Diety has power over some small area, or aspect of life, and are easily angered(hence the Petty part).
I have had two experiences that make me belvie in this, the first was this lake in the Boundry Waters...me and another guy were paddling back to camp, and the wind was against us, as it had been all day. My friend got sick of it and screamed to the heavens "F*** YOU!!!!"
Within five minutes the wind had picked up ten miles an hour...It went from small few inch waves to mini-white caps...Obviously my friend had angered the Diety of the wind and we got punished for it......
The other one happned a few weeks later, SkulkBait and I were returning from a Renaissance Fair, about two hours from home.......I was explaining my idea to him and he, being a strongly opinionated atheist, made some flippant remark involving the Diety of Highway traffic.......
A few minutes later we get to a small town, and I slow down a bit, from 55 to around 45.....its a commerical street....no parking on the street.....I'd figure it was at least 35 miles an hour. Well, the cop behind me unfourtunaly noticed the 25 speed limit sign I missed.......6 points and $126.80 fine is quite a punishment to recieve for my freind's disbelief....
I belive in keeping my a** alive for as looong as possible and doing as many fair and good things as i can... cause bad stuff just doesn't help anyone. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> (by fair i mean open, just, and accepting.)
That and i want to see if we can colonize mars before 2014. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
Crisqo, I never said what Luther said was FUBAR, only that he was.
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though.
<!--QuoteBegin--SmokeNova+Sep 5 2003, 01:47 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SmokeNova @ Sep 5 2003, 01:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Crisqo, I never said what Luther said was FUBAR, only that he was.
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm, the logic is that if you have faith, you should continue to do good deeds to show your faith and reaffirm it, not because the deeds themselves get you into heaven - if you did not a single good deed before you died (such as if right after gaining faith, you die), you'll still get into heaven.
Crisqo, for being such an 'outspoken' Christian, you seem to place little value on human life. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now that's just a cultural thing. In ancient Israel, guests were very sacred and it would pretty much bring shame upon themselves if anything were to happen to them. Offering his daughter reinforces that. (<u>Concubines are sex slaves anyways so it doesn't really matter about her.) </u>Nowadays this situation doesn't even happen so...yep.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, I imagine the body was used for proof. Second, see my point on disgracing guests. <u>Third, concubines were made for sex...</u><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So you are saying it's ok to throw your concubine outside your house and let **** men ravish her? Just because she is made for sex? Do you think God has a concubine machine where he just cranks women out so that men can ravish them? That's pretty sick. And what about the daugthers of the house owner? In ancient Jewish custom it is ok to give your virgin daugthers to **** men to protect some strange guest? If the house owner truly belived in God, he wouldn't have let anyone outside the house, even if that meant all of their deaths. So next time a gang of sickos comes by your house, why don't you throw your mom and sister out to save yourself?
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to stir things up, but Luther, and the refomations his writings caused weren't really so much about religion as politics. It wasn't a revolt against the teachings of the Catholic church so much as a revolt against the massive political power the Chruch had amassed.
The only reason his ideas, which were a direct rebuke of what he saw as humans corrupting the true meaning of the Bible (which incidently is very conservative if you think about it), caught on was that it allowed German princes a moral position upon which they could own their land, as opposed to the chruch, and keep the taxs levied upon, instead of sending it back to Rome.
Really all reformaions of the Chirstian church were done not for religous reasons, but political ones. The Church of England was formed to give good old King Henry a way out of his marriages without having to behead all his wives. And as they are all politicaly motivated, then prehaps the religous changes and preachings aren't as important as people seem to belive.
Oh, and I disagree to the circle-logic thing. I would say that the mentioned seeming non-sequitir really isn't one. It merely says, yes by faith you can reach Heaven, but that it is still important to help thy fellow man, Even if it isn't nessecery to save your immortal soul, it still is important keep society functioning. Besides, if your not doing good deeds, then just how closely are you following the teachings of Christ, and therefore, just how much faith can you truely claim to have?
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only reason his ideas, which were a direct rebuke of what he saw as humans corrupting the true meaning of the Bible (which incidently is very conservative if you think about it), caught on was that it allowed German princes a moral position upon which they could own their land, as opposed to the chruch, and keep the taxs levied upon, instead of sending it back to Rome.
Really all reformaions of the Chirstian church were done not for religous reasons, but political ones. The Church of England was formed to give good old King Henry a way out of his marriages without having to behead all his wives. And as they are all politicaly motivated, then prehaps the religous changes and preachings aren't as important as people seem to belive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is most certainly true. Being right was just a by-product of not having to follow corrupt priests/church in general.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you are saying it's ok to throw your concubine outside your house and let **** men ravish her? Just because she is made for sex? Do you think God has a concubine machine where he just cranks women out so that men can ravish them? That's pretty sick.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back then, I think concubines knew that they were in for a not so cushy life style. They brought their sinful lifestlye on themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So next time a gang of sickos comes by your house, why don't you throw your mom and sister out to save yourself? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> 1. I'm not a guest in my own house. 2. You must have missed my point about how it was custom that you do not shame your guest at all. 3. That situation just won't happen today.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Send me proof so I can study it and see if you twisted it somehow like that "circular fubar logic" crack.
