|
Post by archon on Jan 17, 2006 0:36:28 GMT -5
Well someone who claims that the world will end in 1000AD, and is then proved wrong is hardly a prophet? The guy was mental, look at the ideas he proposes look how many came to pass in the time frame he claimed, he lost sight of the Christian message of forgiveness and compassion. He went insane and ranted, but because he was closer to God by being insane, he was believed, there is a lesson there. The old and the insane are closer to God according to the bible, it doesn't mean there more credible it just means they are closer to finding God, whether through death or through their suffering. What the heck are you smoking? That is an understatement if I ever heard one. Why would God permit evil in the world if God is all loving?
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 17, 2006 2:41:15 GMT -5
They have lost all sight of what there own religion is about, so blindly adherent that nothing else will dissuade them in fact, persecute those who don't agree was often the churches way. Burn the heretics that seems fair. If your religion is so cast in stone that nothing or no one else's point of view matters then your wandering around in the dark as far as I'm concerned and Disagree whole heartedly people can live by the bibles message without resorting to fairy tale and saying the world is 6000 years old and is the center of the universe. A good Christian tries as hard as he can to follow the ways outlined in the new testament and takes comfort from the lessons of the old, if you just take the lessons of the old testament as your bible then you have a myriad of contradictions that make all Jesus tried to do meaningless. If that is the way you want to follow your faith then by all means do so, I think that makes you very delusional but that's your look out. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago Simply saying what are you smoking and you are ignorant are not good counters to my arguments, if that's the best you can do then you really have made my point about Christian fundamentalism for me. I thank you. God allows evil in the world because without there is no good and because man has free will. How would we ever learn anything if everyone was good to each other all the time(be nice though wouldn't it) It's also like in the Matrix when the agent says they created a perfect world but humanity couldn't accept it they lost hundreds of cells(human batteries) because your brains refused it. In life there should be yin and yang without it then life has no meaning. Of course if there is no God, then the fact that evil exists is pretty much down to humanity(you could argue that the fact that god exists is the same )
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 17, 2006 9:19:29 GMT -5
First, it's important to distinguish between two kinds of evil: moral evil and natural evil. Moral evil results from the actions of free creatures. Murder, rape and theft are examples. Natural evil results from natural processes such as earthquakes and floods. Of course, sometimes the two are intermingled, such as when flooding results in loss of human life due to poor planning or shoddy construction of buildings.
The skeptic who challenges the possibility or probability that a God exists who would allow such suffering. In meeting this challenge we must utilize the tools of reason and evidence in "giving a reason for the hope within us." (I Pet. 3:15)
Second is the religious or emotional aspect of the problem of evil. This is the problem of evil approached from the standpoint of the believer whose faith in God is severely tested by trial. How can we love and worship God when He allows us to suffer in these ways?
This is what Job reconsiled was it not? To believe when things seem shady, to continue to hope when the world arounds you seems hopeless.
People seem to think: 1-A good God would destroy evil. 2-An all powerful God could destroy evil. 3-Evil is not destroyed. 4-Therefore, there cannot possibly be such a good and powerful God.
yet in doing so: It is logically impossible to believe that both evil, and a good and powerful God exist in the same reality, for such a God certainly could and would destroy evil. Hence, To have evil exist, then good must also exist.
Scripture states that "with God all things are possible" (Mt. 19:26). But Scripture also states that there are some things God cannot do. For instance, God cannot lie (Tit. 1:2). Neither can He be tempted to sin, nor can He tempt others to sin (James 1:13). In other words, He cannot do anything that is "out of character" for a righteous God. Neither can He do anything that is out of character for a rational being in a rational world. Certainly even God cannot "undo the past," or create a square triangle, or make what is false true. He cannot do what is irrational or absurd.
and as Sidhe mentionned Certainly, God is capable of destroying evil--but not without destroying human freedom, or a world in which free creatures can function. And most agree that this line of reasoning does successfully respond to the challenge of the logical problem of evil.
