User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 97

  1. #71
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    They believed it was flat not long before Columbus decided to test the theory in 1492.
    you guys are both right. the greeks had good reason to believe that it was round. So i think by the time of columbus (not sure though bout Jesus's time) it was more about:

    avg lay person: thought it flat
    educated: thought it round.

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    you guys are both right. the greeks had good reason to believe that it was round. So i think by the time of columbus (not sure though bout Jesus's time) it was more about:

    avg lay person: thought it flat
    educated: thought it round.
    Were those people the educated Greeks? No.

    They thought it was flat. Just like they thought that there was a God.
    I am an ENTJ. I hate political correctness but love smart people ^_^

  3. #73
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    ya but who says its not? in the past week ive asked a number of people IRL who i used to trust based on how much theyve studied the Bible, and none of them gave agreeing answers on the nature of:

    -how sin is payed for through Jesus (subsitution, legalist, 'as long as theres bloodshed' etc...)
    -if there is an eternal hell, no eternal hell, a short term hell, a last chance for all at the resurreciton etc...

    these people werent even "amatures". they were all non-denominational pastors or people who make faith ministry part of their livlihood. And yet non of them agreed (i didnt ask them all in front of each other, no arguing or anything).

    This only leads back to one of my main points. An omnipotent God, has this all important message, and he chooses to limit himself to this 2000 year old book that even his own followers can't agree on. Its sounding more and more ridiculous as i press on...
    Every denomination (and really every person) uses a different criteria for how they reach their theological conclusions. If you want to know the answer then you need to know how they reached their conclusions. Pick the person who used the process most similar to the one that you would like to use.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  4. #74
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Babylon Candle,

    You state that 'all ancient civilizations have stories that link "their own" culture straight to "the true God".' That is not true, most ancient civilisations were polytheistic, even the ancient Hebrews. The Old Testament, or at least the first books, seem to implicitly assume the existence of other Gods. For example, the God of the Hebrews is described as being more powerful than the Gods of the Egyptians, and the first commandment says 'you shall have no other God before me', not 'you shall have no God other than me, and I am the only one that exists anyway'. The Old Testament also includes passages describing the Hebrews continued polytheism, after the exodus from Egypt.

    What this means for Christian theology is not my concern here (though it is very interesting to consider). My point is merely that your assumption is false. Moreover, the Gods of most ancient cultures were capricious, uncaring and often cruel to humans; there were no chosen people, only those who appeased the wrathful Gods and those who didn't. The emerging monotheism of the Hebrews, coupled with the belief in a more loving and caring God (at least for his own people), was quite a novel development for the time. Ahkenaten's worship of Aten was, perhaps, a precursor, albeit unsuccessful, whereas Zoroastrianism didn't really get going until a little later.

    Anyway, here is a thought to ponder: there are no problems with the Bible, only with interpretations.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  5. #75
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    They believed it was flat not long before Columbus decided to test the theory in 1492.
    yeah, if by 'not long before' you mean 18 centuries prior.
    I don't wanna!

  6. #76
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Were those people the educated Greeks? No.
    They thought it was flat. Just like they thought that there was a God.
    If you'd like to make some rational arguments involving fact, don't hold back on my account.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #77
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IlyaK1986 View Post
    Were those people the educated Greeks? No.

    They thought it was flat. Just like they thought that there was a God.
    Eratosthenes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I'm not trying to prove you wrong, of course. I just think Erastosthenes is kickass.

  8. #78
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by reason View Post
    Babylon Candle,

    You state that 'all ancient civilizations have stories that link "their own" culture straight to "the true God".' That is not true, most ancient civilisations were polytheistic, even the ancient Hebrews. The Old Testament, or at least the first books, seem to implicitly assume the existence of other Gods. For example, the God of the Hebrews is described as being more powerful than the Gods of the Egyptians, and the first commandment says 'you shall have no other God before me', not 'you shall have no God other than me, and I am the only one that exists anyway'. The Old Testament also includes passages describing the Hebrews continued polytheism, after the exodus from Egypt.

    What this means for Christian theology is not my concern here (though it is very interesting to consider). My point is merely that your assumption is false. Moreover, the Gods of most ancient cultures were capricious, uncaring and often cruel to humans; there were no chosen people, only those who appeased the wrathful Gods and those who didn't. The emerging monotheism of the Hebrews, coupled with the belief in a more loving and caring God (at least for his own people), was quite a novel development for the time. Ahkenaten's worship of Aten was, perhaps, a precursor, albeit unsuccessful, whereas Zoroastrianism didn't really get going until a little later.

    Anyway, here is a thought to ponder: there are no problems with the Bible, only with some interpretations.
    wait, you don't see any problems with the ancient hebrews being polythiestic as you assert? How does this not work out poorly for Christianity? If Judaism can't be differentiated between any other ancient race that wanted to make up some creation stories that linked itself to the beginning and its kings to the supernatural, then what basis does the NT have in hijacking this ancient religion?

    The old testament God is nothing like the God of the new testament. Anyone who asserts the Bible to be perfect (even with your bit on interpretation), I would strongly suggest you take a look at the skeptics annotated Bible. Same Bible, except that someone has actually compiled all the crap thats wrong with inconsistencies, cruelty and violence etc:

    Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

    Is it going to be biased, yes. But its still the Bible they are highlighting and marking up etc...




    i am willing to admit my faults in my ORIGINAL argument. However, at a second attempt:

    Do you still disagree with the idea that many ancient cultures poly or mono theistic, had a set of creation stories/myths that described earlier times of their peoples and often linked their kings/rulers to some sort of divine appointment?

    I dont see how Judaism really differentiates itself. And i would have to disagree with you about the OT God not desiring appeasement and being cruel:

    This is talking about making an offering of a MAN and Beast to God:

    Numbers 31:26-27
    31:26 Take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:
    31:27 And divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation:
    31:28 And levy a tribute unto the Lord of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:
    Here an offering of Gold and Jewelry is being offered:
    Numbers
    31:50 We have therefore brought an oblation for the LORD, what every man hath gotten, of jewels of gold, chains, and bracelets, rings, earrings, and tablets, to make an atonement for our souls before the LORD.
    31:51 And Moses and Eleazar the priest took the gold of them, even all wrought jewels.
    31:52 And all the gold of the offering that they offered up to the LORD, of the captains of thousands, and of the captains of hundreds, was sixteen thousand seven hundred and fifty shekels.


    general examples of how loving the OT God is compared to the NT:

    If you see a pretty captive, you can take her home with you, "go in unto her", and then kick her out if she isn't satisfying:

    Deuteronomy
    21:11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife;
    21:12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
    21:13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.
    21:14 And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled her.

    Two bears tare 42 children to shreds as a form of Gods justice:

    2 Kings
    2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
    2:24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
    Of the cities God delivers in war, kill all the men, and take the women unto thyself:

    Deutronomy
    20:12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
    20:13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
    20:14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.
    20:15 Thus shalt thou do unto all the cities which are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations.
    20:16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

    If a woman is raped in the city, both she and the man will be stoned to death because she didnt yell loud enough. If she is raped in the countryside, then only the man is stoned to death:

    Deuteronomy
    22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
    22:24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
    22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.
    What the Bible says about clothing and fashions

    Women may not wear men's clothing or vice versa -- it's an "abomination unto the Lord."

    "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God." -- Deuteronomy 22:5

    Women may not braid their hair, wear gold, pearls, or expensive clothing.

    "Women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array." -- 1 Timothy 2:9

    "Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel." -- 1 Peter 3:3

    Don't wear garments with wool and linen blended together.

    "Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together." -- Deuteronomy 22:11

    A man's hair should be short, and a woman's long.

    "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering." -- 1 Corinthians 11:14-15

    God will punish those who wear strange clothes.

    "I will punish ... all such as are clothed with strange apparel. -- Zephaniah 1:8

    Priests must wear linen, not wool, and may not wear any garment that makes them sweat.

    "But the priests ... shall be clothed with linen garments; and no wool shall come upon them. They shall have linen bonnets upon their heads, and shall have linen breeches upon their loins; they shall not gird themselves with any thing that causeth sweat." -- Ezekiel 44:15-18
    I remain with my earlier assertation that if Christians read the OT more frequently (or even at all)...things might be different.

  9. #79
    Glowy Goopy Goodness The_Liquid_Laser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    3,377

    Default

    Babylon Candle,
    The earliest Christians were Jews. When they started accepting Gentiles into their fold, they decided that they weren't required to keep any of the laws or traditions that the Jews were supposed to. This includes circumcision, which for a Jew is the most important requirement to be considered one of God's people. For Gentiles this requirement was removed with all of the others. The Jewish Christians however still observed all of these things. This is summarized fairly well in Acts chapter 15 if you would like to read for yourself.
    My wife and I made a game to teach kids about nutrition. Please try our game and vote for us to win. (Voting period: July 14 - August 14)
    http://www.revoltingvegetables.com

  10. #80
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Babylon Candle, (do you mind if I refer to you as BC?),

    School has kept me occupied for the last few days, and I've been unable to keep up w/ this thread. There's a lot here I'd like to respond to, but I don't have the time. I'll have to restrict myself for now, and I hope to find the time to respond to more of your questions in the future.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    classical theists claim to have quantified God as being omnipotent, omni benevolent and omniscient. I am simply claiming that at least to myself, God is unquantifiable. Maybe he revealed himself to the originals in a quantifiable way as already stated. However, to someone that he is un revealed, i can't really think of a better description other than he is unquantifiable. That is the most basic difference between God and this world as far as we can gather. humans are finite, quantifiable in existence; God is not finite and is unquantifiable. Do you not agree that that sums up the communication problems beautifully?
    Our communication problems? perhaps. Let's see if I can't do something to help clear this up...

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Im willing to admit i dont quite understand. are you saying, "and why cant God use beings destined to be unjust as proof of his justice?" i guess you avoid the cruelty because he wont torture, only destroy the unjust.... i guess if you accept that dichotomies can only be understood when compared with their binary, then yes maybe God HAS to create evil in order to create good. i dont doubt that this may be logical. im just not sure if i can grasp the values behind it...i am yet a mere mortal.
    God does not torture; the wounds endured in hell are self inflicted.

    God cannot create evil. An infinitely powerful God could create the world without evil. An infinitely good God would create the world without evil. If God could and would, then he did. There's some book... can't remember it's name. I think it starts with a "G." Anyway, it says something about God creating the world very good. It might be in the bible... somewhere near the front. Maybe you've heard of it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    so i guess your arguing that there is no torture in hell, because you simply couldnt live apart from God. hell therefore must be your complete death...lack of existence. we wouldnt perceive it. this makes much more sense than there being a hell.
    It was slightly misleading when I wrote that you couldn't get away from God. God is a spirit, a being without extension in space. You cannot get away from God, because God does not have a physical location. However, you cannot get away from God's self revelation. If it is clear that God exists, then if you sought to know the nature of the real, then you would know God; thus, if you don't know God, it cannot be the case that you sought to know the nature of the real. If someone does not want to know the nature of the real, God is under no compulsion to change their minds such that they would come to want to seek to know the nature of the real. And so someone could continue on for all time never seeking, never understanding, and never doing what is right.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    so men are without excuse? the God of the Gaps seems like a weak argument. The world around us awe inspiring, but we have abstractions and explanations that dont NECESSITATE a PERSONAL God. One of the best cosmological arguments ive read was that the universe IS math. The symbols we use for math is our best ability of describing what actually is: i giant math structure. we can explain what happened in less than a second after the big band up to the creation of the earth....a small gap...then we have from cells all the way to us. sure there ARE gaps...but there have always been gaps and the gaps keep getting smaller.

    Even if God is evident in the creation around us, i dont see evidence of a PERSONABLE God, who has a personality and like can actually 'talk to me' if he wants to....
    I'd argue that we don't have abstractions to which we can appeal. All other basic positions are either clearly false, or must argue from silence in order to avoid refutation. But, I'm about to leave for school, and I've not time to outline this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    wait so, what is your opinion of my "flirtation with nihilism"? atheism does not inherently mean nihilist...although i guess secular humanism to some just means avoidance of eventual nihilism...

    am i going insane?

    knowing anything about God seems to be impossible. Feelings can't get us there, logic can't either. Imagination cant get us there, and 5 sense naturalism cant either.

    seriously, how can we ever really get anywhere without making an irrational jump? believers keep telling me that "well obviously you eventually have to make a jump of faith..."

    but if its just a "feeling"...a "faith"....then how can i know its the right one!?
    It's not an irrational jump. It's similar to what reason (the forum member) is saying. And it is what reason, (as the laws of thought), demand. The critical use of reason shows that the metaphysical alternatives to theism either contain a contradiction, or must move to silence in order to avoid ending in contradiction.

Similar Threads

  1. How do we kick countries out of NATO for the offence of the European Army?
    By ilikeitlikethat in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 244
    Last Post: 01-05-2017, 03:57 PM
  2. [Fe] How is Fe a feeling function for the Fe user?
    By Dreamer in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 04-18-2016, 11:05 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-17-2010, 05:24 PM
  4. Replies: 45
    Last Post: 06-17-2009, 08:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO