The Sinister Design Forums

General => General Discussion => Politics => Topic started by: The Holy namelesskitty on September 18, 2010, 08:12:58 PM

Title: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on September 18, 2010, 08:12:58 PM
I hate it when TAFKaBugfartboy and Ducky spam other threads with theological BS so post it here, and stay out of my nose!!!!! (figure of speech)

Scoreboard:

Faith:0
Science:0
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on September 18, 2010, 08:14:44 PM
This is a pointless thread. I hate arguing just for the sake of it.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on September 18, 2010, 08:17:25 PM
Then stop and I might stop embarrassing you two about it.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on September 18, 2010, 08:27:53 PM
I really don't care. It just pops up every now and then.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on September 18, 2010, 08:30:19 PM
Then ignore it, if it works with my siblings it will work with Duckling.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on September 18, 2010, 08:44:11 PM
If what does? I like arguing for the sake of trying to impose my ideology upon others, and asking uncomfortable questions about their beliefs that they can't really have a legit answer to!
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on September 18, 2010, 08:45:03 PM
Duskie-Poo has a bad feeling about this...
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on September 18, 2010, 08:46:01 PM
I'm just kidding, mostly.

But I do like having a good debate every once in a while.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on September 18, 2010, 08:52:09 PM
I'm fine with that, just do it here.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on September 18, 2010, 08:53:48 PM
Well, it just seems to appear that no one wants to debate anything theological, so we can just assume that everyone agrees that Darwin was right, correct?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on September 18, 2010, 08:53:59 PM
It just doesn't look entirely respectful towards each other... I will say no more on this manner, go ahead, say what you want, but heed my warning.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on September 18, 2010, 09:16:07 PM
I refuse to argue here. I side with Duskie-Poo on this.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on September 18, 2010, 09:23:25 PM
What do you mean, side? I don't want to argue, I just want to debate. But if you have not interest, let's not post here. Puedes tu ir con esta idea?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on September 18, 2010, 09:24:07 PM
Good, if I feel this isn't needed I'll lock it, but when it is necessary back it comes.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on October 28, 2010, 09:52:01 PM
Alright. Does anyone else see anything contradicting of this statement?
And don't try to force your beliefs upon others. It's rude. I simply stated that while you could choose not to support the theory of the Big Bang, you can't not believe in something in which faith has no part.
How has this been proven?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: SmartyPants on October 28, 2010, 11:18:15 PM
I refuse to argue here.
Anyone else see the irony?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on October 29, 2010, 05:07:09 AM
That was then. I don't want to spam other threads. Be thankful I didn't just use that in the threads that you hold most dear.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on October 29, 2010, 06:24:29 AM
It hasn't been proven, but scientist have managed to pick up trace background cosmic radiation they conjecture could only have been emitted at around the time of 13 billion years ago, at very high energy levels, suggesting that it originated in a fiery cataclysm, not unlike a certain religion's idea of the end of the world.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on October 29, 2010, 03:33:02 PM
But it is ONLY a conjecture. The official definition is:
Quote
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture)

Conjecture
-noun
1.   the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.   an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3.   Obsolete . the interpretation of signs or omens.

If it is only a conjecture then aren't you trying to force YOUR beliefs on those of us who don't?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on October 29, 2010, 03:44:54 PM
Yes, but it is the best conjecture we can guess; conclude; form from the little evidence we do have. I was wrong to have called it a conjecture. This diminishes the value I place on conjectures, but should not detract from a theory. I was using the geometry definition;

"an idea based on exemplary proof, and not on deductive logic, as yet unproven." Fitting, eh?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on October 29, 2010, 03:55:16 PM
an idea based on exemplary proof, and not on deductive logic, as yet unproven.
How is that different from the definition that I had given? It remains unproven. And even if you call it a theory:
Quote
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory)
-noun
2.   a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Again, how is that different from Conjecture?
Quote
Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conjecture)

Conjecture
-noun
1.   the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.   an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
3.   Obsolete . the interpretation of signs or omens.

Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on October 29, 2010, 05:12:18 PM
You cherry-picked a definition.

Miriam-Webster

Theory: (n.) a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena (the wave theory of light)

and

The analysis of facts in their relation to one another.

Fact: Electromagnetic radiation has been detected from outer space.
Fact: This radiation has levels of energy, timing, and location that are heavily correspondant with those which scientists, through theoretical calculations, have found would have originated in a sort of fiery cataclysm.
Fact: From this, we can derive that, perhaps, (it's just a theory) the universe and its corresponding spacetime originated in a fiery cataclysm.

Theory: Big Bang.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on November 23, 2010, 11:48:15 PM
NEW RULE!!!!! To avoid cherry picked "facts" and definitions, please give at least 3 definitions to abide by and give supporting and reputable testimony/statistics also repeated arguments are to be answered with a loud TAZER!!!!!
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 24, 2010, 12:13:01 AM
On whose authority?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 24, 2010, 08:26:00 AM
Apparently on it's authority. Tazers don't do any real harm namelesskitty. Tazere are for the forum games as a sign of disapproval. Therefore it is a bad deterrent and will be disregarded. Just to let you know.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on November 24, 2010, 10:26:33 AM
I know, I was trying to spread it, I feel ashamed.

I made the thread and I plan to referee the argument, on the grounds that being raised in multiple religions and ending up believing a little from column A, a little from column B. Please point out infractions to me, I will keep a scoreboard from now on, points will be deducted for infractions.

Rules:
1. no name calling or insults
2. Support all arguments with evidence support claims with links
3. Give 3 definitions from different sources to avoid cherry picking
4. Do not post the same argument twice unless resupporting it or showing how it headed off another.
5. To spectators remain unbiased
6. Point out infractions I have missed depending on frequency and magnitude of rule breaking I will decide punishment.
7. No threats.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 26, 2010, 10:46:21 PM
I don't think I can follow a rule preventing reiteration of a good argument.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 26, 2010, 11:01:56 PM
What punishment can you give namelesskitty? You aren't a mod and you definitely aren't Craig.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 26, 2010, 11:16:04 PM
Disowning? Tazing? Virus?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 26, 2010, 11:23:21 PM
We have been over Tazing, Disownig wouldn't affect anyone and a virus would get THN banned from the forums and possible sent to juvie. And that was directed at THN Duckling.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on November 27, 2010, 11:36:12 AM
Deduction of points would be the punishment imposed, points are awarded for won issues, and the magnitude of the victory, negative points can happen.

Issue #1: possibility of a single god. argument base value: 10 points.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 27, 2010, 12:01:11 PM
Oh, sure it's possible. What's to debate about?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on November 27, 2010, 07:04:48 PM
Agreed, switch

Topic #1: why would god show such impartiality with death via cancer? Base value 10
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 27, 2010, 08:08:08 PM
Honestly, though it's good of you to try to arrange an arena for us, the theology thing is just what crops up places here and there. I simply have different views on religion's social implementations than he (Buggy), but arguing about an aspect of the theology is meaningless to me. I wouldn't care why a god was impartial if they existed, as I am firm in my belief that there is no such deity.

And I can't very well convince Bugs that God isn't real, 'cause there are so many catch-22s; there can be no proof for God, the devil put evidence saying the Earth isn't 5000 years old here to test our faith... the reasons atheism cannot be proven go on.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on November 28, 2010, 09:23:20 AM
You don't need to change his mind, I just give the victor points.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 28, 2010, 09:51:30 AM
I'm not interested in debating. The evidence is pointed so overwhelmingly in the atheistic direction, whereas all the Christians have going for them is a holy scripture.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: SmartyPants on November 28, 2010, 03:22:01 PM
I see believing in religion or believing in atheism as being optimistic or being pessimistic.  If you have a religion, then you believe something awaits you in the afterlife which means that you think things will be okay after you die.  Atheists believe that they are going to become worm food after they die which is just a sad outlook.  Agnostics are interesting because they want to be optimistic and believe in a god and an afterlife, but they can't quite believe what the organized religions tell them.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 28, 2010, 03:37:13 PM
It's not a sad outlook, as far as I'm concerned. I think after a certain time, many people realize that they've gotten all they can from living, and they would like to have some peace. I wouldn't want to have eternal consciousness forced upon me.

And you're confusing terms. An agnostic is someone who believes they have insufficient evidence or knowledge to support their belief. I'm an agnostic.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: SmartyPants on November 28, 2010, 05:32:30 PM
It's not a sad outlook, as far as I'm concerned. I think after a certain time, many people realize that they've gotten all they can from living, and they would like to have some peace. I wouldn't want to have eternal consciousness forced upon me.
That outlook is sad.  You consider "peace" the complete annihilation and disappearance of who a person is or was.
I just received some major insight into what kind or person you are.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 28, 2010, 07:54:57 PM
It's not a sad outlook, as far as I'm concerned. I think after a certain time, many people realize that they've gotten all they can from living, and they would like to have some peace. I wouldn't want to have eternal consciousness forced upon me.
That outlook is sad.  You consider "peace" the complete annihilation and disappearance of who a person is or was.
I just received some major insight into what kind or person you are.
It kinda scares me. Life is not something we should put up with. It should be enjoyed. If "peace" by your definition, Duckling, is death, then if I and a couple million other people are right, there will be no peace for the unbelievers after death. It reminds me of this rather rude song I learned.

Rev-a-la-tion
Rev-a-la-tion
Twenty-One Eight
Twenty-One Eight
Unbelieversgoto he-ll
Unbelieversgoto he-ll
BURN BURN BURN
BURN BURN BURN

But that's not what I or any Christian should really want.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 28, 2010, 09:37:42 PM
Death is sad. It isn't about watching bad people burn, for the petty pleasure of it. It's not about having an eternal reward for being good according to someone else's standards. It's about death.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 28, 2010, 10:05:57 PM
For those of you who will, try listening to the audio recording of a testimony if a man who literally spent just under half and hour in hell.Here it is (http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWise_AllTracks.mp3). You may choose not to believe this but I do. I'm scared. And I'm free from this fate. You just have to listen.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 29, 2010, 01:45:52 PM
That is total bull. This is a quote from a person who spent five long years in Candyland.

"It was very sweet. I went along the candyland road, and I say the gumdrop forest. The snowman made of candy was niiice.... but that molasses dude almost got me."

