A skeptic's view of Christianity (debate between Thôl and Eriol)

[HLGStrider]

Ok so it works by me saying "I repent oh mighty Jesus, allow me to come into heaven", then i can go back to my belief and its ok?

If you really meant it, and if you did you wouldn't go back to your belief unless you were seriously hit on the head.

Need i say more? We are not allowed to laugh?! Dear Lord!!! What sort of God tells you not to laugh. This is not wine, this is a normal human emotion and you God seems to think we cant act human, what the heck can we do?!

I didn't say we weren't.

Wanton: some similies are

loose,
whorish
uncalled for

In fact, those are the only applicable ones given by Roget's.

We are instructed to be joyful, which to me would include laughter, but wouldn't include being whorish.

Was it your choice to become christain? (Yes or No will do)
Yes. . .As I said, my mother has even asked if I really meant it, and I did.

You can try, but ill agree Christianity is a good thing for keeping people out of trouble, but it isnt the right way, and not all people are good who are christians.

What is the right way, then? Letting them have their way?

Then you can't use its negative effects on you as proof that it is wrong . . .not unless you will let me use the positive effects on others be proof that it is right.

Deal?

Only to get a good life, not to come closer to God. Id prefure to be closer to god than be a well grounded member of society.

They're closer to God as well. Following his rules brings you closer to him. .. just as obedient children will have a better relationship with their parents. ..

Id rather have a choice in the matter.

You do, which is why you are going the way you are going.

I wouldnt expect you to trust me, you havent been listenin to me for 16 (?) years (on account that you are 18 and became christian at 2).

I've only known you for a year or so. Actually, I have heard your arguements before stated by others. They've never been convincing. Christianity always has been.

We arent allowed to laugh wantonly, thats a lot wrong.

You want to be whorish?

A perfect book created by "imperfect beings" thats impossible.

A perfect god guiding imperfect beings to make a perfect book isn't, though. . .and why would God let them mess up? To confuse us? Why would God wish to do that?

10 commandments that dont work.

They work very well if you follow them. Just as a car works well if you drive it on the road instead of off the bridge. This statement is like you complaining that your car doesn't work after you've driven it into the Thames. Blasted car wouldn't be wreckable if it was workable.

Blasted commandments wouldn't be breakable if they were workable.

Same logic.

Go to hell for being good.

no, you go to Hell because you don't go to heaven because you didn't believe. Good has nothing to do with it.

Also, if Jesus died to forgive my sins (the future ones aswell) and not believing in your God is a sin, should i not be forgiven therefore i should be on my way to heaven no matter what?

You can be. You just don't seem to want to be. You can't be forgiven of sins you won't admit. It's like keeping your dirty hands in your pockets. They can't get washed until you bring them out in the open.

What is the name of rose?

It's a novel by Umberto Eco that was made into a movie. I believe that quote you keep using was part of an arguement between two monks in it.

They are 10 commandments that if you follow you will have no life, you will just be a boring drone....but hey, that fits in fine with the not being allowed to laugh part if it all....

You are allowed to laugh.

So according to your definition of boring drone it includes anyone who doesn't commit adultry, murder, or lie awake dreaming about his next door neighbor's wife?

Gosh, I know a lot of boring people. . .and I'm glad I'm not interesting. For one thing, I'd be arrested for stealing.

For another, no one would trust me because I'd always be lying.

For another, I'd probably end up divorced because of comiting adultry.

What is your definition of exciting, if this is your definition of boring? Hitler was very exciting. . .

Errr, well the way im told, i cannot go to God for being good, you say there is only one other place, hell, but you say i wont go there if im good, so where in the heck do i go?!

No, I didn't say it.

I said you won't go to Heaven if you don't accept God.

Id rather go to hell and be allowed to laugh freely than go to heaven and not laugh as much as i want, sounds like a religion trying to control its followers to me.

Translation: I'd rather go to hell then try to understand Christianity and I would rather believe that wanton meant freely than admit that it meant whorishly.

Im not teaching you at all, im informing you, whether you listen or not is up to you.

Statements like this aren't very effective in arguements.

You are the ones that said "if you are GOOD you go to heaven", "there is GOOD and BAD".

No, we were the ones who said you had to accept God to go to heaven and yes there is good and bad. You got it half right.

It is easier to read than to write

Speak for yourself, Paul. ;)

I thought it was blantently obvious that the right and wrong should have " " around them as all the others before them did...

First of all, blatantly obvious is my phrase! You can't use it!

Second of all, "" has absolutely no meaning. . .

Really now, is there any point left to this discussion?

There are three points:

1. As long as you keep making statements I can counter, it is fun for me to counter them.

2. As long as I am being able to counter you and being more persuasive than you, I might persuade any third party listening, so I will keep countering and trying to be persuasive.

and 3. This arguement is really strengthening my faith because you haven't given me one thing I can't counter which really makes it stronger and makes me more sure. You've accomplished exactly the opposite of what you might've intended.

[Lúthien Séregon]

We are instructed to be joyful, which to me would include laughter, but wouldn't include being whorish.

To laugh wantonly is to laugh at something uncalled for, not whorish laughter. :rolleyes: I laugh at many things uncalled for, simply because I'm in a good mood and I feel like laughing. Is that a sin? If not, then what type of laughing is a sin at all? ( why IS any sort of laughing a sin at all :rolleyes:? )

What is the right way, then? Letting them have their way?

No, there are other ways of stopping people doing immoral things.

Christianity always has been.

Convincing doesn't necessarily mean logical or true. Personally, considering the amount of scientific evidence for evolution, I find the idea of a cosmic man who cares for humans only as his children ( a very typical human idea - if lions were to have religion, no doubt they would imagine great cosmic lions watching over them too ) very unconvincing. Not to mention illogical, and most probably untrue.

A perfect god guiding imperfect beings to make a perfect book isn't, though. . .and why would God let them mess up? To confuse us? Why would God wish to do that?

Better yet, why would a perfect God want to make humans write a book on how to worship him in the first place? Has he got insecurity problems or what?? ;)

no, you go to Hell because you don't go to heaven because you didn't believe. Good has nothing to do with it.

So a rapist/murderer will be loved by God all because they bowed to his petty whims and desire to be worshipped, whilst a charitable person who was a skeptic gets condemned. Doesn't sound like the actions of a perfect God to me.

Stepping back a few posts...Eriol:

I dragged you out of your cave to show you the sun. You refused to open your eyes, you said "Never! My cave is more comfortable! Here it is too windy for me! I'd rather have my little bonfire!".
Then I directed your face to the sun, and asked you whether you could feel the warmth of it in your face. You said yes. I said, "see? There is a sun! Open your eyes and look around! The cave is empty and small!". Still you refused it, you said that there can't be a sun and the cave is more comfortable and it is too windy up here and this warmth that you felt is an illusion.
Then I put your own hand in the front of your face, shadowing the sun, so that the warmth diminished; your own hand, Thôl. Could you deny that there was something very warm there, and that there was wind about exactly because it was a big, infinite space, unlike your little cave? Yes, you could, and you did; even after your own hand blocked the sun, showing quite well that the sun is something real and not imagined, you refused to open your eyes.

You've taken all of that almost directly from Plato's cave myth. And of course, you're assuming that you must be absolutely correct. But how do you know that you're not the cave dweller, claiming that the little bonfire is all that there is ( or really, the most comfortable way of living )?

I'll keep on talking here in this thread, but mostly to point out the absurdities in your conception of Christianity.

There are more absurdities in Christianity itself than in the criticism of the religion, at least that much can be ascertained from listing all of the assumptions that Christianity makes from the Bible.

Take a look at the word "wantonly" there before saying nonsense.

Laughing wantonly - to laugh without cause or reason.

This is the Lúthien argument; and of course it holds no water.

Maybe I should just ignore that.

Let us look at it both ways; if WE are right, then God can do anything, including writing a book using imperfect beings.

But why would he/she/it :rolleyes: choose to do that? If this entity was so wise and all-powerful, surely they must have known that of course people who use their reason would come to doubt a book written in those types of times.

Really, Lúthien, you should take the advice I'm giving to Thôl here -- study a bit. Honestly, to claim that the Bible was written when people were getting burned at the stake... this is almost as absurd as Thôl's claim that the "aborted rape" was "politic".

What I am saying is that the Bible is supposedly a book that is the word of God, but the types of truths that it claims were subject to the time it was written in, and therefore to completely believe it seems quite absurd.

And the most important (of course) is the fact that no matter how good (or bad) was the society that produced the Bible, to check whether it is correct or not we have to read it. Even murderous slave-owning bigots who burn people at the stakes (a laughable description of the Jews) can write truths; to call them names, appropriate or not, doesn't help in finding out whether their book is true or not.

But the society’s influence at that time clearly casts doubt on the validity of a book written by human hands at that time ( the God in the book certainly seems to be a product of society by “His” preferences. For example, having to be worshipped. It wasn’t a very democratic society back then, so that idea wasn’t considered to be too unreasonable ). Regardless of what you may say about murderous slave-owning bigots :rolleyes: speaking the truth, society influence obviously has a clear mark on a lot of what Christianity is ( and that includes the Bible ). For example, on how women are to act. And homosexuals, for that matter ( there’s a huge row at the moment about homosexuals being allowed to practice as bishops – certain Christians opposed it because they felt “that God would be uncomfortable in their presence” :rolleyes: No prizes for guessing where that line of reasoning came from ).

One thing is certain; no one in his right mind would believe anything about the contents of any book without reading it. So you have good reasons to not believe the Bible, although you have not mentioned them: you have never studied it. After you have studied it, we'll talk.

You can claim that it’s a wise philosophical book that can only be commented upon if you hang on it’s every word, but you do realise that on that note, any children’s story can be made philosophical if you simply say “study it”?

Also, you have equated "unbelievable" with "impossible"; the first is a restriction on the reader, the second a restriction on the doctrine.

Hmm… so men with wings, evil female rib-bones and talking snakes must be real then, simply because the unbelievable is a restriction and so is the impossible. Silly me, I’ve never noticed them before. Maybe I’m living in a dream world. :rolleyes: Or maybe I should just throw reasoning right out of the window.

Thôl's doctrine is not merely "unbelievable", it is impossible. Christianity may be "unbelievable" to you, but that only shows you a piece of yourself; it does not touch Christianity at all. Try to show that it is "impossible" if you want to touch Christianity.

Last time I checked, talking snakes were not a reality. Do I really need to say more? :eek:

I think what is happening here is that you’re not really taking my comments seriously, rather than me “not touching Christianity”. How about instead of me having to study everything Christian in full detail, you consider the fact that most of it is really quite impossible, any way it’s looked at ( in terms of evidence, science, the society that wrote it, EVERYTHING ).

Also, you're making the claim that it can't necessarily be proven that Christianity is false so therefore it must be true. That same line of reasoning applies to practically all major religions. Like Islam. They even have a holy book as well! Surely God wouldn't have asked people to make two holy books each saying different things?

