Religion

^thats respectable. There are many people who simply state that they are of a certain faith when truly they have no idea what it is about.

 

EbAl, what you say is common among most people. Its good to look at this from different perspectives. However, when you look at Christianity from outside the box, things do seem very blind. And I do get a little upset when someone says their loved one died because it was God's will. That's not true, because if that were the case, murder would be part of God's will too. And God despises murderers.

I know from what I've been typing that my views seem completely on-way, but on the other hand, I still believe that sin is still sin, and without God's forgivness, we are destined for Oblivion.

Its a possibility that the original books have been rearranged, but that may not be true. If it is true, then the world's going to be given one helluva wake up call.

 

Well I guess that means I'm going to "oblivion"

 

*shrug*
That's what most would think. But jeez, I never said that. I don't think its that bad to have sex with your partner before marriage. The bible says its wrong, but I don't think its sinning.

 

oh well, I would rather enjoy my life now then have milk and honey afterwards. Just me though.

 

They call that instant gratification man. lol
Well if that's what you wanna do. More power to ya.

 

Honestly, I think the biggest lie that circulates right now is people swearing not to have pre-marital sex. I don't believe one person in my country, and quite a few others, have both the self-restraint, and enough belief to follow that.

And this is something I found. It's a quote from the Philosopher Epicurus:

"Is God willing but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
The whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God."

~33 A.D.

 

People used to, and there was far less instance of STDs. Sure, we could say that people were naive, but I wouldn't exactly call that progress.

The problem with that is that people take it too literally. If sex is 'just sex' (ie. the 'if it feels good, do it philosophy') then it's probably not right. If you're genuinely involved with someone and believe that it's right, then go for it. Nobody's going to stop you either way...but again, I don't call one-night standing 'progress.' A family-less society isn't exactly the way to go.

As for the Epicurus quote, the problem with human logic (ie. we even know this now) is that we build it in terms of 'mutually exclusive' cases. Just because it 'seems' to us like those are mutually exclusive cases (ie. As far as I, or anyone can comprehend, he's covered all his bases), doesn't mean there isn't some 'fifth' case we can't understand.

But even on the base of it, despite being an interesting thought process, it's not a 'constructive' argument. If you wanted to say something conclusively (I'm not saying he's trying to...I'm more pointing this out so people don't think he disproved God or something), you need to formulate your argument from the ground up. And even as I said before, you would require 'axioms' that you can't prove.

To put things into perspective, can you prove 2 + 2 = 4? We can take it as an axiom (namely that 'addition behaves how we want it to')...or It can be done through what's called 'axiomatic set theory' where you start out with a few basic rules, and then gradually build up your understanding of how things work: First you create the number 0...then by defining a 'successor' you can build up all the counting numbers, or 'natural' numbers. Then you define an 'addition' function. Then you fiddle around with 2 + 2 and you get 4. But the problem is, even this elementary construction is based on axioms (See Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory).

Human logic is inevitably axiomatic. Not to say axioms are bad, but if people can't agree on the same axioms (and they become 'controversial') then nothing is provable. The problem with philosophy (and why they don't call it 'proof'-osophy) is that it's difficult or impossible to identify your assumptions, or 'axioms.'

 

I can agree with you there, Mike. Such as 2+2=2. My friend proved the other day that 1=2.

He's very good at math and other such smart person things >.>

 

All of this crazy unprovable anamoly is to much for me to keep following X.X

 

You could never prove 1 = 2 given 'normal' axioms, because it's false...so he must have done a division by zero, some other such 'slight of hand' math trick.

ie. 2 * 0 = 80,000 * 0, but 2 =/= 80,000, since anything divided by zero blows up to infinity (and thus 2 and 80,000 are indistinguishable).

The most common one is probably using 'a + b = c' and then you factor out an (a + b - c) from both sides, and then divide by it. But given that a + b = c, then a + b - c = 0.

It's not always obvious that you're dividing by zero...there's also this other thing called 'The empty set', a set with no elements (the existence of the empty set is one of those Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms). This set has everything true and everything false at the same time...so if you prove something in your thesis, and it turns out that in some weird way it was the empty set...then you're probably a sad person for a little while afterward. (I know of a guy who did this in his Masters)

 

ive seen a large equation where they make one a=b, 1=2
but its obviously not correct

 

^^
I swear, I've never met a smarter member to a forum...for once, I'm a little out-spoken....Mike, I admire thee. *bows* lol

 

i have a few problems with what you said number one the bible has no flaws if you think so then read it number2 the bible is all about love christ died on the cross because he loved everyone,number3 jesus christ said not to have slaves and if you did to treat them fairly,number4 jesus christ also said to treat women with the same rights that men have and finaly it says to treat each other as you want to be treated.

the bible says all have sinned and come short of the glory of god,but thats why christ died that way every one may go to heaven who accepts him as their savior,its for free try it you can't lose if god is right then you go to heaven if he is wrong you just go to the dirt, it is as simple as that

no they are not the same the christian jesus is god himself and is love the islam says jesus was just a prophet and a good man same with judaism and islams philosophy says to persicute all who do not believe in islam and that is how you get to heaven.
as you have seen they are completely diferent.


Don't Double Post
-EbAl

 

Scripture is scripture. You either take it wholeheartedly, or with a grain of salt: It doesn't build or subtract from one's character in either case.

What does subtract from one's character is the expectation that everyone gets the same message from scripture that you do. Perhaps for you, scripture has profound meaning, and is something to adhere to in the strictest sense. Unfortunately though, it's not a good argument to simply conjecture that 'the bible says so' if your opposing audience feels that the bible is little more than an attractive novel. This is what I feel the problem is with most people, atheist, theist, and all else.

My thoughts are this: What other than a holy book would convey a different message to you, every time you read it? You could never fully analyze the bible, there is always something to be discovered. This isn't true about a typical book.

That said, I've never read past Genesis. Though I wish I would read it some day, I can't help but feel that it's not something that's meant for me. If it is, I'll get to it someday. This is why I hardly ever argue scripture.

Just to point out one thing though...and that is that the Trinity is one of those things that we can't wrap our brains around, like the Axiom of Choice.

Consider this:
There is a concept in math that seems very harmless: If I have an infinite number of objects, I can pick one. This is known as the Axiom of Choice...it must be invoked as an axiom (ie. unprovable) because:

1) In 1936, Kurt Godel proved that it's impossible to disprove the axiom of choice.
2) In 1963, Paul Cohen proved that it's impossible to prove the axiom of choice.

So which is it? Truth, or nonsense? It seems harmless enough, so many models of set theory do invoke this axiom.

Anyway, now that the little dose of math's out of the way...this is a lot like the trinity. We can't seem to understand how Christ can be both, God, and apparently 'not God' at the same time. Maybe we never will...so that being the case, is it true, or false?

Sure, there is evidently some stuff that appears to imply that Jesus was not God...but at the same time, it's pretty much explicitly stated. So now you have the paradox of, if the bible is inconsistent, which one is the inconsistency? Is it not inconsistent, and the trouble lies in our understanding? Or is it just a piece of paper?

 

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

...

*cough*

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)


Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

 

Hmm...the last two of your quotes, I think those are supposed to mean something like 'don't piss and moan about the cards you've been dealt. Even if you're a slave (The extreme low end of the spectrum), you should try your best to live life.' Chances are, this is a bit clearer if you read the passage immediately following and preceding it: It just doesn't fit in if you interpret it this way. Not to mention, the NLT, New Living Translation, Bible has always seemed kind of wonky in terms of the weird translations and interpretations of some verses (ie. the 'literal meaning').

As for the first two, I'm not sure what to say. The second is from Exodus, which is all about freeing the slaves...with this in mind, I can skew the second quote to have a similar meaning to the last two. 'Don't expect God's to come down and zap your slave-driver for hitting you: It's the card you were dealt, try your best.'

First quote: Couldn't tell ya. This is the difficulty of translating the bible.

 

But every one of the passages have to do with Slavery in the Bible. And most of them are unfair to slaves. Seriously, would a 'loving' god tell his followers that are slaves to deal with it? Or would he help them.

 

I'm not God, I can't answer that question (See my many recent posts on 'proof' and human reasoning), but unfortunately, neither can you or your intuition.

Besides...who says He's not helping them? He's not helping them in a way that you can experience firsthand, you're not a slave. That's all we can conclude.

P.S. If you're getting your info from a site that's called 'evilbible.com' it's probably biased. Same goes for if you're getting it from 'killtheheathens.net' or some other site that may or may not be real but illustrates my point.