Topic: Religious beliefs on bitcoin - page 15. (Read 22413 times)
Also, as to China becoming increasingly Christian, I doubt it is a materialistic Christianity. Many Chinese believers are being tortured and put into jail for their beliefs by the Athiestic Chinese government.
That sounds like something that fell under Levitical law.
I'm not sure what the goal was there, but it was probably both to force the man to live with the outcome and stigma of his actions, and most importantly to make sure that the woman and child would be looked after in the ensuing struggle. The society was already patriarchal, so to phrase it in terms of the woman being in control might not have been as well received. That doesn't mean that anyone would necessarily force the issue if she was unwilling. Many of the laws around menstruation had the welcome effect of protecting women, but you might not guess from how they are phrased.
Divorce, for instance, was instituted by Moses because at the time men would marry, and remarry, and remarry, but the women were still considered "his." As Jesus put it, Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but neither practice was ever the way it was meant to be from the beginning.
Our hearts are not wired for our present casual way of thinking about sex, intimacy and relationships. You can only know the joy of complete intimacy joined with complete commitment in two ways: ideal marriage, and an ideal relationship with God, who knows your heart more intimately than you do. One of these relationship is possible, the other is meant to be an image of the other, and can be, but it requires a Christlike degree of patience.
For now, we see through a glass darkly, but we know God is far more concerned with sustaining the eternal things within us than with the perishing things of the world.
This is clearly not the post of a woman, or someone who has any appreciation for what it is to be raped, or someone who is even informed about todays nearly unaltered immoral christ worship wifebeating practices.I'm not sure what the goal was there, but it was probably both to force the man to live with the outcome and stigma of his actions, and most importantly to make sure that the woman and child would be looked after in the ensuing struggle. The society was already patriarchal, so to phrase it in terms of the woman being in control might not have been as well received. That doesn't mean that anyone would necessarily force the issue if she was unwilling. Many of the laws around menstruation had the welcome effect of protecting women, but you might not guess from how they are phrased.
Divorce, for instance, was instituted by Moses because at the time men would marry, and remarry, and remarry, but the women were still considered "his." As Jesus put it, Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but neither practice was ever the way it was meant to be from the beginning.
Our hearts are not wired for our present casual way of thinking about sex, intimacy and relationships. You can only know the joy of complete intimacy joined with complete commitment in two ways: ideal marriage, and an ideal relationship with God, who knows your heart more intimately than you do. One of these relationship is possible, the other is meant to be an image of the other, and can be, but it requires a Christlike degree of patience.
For now, we see through a glass darkly, but we know God is far more concerned with sustaining the eternal things within us than with the perishing things of the world.
I must give you enough credit to assume you regret writing most of this offensive apologetic doubletalk.
Not to be antagonistic, but I am confused how such subtleties offend you, when you hold human life no more sacred than a slo-mo youtube video or a plant...
In fact, what I wrote reflects the position of a Christian woman I know and love, who is not ignorant of such hardships. If it didn't, I wouldn't have been so presumptuous as to say it.
You're not even listening to what I'm posting, I'm not saying he was a "bad" Christian, I'm saying he did not even believe in Christianity at all.
Evidence shows he was Christian whether you think he was "true" or not. He was a member of the Catholic church until his death, and neither of us will ever know if asked for forgiveness before death, which is all that's required to get right back into heaven's queue.
I agree there's plenty of cause for debate over his personal views on religion and I understand why religious folks would shun such a member of their camp. Perhaps you simply shouldn't have brought him up in the first place?
1. He was a member of a church
2. He could have asked for forgiveness before he died
As to 1, belonging to a church does not make you Christian, and as to 2 while he certainly could have asked for forgiveness before he died, he would have only been Christian for the remainder of his life, when, ironically he would have then committed suicide.
I shun him as a member of my "camp" for a very obvious reason, he was not Christian, and only attempted to look Christian out in public to gain acceptance. When you look at quotes from his personal life, it becomes quite clear that he was no Christian.