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not to stir things up, but Luther, and the refomations his writings caused weren't really so much about religion as politics. It wasn't a revolt against the teachings of the Catholic church so much as a revolt against the massive political power the Chruch had amassed.
The only reason his ideas, which were a direct rebuke of what he saw as humans corrupting the true meaning of the Bible (which incidently is very conservative if you think about it), caught on was that it allowed German princes a moral position upon which they could own their land, as opposed to the chruch, and keep the taxs levied upon, instead of sending it back to Rome.
Really all reformaions of the Chirstian church were done not for religous reasons, but political ones. The Church of England was formed to give good old King Henry a way out of his marriages without having to behead all his wives. And as they are all politicaly motivated, then prehaps the religous changes and preachings aren't as important as people seem to belive.
Oh, and I disagree to the circle-logic thing. I would say that the mentioned seeming non-sequitir really isn't one. It merely says, yes by faith you can reach Heaven, but that it is still important to help thy fellow man, Even if it isn't nessecery to save your immortal soul, it still is important keep society functioning. Besides, if your not doing good deeds, then just how closely are you following the teachings of Christ, and therefore, just how much faith can you truely claim to have? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Also, the people you are serving by doing good deeds for may not be Christians, may not be saved, and may become so by observing your attitude. It's not often people go way out of their way to help someone else, especially if they don't know the other person very well. Doing so can, and often does, make people wonder just why you do the things you do, and thus, makes them a little bit more curious about the gospel.
You still don't seem to defend the value of human life, Crisqo. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back then, I think concubines knew that they were in for a not so cushy life style. They brought their sinful lifestlye on themselves. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How can the concubine be the only one with a sinful lifestyle? Was her master not also sinning? That's like picking up a prostitute, then giving her to a gang of thugs to rape her. Then you say, "She had it coming." So you weren't sinning by picking up the prostitute nor by giving her over to be killed? That's a bit flawed. By the way, the owner of the house did not give away his virgin daughter nor did the owner shove the man's concubine out the door, but only the man himself shoved his concubine out. He was saving his own skin!
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Was her master not also sinning?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, yes he was.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you say, "She had it coming." So you weren't sinning by picking up the prostitute nor by giving her over to be killed? That's a bit flawed. By the way, the owner of the house did not give away his virgin daughter nor did the owner shove the man's concubine out the door, but only the man himself shoved his concubine out. He was saving his own skin! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that levite was a very morally corupt person.
I am an atheist. Simply put, I think blind belief in an all-powerful god/deity is kind of ridiculous. Through logic, you can arrive at the conclusion that the existance of a god/deity is impossible. Feel free to point out any glaring logical errors I have made.
So, I begin with how in mathematics you learn that any real number divided by infinity equals zero. Now, most people seem to argue "God" vs. "No God". However, these are not the only two possibilities for the existance of the universe. The universe could have been created by mutant bunny rabbits from another universe. It could be an illusion of some sort. It could also be any number of unimaginables. As I see it, there are infinite possibilities for the existance of the universe. The existance of the Christian God is only one possibility. The probability of that being true is therefore 1/(infinity), or zero. However, this also means that "No God", or spontaneous existance, is also impossible. Followed logically, all possibilities are impossible. Raises interesting questions...
But anyway, the world appears to function as if there is no god/deity. Simplest explanation? There is no god/deity.
People tell me "how can you be an atheist and have morals? morals come from the Bible/religion/God/whatever" - I can say that I do have morals, and they simply come from my personal feeling that a society without morals and ethics is a bad society to live in. I wish to live in a good, happy society, therefore I try to be ethical and moral.
However, my beliefs and the logic behind them are not static. As I think of new theories and gather more information, I often shift to a new explanation or support for my ideas. So far, my atheism has remained rather constant.
well your first problem is stating that x/infinity is 0. Its as close to zero (on whatever side of zero the number is) as to almost be zero, but its not zero. Your probability stuff is crap (sorry), your use of Occham's Razor is a much better argument.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->-Phillip K. D1ck I've found this quote useful in my thoughts.
<!--QuoteBegin--B33F+Sep 6 2003, 12:44 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (B33F @ Sep 6 2003, 12:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So, I begin with how in mathematics you learn that any real number divided by infinity equals zero. Now, most people seem to argue "God" vs. "No God". However, these are not the only two possibilities for the existance of the universe. The universe could have been created by mutant bunny rabbits from another universe. It could be an illusion of some sort. It could also be any number of unimaginables. As I see it, there are infinite possibilities for the existance of the universe. The existance of the Christian God is only one possibility. The probability of that being true is therefore 1/(infinity), or zero. However, this also means that "No God", or spontaneous existance, is also impossible. Followed logically, all possibilities are impossible. Raises interesting questions...
But anyway, the world appears to function as if there is no god/deity. Simplest explanation? There is no god/deity.
People tell me "how can you be an atheist and have morals? morals come from the Bible/religion/God/whatever" - I can say that I do have morals, and they simply come from my personal feeling that a society without morals and ethics is a bad society to live in. I wish to live in a good, happy society, therefore I try to be ethical and moral.
However, my beliefs and the logic behind them are not static. As I think of new theories and gather more information, I often shift to a new explanation or support for my ideas. So far, my atheism has remained rather constant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There are two logical errors in your post.
For one, as Skulkbait said, 1/ infinity is a limit that is so close to zero that for all intents and purposes, it is. That's how you handly logarithmic functions with limits at infinity in calculus.
Also, God is not a "stab in the dark." You don't blindfold yourself and throw darts at a dartboard to pick your faith. You find evidence that supports a faith, be it scientific or emotional, and then you find something that makes you feel as if that faith is true. I looked at the social implications of being a Christian, looked into it, and discovered that there were no major scientific theorums that disproved it. I acccepted Christianity with a great deal of emotion, probably in a sort of Pascal's Wager argument, and later saw God working in my life, affirming my faith.
As to you're claim that the world functions without a God or deity, this would be an interesting debate to get into. Got any reasons to support your claim we can work with?
I believe there is a system of order within the universe, an underlying system of mathematical equations that can control it's operation. From how many seeds are on a Sunflower ( which has some neat patterns) to the relationship between forces acting on the planets of our solar system...
Anyway, I'd suggest you read some Lee Strobel and some C.S. Louis. Both have some incredible arguments for Christianity, and if you really are going for a scientific perspective on Atheism, you'll at least consider checking them out, if for no other reason than to disprove them.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Sep 5 2003, 11:27 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Sep 5 2003, 11:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->-Phillip K. D1ck I've found this quote useful in my thoughts.
edit: I hate swear filters . . . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm religious and a big PKD fan. I kind of find it hard to digest that someone would actually use PKD against the belief in God. PKD was anything but some science-fiction writer trying to tell people what reality is. It is too easy for people to take what someone famous said and misuse it out of context and make it fit their own ideas, and not the ideas of the person who produced the quote in question.
Bosnian, I can't see how Moultano misused the quote. He didn't tell us that god <i>would</i> go away if we didn't believe in him, after all <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--SkulkBait+Sep 6 2003, 01:16 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (SkulkBait @ Sep 6 2003, 01:16 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well your first problem is stating that x/infinity is 0. Its as close to zero (on whatever side of zero the number is) as to almost be zero, but its not zero. Your probability stuff is crap (sorry), your use of Occham's Razor is a much better argument. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, it's ok. I try to make well-thought arguments, and I like seeing the flaws in them pointed out. Give me time, and I shall think of something new. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As to you're claim that the world functions without a God or deity, this would be an interesting debate to get into. Got any reasons to support your claim we can work with?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, I have seen no evidence for the existance of a god/deity(or multiple ones, or any other possible supernatural type stuff). Religion is supposed to work on faith, but I refuse to believe without some sort of direct or indirect empirical evidence. Do you have any evidence? I would be interested to see.<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway, I'd suggest you read some Lee Strobel and some C.S. Louis. Both have some incredible arguments for Christianity, and if you really are going for a scientific perspective on Atheism, you'll at least consider checking them out, if for no other reason than to disprove them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sounds like a plan. I enjoy reading arguments for both sides.
How does existence get started on accident? Don't tell me "chemical reaction" because that is just bull. Chemicals are a part of existence, it's like saying you need lemonade to make water. How does something just pop out of nothing just by accident? These atheists never get to explaining that to me. Btw, for me, believing in Jesus Christ is faith, believing in God is just natural. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Sep 7 2003, 02:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Sep 7 2003, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How does existence get started on accident? Don't tell me "chemical reaction" because that is just bull. Chemicals are a part of existence, it's like saying you need lemonade to make water. How does something just pop out of nothing just by accident? These atheists never get to explaining that to me. Btw, for me, believing in Jesus Christ is faith, believing in God is just natural. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't pretend to know what happened before the Big Bang. However, not knowing doesn't mean I jump to the conclusion of supernatural influences. Instead, I just trust in the ability of science to come up with theories, test those theories, and make new, more accurate theories as time goes by. Right now, the only theory I can remember as to the existence of our universe is a fairly strange one, where two other universes "collided" in the 5th dimension, then moved apart, and we are the residual energy. Doesn't make much sense to me, but I am not a scientist. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. Maybe we can prove it, maybe we can't.
We haven't even proved the existence of a 4th dimension. That theory seems more 'out there' then my belief in God. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: That theory seems too crazy to be even considered scientific. I want a link.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Sep 7 2003, 02:46 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Sep 7 2003, 02:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How does existence get started on accident? Don't tell me "chemical reaction" because that is just bull. Chemicals are a part of existence, it's like saying you need lemonade to make water. How does something just pop out of nothing just by accident? These atheists never get to explaining that to me. Btw, for me, believing in Jesus Christ is faith, believing in God is just natural. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The big bang as it is currently understood created not only all matter and and energy (which most people seem to think) but all of time and space as well. It's meaningless from a physics standpoint to talk about 'before' the big bang because time itself didn't exist before the big bang.
The Big Bang was existence. It was condensed matter, am I right? Matter is existence, it doesn't come out of nowhere just by accident. I read something by Stephen Hawkings where he said we can't look before The Big Bang because matter was so condensed that it is impossible to predict what came before with the scientific reasoning of physics. That is to say, something could have existed before The Big Bang, but we just can't know if there was or what it was. So who made The Big Bang?