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Jan 17, 2006 10:29:08 GMT -5
In the US we don't use "the chair" anymore. Old Smokey was retired long ago. "The condemned prisoner was typically strapped into the chair, with one electrode attached to the head and a second attached to the leg. At least two jolts of an electrical current would be applied for several minutes, depending on the person. An initial voltage of around 2,000 volts is used to break the initial resistance of the skin and cause unconsciousness (in theory—people surviving to tell the tale are rare). The voltage is then lowered to reduce current flow so as to prevent burning. A current flow of around 8 amps is usual. The body of the condemned would heat up to 138°F (59°C), and the electric current would cause severe damage to internal organs. In theory, unconsciousness occurs in a fraction of a second. There have been reports of victims' heads on fire, of burning transformers, and of letting the crying victim wait in pain on the floor of the execution room while the chair was fixed. In 1946, the electric chair failed to kill Willie Francis, who reportedly shrieked "Stop it! Let me breathe!" as he was being executed. It turned out that the portable electric chair had been improperly set up by an intoxicated trustee. A case was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court (Francis v. Resweber), 329 U.S. 459 (1947), with lawyers for the murderer arguing that although Francis did not die, he had, in fact, been executed. The argument was rejected, and Francis was returned to the electric chair and killed the following year." For a complete history of "the chair" go here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_chairThe US presently uses Lethal Injection. Although in some states the condemned may choose the method. Options include lethal injection, hanging, firing squad, electrocution, and lethal gas. Nebraska is the sole state to only have electrocution as the method of execution. The following graphic illustrates an interesting cultural trend in the US. www.newsbatch.com/dp-pubopdp.htmlThe Firing Squad is allowed in Utah (go figure). Hanging is allowed in Washington, in fact we had a hanging here only a few years ago, a guy requested he be hanged rather than put down with lethal injection. As far as the criminal goes, I firmly believe he should be made to drink drain cleaner. I know this will not happen. I believe sex offenders should be castrated, and other violent offenders dealth with much more severely. I think we need to use the death penalty here in the US MORE liberally. Thats what its for. I dont want these type of people living around us. If people in Europe think they can "treat" him, thats fine send them over there. But here, he should be fried.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 17, 2006 14:34:06 GMT -5
It is not logically possible to believe without doubt that god exists though Yes if you want to wax philosophical if there is no evil then what do we measure as good, whether it be natural or man made evil? If everythings perfect then Neither good nor evil can exist. Imagine a world where there was no adversity no challenges no examples of courage of honour of self sacrifice of charity of the soul of greatness. just neutrality, that would be hell. This sounds like blasphemy but I think the apple or quince or whatever the hell it was on the tree was God's devine plan to send Adam and Eve into the land of Nod, for he new as perfect as Eden was it could not be beneficial to man in the long run.(interesting factoid: Eden is reputed by some historians to have been the land between the Euphrates and Tigris East of the city of Baghdad, that we once knew as Babylon and that is now Iraq. However of course Eden was seperate from the Lands outside, a sort of Matrix style existence run by god rather than by a computer. A better start if you accept that with perfection comes perefect existence, but ultimately self defeating, with man as he now stands it would be torture. If god ended all evil tomorrow then the world would become boring and bland. As Budhists say the route of all suffering is desire. If we rid ourselves of the Earthly desires at least to some extent(I think Sex is pretty much essential to the survival of the human race ) then we become happier more fulfilled people. But then for that to have meaning we would need to know what desire was. As Rasputin said: in order to know the nature of sin one must have sinned. Slightly warped logic but he has a point. The same point is made in the bible there is more joy in heaven for one sinner that repenteth etc.etc.etc. Saturn I'm just glad that the sort of people who condone the death sentence are in the global minority by some considerable margin. If you think that harsher sentences or the death sentence would have any impact on the level of violent crimes such as these then you haven't been paying attention. In which case if one person does repent his sin and find salvation should we not take this as an example of his ability to change his ways, or should we just kill him to assuage our feelings of hatred and self righteous judgement? Good example a man who spent his entire life speaking out against gang violence was sentenced to death? What about if this happened in reverse, we kill the Gang member, had we not he may of gone on to turn thousands of others away from a life of murder etc. How can anyone really know the worth of any man when they kill him, and how can any lesson be learnt from this mindless slaughter you so conveninetly call death by lawful means: or murder As I would call it(morally there is no difference) A crock by any other name would smell as foul. As far as I can tell it is not only a self defeating means of punishment but it has no basis to exist in a modern society. It is a law that does more harm than good but it is the law, don't confuse the law with justice though. As long as you except that injustice is bread by your practice then fine. Eventually America will have no death sentence, it's just that many people are too ignorant and too stubborn to change atm. Ironically as well man being the contrary creature he is the more you point out how wrong something is the more they try to defend it eventually convincing themselves of all sorts of nonsense. Sorry though I needed to stir the pot a bit, get some debate going
|
|
reptile
Worker
in desperate need of a new avatar
Posts: 106
|
Post by reptile on Jan 17, 2006 15:09:13 GMT -5
It is not logically possible to believe without doubt that god exists though Sorry, I didnt read the rest of this thread, but this line caught my attention. Isn´t belief always without doubt? It is not logically possible to believe WITH doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 17, 2006 15:11:20 GMT -5
Precisely Reptile if a=b then b=a, that's logical thinking therefore not b=not a However it is not possible to develop true faith without at least some doubt. not a is somewhat equal to not b but as we move to infinity nota=is equal to b or 1 is equal = to .999999999999999999999999999 and therefore -1=-.999999999999999999999 thus only by having some doubt can we express 1 as= to 1 it will come as no surprise that .9999999999999999999999 in maths is equal to 1. ;D
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 17, 2006 15:20:24 GMT -5
It is not logically possible to gain any insight into truth from reading Sedhi's illogical ramblings.
|
|
reptile
Worker
in desperate need of a new avatar
Posts: 106
|
Post by reptile on Jan 17, 2006 15:25:10 GMT -5
No, true faith will develop without doubt. I should have been more precise. I said, it´s not logically possible to believe with doubt - but: it´s not even illogically possible. Logic doesn´t apply to faith. Edit: Whip was faster
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 17, 2006 15:29:29 GMT -5
Precisely Reptile if a=b then b=a, that's logical thinking therefore not b=not a An example of Sidhe logic here. OK, let's say a = a bird. a=b. So b is also the same bird. So far, so good! But then Sedhi logic postulates that "not b=not a". Therefore an elephant (not b) = a donkey (not a) BRILLIANT!
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Jan 17, 2006 19:13:37 GMT -5
I just took Logic last quarter Sidhe, and if I followed the same type of logic you just presented to all of us, I would have failed out of the class. I ended up with a 3.8 in that class.
If you are familiar with logic you should be able to follow this. Your logic states the following: If A then B. ~A therefore ~b.
This is absolutely incorrect. You have commited the fallacy of "denying the antecedent." If A = B then it absolutely does not follow that Not A equals Not B. I suggest you take Logic class again, or at least look at a website. And as far as your death penalty outrage is concerned, you have not given me any reason why I should not support it. And by using logic like what you used above, I seriously doubt that YOU could change my mind.
|
|
|
Post by tommynt on Jan 17, 2006 19:48:20 GMT -5
oh well didnt read whole thread - but about god and evil i d say:
the universe dont need no god - but creation might need one.
and evil .. all about genetic and education ..
if your parents are crazzy kid f**kers who f**k yourself aswell there s just quite some chance that u gonna be a crazzy kid f**ker aswell ( sure u might as well not)
oh well and there are evil gens as u just need some evil gens to survive - how d have people survived in stoneage without killerinstict to get some mamuts down or so
solution: dont let the worst gens spread and give EVERYONE some basic education - guess thats kinda lack in US big city gethos - at least thats what u hear in germany
oh well and proly some good example might be useful aswell .. a presedent who invents a ghetto liek guantanamo ..
oh ya and sidhes logic is kinda funny .. at least we now know that u are no rocket scientist sidh
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 17, 2006 19:50:02 GMT -5
And of course I made my logic falable to lure you into this trap, now that we can get over logic arguments present a decent one, and stop panzying about with you righteous indignation and present me with something I can at least acknowledge is an argument? hehe so easy to trap fools. Trust me I know my maths, but baiting rubes like you is easier than hooking fish in a very small barrel. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave some posts ago, now that we've got over the philosophical bullnuts can you answer my question? Or are you gonna try and disprove this post by logic, you forget I have a very good memory I know exactly what you study and what you do. Now kindly present me with an argument I can take interest in or kindly get out of the kitchen. well whiplash I can toy with the best of them, and I will if it makes a point. The point is logic doesn't apply to religion. But of course no one caught that because they were all to busy trying to be clever. next Honestly guys look at the arguments not the exactness of a sentence we aren't philosophers as such; epistemology and etymology do play apart but, if I can easily lure you into traps like these you'll never learn to make a point.... Reply to the arguments not the logic
|
|
|
Post by whiplash on Jan 17, 2006 21:57:29 GMT -5
Sidhe, please leave my thread. You have nothing to offer. You are showing yourself to be the fool and you are just creating much static as you do in most every other thread you post in.
Your last post, as in most all of your posts, is just static. It makes no sense. You just seem to want to throw words up there without any consideration as to whether or not it makes sense. You are just creating a distraction for the others that view the forum. You would do us all a favor by being silent.
|
|
|
Post by saturn77 on Jan 17, 2006 22:30:23 GMT -5
And of course I made my logic falable to lure you into this trap, now that we can get over logic arguments present a decent one, and stop panzying about with you righteous indignation and present me with something I can at least acknowledge is an argument? hehe so easy to trap fools. Trust me I know my maths, but baiting rubes like you is easier than hooking fish in a very small barrel. I refer the honourable gentleman to the answers I gave some posts ago, now that we've got over the philosophical bullnuts can you answer my question? Or are you gonna try and disprove this post by logic, you forget I have a very good memory I know exactly what you study and what you do. Now kindly present me with an argument I can take interest in or kindly get out of the kitchen. well whiplash I can toy with the best of them, and I will if it makes a point. The point is logic doesn't apply to religion. But of course no one caught that because they were all to busy trying to be clever. next Honestly guys look at the arguments not the exactness of a sentence we aren't philosophers as such; epistemology and etymology do play apart but, if I can easily lure you into traps like these you'll never learn to make a point.... Reply to the arguments not the logic Yes. You were just "testing" us to see if we were paying attention. Just admit it. You don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Avogadro on Jan 17, 2006 23:36:23 GMT -5
In this instance I believe Sidhe is the one applying the appropriate logic.
Like him I would argue that true faith develops from doubt. That it is in "doubting" that we come to decide whether we will continue to profess our faith. Was this not the purpose once again of Job? To be tested? Everyone has their faith shaken up every now and then. It is in reconciliating these polarities that the emergence of a true faith arises. Just as God cannot exist without Evil, Faith may not exist without doubt.
True faith does not develop without doubt. Blind faith does. And blind faith is not a deep and meaningful faith.
|
|
|
Post by archon on Jan 17, 2006 23:45:09 GMT -5
Disagree whole heartedly people can live by the bibles message without resorting to fairy tale and saying the world is 6000 years old and is the center of the universe. Still posting your opinion? I agree. Alright Mr. Dithers hear this out: Christians are suppose to have faith in Jesus' resurrection and hold Jesus's teachings to heart, correct? If Jesus is God, God would not lie. Jesus confirmed that the events of Genesis were true and happened as is. I always wonder why Christians in general are always hesistant to accept the truth of the Old Testament yet gladly accept what the New Testament reveals. One can not pick and choose what to believe. Being a Christian myself, I believe in God's Word. God's Word is written in 'stone', hence, my apparent 'inflexibility' and apparent 'ignorance' to 'bend' to fallible man's contemporary world views. I could care less if it seems alien to you Sidhe that I am 'ancient' in my faith. What is new and contemporary to you is simply wrong in my eyes. What I see is someone who will sway like a flower wherever the wind blows, thus, you go with the times. I find that wrong, but respect your world view. Is it so hard for you to accept that Christians (some) accept the Bible as the Word of God? And this is the guy that has offered no goodarguments in the past related to this "fairy tale". Before you post more and I smite your ass do a little research before you dive head first into a topic. Spank you. Side Note: Ohhh. Here's a question to those who care: Is the Trinity mentioned in the Old Testament?
|
|
|
Post by scoobyntn on Jan 18, 2006 0:25:09 GMT -5
Who in their right mind would use logic to describe religion. Logic is based on absolutes (true, false) while religion is based on faith and, for the most part, adherence to a set of rules interpreted by fallible humans. How on earth, heaven or anywhere else for that matter can the two be remotely associated? If fire suddenly shoots out of my bum, does that make me evil? Hell no! More than likely, it just means I put too much hot sauce on my Chile Rellenos. In my humble opinion, people have and continue to place way too much emphasis on religion. There are just too many examples of that lately that it's not even necessary for me to provide any here. Believe what you want to, but if people just plain tried to be nicer to each other, this world would be a lot better off. Sure it's a simple "Joe six pack" solution to the world's problems, but I'm too tired and intoxicated to think of anything more creative.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 18, 2006 2:01:23 GMT -5
Gladly if you'll do me the courtesy of answering any of the points I've made instead of just asking me to leave? I think the reason you're doing that even though my logic or lack of it is impeccable is because my points are troubling to you. you have not answered or rebuked a single one of them since we talked about Job in fact Avagadro was the only one who did that but then he happens to agree with me about capital punishment being a pointless punishment. I have nothing to offer why that is because you wouldn't take anything I have and reply to it. Making the point that religion has no logic and that blind faith is pointless(which is also made in the bible) and that the death sentence is equally pointless and the reasons for its institution are outdated is a good point, I think the problem you have is that you don't agree with much of what I'm saying. I'll leave if you would do me the courtesy of actually arguing against anything I've said recently instead of saying idiot nonsense moron etc, etc. Oh and once again thanks for making my point about fundamentalists for me. You either agree with them or you're the enemy. They have lost all sight of what there own religion is about, so blindly adherent that nothing else will dissuade them in fact, persecute those who don't agree was often the churches way. Burn the heretics that seems fair. If your religion is so cast in stone that nothing or no one else's point of view matters then your wandering around in the dark as far as I'm concerned And thankyou Avogadro, at least you understand where I'm going you may not agree with me 100% but at least you have the grace to reply to my questions instead of going la la la la and saying get out of my thread or just ignoring anything I've posted and calling me ignorant or on drugs. I agree with Scooby 100% btw.
|
|
|
Post by Sidhe on Jan 18, 2006 2:11:34 GMT -5
Disagree whole heartedly people can live by the bibles message without resorting to fairy tale and saying the world is 6000 years old and is the center of the universe. Still posting your opinion? I agree. Alright Mr. Dithers hear this out: Christians are suppose to have faith in Jesus' resurrection and hold Jesus's teachings to heart, correct? If Jesus is God, God would not lie. Jesus confirmed that the events of Genesis were true and happened as is. I always wonder why Christians in general are always hesitant to accept the truth of the Old Testament yet gladly accept what the New Testament reveals. One can not pick and choose what to believe. Being a Christian myself, I believe in God's Word. God's Word is written in 'stone', hence, my apparent 'inflexibility' and apparent 'ignorance' to 'bend' to fallible man's contemporary world views. I could care less if it seems alien to you Sidhe that I am 'ancient' in my faith. What is new and contemporary to you is simply wrong in my eyes. What I see is someone who will sway like a flower wherever the wind blows, thus, you go with the times. I find that wrong, but respect your world view. Is it so hard for you to accept that Christians (some) accept the Bible as the Word of God? And this is the guy that has offered no good arguments in the past related to this "fairy tale". Before you post more and I smite your ass do a little research before you dive head first into a topic. Spank you. Side Note: Ohhh. Here's a question to those who care: Is the Trinity mentioned in the Old Testament? OK thanks for this reply riddled with inconsistency as it is at least you made the effort this time smite thine enemy hip and thigh If thine enemy offends the offer him the other cheek This is but one example of the contradictory nature of new and old testament, but the two books are riddled with opposing statements, this is not because either is wrong but because they we're two code of laws if you will for Christians for two different times. Harking back to outmoded customs and laws and using them to justify modern practice is a sort of bigotry and intolerance. It is morally and ethically wrong. The great harm that religion has done has come not from the pursuit of following the bible, but from the pursuit of denying any that argue against it and from persecuting those who worship a different faith(some would no doubt say that it is gods plans to pit Jew against Muslim and Christian against Jew/ to persecute and to kill his children to hate to war and to create suffering against his people, this is his divine plan, if people would only realise that there are no differences between the three Abrahamic faiths at the core then the world could move on, but unfortunately the them and us mentality is entrenched even though it contradicts all Jesus tried to teach). AS I said religion has the ability to do great good, but so often it does great harm. There is a good reason why Religion is responsible for more death in Europe than say Heart disease. Largest causes of deaths in Europe 0AD to present day 1)Plague 2)famine 3)religious wars. If you know anything about me you know how highly I value morals and ethics and how little flexibility I have on doing what I feel is right. I may waver about rules but that is only because I prefer to ask what is just rather than what is legal. I could spend the time routing out all the inconsistencies from new to old testament but I think you know them better than I do. Suffice to say. The religious do not have a monopoly on goodness any more than the Devil has the monopoly on Evil. I have no idea whether the trinity is mentioned in the old testament, I would somehow doubt it but then I could be wrong. There see I am willing to at least acknowledge I may be wrong. What truly frightens me is not religious inflexibility, this is nothing new, it is the fundamentalists inability to see just how damaging this is, and just how damaging trying to use it to justify your position is without even taking the time to listen to counter argument, or even sometimes to acknowledge it. Even though the bible makes the point of asking that it's followers question there belief, this is inconvenient so the fundamentalist will ignore it. If you followed the New testament assiduously I wouldn't be having this discussion. But then if you followed the new testament assiduously you wouldn't be able to reconcile your inflexibility with your belief anyway so whatever. There really are none so blind as those who will not see. Whiplash Can you show me the static form my last 20 posts btw, just so I can see what the hell it is you're talking about The world is not 6000 years old get over that delusional fantasy and move on. Every Rational thinking human being scientist or not know's this. Try reading the logic and the origins of life thread on the c3c forum to see the wealth of overwhelming evidence against his untennable position. Of course science is all wrong and god is deluding them. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA. Welcome to the world of make believe where evidence and rationality come second place to ignorance and self delusion. Where a univers 6000 light year accross but containing hundreds of trillions of visible stars id compacted into 6000 light years of space and where the half life of materials proves that rock is older than billions of years. Agh these people! No wonder science refuses to argue with creationism or that other fantasy intelligent design. There arguments are about as coherent as mud. Does science have all the answers, not by along shot that's the point. But at least it didn't stop asking questions a 1000 years ago. Yes Saturn as difficult as it is to believe some people have the witt to use devices to make points. ::Last sentence deleted::GCAvogadro I was enjoying this thread let us not turn it into a place of personal attacks. Edit: sorry I meant morally and ethically wrong to expect ohters to follow or to try and persuade/force them too. I have nothing against the message it's just those who force it on other people I fear.
|
|