[Celebthôl]

It's possible. You have to choose another belief. You CAN do this, so it is possible, so everything is possible. . .


No that isnt the point, the point is, it is not possible for him to get me into heaven with me believing my current belief, therefore he cannot do everything, he is not all powerful.

With the help of a perfect God.

As Lúthien says, why should a God need to? Little insucure is he?

You want to be whorish?

Nope, i want to laugh when it suits me, not when it suits your book.

No, but there should be a lesser fee. A person, theoretically, is under a foreign influence at this point, and it should be considered. I don't think the death penalty applies to all cases. . .the fact that murder is wrong does, but not the punishment.

So wrong here, you think that if alcahol was invented today that it would be legalised? No God would say that it is ok, seems like one of the bible writers should have spent some time at "Alcahols annonymous"

A perfect god guiding imperfect beings to make a perfect book isn't, though. . .and why would God let them mess up? To confuse us? Why would God wish to do that?

Im afraid no matter how much guiding by a perfect being, an imperfect being cannot create perfection.

Then you can't use its negative effects on you as proof that it is wrong . . .not unless you will let me use the positive effects on others be proof that it is right.

Deal?

Deal i guess...

The "right" way, well really the quicker way, is to live how you want to live, be who you want to be, dont follow the doctrine of a religion.


I really dont seen the point in doing this anymore, so im stopping now...it is solving nothing, all we are doing is writting essays to each other and its worn thin, neither of us will convince the other.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon

No, there are other ways of stopping people doing immoral things.

This is a nice statement, Lúthien; and it shows that you believe in good and bad. Are you listening, Thôl? "Immoral things" -- does not sound as if we are talking about illusions here.

Convincing doesn't necessarily mean logical or true. Personally, considering the amount of scientific evidence for evolution, I find the idea of a cosmic man who cares for humans only as his children ( a very typical human idea - if lions were to have religion, no doubt they would imagine great cosmic lions watching over them too ) very unconvincing. Not to mention illogical, and most probably untrue.

You were in the clear up to "unconvincing". "Illogical" and "untrue" are uncalled for; an illogical statement is clearly defined as one which breaks logical laws; an untrue statement is one which is not related to reality. You have not shown either lack of logic or lack of truth, so far.

And I believe in evolution too. So what?

Better yet, why would a perfect God want to make humans write a book on how to worship him in the first place? Has he got insecurity problems or what?? ;)

Yes, why would a father care for the wellbeing of his children? Why not let them fend for themselves? Has he got insecurity problems or what?

So a rapist/murderer will be loved by God all because they bowed to his petty whims and desire to be worshipped, whilst a charitable person who was a skeptic gets condemned. Doesn't sound like the actions of a perfect God to me.

Good for you; and good for us that Christianity is not like that. Christianity does NOT, repeat, NOT condemn anyone because he's skeptic. Honest skeptics are searching for the truth, and Christ made a very clear promise, all who seek shall find. So honest skeptics are very much in the clear. As for the rapist/murderer, if he "bows to the petty whims" and worships God out of fear, keeping on raping/murdering after that, then he never accepted God in the first place. Yes, God demands that we accept Him; because we were made for that purpose. Just saying the words "I accept You" is not enough if you don't really accept Him; you can't lie to God.

It is not a matter of "being loved by God"; God loves us all. Even the rapists and murderers. He wants us all to be with Him, because this is the best for us; and He knows more about it than we do.

You've taken all of that almost directly from Plato's cave myth. And of course, you're assuming that you must be absolutely correct. But how do you know that you're not the cave dweller, claiming that the little bonfire is all that there is ( or really, the most comfortable way of living )?

Yes, Plato's myth is very good and clear; and yes, I'm assuming that I've seen the cave and the sun; and "assuming" is not the right word. I have seen them both; sorry about that.

I've seen the bonfire and the light, and I know the difference. No assumptions here. I have thought as you did once (not as stubbornly as you, though ;); and some of your mistakes I never really followed). So it is a matter of experience; I've seen both sides, you only saw one. I guess I'll go with my judgment against yours on the "who's in the cave" question.

There are more absurdities in Christianity itself than in the criticism of the religion, at least that much can be ascertained from listing all of the assumptions that Christianity makes from the Bible.

Go ahead -- list them. But I guarantee you will see that you do not understand Christianity at all. You are still talking about the sun from the inside of the cave, Lúthien. And of course, it is fun to see one who has admittedly never studied the Bible and who will never do it talking about it with assurance.

Maybe I should just ignore that.

No, you could also try to refute my reasons for saying that your argument does not hold water:

1) Your historical account is completely wrong;
2) The quality of the authors is not a good argument to criticize a book without reading it.

(1) is solvable, but (2) is not.

But why would he/she/it :rolleyes: choose to do that? If this entity was so wise and all-powerful, surely they must have known that of course people who use their reason would come to doubt a book written in those types of times.

He would assume that people who use their reason would never doubt a book without reading it; He would assume that people who use their reason and who never read a given book would read it, or ask questions of people who read it, instead of bashing it ;).

You call your prejudices and bias "reason", Lúthien; it's very interesting to see that. You think that our century is the most enlightened, that our people is the most open-minded, that our knowledge is the most advanced... without bothering to check on other centuries, peoples, knowledges. A better example of "pre-judice", pre-judging, couldn't be imagined.

What I am saying is that the Bible is supposedly a book that is the word of God, but the types of truths that it claims were subject to the time it was written in, and therefore to completely believe it seems quite absurd.

What's a "type of truth"? It is either right or wrong. No "types of right".

It seems quite absurd, to you, from the cave. Surely you notice that to disbelieve a book without reading it is absurd, itself.

But the society’s influence at that time clearly casts doubt on the validity of a book written by human hands at that time ( the God in the book certainly seems to be a product of society by “His” preferences. For example, having to be worshipped.

Check reason (2) above. All of these are rationalizations to avoid studying the matter, Lúthien; you don't want to check for yourself. Good luck in the cave.

You can claim that it’s a wise philosophical book that can only be commented upon if you hang on it’s every word, but you do realise that on that note, any children’s story can be made philosophical if you simply say “study it”?

I never said anything about "a wise philosophical book"; I just ask you to read it before commenting on it. Or at least approach the people who have read it with questions instead of prejudices. I would apply this reasoning to any children's book; and so would you. It's only when the Bible is discussed the people feel free to bash without reading it.

Read it before you talk about it. Who's in the cave, Lúthien?

Hmm… so men with wings, evil female rib-bones and talking snakes must be real then, simply because the unbelievable is a restriction and so is the impossible. Silly me, I’ve never noticed them before. Maybe I’m living in a dream world. :rolleyes: Or maybe I should just throw reasoning right out of the window.

You should, perhaps, try to use a little reasoning and read for yourself. Prejudice is not reasoning, no matter how much you want to call it so. For instance, you have not used any reasoning in the quote you were criticizing. I said that to claim it is "impossible" is a restriction on the doctrine, and therefore is the thing skeptics should aim at; while "unbelievable" is a restriction on the reader, and therefore useless for the skeptics' claims. If you tell me you don't believe in something, so what? But if you SHOW me that something is impossible, I have to listen. Go ahead -- show me.

Last time I checked, talking snakes were not a reality. Do I really need to say more? :eek:

Perhaps not; you could visit the "Question on the Bible" thread to see the nature of myth being discussed there. It would involve taking a few steps out of the cave.

I think what is happening here is that you’re not really taking my comments seriously, rather than me “not touching Christianity”. How about instead of me having to study everything Christian in full detail, you consider the fact that most of it is really quite impossible, any way it’s looked at ( in terms of evidence, science, the society that wrote it, EVERYTHING ).

I'm quite willing to do it. Show it to me -- show the absurdities and impossibilities. I'm not taking your comments seriously, so far, because you have never studied the matter (as was obvious from the stake-burning Jews) and yet you claim very great conclusions about it. I would not take you seriously if you talked about periphytic bacterial productivity in tropical coastal lagoons as well, for I suppose that you have never studied that, and I have.

If you study the matter, and point out impossibilities and absurdities -- specific things -- we can talk. While you just talk about "the obvious impossibilities" without ever having studied it, I'm sorry, Lúthien, but I can only shrug and ascribe it to your prejudices. You have made not one -- a tiny one -- serious attack on Christianity; unless it is the "talking serpent", and this is part of a myth. You seem to disbelieve miracles, from what I've seen in other threads; but you have yet to attack them. I'm waiting. Give me your best.

Also, you're making the claim that it can't necessarily be proven that Christianity is false so therefore it must be true.

No, this is the skeptics x Christianity thread. Are you a muslim? Then we can talk about muslims x christians; I don't want you talking about TWO subjects you never studied. I never made the claim you are talking about; not once, in any thread, ever. Prejudice and prejudice... I just criticized Thôl's beliefs in this thread; I'm only defending Christianity now, after you have joined us. It seems you must also read the threads, as well as the Bible.

Just as meat for thought, I'll repeat a question: what do you think of Jesus? Since you believe in right and wrong, we can go directly to that.

[Celebthôl]

Are you listening, Thôl?

No, actually im reading, but what are you trying to prove? Lúthien and I have different beliefs (marginally), she is an Atheist (sp) I am not.
But i never said things were not immoral, i said there is no right and wrong. (Not once in the dictionary does it say that immoral is good/bad/right or wrong, those words do not even appear in the definition).
If we do immoral actions then we fall from God.

And I believe in evolution too. So what?

So your devine father says that it does not exist.

Do you believe in Aliens from other planets etc?

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
[B]No, actually im reading, but what are you trying to prove? Lúthien and I have different beliefs (marginally), she is an Atheist (sp) I am not.

I'm trying to prove what you just admitted; that you and Lúthien have different beliefs. You claimed otherwise a few posts back. So that's settled.

But i never said things were not immoral, i said there is no right and wrong. (Not once in the dictionary does it say that immoral is good/bad/right or wrong, those words do not even appear in the definition).

And who cares about the dictionary definition, Thôl? Just add "immoral" to the list of words I gave you a way back, words that you use when you want to MEAN "bad" but not say it. If you say something is immoral, you are passing a judgment upon it; you are saying it runs counter to morality. Well, if you have a morality, you assume that your morality is the right morality; or else it would not be a morality.

Do you want a definition of morality? I can give you one. And obviously it will involve good and bad.

If we do immoral actions then we fall from God.

Therefore, immoral actions are bad, since to gain ultimate knowledge and join God is the goal of life, according to your belief. If it takes us away from the goal, it is bad; that is the nature of a "goal", you know.

So your devine father says that it does not exist.

Can you quote my divine Father saying that evolution does not exist? Thorin and Elendil tried to do it in the "Question on the bible" thread; they know A LOT more about the Bible than you, but they were not able to produce this quote.

Read the Bible before talking about it; is that such an outlandish advice that you (and Lúthien) prefer to keep on talking nonsense instead of following it? It is not hard; it is in plain English, accessible to all. Do you want a site? Try www.newadvent.org/bible

Do you believe in Aliens from other planets etc?

Well, my divine Father said nothing about them; so this question is a bit irrelevant. If you want to know, I have no opinion. I guess lower forms of life are quite likely, but intelligent beings are impossible unless God intervened. Perhaps He did; God never told us everything about his actions.

[Celebthôl]

I'm trying to prove what you just admitted; that you and Lúthien have different beliefs. You claimed otherwise a few posts back. So that's settled.

Thats pretty lame, we already knew we didnt have the same beliefs, just VERY similar ones.

And who cares about the dictionary definition, Thôl? Just add "immoral" to the list of words I gave you a way back, words that you use when you want to MEAN "bad" but not say it. If you say something is immoral, you are passing a judgment upon it; you are saying it runs counter to morality. Well, if you have a morality, you assume that your morality is the right morality; or else it would not be a morality.

Not really, it just doesnt serve you. It pulls you away from God. That is all.

Therefore, immoral actions are bad, since to gain ultimate knowledge and join God is the goal of life, according to your belief. If it takes us away from the goal, it is bad; that is the nature of a "goal", you know

Again, it isnt bad, it just does not serve us, it pulls us away from ultimate knowledge.

Can you quote my divine Father saying that evolution does not exist? Thorin and Elendil tried to do it in the "Question on the bible" thread; they know A LOT more about the Bible than you, but they were not able to produce this quote.

Way i was told, we didnt evolve we were put here as we are now by God and that was that.

Well, my divine Father said nothing about them; so this question is a bit irrelevant. If you want to know, I have no opinion. I guess lower forms of life are quite likely, but intelligent beings are impossible unless God intervened. Perhaps He did; God never told us everything about his actions.

Also told wrong then, I was told that we were the only inteligent beings in the Universe.
I had a discussion about it with i think Elendil and Elgee...

[Eriol]

It may be lame, but it is what you said; I can't work with any other thing here. But it's settled; no use in talking about that.

"does not serve you" means "bad", Thôl... we went into that before. Define "bad" for us if you disagree; you never told what you think "bad" means.

As for the evolution and aliens stuff, it goes to show that you should check for yourself instead of listening to what people tell you. Elendil and Elgee (and Eriol) can make mistakes; I'm not sure that's what happened, perhaps you did not understand them correctly. But the way to make sure is to go to the Bible. Why don't you?

If you want to bash Christianity, you must understand it; to understand it, go to the Bible. It is really a simple thing to do.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
Can you quote my divine Father saying that evolution does not exist? Thorin and Elendil tried to do it in the "Question on the bible" thread; they know A LOT more about the Bible than you, but they were not able to produce this quote.
Can you give me a verse from the Bible that says bikinis are immodest and should not be worn by Christians? I think most Christians would agree that they are very immodest; the Bible commands modesty. We, as Christians, are supposed to judge everything by the Bible: if there is not a verse that specifically commands/forbids something, we must examine that something on a principle basis. That is what Thorin and I are/were doing in the QotB thread. We were never trying to find a verse that says "Evolution does not exist." (BTW I'm reading a book right now on Creation and the literal interpretation of Genesis, so I will be prepared to take you on once again once I finish it.) Perhaps we should take this over to the QotB thread...:)

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Elendil3119
We were never trying to find a verse that says "Evolution does not exist."

And yet this is what Thôl claimed; that there was a verse saying "Evolution does not exist".

Following your own example, Tahitians walked around almost nude, and they were not being immodest. So we can say that the Bible is frowning on immodesty, not on bikinis. Bikinis can be modest, depending on the culture.

Sure, we'll talk about it on that thread; I can hardly wait ;). The thread has been dormant...

With new arguments, I hope :D.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
Following your own example, Tahitians walked around almost nude, and they were not being immodest. So we can say that the Bible is frowning on immodesty, not on bikinis. Bikinis can be modest, depending on the culture.
Ah, but here you fall into error. You deny that there is any objective standard of modesty. The Bible commands absolute modesty, not reletive modesty. Essentially you are saying that although Christians may consider bikinis to be immodest now, if in 10 years they are no longer considered immodest, they will not be immodest. I disagree with this reasoning. I think that God has set a standard of modesty that transcends cultures. You say that the Bible frowns on immodesty, but what is immodesty? According to you, you can't define immodesty, therefore the Bible frowns upon a nonexistant thing.

Last Sunday, my brother, his friend and I were having a discussion about pop culture, modesty etc., and his friend said, "Well, remember that Adam and Eve wore fig-leaves. There have been some cultures who have worn fig-leaves for a long time." My brother responded, "Great, as long as they wear enough fig-leaves!" :D I think there is an absolute standard of modesty. Sure makes a lot more sense than there not being one.

[Eriol]

A Tahitian can be absolutely modest while nude, Elendil. Your opinion has no bearing on that.

Modesty is a state of spirit; as shown by the fact that Adam and Eve only realized their nudity after sinning. God did not frown upon their nudity before that; and they were not wearing fig-leaves, even.

This does not mean that there is no standard for modesty; quite the contrary, it means that modesty is in the heart of man, not outside it. This is not related to "objective" or "subjective"; if you want to call these categories into play, I say that modesty is objectively in the heart of man.

;)

I never claimed that there was no objective standard of modesty; I think there is such a standard, inscribed in the heart of man. This does not make it "subjective", any more than the inscription of the law of God in the heart of man makes moral law "subjective".

In a way, we're both right, but using different words here. You say that God has an absolute standard for modesty, and I agree; this standard is what is put into the heart of man. In a given culture, bikinis can be modest; this does not erase the standard of modesty.

We could go into a detailed discussion of many matters of the moral law here, and you'd see that the standard is inside us, and at the same time it is objective; for mankind shares a lot of inbuilt characteristics. An example, quite updated: was Bush lying about the WMD? We all know what is a lie, right? It is inscribed into our hearts. So we know how to answer that question.

Summing up: it is not a matter of objective/subjective, as I see it.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
And yet this is what Thôl claimed; that there was a verse saying "Evolution does not exist".

Like you say, I work with what ive got.

[Eriol]

So show me what you've got: show me the verse saying that.

I can show you the post in which you said that time is an illusion, that ultimate knowledge is the goal, that Lúthien and you had the same beliefs, that there is no good and bad... I've got stuff, Thôl. You've got nothing. Claiming that there is a verse is not enough; as Elendil and Thorin found out. You have to show it.

You are going by hearsay; it is your own risk, when the Bible is accessible without mediators. If I were you, I'd take a look at it before claiming that it says something because you heard someone claiming that.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Eriol
So show me what you've got: show me the verse saying that.

I can show you the post in which you said that time is an illusion, that ultimate knowledge is the goal, that Lúthien and you had the same beliefs, that there is no good and bad... I've got stuff, Thôl. You've got nothing. Claiming that there is a verse is not enough; as Elendil and Thorin found out. You have to show it.

You are going by hearsay; it is your own risk, when the Bible is accessible without mediators. If I were you, I'd take a look at it before claiming that it says something because you heard someone claiming that.

Well, gee didnt you go on hearsay when i told you that stuff, now who is being contradictive?! :rolleyes:
I was told that, im not gonna read through like a very long book just for one verse.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
Well, gee didnt you go on hearsay when i told you that stuff, now who is being contradictive?! :rolleyes:
I was told that, im not gonna read through like a very long book just for one verse.

:) :)

Thôl, Thôl... you're a wonder.

To answer your question, you are the one being contradictory, for two reasons:

1) I don't have access to your book; you have access to mine.
2) Presumably, your book claims that we are all God, there is no good and bad, reaching ultimate knowledge is the meaning of life, etc. etc. etc.; in other words, presumably your description of your beliefs is correct. Remember, I don't want to bash your book; I want to understand what you believe in; if it is different than what is found in your book, I couldn't care less.

Compare it with my situation; I am pledged to believe in what is found in the Bible, no matter what (it is part of being a Christian). So, if you want to know what I believe in, there are two ways: you ask me, or you go to the Bible. You choose a third way: you bash my beliefs on the basis of what some other people told you about them. I, at least, asked YOU, and not some other guy, to understand your beliefs.

As you see, you are being contradictory; and I am not. You are the one attacking something that never existed, "Christianity according to Celebthôl"; I am at least attacking "Celebthôlism according to Celebthôl" -- you can't complain that I'm not going to the first source.

;)

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Eriol
A Tahitian can be absolutely modest while nude, Elendil. Your opinion has no bearing on that.
Well, I am attempting to show that a Tahitian cannot be modest while nude. Don't pull a Thôl on me...;)
Modesty is a state of spirit; as shown by the fact that Adam and Eve only realized their nudity after sinning. God did not frown upon their nudity before that; and they were not wearing fig-leaves, even.

This does not mean that there is no standard for modesty; quite the contrary, it means that modesty is in the heart of man, not outside it. This is not related to "objective" or "subjective"; if you want to call these categories into play, I say that modesty is objectively in the heart of man.
You have your terminology messed up. Modesty in the heart of a human is simply humility. One can be modest inside while being immodest outside. Paul says,
1 Timothy 2:9-10 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness.
Modesty is both on the inside (humility) and the outside (the modesty I'm talking about).
I never claimed that there was no objective standard of modesty; I think there is such a standard, inscribed in the heart of man. This does not make it "subjective", any more than the inscription of the law of God in the heart of man makes moral law "subjective".
So if someone thinks they're modest, they are? They're relying only on their hearts to tell them this. Besides, if an objective standard of modesty is inscribed on every man's heart, it does not change from man to man. That is the very definition of objective. The objective standard that man was given is fallen. You cannot rely on your heart. ("There is a way which seems right to a man, but it's end is destruction..." paraphrased) If men rely on their hearts, you end up with millions of different standards.

What about beauty? Is it relative, or is there an objective standard of beauty? In other words, can something be beautiful to me, but not to someone else?

[Eriol]

Hehe. I never devoted much thought to this question Elendil; but you have not convinced me. Perhaps it is a matter of terminology. Some definitions are in order. Your quote from Paul, to me, says quite clearly that modesty is on the inside -- how could women "adorn themselves with good works" otherwise?

Humility is not directed to society, to fellow humans; it is directed to God. I really can't see much of a relationship between humility and modesty. What about children? When a 4-year old walks around nude, is he being immodest? This is a very, very weird way to look at it.

So if someone thinks they're modest, they are? They're relying only on their hearts to tell them this. Besides, if an objective standard of modesty is inscribed on every man's heart, it does not change from man to man. That is the very definition of objective. The objective standard that man was given is fallen. You cannot rely on your heart. ("There is a way which seems right to a man, but it's end is destruction..." paraphrased) If men rely on their hearts, you end up with millions of different standards.