Actually, it was you who brought up Hitler being Christian. So, perhaps you should not have brought it up in the first place.
the hadith is like the bible , you can cherry pick what to follow / believe in the hadith , however Qur'an you cannot cherry pick
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51KeWJQ8wlc or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFz6zYgQ250
--
Jesus in Islam and Christianity – Lord Rowan Williams and Paul Williams - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9uPhc-ItF8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51KeWJQ8wlc or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFz6zYgQ250
--
Jesus in Islam and Christianity – Lord Rowan Williams and Paul Williams - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9uPhc-ItF8
Paul Williams suggests that Jesus was only a prophet with a messianic message. Wrongly.
His message was unmistakably, "I AM the way the truth and the life."
The quran also un-deifies Christ, repeatedly smearing believers as polytheists (which perpetuates a fundamental misunderstanding of the trinity). It offers Christians NOTHING but incoherent lip service to the gospel. http://quran.com/search?q=polytheists
That sounds like something that fell under Levitical law.
I'm not sure what the goal was there, but it was probably both to force the man to live with the outcome and stigma of his actions, and most importantly to make sure that the woman and child would be looked after in the ensuing struggle. The society was already patriarchal, so to phrase it in terms of the woman being in control might not have been as well received. That doesn't mean that anyone would necessarily force the issue if she was unwilling. Many of the laws around menstruation had the welcome effect of protecting women, but you might not guess from how they are phrased.
Divorce, for instance, was instituted by Moses because at the time men would marry, and remarry, and remarry, but the women were still considered "his." As Jesus put it, Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but neither practice was ever the way it was meant to be from the beginning.
Our hearts are not wired for our present casual way of thinking about sex, intimacy and relationships. You can only know the joy of complete intimacy joined with complete commitment in two ways: ideal marriage, and an ideal relationship with God, who knows your heart more intimately than you do. One of these relationship is possible, the other is meant to be an image of the other, and can be, but it requires a Christlike degree of patience.
For now, we see through a glass darkly, but we know God is far more concerned with sustaining the eternal things within us than with the perishing things of the world.
This is clearly not the post of a woman, or someone who has any appreciation for what it is to be raped, or someone who is even informed about todays nearly unaltered immoral christ worship wifebeating practices.I'm not sure what the goal was there, but it was probably both to force the man to live with the outcome and stigma of his actions, and most importantly to make sure that the woman and child would be looked after in the ensuing struggle. The society was already patriarchal, so to phrase it in terms of the woman being in control might not have been as well received. That doesn't mean that anyone would necessarily force the issue if she was unwilling. Many of the laws around menstruation had the welcome effect of protecting women, but you might not guess from how they are phrased.
Divorce, for instance, was instituted by Moses because at the time men would marry, and remarry, and remarry, but the women were still considered "his." As Jesus put it, Moses allowed it because of the hardness of their hearts, but neither practice was ever the way it was meant to be from the beginning.
Our hearts are not wired for our present casual way of thinking about sex, intimacy and relationships. You can only know the joy of complete intimacy joined with complete commitment in two ways: ideal marriage, and an ideal relationship with God, who knows your heart more intimately than you do. One of these relationship is possible, the other is meant to be an image of the other, and can be, but it requires a Christlike degree of patience.
For now, we see through a glass darkly, but we know God is far more concerned with sustaining the eternal things within us than with the perishing things of the world.
I must give you enough credit to assume you regret writing most of this offensive apologetic doubletalk.
Don't debase what you claim to hold holy with petty pedantry. It's enough to say that Christ did not come to destroy the [old] law, but to uphold it, and the wages of sin is still death.
I'll give you a pretty Shakespeare quote instead, no need to quote back:
The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
Purty, no? (and no, it's not from memory, but Google's gotten pretty good at turning half-remembered quotes into exact ones
) No religion other than Islam kills those who leave it, no matter how you spin it. Ignoring the problem makes it worse.
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today"
-Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today"
-Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood
1. Qaradawi is NOT the head of the Brotherhood
2. There is no death penalty for apostasy in the Qur'an
1. Not official, but most influential leader - Wiki:
...
Do you *really* want to go there?
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder[13]
Adultery[13]
Bestiality[14]
Rape [15]
Sodomy [16]
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law. (Numbers 15:32–36)
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped[17]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[18]
Worshiping other gods[19][20]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name[21]
Cursing a parent[22][23][24]
Kidnapping[25] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Bible
Do you *really* want to go there?