True story.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: MikeW781 on November 29, 2010, 02:02:42 PM
For those of you who will, try listening to the audio recording of a testimony if a man who literally spent just under half and hour in hell.Here it is (http://spiritlessons.com/Documents/BillWise_AllTracks.mp3). You may choose not to believe this but I do. I'm scared. And I'm free from this fate. You just have to listen.
This man offers absolutely no proof. I don't understand how you can so thouroghly reject other religons as false due to a lack of proof, and yet accept this mans word so blindly. It is ridiculus hypocrisy; you choose to accept some testimonies and reject others, despite equal proof for all of them.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 29, 2010, 03:23:08 PM
I haven't heard the video clip, and I probably won't listen. Anything described as a burning lake of sulfur doesn't sound good.
I don't understand how you can so thouroghly reject other religons as false due to a lack of proof, and yet accept this mans word so blindly. It is ridiculus hypocrisy; you choose to accept some testimonies and reject others, despite equal proof for all of them.
One of the reasons I believe what I do is somewhat tied to this belief. Discuss if you want to.
Man is imperfect, and is sinful. There is no part of him that is not tainted by sin. There is nothing he can do to stop or save himself from his sins.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 29, 2010, 03:31:46 PM
Yogc, Try it. It's incredible how bad it sounds. It's hell. It's not supposed to sound good. Bill Wiese spent about 23 minutes in hell and made a book describing it.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 29, 2010, 06:14:55 PM
Define Sin, please.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 29, 2010, 07:56:22 PM
-noun
1. transgression of divine law: the sin of Adam.
2. any act regarded as such a transgression, especially a willful or deliberate violation of some religious or moral principle.
3. any reprehensible or regrettable action, behavior, lapse, etc.; great fault or offense: It's a sin to waste time.
-verb (used without object)
4. to commit a sinful act.
5. to offend against a principle, standard, etc.
-verb (used with object)
6. to commit or perform sinfully: He sinned his crimes without compunction.
7. to bring, drive, etc., by sinning: He sinned his soul to perdition.

And you wanted this why? Surely you the self proclaimed "All Knowing" know without needing to ask.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 29, 2010, 08:06:36 PM
When did I say I was all-knowing?  ???

And if Man doesn't believe in sin, and lives a perfectly honest life, and there was no way for a given Man to know about this divine law, is this Man still condemned?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 29, 2010, 08:24:19 PM
All people have morals. They will admit that they are not perfect, and that they do the wrong thing sometimes. No one lives a perfectly honest life. I doubt you will find anyone who says they have lived a perfectly honest life and has never done anything wrong.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 29, 2010, 08:32:01 PM
For that to happen, they would need to be Jesus Christ himself. Anyone else would be a liar to say that they're perfect. We are all condemned. Sin is human nature and as Yogc said, everyone has morals. It is believes that God has an age of accountability but that that age is different for everyone. The moment you are old enough to distinguish right from wrong, and choose wrong, regardless if you have been told or not, you will be held accountable.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on November 29, 2010, 09:21:58 PM
He would be a sinner to say he was perfect. That would be pride.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on November 29, 2010, 09:47:48 PM
Sin is human nature

Sin is not human nature. Neither is being good. If you see a old women get mugged and the thief is beside you, do you let the thief go or trip him. You have a part of your brain which handles snap decisions (the un/subconscious part of your brain) and that can't be tricked, as it is the part of brain that has all your automatic feelings, thoughts, and skills. It comes down to what your un/subconscious chooses and isn't affected by "Sin" or "Good".
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 29, 2010, 09:55:01 PM
Yes the subconscience does things like that but they are more habit than yourself. And habits are learned. Sin is a nasty habit that has been passed down from Adam that we find very hard to resist. There has only been one report of someone resisting for 30 years give or take a few years and he was put to death, despite being found completely blameless under Jewish and Roman law, only to be brought back to life after three days.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 29, 2010, 10:27:49 PM
Sin is human nature in the sense that it is rooted into human existence. It is like mold on an apple. Some parts of the apple may not be completely ruined, and some might be safe to eat, but the mold has roots all throughout the apple. It affects some parts worse than others, but it is still there, all over the apple.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on November 29, 2010, 10:35:07 PM
Still, your sub-conscious is going to act the way it needs to be in that situation. For example: when your crossing the street and a car is about to hit you, your mind doesn't think of sin at that time, it just thinks of jump!

Yogc: That can be said about Good and Neutrality as well.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 29, 2010, 10:41:26 PM
Yes, there is still some good in man, just like there is still some edible apple in a moldy apple, but we are stained with sin. We are fallen.
Actions caused by your subconscious are not sin. Sin is a conscious thing. When you do something wrong subconsciously, it's just a mistake. But, you are completely ruled by your subconscious mind. A large amount of you is controlled by your conscious mind, which is tainted throughout with sin.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on November 29, 2010, 11:06:08 PM
At a conscious level, then yes, we have some bad in us. It is natural (like in everything that has the capacity to think).For Example: A Wolf might catch a nice deer and eat it all for himself or go back to the pack and give it to all of them.

Your sub-conscious does more for your body than you think. You can trick your body into doing stuff without realizing it. Just read the Book Blink, and you can find out how.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 30, 2010, 03:32:17 PM
But what can perfect people say about their moral state?

They cannot deny perfection; this would be a lie. They cannot acknowledge perfection; this would be pride. If someone asks them the direct question, and they do not say, they have implied that they are perfect. More pride. To not lie, one would have to be unaware of one's perfection; this makes statements to the contrary untruths. If some people could be as such, then is it logical to assume that there are some people unaware of their own badness? Subconscious violations of an ethical code through lack of a moral code is not sin.

As far as I know, I have done nothing truly wrong. However, I cannot profess perfection.

One can reflect on one's own behavior early in life, when one had not developed a moral code yet, but when one recognizes their actions as what they would consider sin in the now, their past actions don't become sin, do they?

What of people that don't know that what they are doing is wrong, and just survival? A man steals a loaf of bread from a baker. The baker sees that the man has violated a part of the baker's moral code, but the man has a different moral compass. The baker sees comdemnation in store for the man, but the man sees only the bread. No sin, right?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 30, 2010, 05:24:11 PM
Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen ANYTHING no matter how small? To do any of this would be sin.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 30, 2010, 07:28:04 PM
What of people that don't know that what they are doing is wrong, and just survival? A man steals a loaf of bread from a baker. The baker sees that the man has violated a part of the baker's moral code, but the man has a different moral compass. The baker sees comdemnation in store for the man, but the man sees only the bread. No sin, right?
Yes, there is definitely sin. People have morals built into them. While they may justify or excuse themselves in their mind, they still violated their moral code. They are just ignoring it. While they may be desperate, they would know that stealing is wrong. Turning a blind eye to your sin doesn't make it go away.
But what can perfect people say about their moral state?
There are none.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 30, 2010, 08:18:42 PM
What of people that don't know that what they are doing is wrong, and just survival? A man steals a loaf of bread from a baker. The baker sees that the man has violated a part of the baker's moral code, but the man has a different moral compass. The baker sees comdemnation in store for the man, but the man sees only the bread. No sin, right?
Yes, there is definitely sin. People have morals built into them. While they may justify or excuse themselves in their mind, they still violated their moral code. They are just ignoring it. While they may be desperate, they would know that stealing is wrong. Turning a blind eye to your sin doesn't make it go away.
But what can perfect people say about their moral state?
There are none.

No. That is incorrect. No one has morals built into them, however much we civilized people would like to think so, in hopes of seeing people stealing from us in hell. But the fact is, no one has morals built in. They have to develop them through feedback by society. I reflect back upon my actions as a child, and I did things I wouldn't do today; as soon as I was reprimanded by an adult for them, I stopped. This is how things are. Surely you remember your own early childhood?

And about you "no perfect people" thing. What would Jesus say if asked about his moral state, to avoid sinning?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 30, 2010, 08:23:46 PM
1)So there was a Jesus now huh?
2)Jesus is and was the only one who can claim to be perfect. He was God Himself in human form.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on November 30, 2010, 08:28:24 PM
So claiming he's perfect would not have been pride?


And no, I don't acknowledge it. I am simply using hypotheticals to learn about your religion. I find your church's view of sin different than I might have expected, and I am glad that you are informed about your religion so you are able to tell me about it.

Don't expect me to convert, though...  ;)
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 30, 2010, 08:56:43 PM
Yes, you do gain feedback to your morals from outside influences, but you also have morals to start with. For example, a little kid will still complain that something is "not fair" if someone does something obviously wrong around them even if they have little to no experience with that kind of stuff. I don't remember that much of myself at an early age, but I do remember that when I did something wrong, I knew it was wrong because it felt wrong, like an instinct would feel. Now, I don't get those feelings as strongly and as often. Morals can be influenced by outside sources, just like a compass can be influenced by magnets.
By the way, if a person was perfect, they could say that they were perfect when asked without being guilty of pride, because they are just telling the truth. It would be pride if they showed it off a lot.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 30, 2010, 08:57:53 PM
It would not have been pride. He was born in a frickin' cave, he could have told King's to bow to him and they would have no choice but to obey him, and he could have simply said no to dieing. He was anything but filled with pride. He was humble. He prayed to the Father constantly (and at one point he was praying so hard that he cried blood). If he were to say he was perfect, it would be because it is the absolute truth. The devil literally tempted him for 40 days straight. And by the time the devil had run out of tricks, He had not faltered.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 30, 2010, 09:00:42 PM
When you are king of the universe, it is somewhat hard to be proud. It is definitely humble to step off your thrown, mingle with your creation, and die at the hands of your creation.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 30, 2010, 09:12:10 PM
Though honestly, Jesus didn't die at the hands of His creation. He willingly gave up his spirit.
Quote from: Matthew 27:50

And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice, and yielded up His spirit.
And some believe that to conquer death, he spent the three days he was dead in Hell. It would make sense since he has the key to death and Hell.
Quote from: Revalation 1:18
I am He who lives, and was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore. Amen. And I have the keys of Hades and of Death.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on November 30, 2010, 09:16:28 PM
Well, true, but he did suffer a lot at the hands of his creation.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on November 30, 2010, 09:22:41 PM
I know. He was beaten, his clothes were gambles over, he was hung next to robbers, he was verbally abused, and they had put a crown of thorns on his head. That's a lot to take from your own people.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 01, 2010, 05:30:51 PM
Yogc. I cannot believe you think that we are born with morals; if you ever thought something was "not fair", it is because the human brain is brilliant at extrapolation and pattern recognition. If one is disenfranchised from birth, one will see that others are recieving treatment they are not, and feel anger at the ones disenfranchising them, for the reason of they not having a (understandable and visible) reason for treating them differently. Humans have instincts, and want to be part of a pack, or a social group. If they are excluded, this is a denial of their instinct. These are two reasons unfairness is known after a time, even without prior knowledge.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 01, 2010, 09:22:43 PM
You haven't mentioned the second part of my response. Morals are like an instinct that can be overpowered by feedback over time. When I was young, I could easily tell if something was right or wrong because of an internal feeling.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 01, 2010, 09:24:04 PM
And you did too, Ducky. But you try to hide it with your long winded and somehwhat redundant explanations.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: The Holy namelesskitty on December 02, 2010, 07:05:23 PM
You haven't mentioned the second part of my response. Morals are like an instinct that can be overpowered by feedback over time. When I was young, I could easily tell if something was right or wrong because of an internal feeling.
No you could tell if something was mean or nice .
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 02, 2010, 07:53:26 PM
Stop trying to force your belief and your sin upon me. I don't believe that there is any "good or bad" gut instinct. It's all feedback.

By the time that you were at the age where you could remember your childhood, I think that you would have learned a certain amount of "right" and "wrong".

And as a side note, would it be wrong to lie to save someone's life?

Nazi: "Are you keeping Jews secret?"

You: "Of course I am, Herr soldier. I would not sin and lie."

Nazi: "To the camps with all of you!"
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 02, 2010, 08:46:22 PM
There have been life or death situations where some have been allowed to lie. But only to save the people of God.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 03, 2010, 04:15:59 AM
1)So there was a Jesus now huh?
2)Jesus is and was the only one who can claim to be perfect. He was God Himself in human form.

Ha! Gout you there. Jesus was actually part of the Trinity and he was meant to be human. Also, Jesus DID sin. (Remember the story where he went crazy in the temple?)
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 03, 2010, 06:17:53 AM
Ah. But he was cleaning house:

Quote from: Matthew 21
The Cleansing of the Temple
; ,
12 Then Jesus went into the temple of God and drove out all those who bought and sold in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who sold doves. 13 And He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you have made it a ‘den of thieves.’ ”
14 Then the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them. 15 But when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things that He did, and the children crying out in the temple and saying, “Hosanna to the Son of David!” they were indignant

16 and said to Him, “Do You hear what these are saying?”
And Jesus said to them, “Yes. Have you never read,
‘Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants
You have perfected praise’? ”

17 Then He left them and went out of the city to Bethany, and He lodged there.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 03, 2010, 06:52:22 AM
Ah, different moral compasses. (I'm using your own argument against you here)
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 03, 2010, 05:15:10 PM
Buggy, you say there have been certain cases. Is this an exception, case-by-case? Or is God willing to accept any lie told to save the people of God?

EDIT: Interpret that how you will. I didn't really mean it in a "burn" sort of way, and I hope it doesn't offend anyone.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 04, 2010, 05:56:46 AM
Buggy, you say there have been certain cases. Is this an exception, case-by-case? Or is God willing to accept any lie told to save the people of God?

Oooh, burn!

EDIT: Oh, okay, sorry Bugfartboy and yogc elf.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 06, 2010, 09:40:23 PM
Buggy, you say there have been certain cases. Is this an exception, case-by-case? Or is God willing to accept any lie told to save the people of God?

EDIT: Interpret that how you will. I didn't really mean it in a "burn" sort of way, and I hope it doesn't offend anyone.
Case by case.
I am not trying to force my belief onto you. If I was, I would have given up a long time ago.
You haven't mentioned the second part of my response. Morals are like an instinct that can be overpowered by feedback over time. When I was young, I could easily tell if something was right or wrong because of an internal feeling.
No you could tell if something was mean or nice .
How do you determine "mean" or "nice?"

Duckling, let's assume that you are right about evolution. Where would morals evolve from?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 07, 2010, 02:11:05 PM
Morals are "evolved" from the ever-persistent need for community and the ability to work together. Those who are incapable of doing to can't fend off the lions. Also, morals are memetic, and not genetic, so they can work their way into human cultures much faster than physical changes.

No burn.

And while we're at it, would lying be a sin in the case of the Nazis and people lying to hide refugees? Are you saying that the case-by-case process continues past Biblical times, and He would judge each one? Clarification would help.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 08, 2010, 06:20:49 PM
A lot of animals work together, but they don't have morals. The nearest thing to morals in animals is mothers protecting their children, and that's instinct. Animals aren't altruistic in any way. Humans are different. Yes, they are smarter, but being smart doesn't make much of a difference. The smartest gorilla has no more morals than a buffalo. Morals make us different from other animals.

Yes, I am saying things work by a case-by-case process.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 08, 2010, 07:10:47 PM
I would argue that to a certain extent, some animals have ethics. Ethics are a system of rules in place for cooperation, so that this can happen with optimum efficiency.

Excuse me? The smartest gorilla in captivity was successfully able to understand abstract concepts like love, and metaphors. I would say that it never would have killed the cat it was confined with. Morals, anyone.

Ethics are the basis of morals in the evolutionary process; to successfully work together, there must be certain behaviors those in a group must not exhibit. These are then discouraged by process of elimination. Cannibalism is not sustainable on a large scale, so all creatures have another food source. Then, morals are a behavioral extension of ethics. When one is in a group, one cannot exhibit behaviors which negatively affect others, or there are consequences. If one is exposed to a system of ethics from a young age, these are successfully imprinted. Then, when the consequences are removed, there is still a sense of "wrongness" about the act. Also, for most acts that we would deem "wrong", there are usually consequences that are hard to remove, like when you kill someone, that person ceases talking to you, and you lose their company. These are morals.

Finally, if you truly remove all consequences, like in a videogame, then people's true innate ability to ignore ethics if there is no expense to them is revealed. Some children that play violent videogames end up being psychologically disturbed, and very violent, since their ethical imprinting is weakened, and the leap to morals deadened.

On the topic of the judging of lies, are there any concrete rules we can know about, or are we best guided by our own morals, and we were made in His image, so His thinking process on whether something is right or wrong is going to be simliar?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 08, 2010, 08:03:40 PM
If the lie is self serving, then it is probably wrong.

I understand that animals successfully work together. That's a symbiotic relationship. It's not quite the same as morals. For example, I can work together with people I don't get along with to get something done. That doesn't mean I like the person, want to work with the person, or care about the person's grade. I care about my own grade, so I work to make sure my grade is good. Similarly, animals might work together to survive, not because they care about each other, but because they care about themselves.

Animals, such as your gorilla and dogs, can understand morals. A dog can understand that if it jumps on people, it will get in trouble, so it won't jump on people. In this case, the animal doesn't have morals, it just knows there is an unfavorable consequence to its action. I'm sure the gorilla wouldn't have killed the cat it was confined with. It was probably smart enough to know that killing the cat would get it in trouble, and that there was no reason to kill the cat. The biggest characteristic of human morals is altruism, or doing something for no reward or gain.

I never said that people can't ignore morals. In fact, people do all the time. They ignore morals, they try to justify themselves, and they twist morals to make themselves feel good. I have no doubt that humans are capable of overriding morals. Humans are also able to override reactions and instincts they are born with, such as crying for help.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 08, 2010, 08:21:24 PM
It is my belief that if the truth would do more than twice the harm that telling the lie would, the lie is acceptable. That's my threshold. Any lower, and it would be a personal fault, but any higher, and you have a reason to lie.

I don't think animals have morals. I may not have been clear. I believe that some animals have ethics, for efficiency in symbiosis.

And if you can say that a mother cares about its child, or lover care, why is our maternal or reproductive instinct any lesser than theirs? In their own way, they care about familiy. Some animals go to lengths to protect their siblings.

I don't believe that humans are truly altruistic. There is always gain in emotional feedback. They will most likely feel they have done their duty in society at the end of the day if a person does something "kind". The cost of donating money, for instance, is outweighed by the good feeling of righteousness of cause. This is why some people don't donate past an amount; the good feeling runs out before their pocketbook does.

Some people don't just ignore their morals, as far as I believe. I think that some never recieve them properly.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 08, 2010, 08:47:30 PM
I'm not quite sure what you mean when you ask why our maternal or reproductive instinct is less then theirs. I believe that humans maternal instinct is the same as animals, but animals may be more capable of defending their young than humans. I believe our reproductive instinct is less because God created us to survive, so we don't need as many kids.

There is not always gain in emotional feedback. For example, if a person dies to save someone else, they are probably dead before they gain emotional feedback. Plus, I doubt positive emotional feedback by itself is enough to cause someone to die for someone else.

If a seven year old who already has solid moral values was told by someone he trusted that something he previously thought was wrong was actually right, confusion would probably result. After enough times of being told, though, the child would probably accept the idea. You can hammer through someone's existing morals. People can hammer through their own morals. That doesn't mean they don't have proper morals in the first place; otherwise, there would be no need for the hammering.

Edit: Buggy says hi.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 08, 2010, 08:53:01 PM
Morals are like a rod of iron. Hammer at them enough, they will bend. The end result is a bent person to match the bent morals. The moral of the story: the more you hammer, the easier the morals become the bend. The result of this is a person so twisted that even if you fix them, they can be bent right back up again in new ways.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 08, 2010, 08:57:33 PM
Once someone's morals are fully established, however, it is darn hard to remove them or hammer them. I would never accept killing as right, now that it has been drilled into me, and I understand the negative consequences. To remove my inhibition about killing, someone would have to prove that the negative consequences were not there, and that there was gain involved.

If you die to save someone, it is usually because you did the cost-benefit analysis split-second, and decided that they dying was worse than you dying. Emotional feedback at the end of the day is just one of the reasons people do "altruistic" things. Sometimes these things are because there is no cost to them; I help people up, I hold doors, because I become happy that I helped, but at no cost.

Hi, Buggy. I don't know what to say about your iron analogy. I really don't. It makes too many assumptions, and I'll address them later when my parents aren't about to yell at me to go to bed.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 08, 2010, 09:07:07 PM
Simple. Good morals, the original morals you have from birth, are the rod if iron. You said yourself, you would never accept killing as right. But if the idea of killing being right were drilled in hard and long enough, like hammering the rod of iron, your morals would bend. You get hammered in enough places, you can be bent very easily. Now say someone comes along and sees that your morals are bent. They can hammer them straight once more. But it loosens the metallic bond that the iron has. So they bend even easier than before. Thus, they can be bent out of shape so easily, you end up a twisted person to match your twisted morals. I thought the analogy was pretty straight forward.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 08, 2010, 09:15:15 PM
Trust me, Duckling, you can hammer morals at any time if you know how to hammer correctly. Sadly, the best hammerer is probably one's own self. Even sadder, I speak from experience.

Why would you decided that them dying would be worse then you dying? Animals don't always seem to think so. A predator kills something, the prey just walk away a little bit and ignore it. Your morals compel you to sacrifice yourself. Granted, they do give you emotional feedback. For example, they convict you if you do something you know is wrong. I guess they reward you if you do something right.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 09, 2010, 03:58:46 PM
Sometimes, the morals are not unhammered or hammered any more than they were. It's just that the ethical implications and the other consequences are outweighed by an immediate threat.

I'll address your second part if you can make it make sense; the verbs don't agree, the tenses don't agree, the indefinite articles don't agree, and you're using parts of speech where I can't understand their usage.

EDIT:

You can probably hammer in behavior at any point with a long-term threat: "You have to be like us or be killed as an outsider". Then, the long-term threat might outweigh many morals that a person has.

Except for the last part.

The morals, I think, don't convict you, since they are just a mental set of scales and balances between criteria and consequences in multiple directions. Murder's few benefits are so few, and so outweighed by the emotional impact and other consequences, that it is almost universally accepted that it is wrong. In some cases, people can bring justification (add more on the FOR side), and detach themselves from the situation, and dehumanize an enemy (take away from the AGAINST side), so that the balances are tipped the other direction. This is useful for countries in wartime; it provides them with soldiers.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 10, 2010, 03:45:29 PM
Sorry about my last post, I guess I didn't read it over. I'll edit it some.