No. Just as even when a liar thinks he's speaking the truth, he remains a liar. There is a difference between a mistaken person and a liar; it involves the heart of the person speaking falsehoods. Thôl is lying in this thread; he claims he believes in things he clearly does NOT believe, his everyday posting and behavior tell us that. He is lying to himself as well as to us. Lúthien, on the other hand, is mistaken; she truly believes what she is saying to us. If she refuses to stop and think about it, then she will begin to lie to herself; but this has not happened yet, at least not that I have seen.

Likewise, a man can be nude and immodest, or nude and modest; and more important, he can be very properly dressed and immodest. It is not the clothings that make modesty. It is the spirit of the man behind the clothes, what he wants to achieve with the clothes, that determine that.

This is only solvable with definitions. What is modesty, to you? It is quite clearly something different from what I take it to be. To me, a provisional definition would be: "the desire to avoid shocking and scandalizing other people". Perhaps "Scandalizing" should be substituted by "leading into temptation"; I don't know.

It is provisional because, as I have said, I never devoted much time for that. I guess we can improve on it. Take a shot at it ;).

[HLGStrider]

evil female rib-bones

I'd like to know how you got evil out of the story of Eve being taken from Adam's rib when she was being made because Adam was lonely and obviously in need of her and was therefore a very good thing from him. ..

Also, I've never read a thing about evil rib-bones. No where in the Bible are ribs condemned as evil things only fit to be made into evil women which seems to be what you're implying. I personally like my ribs and find them quite useful.

Last time I checked, talking snakes were not a reality. Do I really need to say more?

Neither are people walking on water. . .which is why miracles are not from science. They are still part of a reality. You can't disprove miracles. . .and the snake was clearly of supernatural origins. . .as was Balam's donkey, the only other talking animal instance.

Surely God wouldn't have asked people to make two holy books each saying different things?

No, he only made one, and it is up to us, by comparing and contrasting them, to decide which one he really dictated. I'd start by which one is most historically accurate. The easiest way to do this would to be to compare their accounts of Jesus which are very contradicting.

No that isnt the point, the point is, it is not possible for him to get me into heaven with me believing my current belief, therefore he cannot do everything, he is not all powerful

Can't or won't? Doing so would violate your free will. Doing so would be forcing you. Doing so would break His rules. God does not break His own rules.

As Lúthien says, why should a God need to? Little insucure is he?

God should lie to us and hide himself from us then?

If you were a parent, you'd want your children to know that you were, to know that you loved them, and for you to be able to influence their lives for the better.

Why should a loving God not want the same?

So wrong here, you think that if alcahol was invented today that it would be legalised? No God would say that it is ok, seems like one of the bible writers should have spent some time at "Alcahols annonymous"

This is funny.You don't like alcohol so you think it should be illegal and that God shouldn't have said alcohol in moderation is all right. However, rape is all right to be legal. Rape is not all right to forbid. ???

Actually, I hope we are living in a world where things don't have to be legalized, only illegalized. I personally believe in a political system that wouldn't have to legalize (approve) what I do. . .but that's politics.

I think if alcohol were invented today it would received differing responses in differing countries.

So, any drinking of alcohal makes one suited for alcoholics annonymous? I ought to have my dad who has a beer every so often put away then.

:rolleyes:

You have a harsher standard in this in the Bible. You like your own standards, Thol, and would illegalize things you don't want. You just don't care of the standard of the Bible. . .

Im afraid no matter how much guiding by a perfect being, an imperfect being cannot create perfection.

Then this being is not all poweful. . .which you use against me up above, saying that if God were all powerful he would be able to change your mind (to which I say, he can but he won't), but down here God is too weak to even make someone write what he wants. . .with their permission!

The "right" way, well really the quicker way, is to live how you want to live, be who you want to be, dont follow the doctrine of a religion.

I think I live a better life without stealing, raping, and murdering, no matter what you might say and according to you, this is a faster way to Heaven than following the religion that says to do differently. You are the classic example of a bent hross. . .

And I believe in evolution too. So what?

I don't. Plenty of reasonable scientists don't. The school system has been biased in favor of evolution for a very long time. I think that creationism will eventually disprove a lot of evolutionism. It chips away at it a little at a time and while I think neither theory will ever win, evolution will always be in contest. . .REASONABLY so.

I had a discussion about it with i think Elendil and Elgee...

And I said what Eriol said. The Bible, as far as I remember, never mentioned aliens in the affirmative or the negative, so I didn't really have an opinion on it, though I don't believe in it on my own reasoning.

So if someone thinks they're modest, they are?

I'm a bit between here. I believe that there is a certain level of immodesty and that level is "When your intention is to arrouse sexual desire in another human being" or "when you intention is to shock."

I don't think it goes by inches or amount of fabric. I think it goes by intention. I don't believe there is anything evil about dancing. I do believe that when one starts waving ones body around obviously trying to attract attention to yourself in a sexual way it is bad.

The clothes I'm wearing right now would've been immodest in Victorian times, but I think even Elendil would say they aren't now. (They're pajamas with short sleeves and short legs. About mid thigh)

The Bible never specified tightness, shortness, etc, etc, etc. I think this is because they know that styles change with cultures. I do believe there are limits. I think pure nakedness is one because I think it is naturally sexual in all but the occasion of very young children. . .

I think it would be very hard to proove Biblically anyone's limit on such things. In fact, it would be impossible.

[Lúthien Séregon]

I'd like to know how you got evil out of the story of Eve being taken from Adam's rib when she was being made because Adam was lonely and obviously in need of her and was therefore a very good thing from him. ..

According to the genesis, all evil came from Eve when she was seduced by a talking snake into eating an apple. Where else do you think the term "evil" came from? It's "Eve-ill".

Also, I've never read a thing about evil rib-bones.

In the story Eve was made out of a man's rib-bone ( which is quite ridiculous in itself, it implies women as inferior which obviously proves men must have written the story ), and of course I've already explained the evil part.

Neither are people walking on water. . .which is why miracles are not from science. They are still part of a reality. You can't disprove miracles. . .and the snake was clearly of supernatural origins. . .as was Balam's donkey, the only other talking animal instance.

