-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
The Old Testament
- Thread starter glantone
- Start date
jayfox said:
Please. Examples of synonyms of that site are often very loose. If these two words are so close in meaning it would be very clear from their respective definitions.
You seriously believe that carving a statue of Buddha, having sex outside of marriage, working on the Sabbath or not respecting a parent who molested you makes someone evil?
evo said:
My thoughts exactly when I read jb's post.
Ah....what would a good Christian do without a healthy batch of ol' self loathing?
jayfox said:
Both evo and Rosy deal with the problems inherent in this statement.
I think adherents to other religions might beg to differ. I don't really see how the points you make have any bearing on the truth of your beliefs.
Belief in God and souls makes sense how? They are unnecessary propositions. They may make you feel better about yourself and give you a meaning in life, but they really don't withstand close scrutiny.
I do watch the news. What is your point exactly? I haven't seen anything that defies belief.
Again you have to question why we believe opposing viewpoints. Of course we can believe what we want, but we are interested in what actually happened. Just because an apologetics website tries to present evidence to justify a position, that doesn't make such evidence credible. If I want to decide whether a proposition is believable I need to look at ALL of the evidence. Just having someone make an argument and not looking at the 'other side' suggests that you aren't really interested in the truth, but are just interested in validating your own beliefs.
So you have access to something that I don't? As I have said before, when I was younger I did search and came up wanting. Subsequently I have taken a more critical view of belief systems and found flaws and contradictions within most dogmatic beliefs. When you can actually drop that theist prism, take nothing for granted and critically evaluate why you believe what you do, you might be surprised. There is no magic here, just a desire to look at evidence that is freely available to everyone. Instead of taking the defense attorney's position of defending your faith, it may be useful to play the Devil's advocate (pardon the pun) and critically evaluate WHY you believe what you do.
If a God did create this planet it was over 4.5 billion years ago. This is validated by numerous lines of evidence that you are free to critique. Life has been evolving on this planet for 4 billion years, with humans only showing up about 2 million years ago. This is also validated by numerous lines of evidence that are available for you to inspect and critique.
You miss my point. My point is that the best way to solve a problem is to accurately appraise the reality of the situation. How is that possible when you cling to preconceptions that are not an accurate reflection of reality?
No, you can judge from empirical evidence and our accumulated knowledge which is far more reliable than any circumstantial or anecdotal evidence.
I was referring to standards of evidence. You seem to think that all standards of evidence are equal. I was making the point that you must find evidence-based medicine and alternative medicine equivalent then? They both have evidence to support them, double blind studies for evidence-based medicine and anecdotal evidence for alternative therapies.
Um, how many planets do we know of that are conducive to the emergence of life? One. If we get the opportunity to study planets in so-called Goldilocks zones (conditions just right for the emergence of life) we will be better able to judge just how likely or unlikely the emergence of life on Earth was.
Life existed before the Big Bang? How do you figure? Nothing in this universe existed before the Big Bang. Life did start by itself and we are starting to get a better picture of the nature of that early life through studying the extant life on this planet.
So you don't see how very unlikely it would be for a human to be lucky enough to be born into a culture at the right time to find themselves in the one true belief system? Given the number of religions that humans have developed over the ages it is uncanny.
I didn't intend to be insulting. I was just pointing out that such a belief could be considered delusional when you look at the big picture.
No, you seem to misunderstand me. It is easier to uncritically believe something which has been told to you than to go to the effort to really understand the nature of something which requires work and the critical scrutiny of others.
I have read the Bible. Numerous times. Have you taken the time to try to understand the evidence that I allude to in my posts? Or is the one side of the picture sufficient for you? If so, why do you bother trying to defend your beliefs as if you have looked at the sum of the evidence and concluded that your beliefs are the most likely explanation?
Weighing up a subjective 'feeling', no matter how convincing against hard, objective evidence (which you would first have to honestly appraise) I would say "Yes".
So it is tough being a Christian in Australia? I don't think there are too many martyrs around these parts. You make those sacrifices because you believe and as a reward you believe you will be rewarded after this life. I would want to make sure that I wasn't sacrificing in vain.
There is one, set meaning to life? You are privy to this information?
Panthera tigris FC said:
I thought the OP was clear - someone was reading the OT and wanted to have some parts explained. I am simply explaining things from a Christian perspective. Most Christians revere the Bible as the word of God. Christian theology comes from treating the Bible as the Word of God. Of course many non-Christians dispute that, but we would never have any picture of what God is like if we spent all of our time wrangling about whether our God actually existed and that he should realise he was in fact begging the question of his own existance when he revealed that fact to Moses. We actually have to read it and try to discover its meaning.
I understand where you are coming from with the 'illogical' statement, but if you treat Gods existance and the Bible being the His revealed Word of God as axiomatic you can learn a lot about Him in it's pages.
How do you know that these axioms are in fact correct? Matthew 16:17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
Panthera tigris FC said:
All attributes of God are all equally God, thus He is simple as in NOT being made up of interacting (sub-God) parts. Do a bit of Googling on 'God's Simplicity' or 'God's nature' for a fuller explanation. God spoke the universe in to being - why does this require complexity? Remember this creative act did not occur in the 'natural' universe during time but is purely a supernatural cause.Time was birthed during this act.
evo said:
The Gospel of Thomas is one of the many works that the community of Faith at the time rejected as not being Divinely inspired. Doesn't mean there is nothing interesting or correct in it however.
glantone said:
And so say I. Very funny.
The clip raised an interesting question. Does the bible actually mention the snake ever having had legs? If so how many did it have? Is it at all possible the snake flew like a bird or does the bible discount that?
I've done a bit of a search to find the answer for myself but only found And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life (Genesis 3:14) and I wouldn't draw any assumption from that about the snake having had legs.
evo said:
Yeah, thanks, he's pretty funny - good material, brutal delivery though. Prefer the subtlety of Gervais these days. I'll check out Hicks.
Here’s one for you if you haven’t seen it already. Jimmy Carr.
Not bible related so consider this intermission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEc3R6TXSVA&feature=related
the claw said:
Hey, I actually agree with you completely. I feel that those guys have had the better of the debate thus far and I have been disappointed with my own level of debate. I think it is because I haven't been able to give this thread the amount of time I would like due to being frantic everywhere else at the moment, but, credit where credit is due, they have done a good job. Don't worry though, I won't give up that easily. As I like to say, it doesn't matter whose in front at quarter time!
<
what should come first.
|
Pacific Brands - where Law does not equal Justice - and where is the ACCC?
>