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder[13]
Adultery[13]
Bestiality[14]
Rape [15]
Sodomy [16]
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law. (Numbers 15:32–36)
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped[17]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[18]
Worshiping other gods[19][20]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name[21]
Cursing a parent[22][23][24]
Kidnapping[25] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Bible
You're talking about early Judaism, not present Jesusism:
Quote
Mat 6:14 NIV - For if you forgive other people when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.
Mark 11:25 NIV - And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."
Mat 9:6 NIV - But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
Luke 6:37 NIV - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
Mark 11:25 NIV - And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins."
Mat 9:6 NIV - But I want you to know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." So he said to the paralyzed man, "Get up, take your mat and go home."
Luke 6:37 NIV - "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.
This leaves most matters of justice to their natural consequences, the law of the land, etc. This is also why I don't go around trying to offend people that don't appreciate my position. I understand that I've not walked in your shoes, nor you in mine.
"Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
"...because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death."
... If you want a religion that's all about controlling people, look at Islam. ...
I don't particularly care what you believe, but unless your intent is a simple "fuck you everyone!1," you probably should ease up on the bigotry. Not because it's wrong, but because it's counterproductive. You certainly won't win over any converts. Worse, you give credence to simpleminded notions like "Christians are ignorant, bigoted hicks!"
TL;DR: Islam is as much "about controlling people" as Christianity, and the same rhetoric is used by the ignorant against both.
No religion other than Islam kills those who leave it, no matter how you spin it. Ignoring the problem makes it worse.
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today"
-Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood
Do you *really* want to go there?
The Bible prescribes the death penalty for the following activities, among others:
Murder[13]
Adultery[13]
Bestiality[14]
Rape [15]
Sodomy [16]
One man picked up sticks on the Sabbath, he was taken into custody because a punishment was not known. The LORD told Moses that the man in custody must be killed. This particular crime and punishment is isolated case law. (Numbers 15:32–36)
A betrothed woman who does not cry out while being raped[17]
A woman who is found not to have been a virgin on the night of her wedding[18]
Worshiping other gods[19][20]
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18)
Taking the LORD's name in vain or cursing his name[21]
Cursing a parent[22][23][24]
Kidnapping[25] -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_Bible
... If you want a religion that's all about controlling people, look at Islam. ...
I don't particularly care what you believe, but unless your intent is a simple "fuck you everyone!1," you probably should ease up on the bigotry. Not because it's wrong, but because it's counterproductive. You certainly won't win over any converts. Worse, you give credence to simpleminded notions like "Christians are ignorant, bigoted hicks!"
TL;DR: Islam is as much "about controlling people" as Christianity, and the same rhetoric is used by the ignorant against both.
No religion other than Islam kills those who leave it, no matter how you spin it. Ignoring the problem makes it worse.
"If they [Muslims] had gotten rid of the punishment for apostasy, Islam would not exist today"
-Yusuf al-Qaradawi, head of the Muslim Brotherhood
... If you want a religion that's all about controlling people, look at Islam. ...
I don't particularly care what you believe, but unless your intent is a simple "fuck you everyone!1," you probably should ease up on the bigotry. Not because it's wrong, but because it's counterproductive. You certainly won't win over any converts. Worse, you give credence to simpleminded notions like "Christians are ignorant, bigoted hicks!"
TL;DR: Islam is as much "about controlling people" as Christianity, and the same rhetoric is used by the ignorant against both.
If you see the world so objectively that there is no spirit or soul or super-anything, two things occur:
1. You decide that those who see more than you can measure are certifiable
2. You miss your only shot at encountering that which validates their testimony
Really the number one misunderstanding we have is simple. God as Christians know god is "supernatural" beyond any rationalization. They have to accept that, as there is no Christ without the resurrection and vise-versa. At first we can only take the gospel on faith alone. Some, having done so, have grown and encountered God in undeniable ways. One textbook Christian life might be mundane, another swimming in the miraculous. You only hear "self-deception," but in my experience it is the opposite.
This puts us in the difficult position of trying to explain these things to people that have not encountered either condition, and who won't unless they can admit they're imperfect like everyone else and give in to the grace that's being offered. The funny thing about sin is that you can't stop. It's a mystery, but trying to be perfect is like holding your breathe. Who among us is blameless?
If you want a religion that's all about controlling people, look at Islam. If you want one that you can define for yourself, look almost anywhere. Is it really so hard to suppose that one eternal soul could be born among men, and lay down his mortal life that others might have eternal life, even if they don't deserve it?
1. You decide that those who see more than you can measure are certifiable
2. You miss your only shot at encountering that which validates their testimony
Really the number one misunderstanding we have is simple. God as Christians know god is "supernatural" beyond any rationalization. They have to accept that, as there is no Christ without the resurrection and vise-versa. At first we can only take the gospel on faith alone. Some, having done so, have grown and encountered God in undeniable ways. One textbook Christian life might be mundane, another swimming in the miraculous. You only hear "self-deception," but in my experience it is the opposite.
This puts us in the difficult position of trying to explain these things to people that have not encountered either condition, and who won't unless they can admit they're imperfect like everyone else and give in to the grace that's being offered. The funny thing about sin is that you can't stop. It's a mystery, but trying to be perfect is like holding your breathe. Who among us is blameless?
If you want a religion that's all about controlling people, look at Islam. If you want one that you can define for yourself, look almost anywhere. Is it really so hard to suppose that one eternal soul could be born among men, and lay down his mortal life that others might have eternal life, even if they don't deserve it?
I am seriously considering quitting this debate now, you have posited no evidence at all for your arguments, go on look for it, none! I'm also considering whether or not you are trolling me.
The only thing you posted _with evidence_ was a firm belief in empathy, and the neurological support for it, the link you posted to wikipedia only stated that there might be a link!
ARE YOU SERIOUS! This is literally in the link you posted:
The most frustrating thing is your comment at the end
It's really funny though, you just posted something without making an actual argument, you just stated what you believe.
When then?
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works, but here goes: When a book is first created, many copies are made, then as these copies wear out due to the nature of the material, new copies are made. Sometimes, small errors may enter if the scribe is not particularly diligent, however the changes are normally so small and un-noticeable that they are easily identified.
I'm saying you're using slavery as a buzz word, the modern conception of slavery, that is man-stealing, was forbidden by death.
However, in the payment of debts, slavery was allowed, it's not that complicated really. This form of slavery is not immoral, and even your empathetical system should have no problem with it. This sytem is much better than simply putting the debtor to death.
In biblical times if you were no longer a virgin, in fact raped, you basically had no chance of getting married. This is to assure that the woman doesn't just fall off the face of the earth. This does not force women to live with the rapist, only for the rapist to provide for her, this happening was common. By marrying the woman she has all the protections of a married woman.
The only thing you posted _with evidence_ was a firm belief in empathy, and the neurological support for it, the link you posted to wikipedia only stated that there might be a link!
Quote
Sorry, we covered that. Your equivocation on "causing death" doesn't help you. It is translated as both and is the same commandment.
ARE YOU SERIOUS! This is literally in the link you posted:
Quote
The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense.
Quote
The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) has a wider range of meanings, generally describing destructive activity, including meanings "to break, to dash to pieces" as well as "to slay, kill, murder".
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental.[3] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5]
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.[6][7]
Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.
According to the Priestly Code of the Book of Numbers, killing anyone outside the context of war with a weapon, or in unarmed combat, is considered retzach,[2] even if the killing is accidental.[3] The Bible never uses the word retzach in conjunction with war.[4][5]
The act of slaying itself, regardless of questions of bloodguilt, is expressed with the verb n-k-h "to strike, smite, hit, beat, slay, kill". This verb is used of both an Egyptian slaying an Israelite slave and of Moses slaying the Egyptian in retaliation in Exodus 2:11-12. The Covenant Code and Holiness Code both prescribe the death penalty for people that commit n-k-h.[6][7]
Another verb meaning "to kill, slay, murder, destroy, ruin" is h-r-g, used of Cain slaying Abel in Genesis 4:8. When Cain is driven into exile, complaining that "every one that findeth me shall slay me" in Genesis 4:14, he uses the same verb.