Now, but that's the thing - the reason why those things can be described so clearly and made so obvious is that they didn't actually happen, they're part of a story. It's easy to just say "it's supernatural, can't be proven, so let's not bother to figure it out". Otherwise, I may as well go and believe my own story about the sun being a lion and the moon being a tiger - there's not a lot of difference between them and the talking snake, or the man walking on water who talks to devils.

~~~~

You were in the clear up to "unconvincing". "Illogical" and "untrue" are uncalled for; an illogical statement is clearly defined as one which breaks logical laws; an untrue statement is one which is not related to reality. You have not shown either lack of logic or lack of truth, so far.

But a lot of Christianity does though. A lot IS very illogical ( like women being made of rib-bones, for example ) and therefore untrue.

And I believe in evolution too. So what?

The definition of humans being God’s children ( alone out of all animals ) defies that evolution and flies in the face of science, because humans have been around for a mere second when it comes to looking at the scope of the Earth’s history.

Like I said before, if a lion or any other animal had religion, no doubt they also would imagine a great father/mother that looked down on their species alone.

Yes, why would a father care for the wellbeing of his children? Why not let them fend for themselves? Has he got insecurity problems or what?

You didn’t answer the initial question there, that has nothing to do with caring for the wellbeing of “his children”. Why would he/she/it want to be worshipped?

Good for you; and good for us that Christianity is not like that. Christianity does NOT, repeat, NOT condemn anyone because he's skeptic.

Quote from this thread:

no, you go to Hell because you don't go to heaven because you didn't believe. Good has nothing to do with it.

:rolleyes:

It is not a matter of "being loved by God"; God loves us all. Even the rapists and murderers. He wants us all to be with Him, because this is the best for us; and He knows more about it than we do.

Ditto.

I have seen them both; sorry about that.

That’s an assumption in itself. The cave dweller in the story also said the same thing, they were pretty sure that the bonfire was the world.

I've seen the bonfire and the light, and I know the difference. No assumptions here. I have thought as you did once (not as stubbornly as you, though ; and some of your mistakes I never really followed). So it is a matter of experience; I've seen both sides, you only saw one.

I’m looking at both sides here ( and looking does not mean believing ), it’s not hard to see which is at least more logical. And I don’t make mistakes either, in things like this it’s not a matter of making mistakes either – only if you always assume that you’re right. And I’m not quite assuming I’m right, I’m looking at both sides and seeing which one is more logical, and therefore considering that what I think is much more likely.

You are still talking about the sun from the inside of the cave, Lúthien.

So says a blind man, warming himself in the glow of the bonfire, convinced it is the sun. And by that, I don't mean that you're blind to the truth, I'm pointing out how easy it is to just simply claim that one is correct in all aspects of something that no-one really knows anything about - if anyone did really know anything, we wouldn't be arguing.

And of course, it is fun to see one who has admittedly never studied the Bible and who will never do it talking about it with assurance.

I've heard enough and I've seen enough. True enough, I do have enough sense to be skeptical of a book which, at first glance, paragraphs in my face about angels throwing fire in front of someone called God.

1) Your historical account is completely wrong;
2) The quality of the authors is not a good argument to criticize a book without reading it.

#2 - Society is not perfect, and it wasn't then either. Society influences obviously had an effect on the way people thought ( and it still does ). A lot of what we do now that we consider normal would be absolutely unthinkable back in those times ( probably evil ). And it's quite clear that that influence had an effect on what things the bible contains at times ( such as things about homosexuals, and women being fragments of men, or "incomplete males" - sounds like Aristotle's philosophy to me, hmmmm...is Aristotle God? ) - it too was subject to the times, which just goes to show, either it was made by people who believe in a human called God who rules the universe, or God really is just a colossal human who also is subject to people's opinions, and has the same faults of discrimination as they do.

And as for number 1, perhaps you could point out to me how all I've been saying so far is really that wrong, other than the fact that you don't agree.

He would assume that people who use their reason would never doubt a book without reading it; He would assume that people who use their reason and who never read a given book would read it, or ask questions of people who read it, instead of bashing it .

Maybe to you it seems I'm bashing it, but actually, I'm just pointing out how it's so illogical. I don't need to study it in depth ( really, I'd fall asleep after the first three pages :D LOL ). Someone with reason should be very skeptical about a book that contains all of the irrational reasoning that the Bible does ( it covers basically everything! from evil worms to evil rib-bones :confused:. )

You call your prejudices and bias "reason", Lúthien; it's very interesting to see that.

So because I actually criticise something that a lot of other people have been following mindlessly without question because either they were for, I'm biased. I mean, really. Very interesting. In case you can't tell, I'm not considering the viewpoint of this society at all, I'm going by ENTIRELY ( by entirely, I mean totally, 100%, wholely :D ) my own reasoning.

You think that our century is the most enlightened, that our people is the most open-minded, that our knowledge is the most advanced...

No, I have said that society is subject to the times, and that old society was no exception.

A better example of "pre-judice", pre-judging, couldn't be imagined.

Maybe not imagined, but actually seen - I can see a better example of prejudice by looking at your posts. :D The fact that you're not bothering to see anything different from your own point of view, that you assume you're right in every aspect ( about something that no-one is right about ).

What's a "type of truth"? It is either right or wrong. No "types of right".

There are the "truths" that every single religion claims, that all contradict each other. That's what I meant. Which is exactly why Christianity is no more believable than the rest.

It seems quite absurd, to you, from the cave. Surely you notice that to disbelieve a book without reading it is absurd, itself.

Or to believe a fantasy book without question. I may as well go believing LOTR, at least it's got more elements of reality in it than the Bible does.

It's only when the Bible is discussed the people feel free to bash without reading it.

Or criticise it properly on its main points rather. It's not "bashing" merely criticism.

Who's in the cave, Lúthien?

;)

You should, perhaps, try to use a little reasoning and read for yourself. Prejudice is not reasoning, no matter how much you want to call it so.

And neither is blind labelling. Can you please read my posts before calling me biased?

For instance, you have not used any reasoning in the quote you were criticizing.

Do I really have to now scientifically prove that there are no such things as women made of rib-bones? :rolleyes: If it comes to that, I really can conclude you won't even consider anything that differs from Christianity.

[Lúthien Séregon]

I said that to claim it is "impossible" is a restriction on the doctrine, and therefore is the thing skeptics should aim at; while "unbelievable" is a restriction on the reader, and therefore useless for the skeptics' claims. If you tell me you don't believe in something, so what?

The problem is, you're assuming that what I call impossible, I call it that only because I don't believe it. And that is where you are in the dark, because you're not bothering to really consider anything else. There is a good reason for why I think that it is an impossibility for Satan to be a worm, for snakes to seduce women, and women to be made of rib-bones. And I think that should be obvious.

But if you SHOW me that something is impossible, I have to listen. Go ahead -- show me.

I would try to give you an example of a talking snake, really. :rolleyes: There is one problem though, I would have thought it was fairly obvious, Lol!

But you know, you wouldn't accept the fact that there's no such thing anyway, because to say something's impossible is merely a restriction, isn't it? I suppose I should go believing in dragons now, or maybe unicorns.

Perhaps not; you could visit the "Question on the Bible" thread to see the nature of myth being discussed there. It would involve taking a few steps out of the cave.

Or maybe the first few steps towards delusion. :rolleyes: When people start claiming that talking snakes must be real because we've never seen them, I've got to worry.

I'm quite willing to do it. Show it to me -- show the absurdities and impossibilities.

Please read my posts - it honestly amazes me that people need evidence to show that talking snakes and female rib-bones aren't real.

I'm not taking your comments seriously, so far

Obviously, or reading them. How do you expect me to take your comments seriously, when you are not even reading mine properly? There's not much point to a debate when you are reading, but not comprehending.

I would not take you seriously if you talked about periphytic bacterial productivity in tropical coastal lagoons as well, for I suppose that you have never studied that, and I have.

If you started talking about the nature of all 37 wild cats and their relationships with other species in regards to predator-prey balance, chances are you would probably not know what you're talking about and I would be able to point out every one of your mistakes - but I would still actually read your posts.

That doesn't prove anything, only that there are some who bother to read other's posts and give them respect, and then there are those who don't. Well, that's your bad if you take on a patronising attitude and not consider the viewpoint of the person you're arguing with. It's not me who's not going to learn anything.

If you study the matter, and point out impossibilities and absurdities -- specific things -- we can talk. While you just talk about "the obvious impossibilities" without ever having studied it, I'm sorry, Lúthien, but I can only shrug and ascribe it to your prejudices. You have made not one -- a tiny one -- serious attack on Christianity; unless it is the "talking serpent", and this is part of a myth. You seem to disbelieve miracles, from what I've seen in other threads; but you have yet to attack them. I'm waiting. Give me your best.

Ditto - someone who commands someone else to study in detail everything from their own viewpoint whilst not even really considering the other person's statements at all isn't worth arguing with. I've already made enough posts listing how irrational Christianity is, I won't post any more until you read the ones I've already listed ( without saying, "study the bible", because that's just getting us nowhere ).

No, this is the skeptics x Christianity thread. Are you a muslim? Then we can talk about muslims x christians; I don't want you talking about TWO subjects you never studied. I never made the claim you are talking about; not once, in any thread, ever. Prejudice and prejudice... I just criticized Thôl's beliefs in this thread; I'm only defending Christianity now, after you have joined us. It seems you must also read the threads, as well as the Bible.

Yes, I know a lot about Islamic culture, I have relatives who are muslims, thank you very much - but you wouldn't even bother to believe that I know anything really, so there's not much point to me saying anything. I have a feeling that I'm just wasting my words here, and my time. So therefore, how about this - stop asking me to study everything and stop assuming that I don't know anything, then I'll talk. Because otherwise, I'm just wasting my time - I have much better things to do than to keep up a one-sided argument.

[Malbeth]

Luthien, most of the impossibilities you speak of seem to come from Genesis... but the early chapter of Genesis, for a lot of Christians, Eriol and I among them, is a myth. A myth, mind you, not a lie. If you did take a look on the Question on the Bible thread you would see that for yourself... and this has nothing to do with scientific knowledge... literary knowledge is enough, for as early as the 5th century some Christians were teaching this view of Genesis (St. Jerome, the great biblical scholar, and St. Augustine, the great philosopher, none less).

Now, for the errors:

Christianity does not teach that all evil came from Eve. If you read St Pauls epistles when he is talking about original sin, he does not blame Eve for it, but Adam.

Christianity does not teach that woman is inferior to man (historically speaking, it was Christianity that helped give women an equal status), and the statement that Eve was made out of a rib is a mythological statement saying just that. For Eve was not made out of the head of Adam, to dominate him, nor out of his feet, to be dominated by him, but out of his rib, to be his equal companion.

As for the walking on water... it is very different from talking snakes or believing the sun is a lion. Some people saw a guy walking on water, told people about it, and were willing to die for what they saw this guy do (like come back from the dead). It is not a logical impossibility for someone to walk on water, it is only something we humans cannot do in our present state.

As for humans being God's children, God does care about all His creation (all, not just animals and plants). But we are made in the image of God i.e, we have reason, free will and an ethical sense. Animals just do not have it.

God wants us to worship him for the same reason he wants us to love each other. It is good for us. In Heaven, our worship of Him will be the greatest joy possible, a joy eye has not seen and ear has not heard.

Regarding whether the skeptic goes to Hell or not. Christianity teaches that we cannot say whether anyone is in Hell. This includes even Judas. If the skeptic is open-minded and willing to consider Christianity without philosophical prejudices (like miracles are impossible), he does have a greater chance of being saved I think.

Finally, the cave argument. You are the one assuming that you are outside the cave and that you can see objectively what is inside and what is outside. However, we are all born within the cave. Were you an educated Christian who rejected Christianity because it was impossible? If yes, then you will have no problem showing us why it is impossible or illogical (and no, miracles are not impossible and not illogical, at least a priori; you have to tell us why miracles are illogical). Eriol and I were once skeptics, and I had even rejected Christianity for a reason I thought logical( the problem of Evil and the alleged impossibility of a man being God... it seemed to me like a circle who was a square). Funny that you and Thol did not even try to bring these in... I think they're very good arguments against Christianity, but I discovered they were flawed. Most of your arguments come from philosophical prejudices, like miracles cannot happen. So, when and how did you get out of the cave? Or are you the one person already born outside it, able to consider everything impartially? I can even say that for me, being a skeptic during my adolescence was part of the process of getting out of the cave... I ditched an uneducated Christianity to an educated skepticism, and later an educated skepticism for an educated Christianity (by educated I mean only having good reasons to believe or disbelieve something). You are simply not looking at both sides impartially.

I don't mean that you're blind to the truth, I'm pointing out how easy it is to just simply claim that one is correct in all aspects of something that no-one really knows anything about - if anyone did really know anything, we wouldn't be arguing.

Isn't this a big assumption? Why cant we know anything about this subject? Actually you and I only argue because we think we know something. Christianity is, mainly, the statement that God became a human to save humanity. We say that because a guy went around He was God and that he came to save humanity. This particular guy was incredibly clever and compassionate, and He did things no one else could do (healing, casting out demons, walking on water and raising himself from the dead). People saw Him doing that and those same people were willing to die horribly, and did die horribly, for saying they saw Him doing it. This is the kind of thing we can know about. It is not at all abstract or abstruse, it is very concrete and clear (though also very profound).

And it's quite clear that that influence had an effect on what things the bible contains at times ( such as things about homosexuals, and women being fragments of men, or "incomplete males" - sounds like Aristotle's philosophy to me, hmmmm...is Aristotle God? )

Luthien, when will we stop telling us what the Bible says? The bible does not say that women are incomplete males or that they are fragments of men. It says that God took one rib from Adam and from it made women. If you are so worried about the material, Adam was made from dust. What is greater, a human rib or dust? By this reasoning women would be superior to men. Regarding homosexuals... this is a very controversial subject, and quite a sidetrack, so I will just say that perhaps what the bible teaches about homosexuality is right, and it is our society that is wrong. After all, if ancient society had such an influence over the Bible writings, modern society has an influence over yours. I have to go now... sorry, I will try to address your other points tonight.

[Lúthien Séregon]

I can't reply to all of this just now, just half of it.

Christianity does not teach that all evil came from Eve. If you read St Pauls epistles when he is talking about original sin, he does not blame Eve for it, but Adam.

Evil - Eve-ill. It's there in the word.

Christianity does not teach that woman is inferior to man (historically speaking, it was Christianity that helped give women an equal status), and the statement that Eve was made out of a rib is a mythological statement saying just that. For Eve was not made out of the head of Adam, to dominate him, nor out of his feet, to be dominated by him, but out of his rib, to be his equal companion.

From the bible:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

There it is, from the bible itself. There, you wanted me to read it, and I've read it. And that came after only a few seconds. Evidence that the bible teaches that women are inferior to men.

Also, the fact that she was supposedly made out of a man at all suggests that men are dominant. If it was really considering women as equal, women would have been made alongside men, not afterwards or as a part of the man.

Some people saw a guy walking on water, told people about it, and were willing to die for what they saw this guy do (like come back from the dead). It is not a logical impossibility for someone to walk on water, it is only something we humans cannot do in our present state.

Due to gravity, and the fact that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. There's no "present state" about it.

As for humans being God's children, God does care about all His creation (all, not just animals and plants). But we are made in the image of God i.e, we have reason, free will and an ethical sense. Animals just do not have it.

Actually they do. Reason - they have it, or else they would not be able to make choices for themselves, and therefore survive. Free will - they must certainly have it. Ethical sense - the most brutal acts or atrocities are committed by humans, most of the time out of malicious intent or for a religion ( with animals, they just do it for survival ). Animals don't start wars - humans do. Which are more ethical? Humans are the ones who have wiped out millions of other species.

Finally, the cave argument. You are the one assuming that you are outside the cave and that you can see objectively what is inside and what is outside. However, we are all born within the cave. Were you an educated Christian who rejected Christianity because it was impossible?

One doesn't need to experience something to know how the people feel about it, or to know what's wrong with it. I'll put it this way - I don't need to come from an extremely wealthy family to know what it is like to be rich, or be born in the 12th century to know what the conditions were like, or even I don't need to be a schizophrenic to know what schizophrenia is.

People saw Him doing that and those same people were willing to die horribly, and did die horribly, for saying they saw Him doing it. This is the kind of thing we can know about. It is not at all abstract or abstruse, it is very concrete and clear (though also very profound).

People say the same thing about Mohammed also. There are also some people who swear blind that they see something that no-one else can. All because a lot of people claim to see something against the laws of nature ( we're talking about accounts thousands of years old, with no other evidence ), does that mean that they are correct?

A schizophrenic could swear blind they see someone walking over water, but that doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're hallucinating. ( In fact, a substantial amount of people in mental hospitals claim to be Prophets of God ).

It says that God took one rib from Adam and from it made women.

Hence, being incomplete men. If it saw women as being so equal, they would not have come after men, nor be made of a fragment of a man. According to that, men were completed as whole figures, women as just part of them.

If you are so worried about the material, Adam was made from dust. What is greater, a human rib or dust?

Or rather, a whole lump of dust, or a partial lump of dust.

[Eriol]

Good ole' Malbeth...

:)

Lúthien: I fear this is getting into a loop, like it did with Celebthôl. I point out the metaphysical and philosophical flaws in your views, and you use the "you too!" form of argument. First of all, it is mistaken; my philosophical flaws are quite different from yours. You say that walking on water is impossible; it is not. Sorry. No matter how many jokes you spun about this fact, it is not impossible. Neither it is illogical. No logical laws are broken by it.

This is prejudice; bias. You want me to stop pointing that out; ok, I'll do it. But it won't change the bias itself. "A rose by any other name...".

An impossibility is something much stronger than what you are claiming here. And you know that. When you think about it coolly, you know that. Why don't you accept it? I can't say the word anymore...

:D

I think it MUCH easier to believe that a man walked on water than to believe that you know about Christianity without ever reading the Bible. Much easier. The second hypothesis, in fact, is just as believable as the first -- both involve divine agency. Did you receive some divine, personal revelation about Christianity, Lúthien? If not, then it is quite unlikely that you know anything about what you're talking here; as your many, many mistakes show, in fact. You want me to enumerate them?

Evil Eve
Incompatibility between Genesis and Evolution*
The tyrant God who wants to be worshipped for his own sake
"angels throwing fire in the front of someone"

*Elendil and Thorin -- who know A LOT about the Bible, and much more than I do -- could not show that. It seems you have some kind of divine revelation about it too.

And this is from one post only. I won't go into "stake-burning Jews" or the "effects of society". These are factual mistakes; they show that you have no understanding of Christianity. They show that you are as knowledgeable about it as Malbeth (not I, I know a bit more) would be about the 37 species of wild cats; and by the way, I'm certainly more knowledgeable about predator-prey relationships than you, unless you have some 2 years of studying that in your curriculum as I do. You picked a bad example :). I'm not too strong in taxonomy, but I am rather strong in ecology, especially population dynamics; I used to be the best in my class; I have a MSc in Ecology. We can talk about is some day if you wish, exchange our knowledge.

Malbeth listed other errors.

Now, let's see the philosophical mistakes:

In the story Eve was made out of a man's rib-bone ( which is quite ridiculous in itself, it implies women as inferior which obviously proves men must have written the story ),

This "implication" was never shown. It is b**s, Lúthien; all commentators agree that the rib shows very clearly that women is equal to men; and I'm talking about commentators from those bad, evil, naughty times in which women were oppressed daily :rolleyes:. Even then, everybody thought that the fact that women came from a rib is a sign of equality. This could also go under "historical mistakes", since you think all men were chauvinists until the 20th century.

Now, but that's the thing - the reason why those things can be described so clearly and made so obvious is that they didn't actually happen, they're part of a story. It's easy to just say "it's supernatural, can't be proven, so let's not bother to figure it out". Otherwise, I may as well go and believe my own story about the sun being a lion and the moon being a tiger - there's not a lot of difference between them and the talking snake, or the man walking on water who talks to devils.

You may believe what you will; and this shows that "impossible" and "unbelievable" are quite different. The main difference between them, of course, is that one set of things happened, and the other didn't. Once upon a time, a man walked on water and cast out devils. If you don't want to believe it, it won't change the facts; and you'd better have good reasons instead of "it's just a story, these things don't actually happen". For this is b**s. It is grounded on a theory of reality that assumes that you know much more about the universe than you really know. No one can say what you are saying here with any certainty, Lúthien; this is why it is bias. You are the one showing a touching faith here, a faith in your conception of the universe, even when it goes against testimony of several thousand people (the people who witnessed personally Jesus' miracles). We are the skeptics; we are the ones who don't take your model of the universe for granted just because you say it is so.

The definition of humans being God’s children ( alone out of all animals ) defies that evolution and flies in the face of science, because humans have been around for a mere second when it comes to looking at the scope of the Earth’s history.

There's a whole thread about that (Question on the Bible); suffice to say that you are wrong, as shown in that thread.

I’m looking at both sides here ( and looking does not mean believing ), it’s not hard to see which is at least more logical. And I don’t make mistakes either, in things like this it’s not a matter of making mistakes either – only if you always assume that you’re right. And I’m not quite assuming I’m right, I’m looking at both sides and seeing which one is more logical, and therefore considering that what I think is much more likely.

This is perhaps the greatest mistake. "I don't make mistakes"; of course you do. We all do. You are assuming that you know what is "logical"; and your assumption is mistaken. You are assuming that to claim that Jesus once walked on water is the same as claiming that once 2+2=7, once. You are mistaken, Lúthien; logic and the laws of nature are not the same thing. If you want to keep claiming that Christianity is "illogical", you will keep on being mistaken -- unless you show one instance in which the laws of logic were broken.

If you want to say it is "unlikely", that's great; I will agree with you wholeheartedly. As any single event, and especially in the case of Jesus, is unlikely in itself. We will have to study then what is "more unlikely" and "less unlikely"; and to do that you'll have to get acquainted with the accounts of Jesus' life. You can't talk about "unlikely" without knowing the thing you're talking about. You'll have to delve into the historical veracity of the gospels, into the beginnings of the Church, etc. etc. It is hard work; but it is obviously important. The only reason to refuse to do it beforehand is b**s; such as believing that it is "illogical". That is a faith in itself; and easily contradicted by the facts.

That is the best way to check on who's in the cave, by the way; to call in the facts. Not the "illogical", "unlikely", "absurd", etc. etc. You say I'm labeling; hehe. I just want to talk about the facts. You won't even look at them. And yet you say you're not in the cave...

So because I actually criticise something that a lot of other people have been following mindlessly without question because either they were for, I'm biased. I mean, really. Very interesting. In case you can't tell, I'm not considering the viewpoint of this society at all, I'm going by ENTIRELY ( by entirely, I mean totally, 100%, wholely ) my own reasoning.

See? Another mistake; to think that the "pure pedigree" of your views is something laudable or meritorious. It is, in fact, irrelevant (as well as false; no ideas are born in isolation from society, least of all yours, on this subject). Only the veracity of your views, as checked against the facts (which you think you don't need to look into), matter. You use the adjective "mindless" while disclaiming your b**s. It is almost laughable. So all Christians are mindless; and yet you say you are NOT b**sed. Hehe.

I hope you won't say again that I called you b**sed without reading your posts; of course, if you do, it will only reinforce what is already clear. Or do you think I received a personal, divine revelation telling me about your mistakes as listed here? It was not what happened; I read your posts.

You have not answered my question about how do you view Jesus.

These are the things you have to do to conquer your b**s, Lúthien; follow the advice as you will. But it is given in good faith.

1) Realize that what you "heard and saw" about Christianity is not enough for an informed judgment;
2) Shed the metaphysical prejudices about the nature of the universe -- you know as little about it as any of us, remember that;
3) Conquer the concept of "illogical", as opposed to "unlikely" or "against nature's laws"; this really means, understand what the phrase "nature's law" signifies.
4) Go to the sources; go to the gospel before claiming to know anything about Christianity.

This is really a handbook for studying anything, for leaving the cave; you would be wise to follow it before making sweeping claims about the universe or about Christianity.

Good luck, if you want to follow that road; I'd be delighted to help, and it IS a two-way street; if you find something illogical you will convert me on the spot. If you want to remain in the cave, good luck will be needed too...

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Lúthien Séregon
I can't reply to all of this just now, just half of it.

Evil - Eve-ill. It's there in the word.

Gosh, you're really serious. Do you think the Bible was written in English, Lúthien? I thought you were joking.

There it is, from the bible itself. There, you wanted me to read it, and I've read it. And that came after only a few seconds. Evidence that the bible teaches that women are inferior to men.

Are you inferior to George Bush, Lúthien? (I'd rather mention the Australian ruler, but I don't know his name... :( ) Government does not make anyone inferior or superior.

Also, the fact that she was supposedly made out of a man at all suggests that men are dominant. If it was really considering women as equal, women would have been made alongside men, not afterwards or as a part of the man.

Is "suggests" to you, because you are obsessed with this. It "suggested" nothing like that to anyone else until the 20th century. So you are saying that the society produced a work reflecting it's own bias -- and never accepted this bias until now. The commentators who said that men and women are equal are crazy.

Wow.

Due to gravity, and the fact that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. There's no "present state" about it.

See? Assumptions about the nature of the universe without grounds in science. I suggest you read Aristotle's account of science, you seem to have access to that.

Actually they do. Reason - they have it, or else they would not be able to make choices for themselves, and therefore survive. Free will - they must certainly have it. Ethical sense - the most brutal acts or atrocities are committed by humans, most of the time out of malicious intent or for a religion ( with animals, they just do it for survival ). Animals don't start wars - humans do. Which are more ethical? Humans are the ones who have wiped out millions of other species.

Check up the definition of "reason" and "free will" and "ethical sense". If you will follow Humpty Dumpty, then of course animals have all that.

One doesn't need to experience something to know how the people feel about it, or to know what's wrong with it. I'll put it this way - I don't need to come from an extremely wealthy family to know what it is like to be rich, or be born in the 12th century to know what the conditions were like, or even I don't need to be a schizophrenic to know what schizophrenia is.

Again, an assumption without any grounds in reality. You think you know how it is to be a schizophrenic. You really delude yourself so easily, Lúthien...

People say the same thing about Mohammed also. There are also some people who swear blind that they see something that no-one else can. All because a lot of people claim to see something against the laws of nature ( we're talking about accounts thousands of years old, with no other evidence ), does that mean that they are correct?

No; but it means that you have to check it. Was Jesus schizophrenic? Was everybody around him schizophrenic? These are the kind of questions you must answer. The present knowledge of psychology says no; again, you assume you know all there is to be known about everything pertaining to the matter ;).

A schizophrenic could swear blind they see someone walking over water, but that doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're hallucinating. ( In fact, a substantial amount of people in mental hospitals claim to be Prophets of God ).

Compare Jesus with these guys. Check up whether he was a mental patient; as well as EVERYBODY (including his enemies) in Palestine at that time. This is the basis of your case -- worldwide hallucination and mental disorder. Oh, that seems very likely :rolleyes:.

[Celebthôl]

Ok, before we go any further:


Have there been any miracles to speek of within the last 2000 years? (or whenever it was that the bible was finished making them up? Anything even close?
(By miracle i mean men walking on water, water to wine (still baffles me why anyone would want to do that), guys curing sick people with a single touch, etc...)

Is there anything (other than the bible) that is going to to convince me that Chirstianity is correct? Anything at all?


And also, i must intrude...

You say that walking on water is impossible; it is not. Sorry. No matter how many jokes you spun about this fact, it is not impossible. Neither it is illogical. No logical laws are broken by it.

It is impossible, the human body is denser than water a scientific fact mind you. It cannot be done.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
[B]Ok, before we go any further:


Have there been any miracles to speek of within the last 2000 years? (or whenever it was that the bible was finished making them up? Anything even close?
(By miracle i mean men walking on water, water to wine (still baffles me why anyone would want to do that), guys curing sick people with a single touch, etc...)

Is there anything (other than the bible) that is going to to convince me that Chirstianity is correct? Anything at all?

Many; many; many. Many accounts of miracles, along many faiths, throughout the world. Are they all true? I don't know. Can we discard them beforehand without falling into a metaphysical error? Surely not.

Check this page, found on a quick google search:

Miracles (http://www.mcn.org/1/Miracles/Intro2.html)

And also, i must intrude...

It is impossible, the human body is denser than water a scientific fact mind you. It cannot be done.

Exactly; it is a scientific fact. This means that it is not certain, Thôl; it can be different without breaking any logical law. That is the meaning of the sentence "scientific fact".

[Celebthôl]

I give up.

[Eriol]

I didn't expect anything else.

:D

To fight reasoning with smileys is the preferred method of cavemen.

[Celebthôl]

LOL :D well i'd hate to prove you wrong by coming out of the cave ;)

[Eriol]

I'd love to be proven wrong in that matter... I'd love to see you guys using your God-given brains for something useful, instead of shutting off the reasoning functions to protect your faith. My faith is inherently rational, and it loves reason; I'd really be delighted to see you guys embracing reason.

Apparently it won't happen, though, not on this thread, not while you (and Lúthien) are still young and too proud of your ideas to question them.

:(

[Celebthôl]

Maybe, but maybe you should look at a scientific fact, which please explain in Laymans terms why it isnt right again....

[Eriol]

A "scientific fact" is neither right nor wrong; it is the best way we have in any given moment to explain our observations of nature. All right, I'll give you a brief primer on the nature of scientific knowledge -- the epistemology of science.

Science works by a kind of reasoning called "inductive reasoning". It is like an inverted kind of valid reasoning (which is called "deductive reasoning" to distinguish it from the inductive kind). Let me show you first a valid reasoning, a deductive reasoning, the classical example:

REASONING ONE:

First premise: All men are mortal
Second premise: Socrates is a man

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal

As you see, the conclusion follows from the premises. If the first premise (called the major premise) is true; and if the second premise (the minor premise) is also true; then the conclusion must be true. If it were not true, this would be illogical, a contradiction in the laws of logic, which is really unimaginable by human minds

As you see, this kind of impossibility -- true impossibility -- is quite stronger than "water is lighter than man" - you can imagine a world in which water is heavier than man without breaking any logical laws. But you can't imagine any universe in which those two premises are true and the conclusion is not.

Therefore, deductive reasoning (here shown in the form of a syllogism) is absolutely true. If there is a perfect syllogism, then the conclusion is automatic. If Socrates is, in fact, NOT mortal, then there MUST be something wrong with the first or the second premise.

Now let us look at how science works. Science begins with the facts, and tries to reach the major premise from looking at them. In our example, it would be a reasoning in this form:

REASONING TWO:

Premise: Socrates is mortal
Premise: Socrates is a man

Conclusion: All men are mortal.

As you see, this is a much weaker kind of reasoning; for there may be an exception around the corner. We don't have a major (universal) premise to work with; we only have particular observations. Socrates is a man, granted; Socrates is mortal, granted. Can we state with absolute certainty, as we did in the case of the deductive reasoning, that all men are mortal from those two facts? Surely not. As shown by a second reasoning in the same shape which is clearly wrong:

REASONING THREE:

Premise: Socrates is greek
Premise: Socrates is bald

Conclusion: All greeks are bald.

This is a reasoning in the same structure as reasoning (2), but the conclusion is clearly wrong; and this shows that the reasoning following this structure is not absolutely certain.

All scientific facts follow this structure, Thôl; all of them. And this is why science is our best guess, but not absolutely true. It is as if we had examined many, many greeks and found out that all were bald; could we then conclude that all greeks are bald? No. It would be a guess, and we would have to revise it at the moment when we found a hairy greek.

For instance: the scientific fact "water is lighter than man". Here is the reasoning behind this:

Premise: This water weighs X
Premise: This man weighs Y, and Y is greater than X

Conclusion: All men weigh more than water.

This is a conclusion that seems to hold very well -- until we find an exception. The reasoning has no power against the exception. Note that "the exception" can't touch the first kind of reasoning; there are NO exceptions in reasoning one. It is absolutely, completely, beyond any doubt, true as long as the premises are true.

In other words, the scientific conclusion that men weigh more than water is good until we see a man walking on water; then it loses all strength. That's what happened in Palestine; a man was seen walking on water. The "scientific fact" of man's greater weight than water can't touch the observation; it has simply to bow and accept it. (By the way, there were TWO exceptions; Peter also walked on water).

So the road open to the skeptic is NOT to say that "science" is on his side -- it really isn't -- but to discredit the witnesses. You have to say that you don't believe in the Apostles, in the witnesses, in Jesus' enemies, in everybody who testified that Jesus did many wondrous signs. You have every right to do that; but be aware that it is not a deductive reasoning, only an inductive reasoning, and it may be wrong, therefore. And bear in mind that to refuse the account of witnesses is a kind of faith; the faith in a personified "science" who really is not agreeing with you, over faith in the eyewitnesses accounts.

I really think you should try to discredit the historical sources - the veracity of the gospels - to have any chance of keeping your beliefs honestly. If you accept the gospel account as true, it is very hard to not believe in Jesus -- and certainly "science" is of no help for that.

Keep in mind that I'm a scientist, Thôl; I'm not disparaging science in any way. I'm a great fan of science. But I know her limitations; I know what she can and can't do.

[Celebthôl]

Ok, you can imagine on another world that people can walk on water, but this is OUR world, we dont have to imagine, i know you are a scientist, that is why i gave up.

On our planet, nobody can walk on water, believe me if we could i would walk to America (;)).
I sure as heaven (;)) have never seen anybody walk on water, i cant walk on water.

Ergo: there is no way you can walk on water.

No it is to do with density, not weight.

A ton of water still would not hold up a new born baby, no matter how much you try. Not on our planet.

Are you sure Jesus didnt just step into a puddle? ;)

[Eriol]

A ton of water still would not hold up a new born baby, no matter how much you try. Not on our planet.

It happened once, Thôl; if you understood the explanation you see that "it can't happen" is not a scientific statement, it is a metaphysical statement without any ground. Science does not deal with universals, only with particularities. Inductive reasoning is inherently weak.

It CAN happen, even on our planet; because it does not break any logical law. The only things that CANNOT happen are things that break logical laws -- not "natural laws". The wording is very deceptive, there is no such thing as a natural "law", only a generalization made by experience that can be proven wrong at any moment.

I knew the density/weight difference; I thought I was explaining it in "layman's terms", as you asked. And, of course, it does not touch the explanation; substitute "weight" for "density" and you get the same result.

As for Jesus in a puddle -- read the gospel to check whether this was what happened ;).

[Celebthôl]

It happened once,

When? With who?


It is breaking a logical law...but if like you say it isnt...what does break a logical law?


Water is never less denser than the human body EVER.


Just tell me where this "gospel" is so i can read it. Im not reading the entire darn thing for one quote, as i said before.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
When? With who?

With Jesus (and Peter as well), in Palestine, around 30 A.D.

It is breaking a logical law...but if like you say it isnt...what does break a logical law?

A logical law would be broken if a perfect deductive reasoning was found to be flawed. Refer back to reasoning one in that post:

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man

Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.

If: All men really are mortal; AND Socrates is a man; AND Socrates is immortal; you have a logical law being broken.

In other words, if the first premise in a reasoning with this structure is true, and the second premise is also true, but the conclusion is false, we have a logical law being broken.

Another way to break a logical law is to break the law of non-contradiction. If I said that Jesus was simultaneously walking on water and NOT walking on water, a logical law would be broken. A thing can't both be and not be something at the same time.

This is the kind of stuff that is illogical.

