Your Internal Moral Compass

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
The Christians attempt to convince the Atheists with logic. The Atheists try to convince Christians with Bastardized scripture. One plays scissors against rock, the other plays Paper against Scissors. Can scissors pierce the heart of a non-believer if his heart is hardened like a rock?

‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.’-Hebrews 3:15

Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34

‘From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.’ -Revelation 19: 15

[/quote]
Quoting scripture to atheists makes about as much sense as reading “Green Eggs and Ham” to them. Scripture has no meaning without God.
Pearls among swine…

182

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
The Christians attempt to convince the Atheists with logic. The Atheists try to convince Christians with Bastardized scripture. One plays scissors against rock, the other plays Paper against Scissors. Can scissors pierce the heart of a non-believer if his heart is hardened like a rock?

‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.’-Hebrews 3:15

Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34

‘From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.’ -Revelation 19: 15

[/quote]
Quoting scripture to atheists makes about as much sense as reading “Green Eggs and Ham” to them. Scripture has no meaning without God.
Pearls among swine…[/quote]

Quoting logic to Christians makes about as much sense as reading “Where’s Waldo” to them.

183

[quote]
Quoting logic to Christians makes about as much sense as reading “Where’s Waldo” to them.[/quote]

Well…
Without the scholastic philosophers of the medieval Church, you wouldn’t even know that logic exist.
Or you would have learned it via your local imam.

The first intellectual duty of an atheist should be to recognize the christian roots of our culture. It runs deeper than most of us think it does. For the better AND for the worse.

184

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
The Christians attempt to convince the Atheists with logic. The Atheists try to convince Christians with Bastardized scripture. One plays scissors against rock, the other plays Paper against Scissors. Can scissors pierce the heart of a non-believer if his heart is hardened like a rock?

‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.’-Hebrews 3:15

Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34

‘From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.’ -Revelation 19: 15

[/quote]
Quoting scripture to atheists makes about as much sense as reading “Green Eggs and Ham” to them. Scripture has no meaning without God.
Pearls among swine…[/quote]

Quoting logic to Christians makes about as much sense as reading “Where’s Waldo” to them.[/quote]

If you just had pervasive spelling and grammatical errors I would bet my left thumb you were pitttbull using an alter-ego.

Then again, I’m not so certain pitttbull could figure out how to create an alter-ego.

185

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Quoting logic to Christians makes about as much sense as reading “Where’s Waldo” to them.[/quote]

Let’s see your logic. Put your money where your mouth is ,oh brilliant one. Go on, dazzle me!

186

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
The Christians attempt to convince the Atheists with logic. The Atheists try to convince Christians with Bastardized scripture. One plays scissors against rock, the other plays Paper against Scissors. Can scissors pierce the heart of a non-believer if his heart is hardened like a rock?

‘Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion.’-Hebrews 3:15

Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34

‘From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.’ -Revelation 19: 15

[/quote]
Quoting scripture to atheists makes about as much sense as reading “Green Eggs and Ham” to them. Scripture has no meaning without God.
Pearls among swine…[/quote]

Quoting logic to Christians makes about as much sense as reading “Where’s Waldo” to them.[/quote]

If you just had pervasive spelling and grammatical errors I would bet my left thumb you were pitttbull using an alter-ego.

Then again, I’m not so certain pitttbull could figure out how to create an alter-ego.
[/quote]

I wouldn’t be surprised…You have a knack for flushing them out…

187

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34
[/quote]

Just starting with this one – if you could have taken a quote more out of context in the bible then misconstrued it’s meaning more, I don’t know how.

Jesus is quoting the book of Micah (7:6) at this point and informing them, in line with Jewish prophecy, that discord would be the effect of the arrival of the Messiah. The “sword” in this case referred to the Romans. Until the Jews all were unified they would be subject to Roman oppression. Again, Jesus was talking to an audience well acquainted with the OT and was making a direct reference to it.

Another famous missed quote is from Romans 13:11 - 14, where reference is made to a “sword of light” (also softened in the King James translations as “armor of light”.) At a time when people lived in fear of swords, the concept of spreading peace and harmony as if with a sword would have been both jarring and supremely inspirational.

– jj

188

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34
[/quote]

Just starting with this one – if you could have taken a quote more out of context in the bible then misconstrued it’s meaning more, I don’t know how.

Jesus is quoting the book of Micah (7:6) at this point and informing them, in line with Jewish prophecy, that discord would be the effect of the arrival of the Messiah. The “sword” in this case referred to the Romans. Until the Jews all were unified they would be subject to Roman oppression. Again, Jesus was talking to an audience well acquainted with the OT and was making a direct reference to it.

Another famous missed quote is from Romans 13:11 - 14, where reference is made to a “sword of light” (also softened in the King James translations as “armor of light”.) At a time when people lived in fear of swords, the concept of spreading peace and harmony as if with a sword would have been both jarring and supremely inspirational.

– jj[/quote]

See folks, JJ appears to have read the bible, at least most of it. This is what it looks like when you have. There is an understanding of it inherent to reading it. He understands the history, the intended audience and the context of the texts. Makes a huge difference in understanding.
Like I said, it’s easy to tell the difference.

Sorry JJ, I was using you to illustrate a different point than what you mentioned.

189

[quote]pat wrote:
Sorry JJ, I was using you to illustrate a different point than what you mentioned. [/quote]

No trouble at all.

Now if you really want to get on Atheist’s nerves, point out to them that the separation of Church and State was ordained by none other than Christ himself (“render unto Caesar…” Matthew 22:21). Hence their insistence puts them in the company exactly of good Christians everywhere. And, BTW, this separation is very peculiar to Christianity. Muslims find it one of the most abominable things about the West and attempts to secularize their countries end up always looking like some Christian plot to undermine Islam. Ditto for Hinduism.

This is why an honest understanding of Christian thinking is essential, regardless of what your religious bent is. Much of what passes for morality in the West is actually only partially secularized Christian thinking. Taking it out of its context has been a terrific source of misery in the world. Simple example: the butchering by the Communists in the name of equality was precisely the Christian concept of all being equal before God run amok, but with the State taking on His role. Other societies don’t even have a word for equality in this social sense and had to take it as a cognate. This is just one small instance.

– jj

190

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]fibroblaster wrote:Can reading the Bible like its paper fight against one who’s armed with scissors? Bastardized Scripture is paper. But Scripture unveiled is like a Divine Sword. It is written:

‘I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword’ -Matthew 10: 34
[/quote]

Just starting with this one – if you could have taken a quote more out of context in the bible then misconstrued it’s meaning more, I don’t know how.

Jesus is quoting the book of Micah (7:6) at this point and informing them, in line with Jewish prophecy, that discord would be the effect of the arrival of the Messiah. The “sword” in this case referred to the Romans. Until the Jews all were unified they would be subject to Roman oppression. Again, Jesus was talking to an audience well acquainted with the OT and was making a direct reference to it.

Another famous missed quote is from Romans 13:11 - 14, where reference is made to a “sword of light” (also softened in the King James translations as “armor of light”.) At a time when people lived in fear of swords, the concept of spreading peace and harmony as if with a sword would have been both jarring and supremely inspirational.

– jj[/quote]

You are completely incorrect. The “sword” is the WORD OF GOD. Why do you think it comes out of Jesus’ mouth in the book of revelation? Instead of regurgitating elementary theological explanations why don’t you read the Bible with your own critical thoughts? You seem to think I have never heard that explanation ever.

191

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Sorry JJ, I was using you to illustrate a different point than what you mentioned. [/quote]

No trouble at all.

Now if you really want to get on Atheist’s nerves, point out to them that the separation of Church and State was ordained by none other than Christ himself (“render unto Caesar…” Matthew 22:21). Hence their insistence puts them in the company exactly of good Christians everywhere. And, BTW, this separation is very peculiar to Christianity. Muslims find it one of the most abominable things about the West and attempts to secularize their countries end up always looking like some Christian plot to undermine Islam. Ditto for Hinduism.

This is why an honest understanding of Christian thinking is essential, regardless of what your religious bent is. Much of what passes for morality in the West is actually only partially secularized Christian thinking. Taking it out of its context has been a terrific source of misery in the world. Simple example: the butchering by the Communists in the name of equality was precisely the Christian concept of all being equal before God run amok, but with the State taking on His role. Other societies don’t even have a word for equality in this social sense and had to take it as a cognate. This is just one small instance.

– jj[/quote]

Jesus did not intend on a “separation of Church and State”. How is it possible that people claim to have read scripture think this? It is written:

Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”-Matthe 19:21

When Jesus said

‘Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and give to God what is God’s’

what do you think he meant by this? He meant money is a worldly thing. God isn’t a money sort of guy. The reason he told them to give to caesar what is caesar’s was twofold:

  1. The Jews were trying to trap Jesus with a rigged question. If Jesus says you don’t have to pay taxes, then he would be in some serious trouble with the Romans. If he says you have to pay taxes, then he would have been stoned for speaking out against the Jews. However, if you have no money and don’t rely on money, how can you pay taxes? Do you think John the Baptist "rendered to Caesar what is Caesars? It is said:

‘Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey’-Matthew 3:4

Does this sound like a man who was BALLIN? Do you think he paid money for Locusts and Wild Honey? Is Camel’s hair an expensive garment?

  1. The kingdom of God is not of this world. God doesn’t rely on money. In our world, we do because money is the only thing this world accepts as a means to live. So Caesar, whom the Romans regarded as God, was a “god” of this world.

This had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

192

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Quoting logic to Christians makes about as much sense as reading “Where’s Waldo” to them.[/quote]

If you just had pervasive spelling and grammatical errors I would bet my left thumb you were pitttbull using an alter-ego.

Then again, I’m not so certain pitttbull could figure out how to create an alter-ego.
[/quote]Yeah, but that was pretty funny LOL!! Reading where’s waldo LOL!!

193

Hey Pat,

The link you provided (Stanford philosophy encyclopedia) listed a few counter-arguments to the contingency-cosmological argument (of course you know this since you provided the link). A Google search returned numerous other counter-arguments. As well as counter-counter-arguments, counter-counter-counter-arguments, ad nauseum (I like to call this the "dance of the PhD propeller head philosophers).

But clearly, you discount all counter-arguments proposed as not strong enough and I don’t consider myself adequately trained to defend the various counter-arguments written by PhD egghead philosophers. Not to mention that I’m not an atheist, so I find it somewhat difficult to play “devil’s advocate” on behalf of real atheists to a great extent.

Anyhoo, as you’ve spent a considerable amount of time investigating the contingency-cosmological argument…

What are your thoughts on the idea that matter may fit the bill as a “necessary entity” and all contingent things arise from it?

The infinite regression (time) aspect may possibly be eliminated if it’s true that matter cannot be created or destroyed (if this is a “hard truth”, then matter has always existed and always will). (I know this quick question is VERY simplified; university intelligentsia types write lengthy books on the subject)

194

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
I was raised a Christian and still am one. I’m not brainwashed. I’ve figured out that this world is too complicated for all of it to happen by accident. There’s your rational and intelligent thought.

CS[/quote]
[/quote]

So because something seems designed or planned to you, it must be?

Instead of rationalizing your beliefs, how about you look at the evidence?[/quote]

So are you trying to call me stupid and brainwashed because I believe in God?

I was staring to like you, but now you’ve just come across like every other asshole Athiest I’ve met. You think because you have science behind you that you’re 100% right 100% of the time. I don’t go out of my way to criticize you for being a non-believer.

This may come across as Agnostic-like, but here goes. You simply can’t prove that God does or doesn’t exist. There has been no scientific study or experiment that has come out and said: “There is no such thing as God; He doesn’t exist.” There has also not been someone to come out and say: “There is a God; He exists.”

This is all a matter of belief, not fact. You’re obviously upset and offended by my beliefs. You can grow up and get off of your soapbox now.

CS

195

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

So are you trying to call me stupid and brainwashed because I believe in God?[/quote]

NO.

I’m trying to get you to take a closer look at your beliefs and how you came to them. I posed the question the way I did to show the flaw in your reasoning. It was not meant to be condescending. I’m sorry you took it that way.

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

I was staring to like you, but now you’ve just come across like every other asshole Athiest I’ve met. You think because you have science behind you that you’re 100% right 100% of the time. I don’t go out of my way to criticize you for being a non-believer. [/quote]

If there’s anything you want to discuss about my position I’m open to it.

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

This may come across as Agnostic-like, but here goes. You simply can’t prove that God does or doesn’t exist. There has been no scientific study or experiment that has come out and said: “There is no such thing as God; He doesn’t exist.” There has also not been someone to come out and say: “There is a God; He exists.”

This is all a matter of belief, not fact. You’re obviously upset and offended by my beliefs. You can grow up and get off of your soapbox now.
CS[/quote]

I’ve explained this several times already, Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive positions. I am an agnostic atheist. Let me paste this for you because I don’t want to type it again.

Q: What’s the difference between agnosticism and atheism?

A: It has to do with the difference between what you believe and what you think you know. For any particular god that you can imagine, a “theist” is one who has a belief in that god. In contrast, an “atheist” is one who does not have a belief in the god. A “gnostic” is one who knows about the existence of god and an “agnostic” is one who thinks that god is unknowable.

Notice that the terms “atheist” and “agnostic”, by these definitions, are not mutually exclusive. You could be an agnostic atheist, meaning you don’t think that the existence of gods is knowable, but you don’t choose to believe in one without further proof. Many people assume that atheists believe that gods can be proved not to exist, but this isn’t strictly true and there is no proper word to describe this. You could call such a person an “untheist”, perhaps. Or, you could just call such a person a “gnostic atheist”, one who doesn’t believe in a god and thinks that his non-belief can be proved.

So there are four possible ways one could be.

  1. Agnostic-Theist: believes god exists, but the existence of a god is unknowable
  2. Gnostic-Theist: believes in a god for which he claims knowledge
  3. Agnostic-Atheist: does not believe god exists, but it can’t be proved
  4. Gnostic-Atheist: believes it can be proved that god does not exist

Case 3 is sometimes referred to as “weak atheism” and case 4 is sometimes referred to as “strong atheism”. Only strong atheism positively asserts that there are no gods.

Finally, it should be pointed out that when a person is asked about their beliefs and replies that they are agnostic, they are avoiding the question and answering a different one. Someone who can’t positively say he/she believes in a god is an atheist.

196

[quote]jj-dude wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:
Sorry JJ, I was using you to illustrate a different point than what you mentioned. [/quote]

No trouble at all.

Now if you really want to get on Atheist’s nerves, point out to them that the separation of Church and State was ordained by none other than Christ himself (“render unto Caesar…” Matthew 22:21). Hence their insistence puts them in the company exactly of good Christians everywhere. And, BTW, this separation is very peculiar to Christianity. Muslims find it one of the most abominable things about the West and attempts to secularize their countries end up always looking like some Christian plot to undermine Islam. Ditto for Hinduism.

This is why an honest understanding of Christian thinking is essential, regardless of what your religious bent is. Much of what passes for morality in the West is actually only partially secularized Christian thinking. Taking it out of its context has been a terrific source of misery in the world. Simple example: the butchering by the Communists in the name of equality was precisely the Christian concept of all being equal before God run amok, but with the State taking on His role. Other societies don’t even have a word for equality in this social sense and had to take it as a cognate. This is just one small instance.

– jj[/quote]

Well, I don’t seem to have an issue getting on people’s nerves… It’s that inherent knowledge in the scenario you described… That’s the difference between commenting on the bible out of knowledge, vs. hearsay. You know by presentation…

197

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:

[quote]CSEagles1694 wrote:
I was raised a Christian and still am one. I’m not brainwashed. I’ve figured out that this world is too complicated for all of it to happen by accident. There’s your rational and intelligent thought.

CS[/quote]
[/quote]

So because something seems designed or planned to you, it must be?

Instead of rationalizing your beliefs, how about you look at the evidence?[/quote]

So are you trying to call me stupid and brainwashed because I believe in God?

I was staring to like you, but now you’ve just come across like every other asshole Athiest I’ve met. You think because you have science behind you that you’re 100% right 100% of the time. I don’t go out of my way to criticize you for being a non-believer.

This may come across as Agnostic-like, but here goes. You simply can’t prove that God does or doesn’t exist. There has been no scientific study or experiment that has come out and said: “There is no such thing as God; He doesn’t exist.” There has also not been someone to come out and say: “There is a God; He exists.”

This is all a matter of belief, not fact. You’re obviously upset and offended by my beliefs. You can grow up and get off of your soapbox now.

CS[/quote]

The root of the problems of disagreements has nothing to do with God existing or not. The arguments usually end up there because its the only thing that both sides can never prove or disprove, not now or ever. The only exception is if God decides to reveal himself one day, so Christians have that advantage. There is no Atheist equivalent to that event.

198

[quote]ranengin wrote:
Hey Pat,

The link you provided (Stanford philosophy encyclopedia) listed a few counter-arguments to the contingency-cosmological argument (of course you know this since you provided the link). A Google search returned numerous other counter-arguments. As well as counter-counter-arguments, counter-counter-counter-arguments, ad nauseum (I like to call this the "dance of the PhD propeller head philosophers).

But clearly, you discount all counter-arguments proposed as not strong enough and I don’t consider myself adequately trained to defend the various counter-arguments written by PhD egghead philosophers. Not to mention that I’m not an atheist, so I find it somewhat difficult to play “devil’s advocate” on behalf of real atheists to a great extent.

Anyhoo, as you’ve spent a considerable amount of time investigating the contingency-cosmological argument…

What are your thoughts on the idea that matter may fit the bill as a “necessary entity” and all contingent things arise from it?
[/quote]
There are a couple that come to mind. The first and largest, is that the argument is circular. It is, because it is. Second, we already know matter has dependence to exist. It must have a dimensional existence and it must move. Third, it must occupy space. The uncaused-cause, by definition, cannot be dependent on anything, so that automatically counts it out. There is another counter-argument, but it’s kinda minutia and redundant.

[quote]
The infinite regression (time) aspect may possibly be eliminated if it’s true that matter cannot be created or destroyed (if this is a “hard truth”, then matter has always existed and always will). (I know this quick question is VERY simplified; university intelligentsia types write lengthy books on the subject)[/quote]

Actually the second law of thermodynamics has 3 scenarios. One is an open system and information comes and goes as it pleases. Two, things can things can leave but nothing can come in. And three, where information is neither gained or lost, created or destroyed. This universe is thought to be a closed system which means we can lose info, but not gain…
But infinite regression isn’t really an issue of scope, but it’s just a plain logical fallacy. The key word is regression, not infinite. Infinity exists just fine, it’s just that regression cannot be infinite, it begs the question.

Good stuff.

199

Causality is also something only observed in our universe. There is nothing to say its rules still apply outside the universe which includes the point before it began.