<i>A Brief History of Time</i> is a very interesting book.
I really hope nobody says scientology, I think we can all agree that is a very sick set of ideals, especially the part where your as important as your bank account#
<!--QuoteBegin--Bosnian+Sep 7 2003, 04:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bosnian @ Sep 7 2003, 04:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We haven't even proved the existence of a 4th dimension. That theory seems more 'out there' then my belief in God. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
Edit: That theory seems too crazy to be even considered scientific. I want a link. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Just a moment, it was in Science News a while back. I'm going to search their online database and see if I find it. If I find it, I'll edit it into this post...
EDIT: Here you go. <a href='http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp</a>
Comments
Take that back, that's pretty offensive...However, if you were to only say Calvin I wouldn't have a problem with that. His idea's were pretty out there, which was why his sect of Christianity died out. Ha...crazy puritans. The more I think about it, when you say "Luther is wrong." You are also calling the Bible false (we Lutherans base EVERYTHING dogma wise off of this thing.) And because the Bible is God's Word you call God a lying ****. And lying is a sin, and God is infallible and does not sin. Therefore...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I kind of label this on a pessimist-optimist spectrum. :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Grrr...
While we are all on this air of total acceptance of each other time to launch my personal attacks...
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The idea behind Purgatory is that heaven isn't an all or nothing thing. If you sin in life, it leaves a mark on you that has to be erased before you can enter God's presence in heaven. Repenting is only the first step - it shows that you want to scrub that sin off you. After that, you have to actually do the work in Purgatory to cleanse yourself of it. The worse your sins, or the later in life you repented, the longer it takes to purge the sin from your soul.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Do you have any Bible versus to back this up?
<span style='color:green'>*Edited to remove a personal attack which has no place in a mature discussion.*</span>
OK, if you don't want to read this, scroll down. I'll tell you when to stop.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Here's a good article about the validity of the Bible: <a href='http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/c...y/bible101.html' target='_blank'>http://www.davidicke.net/religiousfrauds/c...y/bible101.html</a>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hahaha, that was some of the most blatant trying to take the Bible out of context ever. Much more so then that Islam herald thing a while back. I've got a lot of time on my hands so I'll just do this step by step of that "Bible not all that cracked up to be."
Falsities one: The author actually tries to trick us by using completely fake references. Ezekiel 23 is talking about two actual prostitutes, NOT Judah and Israel. The author is banking on the fact you won't actually check the Bible passage. "I have a hard time accepting that kind of language as the inerrant word of God"
Thats Ezekiel talking, not God.
Falsities two: "A Levite, name not given, from the hill country of Ephraim, had a concubine whose home was in Bethlehem in Judea. (Whoa, well a little editorializing is all right. Does that mean that the inerrant word of God allows me to have a concubine? My wife can't complain about my request. After all, concubinage is ordained in the inerrant word.) "
He must think that "if something is in the Bible then it's OK to do it." My take is, until God endorses it, it should not be done. Example: If God were to say "Go get a concubine." It would be O.K. in my book.
Wait, what's this..?
Judges 19:12
His master replied, "No. We won't go into an alien city, whose people are not Israelites. We will go on to Gibeah." This is important to know here, I'll show you later on.
Edit: Although in fairness, he made a point we actually agree on. It's o.k. to have fun, but what you classify as "fun" can be sinful.
Falsities three: "Now this must really be exemplary moral behavior. The father protects his guest but is quite willing to have his daughters and his guest's concubine destroyed."
Now that's just a cultural thing. In ancient Israel, guests were very sacred and it would pretty much bring shame upon themselves if anything were to happen to them. Offering his daughter reinforces that. (Concubines are sex slaves anyways so it doesn't really matter about her.) Nowadays this situation doesn't even happen so...yep.
Falsities four: "There is not a word of God expressing his disapproval of the old man's offer."
I respond to that with the parts of the Bible passage he "accidentally" skipped over.
Judges 20:12-13
The tribes of Israel sent men throughout the tribe of Benjamin, saying, "What about this awful crime that was committed among you? Now surrender those wicked men of Gibe ah so that we may put them to death and purge the evil from Israel."
Sounds to me like God didn't approve of the city's actions at all...Remember that Judges 19 verse..? He said that the Israelites (faithful tribe right now) were alien. Therefore, he was in the same boat as the tribe of Benjamin.
Falsities five: "So after he got home, he cut her body into twelve pieces, limb by limb, and sent his servants to each of the twelve tribes of Israel with the message that the vile acts of the Benjamin's cried out for justice. Of course, not a word was said that he pushed her out the door knowing full well that the men who demanded to have sexual fun with him would not have a prayer meeting with the young lady."
First off, I imagine the body was used for proof. Second, see my point on disgracing guests. Third, concubines were made for sex...
Falsities six: "Well, the furor of this affair caused a terrible war that caused the death of thousands upon thousands. And then in the end, in God's name, the city of Gibeah was burned. On God's orders all the men, women, and children, as well as all animals were killed.
To completely avenge the death of the concubine, some of the other towns of the tribe of Benjamin were also torched."
It wasn't <b>just</b> because of the concubine. That's like saying the American Civil War was <b>only</b> because of slavery. The tribe of Benjamin had fallen away from God and had to be brought back.
Falsities seven: "It was discovered that these men did not have any prospects of getting married because all the women of their tribe had been killed. So the elders of the tribe of Israel, with God's approval one must assume, authorized the surviving Gibeonites to kidnap some women from Shiloh to take as their wives. Everybody lived happily ever after."
There had to be 12 tribes, if there weren't all the prophecies about Jesus coming from 12 tribes would be undone. Here's an analogy from NS. The commander can see the entire game, you can't. If he tells you to do something there is a reason for it. (Forgoing the idiot commanders anyway.) One city of non virgins sure beats everyone who ever lived to be sent to Hell because Jesus didn't fulfill all the prophecies.
OK that took a real long time but I won't finish counter pointing him. You all get the basic gist of his lies, right?
Ahh, taking the Bible out of context is one of my pet peeves. Sorry for the rant.
----------> STOP SCROLLING!!!!! KNOCK IT OFF I MEAN IT! <------------
So anyways, to get back on to the topic. What do I believe?
1. The Bible is 100% true. Go read C.S. Lewis "More then a Carpenter" if you don't believe me.
2. Grace is not earned, but given freely.
3. There is only one way to heaven, through Jesus.
That's pretty much it. Easy eh?
I'm what you'd consider a logical person. My mind is just geared totally for science, and I have an intense difficulty just believing things on blind faith. I basically turned out exactly like my father, except that he believes and I don't. Both of my parents were Presbyterians, but we rarely went to church, just Christmas, and Easter, and maybe a few times in-between. The focus of family discussions when I was young were about science.
When I got into middle school I joined the Catholic Boy Scout troop in my hometown of Ann Arbor. I really only did this because it was one of the few troops, and because all my friends went into it. As it was an insanely active troop, we went on outings nearly every other weekend. It being a religious troop, we went to church every time that we weren't surrounded by 200 miles of wilderness. I think I've been to more Catholic masses than I have been to Presbyterians. After these I'd nearly always get into a discussion with the Scout Master at the time about God, and what was said during the mass. The Scout Master was this great guy who had this endless supply of physics. It became pretty clear that I didn't buy into the whole religion thing, and thankfully this troop was open enough not to kick me out (I wouldn't have been able to get my Eagle had I tried, but that's a story for another time.). It got to a point where I just flat out asked him to define god for me, because we'd gone round and round about an all powerful deity. He said, "What do you think God is?" I've been stuck on that ever since.
I guess that whole thing can be summed up in simply stating that I can't place faith in something controlling me. If I tell myself to life my hand, I lift my hand. My faults are my own, and my successes are my own.
Free will's a tricky one, haven't quite got that one yet. I used to believe that physics was the answer to this question. I figured that through chemical interactions in your brain, thoughts were created. These controlled your body. These chemical/electrical interactions can be simplified to formulas, which dictate your behavior. Problem there is that once you get a computer powerful enough you can basically tell the future. Sounds cool, eh? Yeah, but once you know what you're going to do, you're presented with a choice. Do I follow the formulas, or do I not? Best answer that I can come up with is our thoughts are a just something that we don't understand yet. Like some way of distorting physics.
If I had to go to one of the American political parties, I guess I'd be a dem, but I'm much more comfortable listing myself as an independent.
I'm defiantly fine with **** rights, marriage, etc.
In a perfect world, abortion would be judged on a case-by-case basis. I've heard too many horror stories from my mother about it (she worked as a Nurses Aid for a couple years). I'm totally against using it as a form of birth control, but there are times where it's a safety issue/sexual molestation. It's much more complicated than a yes/no in my opinion.
I'm against legalization of drugs. One of my close friends is literally tearing apart his life piece by piece. I, with total and complete conviction, can place ALL of the blame on marijuana. It's really painful to watch. With that in mind there's no way I can justify ever legalizing them, in my mind.
It's not a simple matter of good vs. evil. There are plenty of shades of gray about it. Individual circumstances are all important.
I'm going to stop there and try and get back to work. It's going to fail horribly, but I've got to at least try. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
A girl I used to think I loved ruined herself doing it. Telling her never to speak to me again was a tough choice for me. But I do NOT want someone who associates themselves with something harmful around me. She became everything I hate....for popularity, and now I see she realizes she mad a bad...bad choice
Beliefs: Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God, Jehovah if you will (the Judeo-Christian God). I believe that he died on the cross for our sins, and I believe that his death created a new covenant of life for us. I believe that we will be judged not by our works or good deeds, but our knowledge of Christ and our relationship with him.
I believe that we have all sinned and are imperfect, and are therefore unworthy of being in God's presence, but for His son becoming a man and dying for us, and that should we repent and come to know Christ, God will see Jesus' blood as atonement for our sins come the day of Judgement. I believe that nothing we can do, besides coming to know Jesus, will save us on Judgment day, unless you manage to keep all of God's commandments perfectly, as well as loving the Lord with all your heart, strength, and mind, as well as being credited with righteousness by the Lord. I also believe that's impossible for us (well, me at least).
I believe all of Jesus' teachings, and I believe the Bible is the truth, whether passages of it are metaphoric or literal. I believe that the Old Testament is as relevant today as it was before Jesus; however, I believe that by the grace of God, we are spared from punishment for the times we have failed to keep the Lord's commands.
I do not believe that we should hate sinners; after all we are all sinners and equally unworthy in God's eyes. Therefore, I think that we should not judge others. HOWEVER, this does not mean that we should lack judgment, only that we should not place ourselves higher than others. I believe we are free to distinguish between good and evil, as our conscience dictates. I believe we have every ability to judge who we fellowship with, and who not to.
I don't believe in being politically correct.
I do not believe we have any "God-given rights", but rather free will and free responsibility to do what we will. However, I believe that the Church should also keep from interfering with the government, while allowing individual members of government to use their moral judgement and code of ethics to help them make decisions. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's".
I believe that my belief in God is logical and sound, and I believe that all people should examine their faiths and ask themselves whether they can say the same.
Later on in life, I decided I was going to become a scientist and rejected all forms of religion. Near the end of high school however I began to actualy explore what I had cast asside with out really knowing much about it.
I became kinda agnostic.... though not really as I belived there was a god or gods......as opposed to true agnosticism, which preachs that God can niether be proven, nor disproven......but I was unable to sort through the religions I knew about to decide which one was right. They all had aspects of what I precieved as truth and meaning in them, but all also had places where I took excpetion to them.
Alright, at this point your all probably groaning to yourself, "God, not another "it doesn't matter what you belive in, as long as you have faith" argument." Trust me its not.
I never belived that, but rather tried to live my life as seemed to be the correct way to me. To do what my heart told me was right, and trust that whatever divine being is out there, would have the wisdom and mercy to look favorabley upon my actions.
But this summer a new idea has hit me. It started because my inabilty to find a job led to alot free time, most of which I spent outside, as far away from civilization as possible. Being continualy surrounded by nature I think it is impossible to not be able to see where animism, native american religous ideas and other "primitve" religous ideas come from.
If you are a city bound person, I think it is impossible to explain to you the power unblemished nature has. There are only two places I know of where perminate human habitation on the land hasn't completely destroyed the power of it, those being the Black Hills in South Dakota, and the Galatin Valley in Montana. I can hardly imagin what they must have been like before white people settled them.
Incidently both were scared places to the Native Americans.......
The Black Hills are to the Sioux (the Lakota tribe of them anyways, though I think they all have fairly similiar religous ideals) the center of all creation and as such the most holy place in the world. Remeber that next time you see a picture of Mt. Rushmore......We carved the "greatest" men of the nation that ruined their way of life into a rock that is in the middle of the holyest of holys....a place where people were forbiden to live in, just vist and pray. We Americans really are arrogant *#$holes aren't we?
The Galatin Valley was a sacred hunting ground that all the tribes in the area shared and despite their differences and wars on the outside there was no fighting in the valley. I'd vist both sometime in your life if you possibly can.
Anyways, back to the topic.....it was on a trip to the Boundry Waters in Northern Minnesota...... about as untouced a place as one can easily get....where I became convinced that there is a Pantheon of Petty Dieties
The Dieties are relativly weak in power, in comparison to a more traditional monotheistic all-powerful all-knowing god. Each Diety has power over some small area, or aspect of life, and are easily angered(hence the Petty part).
I have had two experiences that make me belvie in this, the first was this lake in the Boundry Waters...me and another guy were paddling back to camp, and the wind was against us, as it had been all day. My friend got sick of it and screamed to the heavens "F*** YOU!!!!"
Within five minutes the wind had picked up ten miles an hour...It went from small few inch waves to mini-white caps...Obviously my friend had angered the Diety of the wind and we got punished for it......
The other one happned a few weeks later, SkulkBait and I were returning from a Renaissance Fair, about two hours from home.......I was explaining my idea to him and he, being a strongly opinionated atheist, made some flippant remark involving the Diety of Highway traffic.......
A few minutes later we get to a small town, and I slow down a bit, from 55 to around 45.....its a commerical street....no parking on the street.....I'd figure it was at least 35 miles an hour. Well, the cop behind me unfourtunaly noticed the 25 speed limit sign I missed.......6 points and $126.80 fine is quite a punishment to recieve for my freind's disbelief....
That and i want to see if we can colonize mars before 2014. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though.
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Erm, the logic is that if you have faith, you should continue to do good deeds to show your faith and reaffirm it, not because the deeds themselves get you into heaven - if you did not a single good deed before you died (such as if right after gaining faith, you die), you'll still get into heaven.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Now that's just a cultural thing. In ancient Israel, guests were very sacred and it would pretty much bring shame upon themselves if anything were to happen to them. Offering his daughter reinforces that. (<u>Concubines are sex slaves anyways so it doesn't really matter about her.) </u>Nowadays this situation doesn't even happen so...yep.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, I imagine the body was used for proof. Second, see my point on disgracing guests. <u>Third, concubines were made for sex...</u><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you are saying it's ok to throw your concubine outside your house and let **** men ravish her? Just because she is made for sex? Do you think God has a concubine machine where he just cranks women out so that men can ravish them? That's pretty sick.
And what about the daugthers of the house owner? In ancient Jewish custom it is ok to give your virgin daugthers to **** men to protect some strange guest? If the house owner truly belived in God, he wouldn't have let anyone outside the house, even if that meant all of their deaths. So next time a gang of sickos comes by your house, why don't you throw your mom and sister out to save yourself?
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to stir things up, but Luther, and the refomations his writings caused weren't really so much about religion as politics. It wasn't a revolt against the teachings of the Catholic church so much as a revolt against the massive political power the Chruch had amassed.
The only reason his ideas, which were a direct rebuke of what he saw as humans corrupting the true meaning of the Bible (which incidently is very conservative if you think about it), caught on was that it allowed German princes a moral position upon which they could own their land, as opposed to the chruch, and keep the taxs levied upon, instead of sending it back to Rome.
Really all reformaions of the Chirstian church were done not for religous reasons, but political ones. The Church of England was formed to give good old King Henry a way out of his marriages without having to behead all his wives. And as they are all politicaly motivated, then prehaps the religous changes and preachings aren't as important as people seem to belive.
Oh, and I disagree to the circle-logic thing. I would say that the mentioned seeming non-sequitir really isn't one. It merely says, yes by faith you can reach Heaven, but that it is still important to help thy fellow man, Even if it isn't nessecery to save your immortal soul, it still is important keep society functioning. Besides, if your not doing good deeds, then just how closely are you following the teachings of Christ, and therefore, just how much faith can you truely claim to have?
Really all reformaions of the Chirstian church were done not for religous reasons, but political ones. The Church of England was formed to give good old King Henry a way out of his marriages without having to behead all his wives. And as they are all politicaly motivated, then prehaps the religous changes and preachings aren't as important as people seem to belive.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is most certainly true. Being right was just a by-product of not having to follow corrupt priests/church in general.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So you are saying it's ok to throw your concubine outside your house and let **** men ravish her? Just because she is made for sex? Do you think God has a concubine machine where he just cranks women out so that men can ravish them? That's pretty sick.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Back then, I think concubines knew that they were in for a not so cushy life style. They brought their sinful lifestlye on themselves.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So next time a gang of sickos comes by your house, why don't you throw your mom and sister out to save yourself? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1. I'm not a guest in my own house.
2. You must have missed my point about how it was custom that you do not shame your guest at all.
3. That situation just won't happen today.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Send me proof so I can study it and see if you twisted it somehow like that "circular fubar logic" crack.
If you've actually read parts of his 95 Theses, he states that you get into Heaven by faith alone, yet you should continue to do good deeds. It's FUBAr, it's circle-logic.
When the revolting peasants (1525 I believe) said they were Lutheran, he didn't support them and actually insisted they be wiped out. The man was a hypocrite. His teachings are open to interpretation though.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not to stir things up, but Luther, and the refomations his writings caused weren't really so much about religion as politics. It wasn't a revolt against the teachings of the Catholic church so much as a revolt against the massive political power the Chruch had amassed.
The only reason his ideas, which were a direct rebuke of what he saw as humans corrupting the true meaning of the Bible (which incidently is very conservative if you think about it), caught on was that it allowed German princes a moral position upon which they could own their land, as opposed to the chruch, and keep the taxs levied upon, instead of sending it back to Rome.
Really all reformaions of the Chirstian church were done not for religous reasons, but political ones. The Church of England was formed to give good old King Henry a way out of his marriages without having to behead all his wives. And as they are all politicaly motivated, then prehaps the religous changes and preachings aren't as important as people seem to belive.
Oh, and I disagree to the circle-logic thing. I would say that the mentioned seeming non-sequitir really isn't one. It merely says, yes by faith you can reach Heaven, but that it is still important to help thy fellow man, Even if it isn't nessecery to save your immortal soul, it still is important keep society functioning. Besides, if your not doing good deeds, then just how closely are you following the teachings of Christ, and therefore, just how much faith can you truely claim to have? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Also, the people you are serving by doing good deeds for may not be Christians, may not be saved, and may become so by observing your attitude. It's not often people go way out of their way to help someone else, especially if they don't know the other person very well. Doing so can, and often does, make people wonder just why you do the things you do, and thus, makes them a little bit more curious about the gospel.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Back then, I think concubines knew that they were in for a not so cushy life style. They brought their sinful lifestlye on themselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
How can the concubine be the only one with a sinful lifestyle? Was her master not also sinning? That's like picking up a prostitute, then giving her to a gang of thugs to rape her. Then you say, "She had it coming." So you weren't sinning by picking up the prostitute nor by giving her over to be killed? That's a bit flawed. By the way, the owner of the house did not give away his virgin daughter nor did the owner shove the man's concubine out the door, but only the man himself shoved his concubine out. He was saving his own skin!
Yes, yes he was.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Then you say, "She had it coming." So you weren't sinning by picking up the prostitute nor by giving her over to be killed? That's a bit flawed. By the way, the owner of the house did not give away his virgin daughter nor did the owner shove the man's concubine out the door, but only the man himself shoved his concubine out. He was saving his own skin! <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that levite was a very morally corupt person.
So, I begin with how in mathematics you learn that any real number divided by infinity equals zero. Now, most people seem to argue "God" vs. "No God". However, these are not the only two possibilities for the existance of the universe. The universe could have been created by mutant bunny rabbits from another universe. It could be an illusion of some sort. It could also be any number of unimaginables. As I see it, there are infinite possibilities for the existance of the universe. The existance of the Christian God is only one possibility. The probability of that being true is therefore 1/(infinity), or zero. However, this also means that "No God", or spontaneous existance, is also impossible. Followed logically, all possibilities are impossible. Raises interesting questions...
But anyway, the world appears to function as if there is no god/deity. Simplest explanation? There is no god/deity.
People tell me "how can you be an atheist and have morals? morals come from the Bible/religion/God/whatever" - I can say that I do have morals, and they simply come from my personal feeling that a society without morals and ethics is a bad society to live in. I wish to live in a good, happy society, therefore I try to be ethical and moral.
However, my beliefs and the logic behind them are not static. As I think of new theories and gather more information, I often shift to a new explanation or support for my ideas. So far, my atheism has remained rather constant.
I've found this quote useful in my thoughts.
edit: I hate swear filters . . .
But anyway, the world appears to function as if there is no god/deity. Simplest explanation? There is no god/deity.
People tell me "how can you be an atheist and have morals? morals come from the Bible/religion/God/whatever" - I can say that I do have morals, and they simply come from my personal feeling that a society without morals and ethics is a bad society to live in. I wish to live in a good, happy society, therefore I try to be ethical and moral.
However, my beliefs and the logic behind them are not static. As I think of new theories and gather more information, I often shift to a new explanation or support for my ideas. So far, my atheism has remained rather constant. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
There are two logical errors in your post.
For one, as Skulkbait said, 1/ infinity is a limit that is so close to zero that for all intents and purposes, it is. That's how you handly logarithmic functions with limits at infinity in calculus.
Also, God is not a "stab in the dark." You don't blindfold yourself and throw darts at a dartboard to pick your faith. You find evidence that supports a faith, be it scientific or emotional, and then you find something that makes you feel as if that faith is true. I looked at the social implications of being a Christian, looked into it, and discovered that there were no major scientific theorums that disproved it. I acccepted Christianity with a great deal of emotion, probably in a sort of Pascal's Wager argument, and later saw God working in my life, affirming my faith.
As to you're claim that the world functions without a God or deity, this would be an interesting debate to get into. Got any reasons to support your claim we can work with?
I believe there is a system of order within the universe, an underlying system of mathematical equations that can control it's operation. From how many seeds are on a Sunflower ( which has some neat patterns) to the relationship between forces acting on the planets of our solar system...
Anyway, I'd suggest you read some Lee Strobel and some C.S. Louis. Both have some incredible arguments for Christianity, and if you really are going for a scientific perspective on Atheism, you'll at least consider checking them out, if for no other reason than to disprove them.
I've found this quote useful in my thoughts.
edit: I hate swear filters . . . <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm religious and a big PKD fan. I kind of find it hard to digest that someone would actually use PKD against the belief in God. PKD was anything but some science-fiction writer trying to tell people what reality is. It is too easy for people to take what someone famous said and misuse it out of context and make it fit their own ideas, and not the ideas of the person who produced the quote in question.
Well, it's ok. I try to make well-thought arguments, and I like seeing the flaws in them pointed out. Give me time, and I shall think of something new.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As to you're claim that the world functions without a God or deity, this would be an interesting debate to get into. Got any reasons to support your claim we can work with?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, I have seen no evidence for the existance of a god/deity(or multiple ones, or any other possible supernatural type stuff). Religion is supposed to work on faith, but I refuse to believe without some sort of direct or indirect empirical evidence. Do you have any evidence? I would be interested to see.<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Anyway, I'd suggest you read some Lee Strobel and some C.S. Louis. Both have some incredible arguments for Christianity, and if you really are going for a scientific perspective on Atheism, you'll at least consider checking them out, if for no other reason than to disprove them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->Sounds like a plan. I enjoy reading arguments for both sides.
I don't pretend to know what happened before the Big Bang. However, not knowing doesn't mean I jump to the conclusion of supernatural influences. Instead, I just trust in the ability of science to come up with theories, test those theories, and make new, more accurate theories as time goes by. Right now, the only theory I can remember as to the existence of our universe is a fairly strange one, where two other universes "collided" in the 5th dimension, then moved apart, and we are the residual energy. Doesn't make much sense to me, but I am not a scientist. Maybe it's right, maybe it's wrong. Maybe we can prove it, maybe we can't.
unfortunately that topic is locked, but I think it raises a few things that are good to think about.
Edit: That theory seems too crazy to be even considered scientific. I want a link.
The big bang as it is currently understood created not only all matter and and energy (which most people seem to think) but all of time and space as well. It's meaningless from a physics standpoint to talk about 'before' the big bang because time itself didn't exist before the big bang.
<i>A Brief History of Time</i> is a very interesting book.
Edit: That theory seems too crazy to be even considered scientific. I want a link. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just a moment, it was in Science News a while back. I'm going to search their online database and see if I find it. If I find it, I'll edit it into this post...
EDIT: Here you go. <a href='http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp' target='_blank'>http://www.sciencenews.org/20010922/bob9.asp</a>