Water is never less denser than the human body EVER.

A statement of faith; not a scientific statement. You are fighting against the facts, Jesus and Peter disprove your statement. You asked whether there were any modern miracles; did you check that link? Take a look. There is a lot of things that "CAN'T HAPPEN EVER", according to your faith, happening all around the world.

Just tell me where this "gospel" is so I can read it. Im not reading the entire darn thing for one quote, as I said before.

I gave you a site for the Bible, didn't I? There are many versions there. Pick one.

[Elendil3119]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
i cant walk on water.
But I thought you were god!:confused:

;)

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Elendil3119
But I thought you were god!:confused:

;)

I am, we all are. You need a much deeper understanding i.e. ultimate knowledge before such things can be attempted with the outcome being a success.
Im taking this from a different perspective.

[Eriol]

... which goes to show that you believe that you CAN walk on water; it is not illogical or impossible.

It seems it is only impossible if Jesus is the one doing it.

Just a small step from claiming that "we are ALL God" -- except Jesus.

:D ;)

[Celebthôl]

No, well yes...well, im doing this from the skeptics view ;)
You know my view, you dont accept it, so im taking this on the, i need a very valid and believable explination view.


Here is the thing you are not getting, Jesus was God, he had attained ultimate knowledge, but, he chose to be born into the world already with it to help others attain it.
However he was sacrificed because religions didnt like it for obvious reasons...then the "miracles" he performed were used in christianity to rheinforce (sp) it.

[Malbeth]

Continuing my earlier post

Or criticise it properly on its main points rather. It's not "bashing" merely criticism.

Any book should be read in its entirety before you give a fair judgement of it. If you do not read all of it, all you can say is that the beginning is boring and things like that. This applies not only to the bible, but just about everything else. Now, you have not read the Bible, you have not studied it and you bash it, or more precisely your interpretation of it. Why not listen to those who have studied it? Not agree with them, but at least admit that those who have studied it more in depth are more likely to interpret it better. Than, after you have heard this interpretation, you can say whether you agree with it or not. You cannot take a book, give it a one-sided (and frankly, incredibly naive) interpretation of it, say it is stupid and then claim you are not biased against it. You will not even listen to us when we say that the Bible does not teach that woman is inferior to man, that the rib statement that so upsets you has always been taken by the Church to mean that woman is mans equal, and so on...

Regarding Eve(il), as Eriol has pointed out, the bible was not written in English. In Portuguese, Eve is Eva and Evil is Mal. Not at all related is it? So what is happening here? Does the English Bible teach that all evil came from Eve and the Portuguese Bible denies this association? Is this indication of a split in the Church regarding the origin of evil? :D No, you prefer to stick with your crazy interpretation... just realize it is not Christianity you are bashing, it is a strawman (or is it a strawperson?) As I said, if the bible ascribes original sin to one particular sex, it is the male sex. Go read St. Pauls letters and you will see for yourself.

So, most of what you have criticized in Genesis (the female rib-bone, the talking snake) have been interpreted as mythical for at least 15 centuries. This is what Christianity has taught about it (to be more precise, it has said that the mythical interpretaion is more likely to be right). But you still want to bash a straw-men. And even so, your bash does not work; it is not impossible for God to make woman out of a rib-bone, or for Satan to use a snake body. I do not believe and Christianity does not teach that these things actually happened, but they are not impossible, in the same sense that 2+2=7 is impossible.

Due to gravity, and the fact that water is made of hydrogen and oxygen. There's no "present state" about it.

Ok, suppose that the density of our body changed? Then we would be able to walk on water, wouldn't we? Perhaps Jesus was able to do that; perhaps Jesus was an alien (Eriol for a time thought that this was a possibility, if I am not mistaken); perhaps Celebthol was right all along, water is an illusion and Jesus, attaining ultimate knowledge was able to walk over it; and perhaps Jesus was what He claimed to be, the uncreated Creator of the Universe, who most certainly can do anything He wants too (except to make logical contradictions come true, for logical contradictions are not things, they are but meaningless combination of words). I think all of these are more likely than your explanation, mass delusion regarding one person happening to thousands of people.

Most of the people who saw Jesus were fascinated by him, but then left Him when His teachings became too hard to accept. Some people knew that He threatened them, and tried their best to kill him, and succeeded. And others accepted what He said of Himself and saw Him die and saw Him come back from the dead. No one was indifferent, as some certainly would be to a harmless lunatic who claimed to be God. For even his enemies acknowledged that He did miracles, but they ascribed these miracles to demons. According to your hypothesis these thousands of people suffered from delusion... and you say you are not biased.

People say the same thing about Mohammed also.
Actually most miracles ascribed to Mohammed were added later on to Islam long after he was dead. He claimed the Quran was his only miracle.

A schizophrenic could swear blind they see someone walking over water, but that doesn't mean they're right, it just means they're hallucinating.

See if the fishermen who Jesus picked to be his apostles seem to be schizophrenic... did Jesus hand-pick schizophrenic people so they would all have mass allucinations regarding his coming back from the dead? Also, were all the people in Palestine 2000 years ago schizophrenic? His enemies acknowledged His miracles too... Did those schizophrenics, the apostles, after hiding in paninc when Jesus was captured, assault a Roman guard and steal Jesus corpse from his tomb, so they could give greater credibility to their illusion? Really, the hallucination hypothesis is so full of holes that if I were to list them all I would get tired of writing schizophrenic (it is a very long word after all).

Actually they do. Reason - they have it, or else they would not be able to make choices for themselves, and therefore survive. Free will - they must certainly have it. Ethical sense - the most brutal acts or atrocities are committed by humans, most of the time out of malicious intent or for a religion ( with animals, they just do it for survival ). Animals don't start wars - humans do. Which are more ethical? Humans are the ones who have wiped out millions of other species.

When we see animals arguing about whether abortion is all right or not, I will agree with you. We have had many moral discussions, and I have been only a few months in this Forum. In my 23 years of life, I have never seen an animal arguing about right and wrong. To put this in your favorite way, it is against the laws of nature for the animals to have ethical discussions (for they have never been observed doing that), and therefore it is impossible. (this argument of mine is wrong, of course, animals could have ethical discussions, it is not a logical contradiction for them to have it; but it has the same form of your argument against the walking on water).


Or rather, a whole lump of dust, or a partial lump of dust. Are you serious? I simply cannot believe you are, for you are more intelligent than this.

Have there been any miracles to speek of within the last 2000 years? (or whenever it was that the bible was finished making them up? Anything even close?
(By miracle i mean men walking on water, water to wine (still baffles me why anyone would want to do that), guys curing sick people with a single touch, etc...)

As Eriol has said, there have been many; healing miracles, Eucharistic miracles, apparition miracles, preservation of the body after death miracles, all kinds of miracles really. The most impressive one of the 20th century happened in Fatima, Portugal in 1917, when an apparition of the Virgin Mary made the Sun dance before the eyes of thousands of people... I think that she probably altered their perception, and not the Sun itself, so it is, in a way, an hallucination, but a miraculous hallucination nevertheless.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It happened once,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When? With who?


It is breaking a logical law...but if like you say it isnt...what does break a logical law?


Water is never less denser than the human body EVER.


Just tell me where this "gospel" is so i can read it. Im not reading the entire darn thing for one quote, as i said before.

It happened with Jesus and Peter, about 2000 years ago.

I will show you what is a logical contradiction.

Premise1- Everything is an illusion except experiences, souls and emotions. (i.e, your belief)
Premise 2- A belief is neither a soul, nor an emotion or an experience.
Conclusion- Your belief is right.

This is a logical contradiction; it cannot be true; if your belief is right, it is an illusion and therefore false. Your belief has to be false, and to conclude otherwise is a logical contradiction.:) You asked for it...

And the Gospels are the 4 books that begin the New Testament... they are not so big, and certainly much more interesting to beginners than the Old Testament... but I will do it, I will save you your work; here are some of the passages that mention the walking on water; Mark 6:45-52; Matthew 14:22-33; John 6:16-21
These 3 accounts make the puddle hypothesis quite impossible.

As for why would anyone change water to wine? I never thought of you as a puritan, Thol... wine and music gladden the heart of men.

Did anyone notice this quote from the link eriol posted?
Miracles do not happen in contradiction to nature,
but only in contradiction to what is known to us of
nature.

Saint Augustine

A quite scientific statement.... it assumes we do not know everything about nature. This man from the 5th century is being more scientific than both of you.

[Eriol]

Why the quotes around "miracles"? Was he not a being with ultimate knowledge?

Why is your account completely different from the historic account? Do you realize that you have as much grounds to believe in what you said than you have for believing that Hitler is alive in Paraguay, or that the moon landing is a lie, or that Elvis was abducted by aliens?

Facts, Thôl, give us some facts.

Not to mention that for a God to be unwillingly killed by "religions" (which after all are only illusions in your view) is very odd. You believe that the true God came to earth and was killed by illusions against his wish, for no reason at all. After all, if he came to "spread ultimate knowledge around", well, he failed, since we don't have this ultimate knowledge; a God that fails can't very much be perfect, can he?

Your view can't really explain why Jesus did what he did; especially because, in your view, he failed.

That is a good example of an illogical event. You have an all-powerful and all-wise God failing; this contradicts the very meaning of the words "all-powerful" and "all-wise". This is why your views are impossible, while Christianity is at best unlikely. That's the difference between Celebthôlism and Christianity.

[Malbeth]

A good way to tell if something is logically impossible is this: if something can be imagined, it is possible. That is how unreal logical impossibilities are; they cannot even be imagined. Of course, something can be possible but never actually happen...i.e unicorns are possible, but we do not have any evidence they actually existed. Middle-earth is possible, but we do not have any evidence that the stories told by Tolkien actually happened; and so on.

In the same vein, a man walking on water is possible, and we have good evidence for believing that a man once did walk on water; a talking snake is possible, but there is no eyewitness evidence of one, so we have no evidence that this actually happened.

[Celebthôl]

I could ask the very same of you Eri, proof please, and do not point me to the bible, i can do the same with my book :rolleyes:

What do you expect him to do? Make the people melt with rays of energy from his eyes to stop them?

He came to teach, they did not listen...well many of them anyway, he was seen as a threat to religions, so he was gotten rid of.

What is you reason for him getting crucified?

"He knew he had to be sacrifice so he asked the nice people to crucify him"?


He came to teach but was not wanted, why stay?


Mal:

2000 years, doesnt really hold much water does it.


That as i have admitted, is what i said, not what my God said.
And besides i wasnt sure of belief as i also stated.


First, it makes us dumb and slow, second, i dont drink. So i see no need for it. Alcahol was not right for the human body, thusly seen when people crash cars and act like complete fools having drunk it.

[Celebthôl]

Originally posted by Malbeth
A good way to tell if something is logically impossible is this: if something can be imagined, it is possible. That is how unreal logical impossibilities are; they cannot even be imagined. Of course, something can be possible but never actually happen...i.e unicorns are possible, but we do not have any evidence they actually existed. Middle-earth is possible, but we do not have any evidence that the stories told by Tolkien actually happened; and so on.

In the same vein, a man walking on water is possible, and we have good evidence for believing that a man once did walk on water; a talking snake is possible, but there is no eyewitness evidence of one, so we have no evidence that this actually happened.

So its possible to throw down God in a one on one wrestling match?

[Malbeth]

well, if you can imagine a wrestling match with a spirit... by the way God once assumed the appearance of a human form and wrestled with Jacob... God won; I suppose He could let someone win if He wanted to. If you mean that you can imagine someone being stronger than God, who is omnipotent, you are wrong... your imagination has got God wrong... the winner of the wrestling match could be a man, but the loser could not be God (unless He wanted to lose)... you are just imagining two men wrestling with each other and labeling one of them God. This does not make this other man be God.

[Celebthôl]

Be my guessed, wrestle him to the ground.

[Eriol]

Originally posted by Celebthôl
[B]I could ask the very same of you Eri, proof please, and do not point me to the bible, i can do the same with my book :rolleyes:

I asked for facts, Thôl, not "proof". I have a book full of facts; you have a book full of words that lead to contradiction. Gimme some facts, and we'll talk about "proof" later.

What do you expect him to do? Make the people melt with rays of energy from his eyes to stop them?

He came to tea