You don't need to threaten someone to hammer their morals. You just have to convince them that you are in the right, and they are wrong. This generally works better when you have more than one person helping you. Or, you can hammer your own morals if you do something you don't want to admit is wrong and try to justify yourself. You deny that you are doing something wrong to the point that you believe that you aren't doing something wrong.

Quote
Murder's few benefits are so few, and so outweighed by the emotional impact and other consequences, that it is almost universally accepted that it is wrong.
Where does the emotional impact come from? Part of it comes from your morals.

Quote
The morals, I think, don't convict you, since they are just a mental set of scales and balances between criteria and consequences in multiple directions.

To convict is to impress with a sense of guilt. Morals will impress with a sense of guilt. If you defy their morals, they will make you feel guilty.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 10, 2010, 05:14:52 PM
A lot of animals work together, but they don't have morals. The nearest thing to morals in animals is mothers protecting their children, and that's instinct. Animals aren't altruistic in any way. Humans are different. Yes, they are smarter, but being smart doesn't make much of a difference. The smartest gorilla has no more morals than a buffalo. Morals make us different from other animals.

Yes, I am saying things work by a case-by-case process.

WRONG! Dolphins are capable of feeling empathy and they usually try to protect the weak, they even defend humans from sharks! (yes, they're that smart)

http://www.dolphinworld.org/stories/facts-about-dolphins.htm

(Look under 'Facts about Dolphins')
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 10, 2010, 05:39:08 PM
It's difficult to say if dolphins feel empathy without being a dolphin. Dolphins work in packs instinctively, so they instinctively work together and protect against threats such as sharks. I don't know if dolphins protect people from sharks to protect people or because they don't like sharks. If a dolphin did leave a person to die to die, I doubt it would feel guilty or as if it had done something wrong.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 10, 2010, 08:27:52 PM
It's obviously not so difficult to say it that it would be impossible to say so. This impression is based off studies. I honestly don't think that scientists would jump to conclusions without making sure htey were controlling EVERY SINGLE VARIABLE. It's not even funny.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 10, 2010, 08:34:16 PM
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm willing to bet the studies suggest that dolphins may be capable of feeling empathy. And when did I try to say something funny?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 10, 2010, 08:51:03 PM
You didn't. All I am saying is that scientists take their science seriously, and would not just jump to conclusions without eliminating most possibilities. Until you know their method, question what it is, not whether it's right.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 10, 2010, 09:02:44 PM
Okay. What's their method, and what are the results? A url link would be helpful.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 11, 2010, 12:13:53 AM
How am I supposed to know? That was Ersatz Man. All I'm saying is that you shouldn't debase a scientific experiment if you don't know the methods. Ask Ersatz Man.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 11, 2010, 09:43:51 AM
Okay. Ersatz Man, may I have a url link to the findings?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 11, 2010, 01:20:34 PM
Okay. Ersatz Man, may I have a url link to the findings?

It's there.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 11, 2010, 01:54:01 PM
By the looks of it, dolphins have protective instinct, like dogs, can work with tools, and live in packs. I'm not so sure that means they have morals.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 11, 2010, 04:02:31 PM
By the looks of it, dolphins have protective instinct, like dogs, can work with tools, and live in packs. I'm not so sure that means they have morals.

''The Social behavior and intelligence of dolphins, without a doubt the most controversial subject when referring to dolphins. It is quite scary how similar these creatures act to humans in respect to love, feelings, emotions, sensations, habits, traits, honor, pride, aggression, war, distrust, betrayals, drama, the list simply goes on and on. Even the use of tool sand the concept of society has been mastered by the dolphins, which is astounding considering that some primitive civilizations in the past could not fully grasp these same ideas. Dolphins are social living in complex attachments, known as "schools" of up to a dozen individuals. In places with a high abundance of food, pods can join temporarily, forming an aggregation called a super pod; such groupings may exceed a thousand dolphins. The individuals communicate using a variety of clicks, whistles and other vocalizations. They also use ultrasonic sounds for echolocation. Membership in pods is not rigid; interchange is common. However, the cetaceans can establish strong bonds between each other. This leads to them staying with injured or ill individuals, even actively helping them to breathe by bringing them to the surface if needed.''

That doesn't look like protective instinct to me.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 11, 2010, 04:04:11 PM
Anyway, I have explained to you what a current theory on how humans "evolved" morals is.

If you had been listening to my point, I think that morals is just a fancy word for a pretty complicated set of rules and balances developed by pressure to compete with other humans and the environment's challenges. Most animals do that, but in a less complicated way. All animals have brains, but in a less complicated way. With a nervous center comes "morals".
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 11, 2010, 06:54:54 PM
Do animals morals convict them?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 11, 2010, 10:06:19 PM
Do humans' morals convict them?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 11, 2010, 10:08:32 PM
Is the sun bright?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 11, 2010, 10:15:25 PM
Not compared to some other stars.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 11, 2010, 10:40:02 PM
You are avoiding the question. Can you stare at it without any I'll effects? No. Yes we are convicted by our morals.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 12, 2010, 12:09:13 AM
No. I'm trying to think about the question in ways other than the obvious, something you would do well to do.

Is there a difference between the result of your "morals convicting you" and a feeling of regret?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 12, 2010, 01:03:40 PM
Morals convict you to act. Regret is the result of not acting appropriately.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 12, 2010, 08:09:46 PM
I don't understand.

Morals convict you if you don't act, and cause you to feel regret afterwards.

The threat of regret your morals post entices you to act.

Is your understanding different?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 12, 2010, 08:19:35 PM
Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. I thought you were saying that morals convicting you results in regret. I was stating that morals convicting you resulted in action, but if you didn't take action, you would feel regret.
By the way, is regret/guilt just a human feeling? I mean, an animal might regret an action if there is a negative consequence resulting from that action, but a human might feel guilt even if they did something that they got away with.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 13, 2010, 08:20:54 PM
Regret, I'm sure is an animal thing. But guilt... some people say that their dogs look guilty when they've done something wrong, but that could just be them. But the question is, what is guilt?

As I see it, guilt is when an action taken has resulted in harm, not to the taker of the action, but to another individual. Perhaps not immediate or direct harm, but the idea is that there has been something that happened, that the first person thinks might reasonable cause harm to a second person.

This looks to me like an extension of regret, where the potential for an action to cause harm (evaluated and returned as guilt) is equated with a smaller amount of harm. And while regret can refer to any action that causes direct or indirect harm to the person taking action, guilt requires that a second person be harmed or have the potential to be harmed, and that the first person "cares", or feels that by risking the well-being of the second person, they have risked theirs, as harm to the second would cause emotional harm to the first. So the thing that might make humans guilty, and animals not is whether they have the emotional connections required to "care" in this way.

Pack or pod animals, like the guilty dogs, or those dolphins again, might have a better understanding of the emotional connections required for guilt.
I would even say, while this is debatable, that dolphins and maybe dogs DO and/or CAN feel guilt, meaning it's not necessarily a solely human thing. I have to go to bed now.

But what do you think?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 13, 2010, 08:30:52 PM
I have but one thing to ask:
Would you rather go through life believing there is a God and find out there isn't or go through life believing there isn't a God then find out there is?

I rest my case. I have spoken my mind and shall act as such.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steelfist on December 14, 2010, 10:57:14 AM
And I will reply:

It is not what I would rather; I have too much difficulty simply 'having faith'. Would I rather believe? Yes, it would be nice to simply trust in a higher purpose, and than everything is just 'sorted out' after you die. However, I am not willing simply to accept things, particularly not if it requires disregarding all evidence. Perhaps if people stopped hoping that God would simply 'fix' things, they might make more of a difference in the world, and fix their own problems. Perhapsif they could obey the rules set down in the bible without believing in an otherworldly punishment, they might be more 'christian' than a christian.

There is nothing wrong with being good. Everyone is human, and you do not need to be a theist to be a good person. We may not be born with morals, but that does not mean we cannot aquire them.

Quit worrying about beliefs, and go help some people. Unless you'd rather wait for a deity to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and just stay home?

So yes, I would rather believe. But I won't, and I'll still do mybest to make a difference.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 14, 2010, 05:10:50 PM
And I will reply:

It is not what I would rather; I have too much difficulty simply 'having faith'. Would I rather believe? Yes, it would be nice to simply trust in a higher purpose, and than everything is just 'sorted out' after you die. However, I am not willing simply to accept things, particularly not if it requires disregarding all evidence. Perhaps if people stopped hoping that God would simply 'fix' things, they might make more of a difference in the world, and fix their own problems. Perhapsif they could obey the rules set down in the bible without believing in an otherworldly punishment, they might be more 'christian' than a christian.

There is nothing wrong with being good. Everyone is human, and you do not need to be a theist to be a good person. We may not be born with morals, but that does not mean we cannot aquire them.

Quit worrying about beliefs, and go help some people. Unless you'd rather wait for a deity to sort the worthy from the unworthy, and just stay home?

So yes, I would rather believe. But I won't, and I'll still do mybest to make a difference.
Wouldn't say it any other way, and I particularly like the underlined part, as I' am too unwilling to simply believe something if it means just throwing science down the toilet, science is a fascinating thing, which has many people supporting, with much proof, however, religious folk, we only have their word to take, and, while I don't see what they would get out of lying either, there isn't anything backing it up, except other people's word.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 14, 2010, 06:12:28 PM
I was actually having a nice discussion with yogc elf about the nature of sin, morals, ethics, regret, and guilt, and whether you could say that animals can feel those, too, and thus whether humans are truly different in ways other than sheer intelligence and complexity of brain.

And then you came in playing the "wouldn't you like to consider yourself part of something larger" card, to which I say

I would rather live my life believing that there is no God; I hold myself to be a rigorously scientific person, and believing in a God whose Word is:

"Who do you really want to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?" to which I say that I will trust my eyes thank you very much, and if they lie, you made them lie.

If there is a God, all I have to say is that there just as easily could have been an Allah, or a Jewish God, or a Buddha, or Hindu god(s), or a bunch of Greek Olympians, and I would have been damned even worse if I had been Christian. I honestly say that the odds were atrociously stacked against me, with thousands of religions, most of which saying that if you pick any other, you're damned. So, O great and mighty one (godly for To Whom It May Concern), sorry, but the chances of me finding the right one out of all these charlatans are miniscule, and I am no prophet; I'd rather live life to the fullest, believing my own eyes, lying or otherwise, than play the lottery.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 14, 2010, 06:16:13 PM
"Who do you really want to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?" to which I say that I will trust my eyes thank you very much, and if they lie, you made them lie.
To which religious people would say something along the lines of, "To test you, to see if you truly believe in the Lord." Being religious is not wrong, and is not a crime, in fact, many rulers or presidents were faithful, so it cannot be a crime, simply a way of life, a belief, and, most likely, there is nothing we can do to change that belief, for that would be changing their way of life, and that, if not done the right, logical, gentle way, is, in my opinion, greater than any crime. However, I will say that I do not agree with religion, as we create our own destiny, and we should not fear to go to a hell for doing so, nor should we ignore science, however, morals are one thing that I can agree with religion on, but still, even atheists have morals.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 14, 2010, 07:38:59 PM
I say that if a Lord made me in such a way that I couldn't easily worship Him while maintaining faith in my own senses, He didn't really have high expectationas as far as worship is concerned.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 14, 2010, 08:02:08 PM
I say that if a Lord made me in such a way that I couldn't easily worship Him while maintaining faith in my own senses, He didn't really have high expectationas as far as worship is concerned.
No, in fact, He did have high expectations, God expects us to worship Him above all else, otherwise He doesn't think we trust Him enough, from what I've learned of God.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 14, 2010, 08:58:59 PM
Then God created Man wrong. He shouldn't have given him so many senses, and such good thinking skills. If he had made us right, he wouldn't have had to deal with people having any evidence to support their claims of his nonexistence. Everyone would be equally in the dark, and claims to his existence would be equallly substantial as those against. He would be on par with the rest of the worldd. And speaking of the rest of the world, I noticed that there has n't been much hellfire recently, and that if He really wanted to test our faith, He should see if His people are turly smart enough to see that the oddds are atrociously stacked against them as far as which religion to chose goes. Then all the atheists would be proven wrong, but would know that they look aat the facts only. And the theists would go to an unhappy place, because they really should know better than to waste time worshipping Him  (He's perfect, why does he need worship, instead of going out and doing good things in the world.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 14, 2010, 09:26:59 PM
He has been doing good things in the world. Just not in America. And if God is mad at us, well gee, I wonder why? He is slow to anger and quick to forgive. Look at America and you'll see a country that has lost all of the benefits that it had at it's beginning, when it was still in it's christian roots. And hellfire belongs in hell. For now anyways. But am I the only one who has noticed the weather going somewhat haywire lately? God doesn't need hellfire or fire from heaven to make his point. Many wars were prophesied to mark the end of the age and lo and behold, what do I see but war? Now, if you look only at the facts, you can't just say,"Oh wow. The earth is in bad shape! Let's just keep doing what we were and somehow the problem will fix itself by randomness."
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 14, 2010, 09:44:35 PM
He has been doing good things in the world. Just not in America. And if God is mad at us, well gee, I wonder why? He is slow to anger and quick to forgive. Look at America and you'll see a country that has lost all of the benefits that it had at it's beginning, when it was still in it's christian roots. And hellfire belongs in hell. For now anyways. But am I the only one who has noticed the weather going somewhat haywire lately? God doesn't need hellfire or fire from heaven to make his point. Many wars were prophesied to mark the end of the age and lo and behold, what do I see but war? Now, if you look only at the facts, you can't just say,"Oh wow. The earth is in bad shape! Let's just keep doing what we were and somehow the problem will fix itself by randomness."
So... what you're trying to say is that if every single American went to church every Sunday, global warming would suddenly cease in America? If so, sorry to burst your bubble, but there will always be someone that doesn't believe in God, or at least not fully, and worshiping Him doesn't count if you don't believe, right?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 15, 2010, 06:23:16 AM
Going to church would have very little to do with it.  Church is a gathering place for believers and non alike to worship Him. I never said that if it were back on track, things would cease to go down hill. I think we've been pushing the limit and may end up like Soddom and Gommorah.
Quote from: Genesis 19:13
For we will destroy this place, because the outcry against them has grown great before the face of the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.”
Quote from: Genesis 19:24
Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens.
These were some pretty sinful cities if you ask me if God destroyed them. And I think he would have to apologize to Sodom and Gommorah if he let's America keep going like this and doesn't do the same. If you read more into the chapter:
Quote from: Genesis 19: 4-5
Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.”
And those men were:
Quote from: Genesis 19:1
Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them, and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground.
Just to let you know. And of you didn't get that: Angels. Now if homosexual gang rapes were roaming around publicly, and I'm pretty sure they are in the bigger cities in the shadows, how long until God does the same to us?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steel Ersatz Man on December 15, 2010, 02:42:08 PM
I was actually having a nice discussion with yogc elf about the nature of sin, morals, ethics, regret, and guilt, and whether you could say that animals can feel those, too, and thus whether humans are truly different in ways other than sheer intelligence and complexity of brain.

And then you came in playing the "wouldn't you like to consider yourself part of something larger" card, to which I say

I would rather live my life believing that there is no God; I hold myself to be a rigorously scientific person, and believing in a God whose Word is:

"Who do you really want to believe? Me, or your own lying eyes?" to which I say that I will trust my eyes thank you very much, and if they lie, you made them lie.

If there is a God, all I have to say is that there just as easily could have been an Allah, or a Jewish God, or a Buddha, or Hindu god(s), or a bunch of Greek Olympians, and I would have been damned even worse if I had been Christian. I honestly say that the odds were atrociously stacked against me, with thousands of religions, most of which saying that if you pick any other, you're damned. So, O great and mighty one (godly for To Whom It May Concern), sorry, but the chances of me finding the right one out of all these charlatans are miniscule, and I am no prophet; I'd rather live life to the fullest, believing my own eyes, lying or otherwise, than play the lottery.

That is one of the reasons I became agnostic instead of Athiest. So, if there is a God, then he/she/it/they won't be as
Spoiler
Warning, Profanity.
Spoiler
pissed
about me not believing in them. And, if there isn't a God, then I was closer to the right answer than the rest of the population who believed in a religion. So, regardless of what the situation is, I PROBABLY won't be damned. Just another interpretation for you to think about...
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 15, 2010, 07:24:52 PM
Hmm. That's good, and you don't compromise your ability to consider facts and draw conclusions unbiased.

I'm an atheist agnostic; I don't believe in a god, God, Allah, Buddha, Zeus, or anyone / thing else (this is the atheist part). There could be a god of some sort, and if there is, they're doing a good job of covering their tracks. But there's just no clear evidence for it or against it (this is what makes me agnostic), so we might as well just partake in the facts, and leave God out of it.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 15, 2010, 08:13:06 PM
Alrighty. You've attempted to shoot holes. My turn. The universe is constantly expanding. This is a somewhat known fact is it not? It must have had a beginning somewhere, right? So where if not by a being outside of time and space? (Also known as a god (or in this case, God)). And where did matter come from? Don't tell me cosmic radiation. What about the law of the conservation of mass? Matter is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical reaction. However, one outside of time and space could easily create matter, seeing as space has no hold on them, without breaking this law of nature. Does this not make sense? And where did the energy to form space and matter come from if not outside of space and time and more specifically, from a god or God?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 15, 2010, 08:36:53 PM
We'll bring out the atheist calling card: How did God form, of who created Him?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 15, 2010, 08:57:22 PM
If God is In existence outside of time and space, which He is, then He is unaffected by time and therefore has neither beginning or end for time has no hold over him. And as to being formed, if he exists out of space, which He does, then there is no true matter for him to consist of therefore, he needs not to have been originally formed.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 15, 2010, 09:08:44 PM
If God is outside of Time, then what the hell is He doing meddling in human affairs? He could be a couple hundred years off, even with infinitely good time-aim.

And Buggy, what did I tell you about the origins of the universe? Take it up with the philosophy department. Just because there's little certain evidence from that time period doesn't mean we should just go with a faith forcing us to disregard the practices of science and conclusions easily drawn from observable fact. It means we say "I don't know" for a bit, and try again in a bit.

My personal theory is that what started the universe fails to violate causality in the same way that white holes don't violate causality; time is equally able to go backwards.

And no, your theist mockery of science doesn't make sense. I thought you said God was immaterial; where'd He get the idea for mass? Why not just make everything in His ethereal zone? Why so many arbitrary things? Again, this is a matter of philosophy and theology, not science.

So since the answer is "I don't know" right now, can we move on from one blip to a field where there are definite, but conflicting answers?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 15, 2010, 09:22:27 PM
Simple. But I'm in a somewhat creative mood right now so I'm going tomcreate a second person narrative and upload it in a few. And I don't mock science. I believe that God gave it to us so that we could better understand the world we live in. I just don't like the fact that one crazy idiot decided to suggest that we originated from a single cell that somehow formed when we havn't been able to create life ourselves. And if it took millions of years for that to happen, wouldn't the earth and all the nasty conditions as well as necessary amino acids have cooled and dried away by then? And the fact that those necessary amino acids somehow managed to be in the same spot and somehow joined together in total randomness managed to form DNA capable of forming life? Want to know something? I have a TV in my room. But it's not just any TV, it's a science TV. So you see, I was walking through downtown a few years back and stumbled upon the junkyard. So I decided to grab a bunch of junk and throw it in a big box. Then I decided to close the lid and just carry the box around with me for days and days shaking it to no end. But then one day, several weeks after, I discovered that the rattling had stopped. So I opened up the big box and what did I find but a TV in perfect working order? So I decided to put it in my room. Nice story huh. And it's 100% true. Disclaimer: I accept no responsibility for the results of this story or this disclaimer
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 15, 2010, 09:26:49 PM
It is no coincidence that we live on Earth, as you say, with all the necessary amino acids all conveniently here for us, it's just the fact that we're living here (sorry for that, it's just that what I meant to say is too complicated to type), Earth could support life, that's why we live here, and there must be other races out there somewhere, as the galaxy is so enormous that there is no possible way that Earth is the only planet that could support life, in fact, look at Mars, while it isn't exactly filled with forests and oceans, water was found on the planet, and where there is water, there is life.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 15, 2010, 09:30:38 PM
Alright. Where did water come from? Hmm? Left over atoms just floating around in space that suddenly collided and polar covalently bonded to form the water we all know and love until it hit a gravitational field and landed on earth? And if the universe is, as you have said, infinite, is water really needed to sustain life if any alien species that you say could be put there "evolved" differently?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on December 15, 2010, 09:39:57 PM
Read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang), then this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen#History). I simply cannot explain it, given the current status of my brain.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 15, 2010, 10:27:54 PM
If we evolved to fit our environment, why can't particles on Jupiter evolve to fit theirs? Forget the entire "the galaxy is so huge, there must be life out there" thing. If life can evolve from a bunch of amino acids, why hasn't it evolved from anything else? Don't tell me because the conditions aren't right. What makes the conditions right? What difference would conditions make if things could just evolve and adapt to them. Why isn't there life everywhere?
Another thing. Even if amino acids arranged themselves correctly, what would cause them to come to life?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 16, 2010, 08:32:07 AM
Because the atmosphere on Jupiter is made up of molecules that theoretically cannot, or at least have not been seen to bond, and thus cannot support life. In the lower Jupiter atmosphere, pressures are so high that life could not exist, as the cells could not hold together, even if the right particles were there.

And why must you keep picking at the origins when that's the one thing we're not almost 100% sure about? Yours aren't much better:

"Some dude said there's light, and there's light. Some dude said there's firmament, whatever that is, and there was. The same guy continues to say that there should be a bunch of stuff". Really.

And water formed in those steps you described, but the other way around; the hydrogen and oxygen were floating around, as you say, and were attracted into the protoplanetary disk of Earth, and once the Earth had radiated most of its heat off to space, the large number of hydrogen molecules and oxygen molecules were attracted to the same body, and pushed to the srface by being lighter. Then, they attracted each other, and may have formed water, or H2O2, or O2 (not much O2, though).

Darwin was not a "crazy idiot", but a very intelligent, analytical individual that drew conclusions from observations in nature from animals, plants, and rock formations

And with your example of the TV, try something more along the lines of "I put a bunch of strongly magnetic parts in a box, and I did that for about 100 million boxes. Then, I shook them all for about 1.4 billion years, and one or two of them managed to come together and form a functional TV at some ppoint." This is a better portrayal of the theory of evolution's idea of the origins of life on Earth.

I just want to say that despite my best efforts, this is no longer a theological debate, but a poking at science, trying to find holes.

OF COURSE THERE ARE BLOODY HOLES!! But at least there are less holes than there would be in your insane religion if it weren't so catch-all.

"God did it". "He did it". "Who can try to explain this?" "It was God's will". "It was all part of his stinkin' PLAN".
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steelfist on December 16, 2010, 09:31:09 AM
An understandable point of view; the tone of the argument has been lowered.

In essence. The arguers for religion are suggesting that science has ridiculous and far fetched theories. Oh, sweet irony . . .
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on December 18, 2010, 03:14:48 PM
In essence. The arguers for religion are suggesting that science has ridiculous and far fetched theories. Oh, sweet irony . . .
Scientist are the people claiming to have evidence. They claim to support their stuff based on fact.
Their are holes in evolution, but they are ignored and placed in textbooks like it is the indisputable truth. Scientist defend it like it is the indisputable truth. I wouldn't mind evolution as much if scientist or textbooks would admit that there are some things they don't know instead of claiming they have insurmountable evidence.
It also bugs me to no end that scientist claim to be unbiased, yet a large amount of their evidence is misrepresented or downright false.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on December 18, 2010, 04:50:30 PM
In essence. The arguers for religion are suggesting that science has ridiculous and far fetched theories. Oh, sweet irony . . .
Scientist are the people claiming to have evidence. They claim to support their stuff based on fact.
Their are holes in evolution, but they are ignored and placed in textbooks like it is the indisputable truth. Scientist defend it like it is the indisputable truth. I wouldn't mind evolution as much if scientist or textbooks would admit that there are some things they don't know instead of claiming they have insurmountable evidence.
It also bugs me to no end that scientist claim to be unbiased, yet a large amount of their evidence is misrepresented or downright false.
I agree.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on December 19, 2010, 04:06:30 PM
Sure, there are holes. But there are white holes in the universe, and we can accept that things just happened the same way as black holes, but time-reversed. But how did they arrive? How did they come together? It would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics! The entropy goes the wrong way! Does this mean we don't teach the theory of gravity like it's absolute fact?

NO!
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steelfist on December 20, 2010, 06:44:37 AM
I cannot help but agree that many scientists are too biased, and yes, many discard theories and evidence because they don't like the connotations.

However, saying, because of this, that ALL scientists misrepresent and ignore evidence is as unreasonable as suggesting that all catholic priests are paedophiles.

In addition, yes, there are holes in many theories. However, religion itself could be compared to, say, one large hole where a theory should be. Nonetheless, it gives people in dire straits something to hold on to, so it's not all bad. Just not reasonable.
Title: Religion
Post by: MikeW781 on February 27, 2011, 06:45:12 PM
Many religions were a creation of man to explain the unseen.
Christianity is different in the sense that it is based around a REAL person. Whether he is a deity or not varies among people.
I need to interject a slightly off topic question and ask you if you truly believe every other religion is straight-out wrong, and Christianity is the only one of the many religions in the world that is factually correct in their beliefs.
Title: Religion
Post by: Deagonx on February 27, 2011, 06:53:53 PM
Straight out wrong? No, they are correct in the fact there is a deity. Just they have a false one.
Title: Religion
Post by: Zackirus on February 27, 2011, 07:01:26 PM
As an agnostic, I have to interject, what makes your "god" more real than any other god(s) humans have ever believed in?
Title: Religion
Post by: Deagonx on February 27, 2011, 07:06:03 PM
The fact that he exists. :)
Title: Religion
Post by: Zackirus on February 27, 2011, 07:09:03 PM
The fact that he exists. :)

That's not an answer. You just avoided the question.
Title: Religion
Post by: Deagonx on February 27, 2011, 07:10:07 PM
No, I didn't. What makes him more real than the other deities in other religions? It's simple. The christian god isn't false.
Title: Religion
Post by: MikeW781 on February 27, 2011, 07:12:22 PM
You have no evidence for that.
Title: Religion
Post by: Zackirus on February 27, 2011, 07:12:33 PM
Then, how do you do know that your god "isn't false".
Title: Religion
Post by: Duskling on February 27, 2011, 07:29:07 PM
Was any contact ever made by you with either God or Jesus Christ? Do you know for a fact that the statements made in the bible are completely, indubitably, true and up to date and taken straight from the source? Have your prayers ever been answered, and I don't mean, "May my family be healthy," or, "Thank you for this food?" If the answer is "No" to any of these questions, you have no real proof that God exists, and the fact that your prayers have been answered may also be a coincidence, so, while it has been proven that Jesus Christ did exist, it is no fact that he is a deity of any kind unless we have a direct source verify it, which we don't have, unless any of you are several thousand years old?

I say that this debate be moved here (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=706.0), because gay marriage is the primary topic here.

Also,
And just because the Feds decided to steal marriage and make it a legal process, doesn't mean it's not still a religious custom.
How is marriage a religious process? If we had to believe in god to marry, one third of our race, if not more, would not exist. Marriage is about two people truly loving each other, not about them proving to God that they love each other.
Title: Religion
Post by: Deagonx on February 28, 2011, 02:41:57 PM
How do I know he isn't false? It's simple reasoning to me.
And there have been many scientific things that have proven that the universe was not just there. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. Many take it as truth even though they don't have any 'real proof' yet you get mad at me for truly believing my God is real?
Title: Religion
Post by: Zackirus on February 28, 2011, 05:46:09 PM
How do I know he isn't false? It's simple reasoning to me.
And there have been many scientific things that have proven that the universe was not just there. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. Many take it as truth even though they don't have any 'real proof' yet you get mad at me for truly believing my God is real?

This isn't about science vs. religion. This is about why you choose to believe in this religion, with its own creation of the universe/world story, compared to all the other religions, with their own creation stories, proposed by humans over the centuries?

P.S: I'm not mad at you for believing in a God, as it it perfectly okay to have your own opinions on such matters. I simply wish to know why this God is realer than any other god proposed by humans.
Title: Religion
Post by: Duskling on February 28, 2011, 06:23:14 PM
How do I know he isn't false? It's simple reasoning to me.
And there have been many scientific things that have proven that the universe was not just there. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. Many take it as truth even though they don't have any 'real proof' yet you get mad at me for truly believing my God is real?
You avoided the question and did not give me a straight answer, I ask again,
Was any contact ever made by you with either God or Jesus Christ? Do you know for a fact that the statements made in the bible are completely, indubitably, true and up to date and taken straight from the source? Have your prayers ever been answered, and I don't mean, "May my family be healthy," or, "Thank you for this food?" If the answer is "No" to any of these questions, you have no real proof that God exists, and the fact that your prayers have been answered may also be a coincidence, so, while it has been proven that Jesus Christ did exist, it is no fact that he is a deity of any kind unless we have a direct source verify it, which we don't have, unless any of you are several thousand years old?
Also, while the Big Bang is "just a theory," what is God? Proven fact by many, intelligent minds that give concrete reasoning and have complete and indisputable evidence?

Title: Religion
Post by: bugfartboy on February 28, 2011, 06:36:35 PM
I say that this debate be moved here (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=706.0), because gay marriage is the primary topic here.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on February 28, 2011, 06:42:50 PM
Then stop and I might stop embarrassing you two about it.

I find it rather disturbing that you make it a point to make people feel bad for believing in a religion.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on February 28, 2011, 06:48:55 PM
Ahem,
How do I know he isn't false? It's simple reasoning to me.
And there have been many scientific things that have proven that the universe was not just there. The big bang theory is just that, a theory. Many take it as truth even though they don't have any 'real proof' yet you get mad at me for truly believing my God is real?
You avoided the question and did not give me a straight answer, I ask again,
Was any contact ever made by you with either God or Jesus Christ? Do you know for a fact that the statements made in the bible are completely, indubitably, true and up to date and taken straight from the source? Have your prayers ever been answered, and I don't mean, "May my family be healthy," or, "Thank you for this food?" If the answer is "No" to any of these questions, you have no real proof that God exists, and the fact that your prayers have been answered may also be a coincidence, so, while it has been proven that Jesus Christ did exist, it is no fact that he is a deity of any kind unless we have a direct source verify it, which we don't have, unless any of you are several thousand years old?
Also, while the Big Bang is "just a theory," what is God? Proven fact by many, intelligent minds that give concrete reasoning and have complete and indisputable evidence?

Then stop and I might stop embarrassing you two about it.

I find it rather disturbing that you make it a point to make people feel bad for believing in a religion.
What are you talking about? Namelesskitty was talking to Duckling and Buggy about how they keep posting theological arguments in other threads that have nothing to do with them. What does that have to do with making people feel bad about believing in a religion?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on February 28, 2011, 07:03:19 PM
Eh, well I hadn't read the messages before it. My apologies.

Do I have full, inrefutable proof? No. But I believe it as if I did nonetheless.
Sorry you can't think outside the box.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on February 28, 2011, 07:20:19 PM
Do I have full, inrefutable proof? No. But I believe it as if I did nonetheless.
Sorry you can't think outside the box.
Well I believe the Big Bang, what with there only being a few holes here and there, as apposed to something that no living thing can prove.
Sorry you can't think outside the box.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on February 28, 2011, 07:22:07 PM
No proof?
You speak of religion as if it is some mindless, imaginative thing.
I'm not particularly interested in explaining color to a blind person.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on February 28, 2011, 07:30:08 PM
No proof?
No proof, give me a piece of evidence that even halfway points to the existence of God and I might reconsider.

You speak of religion as if it is some mindless, imaginative thing.
Without proof, it might as well be.

I'm not particularly interested in explaining color to a blind person.
Blind am I? Does that mean you have no more even partially logical points to make? That you withdraw your argument? And since you can't give me anything else, you just want to throw an insult in my face and leave?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on February 28, 2011, 07:32:12 PM
Proof? Through cosmology they have proven that the universe has been expanding since the beginning of time. And it does have a proven creation point, furthermore, they have found documents giving stories very similar to the stories in the bible. Proven to be much older than the bible itself.

Blind? I did not call you blind, it was an anology.
I was stating that explaining faith to the faithless, is like explaining color to the blind.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on February 28, 2011, 08:14:57 PM
Proof? Through cosmology they have proven that the universe has been expanding since the beginning of time. And it does have a proven creation point, furthermore, they have found documents giving stories very similar to the stories in the bible. Proven to be much older than the bible itself.
For the first part, what is this "creation point" and how does it point to God? The second part, while interesting, only proves that Christianity was around longer than we thought, and so, offers no more proof than the bible itself.

Blind? I did not call you blind, it was an anology.
I was stating that explaining faith to the faithless, is like explaining color to the blind.
I got the analogy, it was offensive to me because it looked more personal than it should have.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on February 28, 2011, 08:27:49 PM
I don't think you saw the main point. If those were written at the time they say they were, they date back to 150-70 BC.
Get it now?

Sorry you feel offended.
Title: Re: Religion
Post by: Steelfist on March 01, 2011, 11:40:30 AM
The fact that he exists. :)

This statement fills me with incoherent rage. Not sure why. Nonetheless, I'll continue with the discussion.

Religions predate 150-70 BC quite significantly. You obviously can't get any point you are trying to make across. To put it simply, you have no proof of god's existence, you have no proof that your god is real over any other, and you are likening those who disagree with you to those who are blind to colour.

You're comments consistently irritate me. You offer vague arguments, then complain when nobody gets your point.

I understand that god wishes our minds to be like to a small child's. I fear you took that too literally.
Title: Re: Religion
Post by: Deagonx on March 01, 2011, 02:28:45 PM
The fact that he exists. :)

This statement fills me with incoherent rage. Not sure why. Nonetheless, I'll continue with the discussion.

Religions predate 150-70 BC quite significantly. You obviously can't get any point you are trying to make across. To put it simply, you have no proof of god's existence, you have no proof that your god is real over any other, and you are likening those who disagree with you to those who are blind to colour.

You're comments consistently irritate me. You offer vague arguments, then complain when nobody gets your point.

I understand that god wishes our minds to be like to a small child's. I fear you took that too literally.

Let me further explain the analogy. The idea of faith is so distant, and unrelative to your mindset. It's impossible to explain.

Proof? I have proof that you don't consider proof. Then so be it.

Was that last line a crack at my age?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 01, 2011, 06:13:20 PM
To a person who has never heard of either story of creation, which sounds more likely:

"Everything was created by God in seven days"

"The universe expanded from a hot and dense state"

I understand that god wishes our minds to be like to a small child's. I fear you took that too literally.

Don't please insult the other debaters, we are trying to have a proper debate here. 
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 01, 2011, 06:22:38 PM
Umm.. I wouldn't know, I've heard both sides and believe the big bang makes entirely no sense.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 01, 2011, 06:48:35 PM
Umm.. I wouldn't know, I've heard both sides and believe the big bang makes entirely no sense.
Well, I've also heard both sides and believe God makes entirely no sense.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 01, 2011, 06:49:39 PM
Umm.. I wouldn't know, I've heard both sides and believe the big bang makes entirely no sense.

Okay then, before you can say that religion has the correct creation story, you must first understand science's creation story. First, what don't you understand about The Big Bang Theory?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 01, 2011, 06:50:23 PM
Thats too bad duskling. Because God is the real one.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 01, 2011, 06:52:34 PM
Thats too bad duskling. Because God is the real one.

BEFORE you can say "God is the Real One" you must at least understand The Big Bang Theory so that you don't have a biased opinion.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 01, 2011, 06:53:53 PM
You act as if a scientific theory will change my faith. Like I will suddenly have a (false) revelation about religion.
I won't, I have read a brief summary of it. And it doesn't make sense.

Just like you, have you fully read the bible? If not, how can you choose to disregard is as untrue?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 01, 2011, 06:57:42 PM
I don't act as it will change your view on Faith, I don't want to change your view on faith. It is not fair to say: Since I don't understand something, I don't believe in it.

I have read the bible and after close consideration I believe that both of them cannot be proved until their is more evidence to support them, I am Agnostic.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 01, 2011, 07:01:49 PM
Agnosticism is undecided theism.
Are you saying that you don't believe in the Big Bang?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 01, 2011, 07:10:48 PM
I am saying that I believe in neither.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: cyso on March 01, 2011, 09:10:32 PM
Since you guys have been begging for some evidence for the Bible...

The biggest evidence for the Bible would probably be the prophecies. Some of them include this one from Deuteronomy 28.
Moreover, the Lord will scatter you among all peoples, from one end of the earth to the other end of the earth; and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone, which you or your fathers have not known.
This was written in Deuteronomy, which is as old as Moses was. The writer would have to have been incredibly lucky to correctly predict the scattering of the Jews (in the Diaspora about 1800 years later).

Another one also from Deuteronomy:
You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number, because you did not obey the Lord you God.
I admit, it wouldn't be too incredibly lucky for someone to correctly predict that.

Another one, from Daniel 2:
After you (Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon) another kingdom will rise (the Persians), inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth (the Greeks under Alexander established an empire over all of the world known to the Babylonians at the time). Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom (Roman Empire), strong as iron-for iron breaks and smashes everything-and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all others. Just as you saw the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom (The Roman Empire divided into two kingdoms); yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay (the Roman empire doesn't exist anymore)

This next one will require a bit of explanation. It is from the book of Daniel. Daniel had seen a really confusing vision. It involved a ram with two horns. A goat with a "prominent horn" between its eyes attacks the ram, breaks its horns, and tramples it. Then, at the height of its power, the goat's large horn is broken off and in its place, four horns grow. Daniel is confused by this. Then, he receives an explanation. The two horned ram represented the kings of Medes and Persia. The goat represented Greece. The large horn of the goat was the first king (the first king over the Greek Empire, Alexander). The four horns were the four kingdoms that emerged after Alexander's death (I think they were the Kingdom of Ptolemy/Soter, the Kingdom of Cassander, the Kingdom of Lysimachus, and the Kingdom of Seleucus/Nicator, but it might be referring to the Antigonid dynasty in Macedon and central Greece, the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt based at Alexandria, the Seleucid dynasty in Syria and Mesopotamia based at Antioch, and the Attalid dynasty in Anatolia based at Pergamum).
Here are the verses.
He said: “I am going to tell you what will happen later in the time of wrath, because the vision concerns the appointed time of the end. The two-horned ram that you saw represents the kings of Media and Persia. The shaggy goat is the king of Greece, and the large horn between its eyes is the first king. The four horns that replaced the one that was broken off represent four kingdoms that will emerge from his nation but will not have the same power.
Alexander the Great died about 300 years after Daniel lived.

I could go on for a while. Tell me it you want more.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 01, 2011, 09:18:28 PM
Its undeniable, cyso has 'proof' as I did not.
Though, I found it... unworthy to debate something as real as gravity. And, like gravity, religion is something that is and always will be there, even if not fully understood and acknowledged.

Cyso, I must admit.. I am not very versed in the bible. I tried to get through it at around 11, but it was an original kind-of bible with all the... Hebrew Lingo.

I do my best :/
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 01, 2011, 09:22:43 PM
Now, just as a warning to you guys, the probable response to that IS... Coming to you in a PM. :D
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Steelfist on March 02, 2011, 09:23:47 AM
The prophecies, ah, yes. I wondered when we would come to that.

You mentioned a few of them that came true, though only if you interpret them in a certain way (I tend to find moderately vague prophecies - like that - can usually be twisted to fit events that have occured). You did not mention the prophecies, promises and plain facts present in the bible which are NOT TRUE or have NOT COME TRUE. Yes, a few rather loosely worded prophecies came true, if you choose to look at them in a certain
light. Many have not, but probably will AT SOME POINT!

I say 'A new empire shall rise, and have dominion over the earth. They shall cast down the symbols of all gods, and forge a future for themselves.'

This, unless we destroy ourselves or god is real, will almost certainly come true. If we destroy ourselves, no-one will be any the wiser. If god is real, I shall be very contrite about this. Otherwise, it's damn near certain to happen, eventually. In the mean time it 'Hasn't happened yet'.

I wonder if I'll be hailed as a prophet in a thousand years if I publish that as a prophesy . . .
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 02, 2011, 12:19:17 PM
Cyso... DeagonX... Told ya so!
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Dean_Lukas on March 02, 2011, 01:10:57 PM
A professor I had argued that the majority of the prophecies were written after the events they were predicting had already occurred. I don't have the dates he used with me, and I'm not going to state my own opinion, but something to think about: authorship and timeline.
Title: Re: Religion
Post by: Steelfist on March 02, 2011, 05:21:56 PM
Was that last line a crack at my age?

Just noticed this. No, it was an insult to your intelligence.

The funniest thing? You didn't understand it, providing me evidence to support it's truth. Nonetheless, while a clever statement, I shouldn't have used it, and apologise.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 02, 2011, 05:57:12 PM
So steelfist, in saying that it was an insult to my intelligence, you therefore believe wisdom comes purely of age?
Now that, that is stupid.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 02, 2011, 06:39:53 PM
So steelfist, in saying that it was an insult to my intelligence, you therefore believe wisdom comes purely of age?
How did he even imply that?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 02, 2011, 08:29:39 PM
"like a small child"
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 02, 2011, 09:49:42 PM
"like a small child"
Alright, have you ever heard about any child above the age of 5 that had the so called "Wisdom" of a 20 year old? Of course, you can stay naive your entire life, but, most of the time, when referring to small children, we mean naive, because, most of the time, children are not very... "Wise."
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 02:32:50 PM
Nonetheless, wisdom doesn't come from age.

And him insulting my level of intelligence doesn't prove his incorrect point any more.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 03:28:55 PM
And him insulting my level of intelligence doesn't prove his incorrect point any more.
And that point would be...?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 03:30:12 PM
Atheism....

Laugh out Loud?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 03:44:22 PM
Atheism....

Laugh out Loud?
That "incorrect point" has more support on this thread than your "fact" partially because,

1) We (The side against religion) give logical points,

2) We don't say things like,
The fact that he exists. :)
In "atheist form,"

and 3) We can actually give a point without making other people get so angry that they are willing to break the rules and get banned just to tell us off.

While I admit most of this seems like it is "targeted" at Deagonx, it's just that, even with my relatively peaceful nature, Deagonx, you anger me to the core with your comments. I don't want to post anything in blind rage and get banned for it. I will say nothing more on this particular matter in hopes that you will understand why I posted this.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 03:46:18 PM
I understand it angers you.
Reason being it challenges your mindset.
Call someone who thinks they are pretty ugly, they will get upset.
Call someone who thinks they ugly pretty. They will get upset, not neccesarily mad, but it will upset them.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 03:55:51 PM
I understand it angers you.
Reason being it challenges your mindset.
Call someone who thinks they are pretty ugly, they will get upset.
Call someone who thinks they ugly pretty. They will get upset, not neccesarily mad, but it will upset them.
It does not challenge my mindset, your comments are angering me because you (As in, you, Deagonx in particular) say things out of faith, which is understandable, but offer nothing yourself to back it up, only comments like
The fact that he exists. :)
or
No, I didn't. What makes him more real than the other deities in other religions? It's simple. The christian god isn't false.
or
Thats too bad duskling. Because God is the real one.
With no evidence of any kind to back it up. I wager that if cyso did not go to this forum, we'd have won this debate, or you'd give up, calling us "blind to the way of God" and say that you don't want to waste your time here. I mean, cyso is the only one who has offered any kind of evidence to us, and he still didn't insist it in such a childish way that you did.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 03, 2011, 04:15:42 PM
What happened to me?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 05:01:14 PM
What happened to me?
You do participate here, but I remember you telling me something about excluding yourself from these debates, or did I misunderstand?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 03, 2011, 05:38:41 PM
Exclude to a degree is what I believe I said.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 05:40:00 PM
Alright then, valid explanation, case closed.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 05:40:04 PM
Honestly, duskling. I'd prefer not to waste my time arguing something as real you or I.
Why would I want to do that? So you can submit to the said 'proof' but still not convert to christianity?

I am talking to a deaf crowd here. (This is not an insult.)
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 05:43:04 PM
Honestly, duskling. I'd prefer not to waste my time arguing something as real you or I.
Why would I want to do that? So you can submit to the said 'proof' but still not convert to christianity?

I am talking to a deaf crowd here. (This is not an insult.)
For one, you could prove that God is as real as you or I, because this is a topic for debate, I'm glad you're so devoted to your religion, but if you don't want to debate and prove to us atheists, heretics, and lost souls that your god is more real than any other, then please, leave this thread.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 03, 2011, 05:46:14 PM
Honestly, duskling. I'd prefer not to waste my time arguing something as real you or I.
Why would I want to do that? So you can submit to the said 'proof' but still not convert to christianity?

I am talking to a deaf crowd here. (This is not an insult.)
For one, you could prove that God is as real as you or I, because this is a topic for debate, I'm glad you're so devoted to your religion, but if you don't want to debate and prove to us atheists, heretics, and lost souls that your god is more real than any other, than please, leave this thread.

DeagonX, he has a point. :/
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 05:49:06 PM
Well, I don't think there really is a point to arguing something like this, but I feel the need to jump in when people post something completely ridiculous.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 05:49:19 PM
Bug why do you capitalize the X?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 05:50:35 PM
Well, I don't think there really is a point to arguing something like this, but I feel the need to jump in when people post something completely ridiculous.
For one thing, both sides think the other is ridiculous, that's why it's a debate, and another thing, if you feel the need to jump in, please provide something to prove us wrong or make us rethink our opinion, otherwise, you are actually hurting your side (The people that are for Christianity).
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 03, 2011, 05:52:05 PM
DeagonX, I must admit, you have been doing that a lot of that yourself.

-Edit
And please fix your double post. There is such a thing as the "Modify" button.

-Second Edit
And my device autocorrects it to capitalize the "X"
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 05:52:31 PM
Duskling, one very annoying thing that I hear from many atheists, is that when I ask them where the universe came from if not God
They ask me what if there is no beginning or end? Yet scoff when used in the context of religion.


Are you one of those people?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 05:57:16 PM
Duskling, one very annoying thing that I hear from many atheists, is that when I ask them where the universe came from if not God
They ask me what if there is no beginning or end? Yet scoff when used in the context of religion.


Are you one of those people?
I honestly don't understand the question.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 05:57:59 PM
It was more rhetorical than anything, but what I was asking is...

Do you believe there is no beginning or end in terms of existence?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 05:59:28 PM
It was more rhetorical than anything, but what I was asking is...

Do you believe there is no beginning or end in terms of existence?
Well the universe is constantly expanding, so, not really. Unless you mean... us humans? Then yes, of course, we die.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 06:07:45 PM
I meant like... Existence as a noun, the world's existence. No matter how vast it may be.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 06:26:49 PM
No, I don't believe in the end of the universe's existence.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 03, 2011, 06:28:47 PM
Do you believe in the big bang theory.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 06:38:39 PM
Since I do not believe in God, I turn to science, so yes.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 03, 2011, 10:08:27 PM
Well... looking from an Agonistical perspective, I have nothing against atheists or religious people as they are free to believe in whatever they wish to believe in. I only have problems when the atheists are negative towards religion and say stuff like "christians are sooo stupid". I have nothing wrong with ether side and what I am saying is that maybe we can stop arguing about this and focus on stuff that matters in the world, in a global perspective, like the rising of the Chinese power, or about the censoring of Huckleberry Fin. I know this matters to some people but can we put this behind us and stop posting, this topic has made a a lot people angry/frustrated and I think it is in our best interest to let this go.           
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 10:40:26 PM
I only have problems when the atheists are negative towards religion and say stuff like "christians are sooo stupid".           
Oh my, I hope I don't sound like that, or imply that. It's just that, Deagonx basically says, or makes it sound like he says, "God is real because He is real," and that really frustrates me, especially if I'm hoping to be in a debate, you don't say things like that in a debate.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Chrono on March 03, 2011, 10:50:29 PM
It's not really your fault, although seeing an entire page or two filled with heated arguments and insults really deters us from moving on in this thread or even coming here. Restrain yourself next time I guess.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 03, 2011, 11:59:37 PM
It's not really your fault, although seeing an entire page or two filled with heated arguments and insults really deters us from moving on in this thread or even coming here. Restrain yourself next time I guess.
Who is this referring to, exactly?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Chrono on March 04, 2011, 12:40:59 AM
It's not really your fault
Who is this referring to, exactly?
You. Then again, insulting him doesn't help you get your point across well without offending him and inviting more bitterness. We're not here to make more enemies now, are we?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Zackirus on March 04, 2011, 05:49:35 AM
I vote that we stop using this thread for a while.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 04, 2011, 02:23:22 PM
It's not really your fault
Who is this referring to, exactly?
You. Then again, insulting him doesn't help you get your point across well without offending him and inviting more bitterness. We're not here to make more enemies now, are we?
I don't see how I've been insulting him.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Chrono on March 04, 2011, 04:56:15 PM
Oh whoops, I was looking at the right post but accusing the wrong person. Very sorry!
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 04, 2011, 10:15:41 PM
Anyone else notice the irony in the latest TRPG game title?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: MikeW781 on March 05, 2011, 11:51:36 AM
I vote that we stop using this thread for a while.
I second that... we need to take a break from this debate.

I've already dropped out, as I finally realized that both sides are completely convinced they are right, and the basis of this conviction stems from evidence the other side refuses to acknowledge. This makes the debate kinda pointless, and its not going to go anywhere except causing more negative feelings.

I've always stood by the philosophy that it is wrong to debate religion with other people, but up until recently I thought it was different when done through faceless communication with strangers. It isn't. It still leads to bad feelings and never-ending arguments.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on March 05, 2011, 12:01:42 PM
And just so you know, Deagonx:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.

It's not undecided theism.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 05, 2011, 07:48:01 PM
Well, according to many claimed agnostics, I was spot on.

If there is a different textbook definition so be it. Neologists put gay as meaning homosexual in the dictionary. IMO they lost their credibility.
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: Deagonx on March 05, 2011, 08:10:32 PM
There are very few religions in the world supporting Polygamy.

Only one promoting sex and beer. Guess which one.
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: ArtDrake on March 05, 2011, 09:10:23 PM
Dunno. Is it a decadent branch of Christianity?

And the argument for polygamy is actually more like:

"If three or more people love each other, why can't they be married?"
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on March 05, 2011, 09:23:19 PM
At the expense of "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"?
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: Deagonx on March 05, 2011, 10:08:53 PM
Islam.



Marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man, a woman, another woman, and a third.
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: SmartyPants on March 05, 2011, 10:41:50 PM
Only one promoting sex and beer. Guess which one.
Islam.
I am pretty sure that is wrong.  Islam is against premarital sex.  Also, muslims believe that anything that poisons the creation of god (drugs and alcohol) are a sin.  That is the reason that the entire middle east is dry.
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: Deagonx on March 06, 2011, 12:10:32 AM
Citations would be appreciated.

If it DOESNT promote sex, why would it offer virgins in heaven?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Deagonx on March 06, 2011, 12:12:08 AM
What I am saying is that it annoys me that they would add something so dumb to the definition list.


For example, homophobia is actually listed as an anger or hatred for homosexuals.
That makes no sense, if I am called a homophobe they are saying I am afraid of homosexuals. I'm not.


And no, hate does not come from fear.
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: Duskling on March 06, 2011, 12:27:07 AM
If it DOESNT promote sex, why would it offer virgins in heaven?
From what I've heard, that's what the crazy terrorist factions say to their recruits to make them more willings to kill themselves in large explosions. I'm pretty sure this should be moved to "What's your religion?"
Title: Re: Polygamy
Post by: ArtDrake on March 06, 2011, 06:29:10 AM
Yes, but you insist on spreading the stereotypical lies about Islam that give the quite-peaceful, nonviolent, sober, no-less-rational-than-believing-in-your-God religion a bad rap. That doesn't belong here.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: ArtDrake on March 06, 2011, 06:32:47 AM
An anger or hatred. If one despises them, fears them, feels queasy in one's stomach around them, one is a homophobe. If someone calls another that, and that someone do not have anger towards them, or fear towards them, but he or she is just ranting about how they're an abomination, one isn't a homophobe, one's just a hateful person.

And may I enquire as to how this quite correct definition of homophobia or that of "gay" is nonsensical, senseless, incomprehensible, untrue, or increadible to you?
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Ertxiem on March 06, 2011, 07:13:08 AM
I moved some messages from Gay marriage (http://sinisterdesign.net/forum/index.php?topic=841.msg33696#msg33696).
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: MikeW781 on March 06, 2011, 12:37:56 PM
I vote that we stop using this thread for a while.
I second that... we need to take a break from this debate.

I've already dropped out, as I finally realized that both sides are completely convinced they are right, and the basis of this conviction stems from evidence the other side refuses to acknowledge. This makes the debate kinda pointless, and its not going to go anywhere except causing more negative feelings.

I've always stood by the philosophy that it is wrong to debate religion with other people, but up until recently I thought it was different when done through faceless communication with strangers. It isn't. It still leads to bad feelings and never-ending arguments.
Just gonna re-post this because it got buried with the moved messages. We should just try to live and let live for a bit.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 13, 2011, 11:54:43 AM
I vote that we stop using this thread for a while.
I second that... we need to take a break from this debate.

I've already dropped out, as I finally realized that both sides are completely convinced they are right, and the basis of this conviction stems from evidence the other side refuses to acknowledge. This makes the debate kinda pointless, and its not going to go anywhere except causing more negative feelings.

I've always stood by the philosophy that it is wrong to debate religion with other people, but up until recently I thought it was different when done through faceless communication with strangers. It isn't. It still leads to bad feelings and never-ending arguments.
Just gonna re-post this because it got buried with the moved messages. We should just try to live and let live for a bit.
At this point, I agree, we should let this cool off a bit, so that there's no hatred around here.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: bugfartboy on March 13, 2011, 11:57:21 AM
It's a bit too late for that.
Title: Re: Post your theological argument here.
Post by: Duskling on March 13, 2011, 12:03:52 PM
I mean, so that people could get a hold of themselves, when that happens, we could come back to this, so that there is no hatred from this point until... hopefully never again.