Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?

Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.

See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.

Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.

He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.

Evil.

He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.

He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.

The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment. [/quote]

Do you have children? I am going to assume no. Watch a child when you tell them do not touch that it is hot. If you do not grab them they will look at you and at the same time reach their hand closer to the fire until it burns them. I told him not to touch the flame, but he did it anyway. He disobeyed me on purpose. Was this my fault or was it his? I would say this is the same thing that God did with Adam and Eve.[/quote]

Yes, but would you throw them out of the house for touching that hot object?

Also, according to the bible, you should have stoned the kid to death for doing such a thing:

“If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother … Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city … And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die.”

  • Deuteronomy 21:18-21

I don’t see how anyone can defend such a thing in the Bible.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion.

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.”

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?

Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.

See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.

Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.

He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.

Evil.

He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.

He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.

The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment. [/quote]
God is evil? Not even close. Notice what God inspired Peter to write at 2 Peter 3:5-8:
"5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.
8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day. 9 Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.

God does not desire any to be destroyed but desires people to repent and live.

I thought I explained it pretty well in one of my post that that test was not unfair, tempting or burdensome. The test did not become a temptation until Satan tempted Eve. The Playboy analogy was not even close to the test God set up in the garden.

Yes the penalty of death given to Adam did pass to all of his descendants but God has provided a way to undo the effects of sin and death by given his only begotten son. Exercising faith in Jesus and following whats outlined in the Bible allows our sins to be continually forgiven.
Act 3:19 states:
“19 Repent, therefore, and turn around so as to get your sins blotted out.”

Ezekiel 33:16 states:
“16 None of his sins with which he has sinned will be remembered against him. Justice and righteousness are what he has carried on. He will positively keep living.”

1 John 1:7 states:
“However, if we are walking in the light as he himself is in the light, we do have a sharing with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.”

Those are just a few scriptures that shows that once God forgives us of a sin they are blotted out just like you would use Wite-Out to remove text on a piece of paper. They are wiped away and not called to God’s mind. And if you’re walking in the light meaning if you’re in an approved state by God, Jesus’ sacrifice continually cleanses us of sin. Now that is a loving God.

God would never burn and torment even the worst sinner forever in a place called Hell. Capped, there is no place called Hell mentioned anywhere in the Bible. When one dies and pays the penalty that they inherited from Adam they are given a clean slate. There sins are blotted out, wiped away. Acts 24:15 states “that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” So people who were bad before they died are going to get a second chance. How can that be? Roman 6:23 states that the “wages sin pays is death” so once one has died they have payed the price for sinning by dying. That’s why Romans 6:7(NIV) states “anyone who has died has been freed from sin.”
Capped, can you see how loving that is? The penalty that was given to Adam was dying and returning to dust not burning forever in a place of torment. Romans 5:12 states that through one man sin entered into the world and death(returning back to dust)through sin, thus death spread to all men. This death that spread to all Adam’s descendant passed to us due to no fault of our own. So that is why when one dies God is going to give that person a second chance and if one is in an approved state with God, when he removes the wicked that are still alive(ones who have not paid the Adamic penalty) at armegeddon those in an approved state will survive. That is love.

I can understand you thinking a God that would burn sinners forever in Hell is evil. But this is not what the Bible teaches. That teaching slanders and maligns God because it is false. The teaching that God takes a mother or father from a child to be with him in heaven is another teaching that slanders and maligns God because it is not what the Bible teaches and it is false.

The God I’ve come to know and love from what’s in the Bible is a loving God that is patient and quick to forgive. He would never burn someone for all eternity for being bad 30 or 40 years and he would never cause the death of someone to be with him in heaven.

Capped, God created the universe along with the sun and earth before he created anything on earth. So yes the sun was necessary for plants to grow. And just because we don’t understand something doesn’t mean that it’s not true. Scientist do not understand the whole birth process. They don’t understand what makes sperm travel to the egg and what causes the egg to divide and start to form a fetus. They can observe the process but they don’t understand and can’t explain exactly what starts it and why. You still believe that humans are born everyday don’t you? So just because we can’t fully explain or understand something does not mean that it is not true.[/quote]

I was reading your post, and was trying to think what happens to a person who dies and does not follow Jesus. I remembered what you said. They just turn to dust. Nothing else happens to them. Have I interpreted you right this time?[/quote]
That is exactly what the Bible says happens. That is the Adamic penalty which was clearly stated to Adam by God at Genesis 3:19 which states that out of the ground Adam was taken “For dust you are and to dust you will return.” He did not state “your body will return to dust but your soul or spirit will be tormented forever in fire.” As a matter of fact Genesis 2:7 clearly states how man was made. The verse states that God proceded to form the man from dust of the ground. It does not state that man is formed from dust, spirit and a soul.

Once a human dies the Bible states there thoughts and emotions cease so they could not burn in a place of torment.
Ecclesiastes 9:5,6,10(NIV) states:
5 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten. 6 Their love, their hate and their jealousy have long since vanished; never again will they have a part in anything that happens under the sun
verse 10 states:
10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom."
Those verses show that the dead have no emotion or thinking capabilities once they die.

Psalms 146:3(NIV) states:
“3 Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. 4 When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing.”
Those verses show that once they die their spirit or life-force leaves their body they return to the ground or dust and their plans or thoughts cease.

Ezekiel 18:3(NIV) states:
“3 For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.”
This verses shows that a living soul or person dies.

Ecclesiastes 3:20,21(NIV)
Man’s fate is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath (the footnote for breath at Bible.com states: Or spirit, my Bible translates breath as spirit) ;man has no advantage over the animal. Everything is meaningless. 20 All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return.”
Those verses show that at death man is not superior to the animals because they both have the same spirit and the same elements from dust that God used to make man he used to make animals and once both die they go to the same place which is dust.

Those are just a few scriptures that show once a human dies they return to dust and their thoughts cease so they could not be tormented in Hell or haunt anyone. So yes D the ghost that people see are wicked spirit beings and not dead people.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]

He wasn’t talking about “words”. He was talking about Jesus.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]

Look farther down in John 1.

because in context John 1:14 identifies that the word became flesh, and then it finishes up by identifying the word as Christ

"14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only,[d] who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

15John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ " 16From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. 17For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ”.

as well as John 1:2-3, which are also in line with col 1:15-19 which states that He created all things.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:
Why did God create the serpent in the first place (especially with the capabilities it had)?

Here’s an analogy: Say I have a kid and he turns 13 years old. At the house, we are all sitting around when I show him a playboy. I tell him “you cannot look at this or touch this, it is mine and mine alone”. I leave the room, but send in my brother in law who I know likes to tell my kids to do things they shouldn’t. He tells him “it’s okay to read, why would he have put it there in the first place”. When I come back and find out my kid has read it, I blame him INSTEAD of playing my brother in law. I kick my son out of my house.

See why the Adam and Eve story doesn’t make much sense? I know my 13 year old boy would die to see the playboy. So what do I do? I send in the brother in law to just make sure he fails. God did the same thing with the creation of the snake.
[/quote]

Exactly.

Or you could have just put the playboy in your room and locked the door. Or not shown it to him at all. Or any of a number of things which would have saved your son from punishment.

Fact is, what it really boils down to, is that the god of the Christian bible is evil. He wants to send people to hell.

He creates a forbidden tree to “test” his new creations (because its not enough to give them free will, now you have to play games with it), and sends his “enemy” to tempt them (of course, knowing exactly what was going to happen) to eat it. And when they do, he punishes not only them but the rest of humanity forever.

Evil.

He creates the world in a way that is totally impossble according to the way the world works now. He creates plants first, then then sun, then makes plants dependant on the sun for survival – leading any rational, thinking person to believe that the sun had to come first.

He “pre-dates” the earth, so that things on it will show themselves to be much older than his holy book says they are. This totally unnecessarily causes the observable data about the world around us to conflict with the Bible (why couldn’t god just make things that are 6000 years old LOOK like they’re 6000 years old? why the games?). This causes humans to choose between an ancient book and the reliable data in front of them - and if they choose the data (which God has chosen to make confusing)? They go to hell.

The christian god is apparently full of setting his “most loved” creations up for excuses to send them to eternal pain and torment. [/quote]

Do you have children? I am going to assume no. Watch a child when you tell them do not touch that it is hot. If you do not grab them they will look at you and at the same time reach their hand closer to the fire until it burns them. I told him not to touch the flame, but he did it anyway. He disobeyed me on purpose. Was this my fault or was it his? I would say this is the same thing that God did with Adam and Eve.[/quote]

And when he sent plagues, demanded sacrifices, ordered mass murder, sent a flood - does your analogy hold still? Of course, assuming he did any of those things, because those actions are contained within your scripture. What if your scripture is wrong?

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]

They don’t want to hear this, but thanks for making the effort.

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Please provide support for the authorship of Revelation and evidence that it was “divinely” inspired.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB[/quote]
Yes the penalties for adultery and fornication back in the days of the Israelites were tough. God dealt differently with the nation of Israel than he does with the Christian congregation. This was to keep the Iraelites morally and spiritually clean so God clearly stated what they could and could not do along with the penalty for breaking the commands. Remember the promised seed Jesus was going to come from the nation of Israel so God put these measures in place to ensure that the commands would be followed and that the seed would be produced.

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[quote]cueball wrote:

[quote]BackInAction wrote:

[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]

Ok. Fair enough. However, you realize this does bring us back to the question of wether we can ever understand God in the first place or not, right? And by extension, if you as an agnostic can’t fully comprehend God, you choose not to believe. I as a theist know I won’t ever fully comprehend, and realize this is what makes Him so great and capable of everything I believe.

So am I wrong for following something I can’t fully understand, just because I can’t fully understand it? Have you ever followed your “gut”, even though your gut didn’t explain it to you?[/quote]

I agree that we cannot truly know God if he exists. There are many mysteries in this universe and assuming we will discover everything is arrogant.

I’m not here to judge you or your “gut” feeling. I can tell you I’ve follow my “gut” for many different things, but not all of them have been correct or turned out how I wanted. So while I still listen to my “gut” (as it’s usually right), I think through why I should follow it.[/quote]

I would say that is what Christians do. We have a “gut” feeling, but we have to make sure that gut feeling is in line with scripture. If it is not inline with scripture it is not from God. You see where I am coming from?[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. My only concern is if people use scripture as their only source. If other sources conflict with scripture, one should be ready to give it up and accept it’s not perfect. That does not mean people should lose faith, but they should lose faith in the teachings from their scripture.
[/quote]

That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

If scripture told you to do an act you personally find reprehensible, would you still do it?

If you do the act, you would be sacrificing your personal morals and humanity. If you don’t do the act, you are sacrificing your faith. Which is more important to you?[/quote]

Give me an example.[/quote]

“If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.”
-Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB[/quote]

That is under the law. Christians are not under the law, but grace. Jesus has said that he who has no sin cast the first stone. I personally have sin so I will not be the judge and jury.

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
That is hard to do. If you look at John 1:1 Jesus is refered to as the Word. The Word is the Bible, so if you are going to stop beleiving in the Bible you have to lose faith in Jesus. I beleive that you use the word as a lamp unto you feet and a light unto your path. There are also doctrines passed down by the church that are in line with the scriptures that we also look to. There are tons of books written on the meaning of the Bible every year some of which you can see the link to the Bible and some that are not.

I will say that beleivers in the Bible believe in Heaven and Hell so the thought that you turn to dust is not Biblical. This might be our new topic of discussion. [/quote]

What makes you think John is referring to Jesus in 1:1?

In reference to my previous post about the Aristotelianess of the NT, John 1 is a perfect example. Logos, in a gross oversimplification/mistranslation is rendered “word” in most English translations, but that’s not what it means. Logos is one of those great Aristotle words. Lexis is the word that would have been used if John were talking about words, like “The word of God”.

Logos is more like logic, reason, or order: it’s an abstract concept. Very Aristotelian no?

“In the beginning was reason/logic, and the reason/logic was with the divine, and logic/reason was the divine.” [/quote]

They don’t want to hear this, but thanks for making the effort.[/quote]

Actually it doesn’t really change the meaning or point of the scripture. If we follow with Spartiates translation, John 14 would read:

The reason/logic became flesh and made his dwelling among us. Still refers to Jesus.

Yes, thanks for making the effort.

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Revelation says a lot of things, and like I said before, it was written by a John Doe with no relation to Jesus, and perhaps a tangential relationship to some of the Apostles’ apostles.

Just take John as a text in itself. You all are bringing too much to the table, and not taking the text at face value, and also reading from translations with hundreds of years of dogma behind them.

The text basically gives us the origin of reason (I’m not giving the entire Spartiates translation of John), but to paraphrase it says that reason/logic was made corporal (of the world of man), and encamped itself amongst us, we behold reason’s glory as the product of the father, which is full of good quality and truth (reason is good and brings truth). And this (reason) we all receive, grace for grace.

then John: 17: For the custom was given through Moses, but that which is pleasing and true (truth) through Joshua the good.

Joshua (Jesus) looks to be a teacher of divine logic/reason.

It’s a vastly different narrative than the one most Sunday Schools teach when you stop inferring the Logos refers to Joshua the good, and is instead what is itself being brought/given to the people through Joshua.

Edit: I’m not going to be hurt if you don’t like my translation, but I would suggest that you check all preconceived notions on Christianity at the door, and read John as a text unto itself and see what you get. Take it at face value.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Revelation says a lot of things, and like I said before, it was written by a John Doe with no relation to Jesus, and perhaps a tangential relationship to some of the Apostles’ apostles.

Just take John as a text in itself. You all are bringing too much to the table, and not taking the text at face value, and also reading from translations with hundreds of years of dogma behind them.

The text basically gives us the origin of reason (I’m not giving the entire Spartiates translation of John), but to paraphrase it says that reason/logic was made corporal (of the world of man), and encamped itself amongst us, we behold reason’s glory as the product of the father, which is full of good quality and truth (reason is good and brings truth). And this (reason) we all receive, grace for grace.

then John: 17: For the custom was given through Moses, but that which is pleasing and true (truth) through Joshua the good.

Joshua (Jesus) looks to be a teacher of divine logic/reason.

It’s a vastly different narrative than the one most Sunday Schools teach when you stop inferring the Logos refers to Joshua the good, and is instead what is itself being brought/given to the people through Joshua.[/quote]

Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.

[quote]Spartiates wrote:

[quote]mse2us wrote:
Revelation 19:13 identifies Jesus as “The Word of God.”[/quote]

Revelation says a lot of things, and like I said before, it was written by a John Doe with no relation to Jesus, and perhaps a tangential relationship to some of the Apostles’ apostles.

Just take John as a text in itself. You all are bringing too much to the table, and not taking the text at face value, and also reading from translations with hundreds of years of dogma behind them.

The text basically gives us the origin of reason (I’m not giving the entire Spartiates translation of John), but to paraphrase it says that reason/logic was made corporal (of the world of man), and encamped itself amongst us, we behold reason’s glory as the product of the father, which is full of good quality and truth (reason is good and brings truth). And this (reason) we all receive, grace for grace.

then John: 17: For the custom was given through Moses, but that which is pleasing and true (truth) through Joshua the good.

Joshua (Jesus) looks to be a teacher of divine logic/reason.

It’s a vastly different narrative than the one most Sunday Schools teach when you stop inferring the Logos refers to Joshua the good, and is instead what is itself being brought/given to the people through Joshua.[/quote]

Can you explain how this is “vastly” different. To me it delivers the same message as the translation in, for example, the NIV. It just isn’t in “layman’s terms”. All you have done is replaced Word with reason/logic. The message and meaning are still the same.