Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed!
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
Back in Action considers himself agnostic. So there is a belief there is something bigger than himself or God.
BodyGuard is more arguing to argue. BackinAction I think is truely searching for the truth, but if he is not and trying to just argue for the sake of arguing I hope he will reconsider that. We are trying to have a civil discussion here, and I have to take your posts at face value and hope there is nothing cynical behind your posts. I speak from the heart and the knowledge gained by spending time with God in his word. If you are just jerking us around you might want to go some where else.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed![/quote]
I know Push likes this one and the Trinity debate as well 
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed![/quote]
mse2us and I will always debate the Divinity of Jesus. It is the foundation of both or our religious beleifs. He is Jehovahs Witness so Jesus is just an angel. I on the other hand beleive that Jesus is God. This kind of streams over from the Catholic thread where we had a great discussion.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]
People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
Back in Action considers himself agnostic. So there is a belief there is something bigger than himself or God.
BodyGuard is more arguing to argue. BackinAction I think is truely searching for the truth, but if he is not and trying to just argue for the sake of arguing I hope he will reconsider that. We are trying to have a civil discussion here, and I have to take your posts at face value and hope there is nothing cynical behind your posts. I speak from the heart and the knowledge gained by spending time with God in his word. If you are just jerking us around you might want to go some where else. [/quote]
Thanks, dmaddox!
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.[/quote]
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
But…you had simians evolving (dying) for millions of years…then simian/human hybrids…then Neanderthals etc. and eventually POOF somehow, some way, somewhere the first man appears…and he commits sin…is condemned to death for it…and dies (after bearing human children)?
Now are you telling this first man’s father and mother who also died…did not commit sin? They died for some other reason?[/quote]
I don’t know whether the chicken or the egg came first. Man or his parents. Nor do I know when sin entered the world and the struggle began. I do know this, God created everything including man. God clearly made us differently than the other animals. I know sin entered the world through the choice of man.
I also know there were people around before Genesis was written and while it may an account of creation, it’s not exactely a first person rendition. It’s also meant for an audience 7000 years ago. If you were to start explaining evolution, science, biology, the universe, I am pretty sure you would have lost them.
Genesis is woven together from several stories. It has 2 creation stories, the second older than the first. I don’t think it was ever intended to be a factual account.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/gen1st.htm[/quote]
Pat, do you believe in Jesus? If you believe in Jesus then you should believe in the Genesis account because Jesus mentions both the creation of man and Noah and the flood.
At Mark 10:6-9 Jesus states:
“However, from the beginning of creation 'He made them male and female. 7 On this account a man will leave his father and mother, 8 and the two will be one flesh’; so that they are no longer two, but one flesh. 9 Therefore what God yoked together let no man put apart.”
In the verses mentioned above Jesus quotes Genesis 1:27 where it states “He made them male and female” and he mentions “from the beginning of creation” which of course is the creation account in Genesis.
At Matthew 24:37-39 Jesus refers to the Noah and the flood account and paralells what happened in the days and years leading up to the flood with what will happened during the days and years during Jesus’ presence leading up to Armageddon.
Matthew 24:37-39 states:
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 38 For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; 39 and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
It’s clear that Jesus believed in the Genesis account not only because he quotes specific verses from Genesis but he also had a first hand account because he was in heaven when both of the above accounts took place.
You are right that Genesis took place before Moses wrote it. The creation of Adam in Genesis took place about 2500 years before Moses wrote Genesis. And the flood event took place about 850 years before the writing in Genesis. Apparently, God told Moses either directly or through holy spirit about what took place from the beginning of creation up until Moses’ time.[/quote]
I do not think that Pat is saying that the Genesis did not take place.
I will say that Jesus quotes the Old Testament all the time. Why? Because he was talking to the Jewish people. These are the stories that they grew up on and understand. Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time. Jesus also uses the term “I AM” which to a Jewish person means that he is God. Is he speaking literally or figuratively here?[/quote]
D, I don’t think you really understand the use of Jesus illustrations and the purpose of when he quoted scriptures. I’ll try to clarify this for you.
Jesus used illustrations when he was teaching something new to his listeners to paint a mental picture so they could better grasp what he was teaching. Most of his illustrations were of story length and had characters. Jesus generally drew his illustrations from the surrounding creation, from familiar customs of everyday life such as sheep and shepards, harvest, slaves, or fishing. Or from occasional happenings or not-impossible situations, and from recent events well known to his hearers. None of the famous illustrations such as the Wheat and the Weeds, the neighborly Samaritan, the prodigal son, the rich man and Lazarus do you see Jesus quote from the Hebrew scriptures. You can’t find any of these stories in the Bible so Jesus most likely made them up to help his listeners understand his teaching.
You’re using the wrong word when you say “figuratively.” When one speaks figuratively, the figure of speech or metaphoric statement in its entirety means something else and is not to be taken literally. Such as when someone says “I’m going to kill you” when you’ve upset that person. Jesus’ illustrations were not like this because when he used illustrations they represented a truth Jesus was trying to teach and if the listeners were able to understand what the illustration was teaching they were to take it literally. The characters, setting and story represented different parts of something literal. So Jesus spoke symbolically not figuratively. For example, the Wheat and the Weeds illustration mentioned at Matthew 13:24-30. Jesus explains what each part of the illustration means at Matthew 13:36-42. Another example is at Matthew 9:11-13 when Jesus was eating with with tax collectors and sinners and the Pharisees criticized him for doing so. Jesus told them that persons in good health do not need a physician but the ailing do. In this illustration Jesus was the physician and the ailing are the tax collectors and sinners. Even when he spoke in hyperbole such as at Matthew 7:1-5 which talks about removing a straw from someone’s eye when there is a rafter in your eye. The straw represents a small weakness or small sin and the rafter represents an even bigger weakness or bigger sin. So when one understood this they would get the sense that he should not judge or try to correct someone when he has a big glaring weakness that he needs to work on. Do you get what I’m trying to say?
Jesus quoted from the Bible because the people of his day were versed in the law and the Bible available at that time. As you stated in one of your post the Jewish religious leaders even had the Bible memorized. So when Jesus quoted from the Bible the listiners were more likely to believe what Jesus was saying the same way we hope people believe us when we quote scripture to back up a belief. When Jesus quoted from the Bible he did this usually to help the listeners discern that he just fulfilled a Bible prophecy, to condemn the hardhearted based on Bible prophecy or to explain why something must occur based on the passage he’s quoting. Jesus did not use any quotes from the Hebrew scriptures in his illustrations. At Mark 10:6-9 when Jesus quotes from the Genesis account he is answering a question about divorce; no illustration was used. At Matthew 24:37-39 when Jesus compares the days and years during his presence leading up to Armageddon with the days and years in Noah’s day leading up to the flood he does state it in an illustrative manner because he compares to things but this is unlike any of the illustrations I listed above and unlike any of the illustrations Jesus is famous for.
So when Jesus quotes from the Hebrew scriptures one should have more faith in the Hebrew scriptures as being still valid for today and inspired by God. The point I was trying to make to Pat was since Jesus quoted the two specific events Pat said were made up and not to be factual in his post if one has faith in Jesus then you should believe the two specific events Jesus referenced from the Hebrew scriptures as actual events and not moral stories or figurative stories as you stated.
I hope that helps.[/quote]
First, my questions were rhetorical. I wanted you to think about what you are saying.
Second, if you are going to take the Bible as 100% literal then you have to look at the verses as what they say. You can not pick and choose what fits your doctrine and what doesn’t and dismiss it. I have told you my reasoning for every verse you have put down. You may not like my reasoning, but it is. You just dismiss my verses as translation errors.
Third, you say that the parables were easy stories for the people to understand. I would like to argue the opposite. Jesus tells a parable the disciples do not understand what they mean. Jesus a lot of the times have to pull the disciples aside to explain to them what he is talking about. His parable about tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days. The disciples did not know the meaning until after the resurrection. This is when their eyes were open. All the gospels were written after the resurrection of Jesus, so by then they understood everything, but during the stories they did not. It is amazing when you see who Jesus is, God, your eyes are open and the entire Bible makes perfect sense.[/quote]
Sorry D that was not a rehtorical question. You said: “Just because he talks about it does not mean that it means literal, but could mean figuratively. Jesus uses Hyperbole all the time.”
You said today in one of your post that you weren’t certain if the creation and flood accounts
were true or allegory. You say that you’re a man of God and you believe in Jesus then why would not believe a direct quote Jesus made that references two earlier accounts in the Bible? Take the flood account for example. The flood account is way too specific for an allegorical moral story. No fictional moral story would give specific details such as the exact tree used to build the arc, how the arc was to be built, the exact size of the arc, the exact size of the windows on the arc and exactly how long it took for the flood waters to recede. A allegorical moral story would state: “Everyone was bad except Noah and his family so God told Noah to build a arc to survive a flood that was going to destroy all the bad people. Noah built the arc and his family survived the flood. So remember to be good like Noah.” At Matthew 24:36-39 when Jesus compares the time during his presence with the time before the flood, Jesus doesn’t say “rembember the Noah story.” Jesus gives details of how the people were living their life before the flood and parallels that with how people will live their life during Jesus’ presence. Again, too specific to be just a moral allegorical story.
D at no time did I pick and choose scriptures to fit my belief; you did that. When I explained a doctrine I did it thoroughly using many scriptures. When you explained a doctrine you used very little scriptures to do so. When you quoted scripture I used several scriptures to show that the scripture you quoted did not mean Jesus was God. For example, when you used John 10:30 where Jesus states that I and the father are one to prove that Jesus said he was God. I quoted John 17:20-24 where Jesus prays to his Father and ask him that he make ALL of his diciples ONE like he and is Father were ONE. So those verses clearly explain that ONE means united in mind and thought. On the other hand when I asked you to explain
1 Corinthians 15:24-28 which states that God subjected all things to Jesus except himself and that Jesus is going to subject himself to God all you could say was Jesus was being humble.
When I asked you to explain 1 Corinthians 11:3 where Paul states that the head of Jesus is God all you could say was Jesus was being humble. You said the same thing when I asked you to explain Matthew 23:20 where Jesus admitted to not having the authority to grant who will rule with Jesus in his kingdom but only his Father had the authority to grant this again you said Jesus was being humble. You didn’t use one scripture to back your explaination up.
I never said the parables were easy to understand for the people of that time. I said that they helped to paint a mental picture so the hearers could better grasp Jesus’ teaching. I used the wheat and the weeds illustration to show that Jesus had to later explain what each part of the illustration meant. So no not everyone grasped Jesus’ illustrations.
It’s amazing what one could learn once they learn what the Bible really teaches then the Bible will make perfect sense.[/quote]
I never have thought that the flood did not happen. My thoughts are on Adam and Eve, and if it is literal a day = 24 hours. I am on the fence on whether it is literal or alligorical. There is scientific evidence that the flood took place. The same evidence that a large asteroid hit the earth and put a layer of sediment over the entire Earth.
You are right you did not pick and chose your scriptures. You pick and choose which translation to use, and also change the translations to fit your beleifs or the beliefs of your leaders which ever it is you go to.
I beg to differ on your parables statement. In the Catholic thread you and Honest_Lifter mentioned that Jesus used parables so the common folk could understand. I think it was different. If it made it easy to understand he would not have had to pull the disciples to the side to explain it to them. They would have understood. Their eyes were not opened until he stood before them after the resurrection. Then they understood everything that Jesus had taught them.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.[/quote]
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
Agnosticism can mean confusion, or un-decisiveness, as you seem to suggest: “I just haven’t made up my mind.”
But it can also be a statement of belief: I’m agnostic (without knowledge) because it’s unknowable to me. Sounds like that’s where you are.
I’d call both theists and atheists gnostic, i.e., they both think they know, and put them on the same side together. Atheism is a religion as far as I’m concerned.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]
People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.
[/quote]
Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.
The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.
You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.[/quote]
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
Agnosticism can mean confusion, or un-decisiveness, as you seem to suggest: “I just haven’t made up my mind.”
But it can also be a statement of belief: I’m agnostic (without knowledge) because it’s unknowable to me. Sounds like that’s where you are.
I’d call both theists and atheists gnostic, i.e., they both think they know, and put them on the same side together. Atheism is a religion as far as I’m concerned.[/quote]
Absolutely agree! Well said.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.[/quote]
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
And this is where faith, and the absence of, come into play. I don’t NEED hard, convincing, in my face evidence I can see. I understand that you do.
You can call feelings delusional if you like. But it just sounds like you are again discounting something you can’t put your finger on.
Thanks for clarifying your position for me. I can now read your posts with a little more understanding.
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]
People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.
[/quote]
I will say the scientists that do not beleive in the Big Bang do not like that theory because it proves the universe has a creator. It proves that the universe is not an uncaused cause. I hope I got that right. Please correct me Pat. If the universe has a causer or creator then all the facts that Atheists put out there are mute, and proves there is a god. May not prove my God is real, but it does prove that atheists are wrong 100%.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.[/quote]
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
Agnosticism can mean confusion, or un-decisiveness, as you seem to suggest: “I just haven’t made up my mind.”
But it can also be a statement of belief: I’m agnostic (without knowledge) because it’s unknowable to me. Sounds like that’s where you are.
I’d call both theists and atheists gnostic, i.e., they both think they know, and put them on the same side together. Atheism is a religion as far as I’m concerned.[/quote]
Which camp would you put yourself in? It helps us all to know where you are coming from.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Dmaddox and Mse2us - i got sidetracked by the other discussion - are you two discussing whether or not Jesus is Divine? if so, great DEBATE - goes all the way back to the 3rd century - shall we rehash the old lines or are we onto a new rationale? Bring me up to speed![/quote]
mse2us and I will always debate the Divinity of Jesus. It is the foundation of both or our religious beleifs. He is Jehovahs Witness so Jesus is just an angel. I on the other hand beleive that Jesus is God. This kind of streams over from the Catholic thread where we had a great discussion.[/quote]
Yes we did have a great discussion. I do like to talk about the Trinity and show from the Bible that God and Jesus are not the same spirit beings. I just can’t get past the fact that people like Push would rather believe something that he admitted he can’t understand and is beyond him when there are dozens of scriptures that specifically address both God and Jesus and clearly state who has greater authority in any translation of the Bible. Why believe a teaching that has to be inferred upon and not clearly stated when there are scriptures like 1 Corinthians 15:24-28 which states:
“24 Next, the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father, when he has brought to nothing all government and all authority and power. 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 As the last enemy, death is to be brought to nothing. 27 For God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that 'all things have been subjeced, it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him . 28 But when all things will have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone.”
Why not believe a scripture that is clear and direct like the verses above instead of believing something that is hard to understand and mysterious?
The belief is so dangerous because we have the largest Christian religion praying to Mary instead of God because they think she is God’s mother when Mary is not held in any high esteem anywhere in the Christian-Greek scriptures.
We have people directing their prayers to the second most important being in the universe instead of the most important. Jesus said no one gets to the father except through him. So we’re supposed to pray to God through Jesus not to Jesus directly.
[quote]cueball wrote:
And this is where faith, and the absence of, come into play. I don’t NEED hard, convincing, in my face evidence I can see. I understand that you do.
You can call feelings delusional if you like. But it just sounds like you are again discounting something you can’t put your finger on.
Thanks for clarifying your position for me. I can now read your posts with a little more understanding.
[/quote]
What if you have hard convincing, in your face evidence you can see that challenges the doctrine of your faith? We can use hypotheticals (something I assume you don’t believe), like you believe that Zeus throws lighting bolts. Then, our communal experience ass human beings (probably with the aid of science) brings us to the conclusion that this isn’t the case.
Do you give up your faith?
Do you change it, by for example, taking a less literal interpretation of your beliefs, i.e. Zeus isn’t actually throwing lighting, but he is the indirect cause of it/it’s a metaphor for the power of Zeus?
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
Traditional, but specifically Catholic view. Read the Creed.
But, no, they can’t. Not if they’re trying to have an honest debate. Atheists don’t get to determine who/what God must be. Let me say it a bit better. They don’t get to make an argument for who/what God must be. Once they do, they’ve stopped participating honestly in the debate. [/quote]
First off, I don’t think they would try to define God. That’s what the theists do. So you’re correct in that aspect. But there can be no debate without a definition. I can’t just say “I believe in this” without defining what it is.
For example:
Say I belong to the “Penguin Political Party”. Someone asks why it’s better than “Camel Party”. Without a definition of what “Penguin Party” is, there can be no meaningful discussion or debate.[/quote]
If you don’t believe the Camel Party exists, how can you have a meaningful debate? How do you debate the particulars about something you don’t believe exists?[/quote]
People debate on things that they don’t believe in all the time. Scientists for one. For example, some believe the Big Bang happened, others don’t. They can debate on this once they discuss what they believe and why. This ultimately leads to a better understanding and possibly a solution.
[/quote]
Ok. So I believe in the Camel Party, you don’t. We establish why we believe the way we do, then what? The only thing up for actual debate is the existence. Why (and how) debate the particulars before the existence is hashed out? It doesn’t make sense to debate anything else until that is resolved.
The Camel Party hates rocks, I say.
You say no, that doesn’t make any sense. Why would the Camel Party hate rocks? If there were a Camel Party, it only makes sense they wouldn’t hate rocks?
[/quote]
When I ask for a definition, I’m not asking for proof the Camel Party exists. I’m asking for a definition of what the Camel Party is. You would answer “a political that hates rocks”. Now we can discuss why you believe in that party, why they hate rocks, etc. That’s what I’m really after.
If a person can’t define what Camel Party stands for, how they truly believe in it, you know? They are just following it without understanding it.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]BackInAction wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, we can offer our definitions of the nature of God because we offer that there is a God. An atheist can’t. [/quote]
It’s not that they can’t, it’s that they don’t accept the claim of your belief.
Sloth, since you offered, please define what God is?[/quote]
So you are saying-“I don’t believe in God (or any god) but if there was one, he would be like this, not this”. Correct? This seems to be a “God of convenience” where you get to just pretend there is a God, and He gets to be whatever you want Him to be.
And this is assuming you are, in fact, an atheist.[/quote]
I am not an Atheist; I’m agnostic.
I’m confused on exactly what you’re asking.
[/quote]
Ok. Maybe I missed somewhere you are agnostic. So you don’t necessarily DISBELIEVE, rather undecided at the moment? I’m trying to find out your exact position on God. Reason being is because you seem to be trying to refute as if you have already made up your mind. Are you here to strengthen your position there is no God, or find more evidence toward either direction?
As an agnostic it would seem you might have more curiosity over both sides of the fence and have a less biased approach to the discussion rather than the one you seem to be sitting on. But that is just my assumption about agnosticism in general.[/quote]
Simply put, I don’t believe anyone can know for sure when discussing things of metaphysical nature. None of us where there (moment of creation, biblical events, etc) so nobody can argue that their point is correct unless they have direct evidence.
Truthfully, I cannot tell you whether God exists or not. And you cannot tell me he does exist. You don’t have magic powers or incite I don’t have. Getting messages in your prayers or feelings doesn’t count either as these can be delusional.
My position is purely to find the truth and cut through the bullshit. I just happen to see far more bullshit on the theist side with claims that have minimal evidence.
[/quote]
And this is where faith, and the absence of, come into play. I don’t NEED hard, convincing, in my face evidence I can see. I understand that you do.
You can call feelings delusional if you like. But it just sounds like you are again discounting something you can’t put your finger on.
Thanks for clarifying your position for me. I can now read your posts with a little more understanding.
[/quote]
Glad we can understand each other a bit better. Thanks for asking, cueball!
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Agnosticism can mean confusion, or un-decisiveness, as you seem to suggest: “I just haven’t made up my mind.”
But it can also be a statement of belief: I’m agnostic (without knowledge) because it’s unknowable to me. Sounds like that’s where you are.
I’d call both theists and atheists gnostic, i.e., they both think they know, and put them on the same side together. Atheism is a religion as far as I’m concerned.[/quote]
I disagree, somewhat. if you are claiming that theists know everything there is to know about God. I certainly don’t claim to know everything about God and have always stated i can’t possibly.
I will grant that there are theists who do think they know all there is to know about God.
In general, theists believe, and atheists do not. They don’t “know”. Calling atheism a religion is sort of an oxymoron isn’t it?
edited