Quote
"Pretty much" what the difference is, is that I am providing evidence for my arguments. You are simply reiterated unsubstantiated opinions. The bible is proof of nothing.
Show where you have given evidence, and I have not.The most frustrating thing is your comment at the end
Quote
The bible is proof of nothing
I haven't used the bible as proof for something, despite the fact it is proof.It's really funny though, you just posted something without making an actual argument, you just stated what you believe.
Quote
Quote
They are more commonly known as "laws" but yes, bad law is created every day and governments (and their citizens) allow it to happen for all kinds of reasons. Fortunately other clan/government groups decided other "morals," other law, should prevail.
Quote
So the strongest group decides?
Quote
Sometimes.
When then?
Quote
Simply typing a few words after my comments is not support of your argument.
Neither is it for me, then neither is it for you.Quote
The choice of papyrus was insignificant? OK, I think we're done here. You're either being disingenuous or have no concept of how the bible came to exist in its current form. If you aren't aware, google "bible papyrus scraps" or some such and learn that the bible is really just ancient Mad Libs with scraps of faded paper. The debate over translations and missing parts have done nothing but splinter the overall faith. If 42,000 denominations arguing over who is "right" isn't significant problems then you would have no concept of what is significant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyriQuote
The New Testament has been preserved in more than 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Ethiopic and Armenian.
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how this works, but here goes: When a book is first created, many copies are made, then as these copies wear out due to the nature of the material, new copies are made. Sometimes, small errors may enter if the scribe is not particularly diligent, however the changes are normally so small and un-noticeable that they are easily identified.
Quote
Quote
It does condone a specific form of slavery, namely the payment of debts. The idea was if you could not conceivably pay a debt you owed someone you would work in order to cover part of it.
Quote
Religion at its finest: "the bible doesn't condone slavery, it simply condones slavery"
I don't need any argument here because you are arguing for my point. Thank you!
I don't need any argument here because you are arguing for my point. Thank you!
However, in the payment of debts, slavery was allowed, it's not that complicated really. This form of slavery is not immoral, and even your empathetical system should have no problem with it. This sytem is much better than simply putting the debtor to death.
Quote
I think it is plainly spelled out in the bible passages I have already posted, among others. The central thrust is to give everything you have away and "give no thought to the morrow" while following Jesus' teachings. Here's more bible teachings greed is causing you to ignore:
All the verses you quote are warning not to serve wealth, not to make wealth your master, and not to make wealth your treasure. The protestant work ethic naturally leads to wealth, but if that is your goal in life, only your wealth you have missed the boat.Quote
There is no excuse for forcing a woman to marry her rapist. None.
Well, actually there is.In biblical times if you were no longer a virgin, in fact raped, you basically had no chance of getting married. This is to assure that the woman doesn't just fall off the face of the earth. This does not force women to live with the rapist, only for the rapist to provide for her, this happening was common. By marrying the woman she has all the protections of a married woman.
Religions do not have beliefs. People have beliefs.
To say 'there is no God' is as bad as saying 'believe in my religion and follow my [insert your God here]'.
Only if one doesn't care about the facts of mankind's shared reality.
What "facts of mankind's shared reality"? Religion? It's always been a part of civilized man -- that shared reality?
What does "shared reality" have to say about god, pro or con? Is the reality of god calculated by a democratic process? If more men believed in god, would he be more real?
And why is this "reality," indisputably different for Ecstatics, accountants & Algerian criminals, somehow "common," and more -- "fact[ual]"?
Using words like "fact" is a bit wonky, unless you're absolutely sure nobody could disagree, and that's a nat'ral fact.
All of this has been covered in the thread. Re-read it.
Religion certainly has not been shared commonly by civilized people, it has been shared uncommonly.
All civilizations had religions. Not the same religion, merely a religion. "Shared uncommonly"? WTF is dat? Learn to English.
Quote
Wiki the branches and denominations of people all over the world who simply want to say, "treat others as you wish to be treated," and then promptly ruin it with thousands of versions of "one true" preposterous dogma featuring a multitude of gods with oddly human qualities.
Wait, wait, what should i be looking up on wikip? Try to pare thoughts down to one per sentence. 'k? I'm just guessing here...
You want me to wiki something about people wishing to say one thing but failing?
You ascribe that failure to 'thousands of versions of "one true dogma"'.
You go on to describe that dogma as being "preposterous" & "featuring a multitude of gods."
The gods, in turn, you further describe as "possessing oddly human qualities."
Am i on the right track? Now what should i wiki again?
Quote
"Fact" is wonky, but this was covered earlier as well.
No, it was not. Why not give me a link?
edit: tags
To say 'there is no God' is as bad as saying 'believe in my religion and follow my [insert your God here]'.
Only if one doesn't care about the facts of mankind's shared reality.
What "facts of mankind's shared reality"? Religion? It's always been a part of civilized man -- that shared reality?
What does "shared reality" have to say about god, pro or con? Is the reality of god calculated by a democratic process? If more men believed in god, would he be more real?
And why is this "reality," indisputably different for Ecstatics, accountants & Algerian criminals, somehow "common," and more -- "fact[ual]"?
Using words like "fact" is a bit wonky, unless you're absolutely sure nobody could disagree, and that's a nat'ral fact.
All of this has been covered in the thread. Re-read it.
Religion certainly has not been shared commonly by civilized people, it has been shared uncommonly. Wiki the branches and denominations of people all over the world who simply want to say, "treat others as you wish to be treated," and then promptly ruin it with thousands of versions of "one true" preposterous dogma featuring a multitude of gods with oddly human qualities.
"Fact" is wonky, but this was covered earlier as well.
To say 'there is no God' is as bad as saying 'believe in my religion and follow my [insert your God here]'.
Only if one doesn't care about the facts of mankind's shared reality.
What "facts of mankind's shared reality"? Religion? It's always been a part of civilized man -- that shared reality?
What does "shared reality" have to say about god, pro or con? Is the reality of god calculated by a democratic process? If more men believed in god, would he be more real?
And why is this "reality," indisputably different for Ecstatics, accountants & Algerian criminals, somehow "common," and more -- "fact[ual]"?
Using words like "fact" is a bit wonky, unless you're absolutely sure nobody could disagree, and that's a nat'ral fact.
Quote
... Saying "I don't know, and don't care" is only a tiny step away from "I don't know, guess god did it."
That's ludicrous as well.
I can't bear the irony...
Saying that God did something isn't an automatic copout
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com
Quote
... What other of god's biblical laws are not actual moral laws, but just palatable suggestions?
I've long held that those laws and customs were for a time, and they accomplished what they were there to do in history. Romans 8 describes best how moral law fits with Christianity,It's nice you agree morals aren't absolute. Now if we can get you on a regimen of Promethazine we might make some progress on your remaining delusions.
Back up there.. Where's the verse that says he lived?
EDIT: We believe in a God powerful enough to raise people from the dead, even raise them up immortal. Living in a fish is nothing.
EDIT: We believe in a God powerful enough to raise people from the dead, even raise them up immortal. Living in a fish is nothing.
So you want us to choose which is more preposterous: Jonah lived in a fish for 3 days, or Jonah was dead in a fish for 3 days and then raised from the dead?
The bible is like a zombie apocalypse. Who knew 2000 years ago it was so easy to cure death? Left and right liches are popping up all over.
To say 'there is no God' is as bad as saying 'believe in my religion and follow my [insert your God here]'.
Only if one doesn't care about the facts of mankind's shared reality.
The only way to be is agnostic - 'I don't know and don't rightly care'...
where "god" is defined as some non-specific creator...
theist: believes in god(s)
atheist: believes in no god(s)
gnostic: claims knowledge concerning the existence of god(s)
agnostic: claims no knowledge concerning the existence of god(s)
You are simply an apathetic agnostic atheist.
You're not even listening to what I'm posting, I'm not saying he was a "bad" Christian, I'm saying he did not even believe in Christianity at all.
Evidence shows he was Christian whether you think he was "true" or not. He was a member of the Catholic church until his death, and neither of us will ever know if asked for forgiveness before death, which is all that's required to get right back into heaven's queue.
I agree there's plenty of cause for debate over his personal views on religion and I understand why religious folks would shun such a member of their camp. Perhaps you simply shouldn't have brought him up in the first place?
Jump to: