It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is it possible that all religions sprang from God?

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


You wrote:

["You can attack me all you want."]

My interest is with:

a/ Academically in seeking truth/reality.

b/ Opposing any ideology extra-parliamentarily interfering with social processes.

You are not a personal target of mine.

Quote: ["I give you proof, and you are still too blind to see."]

It's possibly a 'proof' according to whatever special method you use. I have pointed out, that it isn't a 'proof' from the perspective of standard science/logic. My 'blindness' lies with being unfamiliar with the complete procedures of your method (and most likely disagreeing from what I've seen so far).

Quote: ["I gave you questions to ask yourself and you attack my methods and reasoning."]

You are not my guru.

Quote: ["This is not the act of a rational person, but a person lashing out."]

Pop-psychology isn't an argument in this context.

Quote: ["In order to TEACH people, you get them to start asking questions of their own."]

The guru thing'y again.

Quote: ["The question i postulated was HOW did Moses know the universe and world were formed the same way that science today now states?"]

Moses' answer doesn't fit with that from contemporary science. That's only a postulate on your part.

Quote: ["The answer i gave, was God told him."]

Your premises must be correct first, before you start using them.

Quote: ["Now debate wether or not it was God or as ancient astronaught theorists think "a man from a UFO" will rage on until the final moment comes and one is proven right and the other proven wrong."]

My personal, SUBJECTIVE take on this is, that Jahveh is a deranged demon. I'm not trying to turn this into a monopoly-seeking world religion though.

Quote: ["I believe is was God, many more do and just as many believe it was little green men from planet marshmellow"]

Everybody is entitled to a personal faith, and if you find safety in a consenting group, I only wish you the best there.




posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by lonewolf19792000


We've only discovered a number of cuneiform Sumerian texts and its still up to debate on how those are translated because Sumerian is a LONG dead language,

So all these Sumerian texts translated into English I have lying about my room are frauds? Perpetrated by some of the most renowned archeologists and linguists in the world?

What do you mean that you are an archeologist? Is that like "Junior Archeologist for Jesus, 5th street chapter"?



I have elsewhere asked the same question on 'authority' (archeology), as the thread author somehow uses it in his argumentation. I don't recall any answer to me on it.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
I do insist they are the same, they both imply that an individual is not complete enough as they are with what they have.


Jealousy also means, "Vigilant in guarding something" and "Intolerant of disloyalty". It does not imply an individual not complete. Not all jealousy is sin.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
What you have pointed out to me is atypical quotation to suit a purpose, not the quotation in it's entirety.


And you quotations of Revelations 4:10 added absolutely nothing to the context, so what's your point in quoting it?


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
As read, THE 24 proclaim this TO GOD that he is worthy,IN THEIR OPINION.


Oh, my God. Capital letters. Your argument suddenly is much more rational now. I wouldn't have believed you if you didn't write in all caps. Except that you are repeating back to me what I already said. Are you trying to disagree with me by agreeing?


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
As I said in the beginning of my posts, "accepting that the Bible is a historical document" and later post where I stated that Revelation was a dream.


Accepting that the Bible is a historical document is a given for a Christian. Exact what is your argument? You seem to be claiming that the Bible fails to explain why we should still worship Jehovah in spite of the fact that the Bible acknowledges other Gods, as long as you ignore what the Bible says about the subject. Also, calling the book "Revelations" is a mistake. There was only one revelation. The name of the book is Revelation, single, not plural.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Revelation 14: 4 states that only 144,000 Jewish men who have not defiled themselves with women were redeemed. (...) Hell is an important concept in the revelations.


Widly off-topic and irrelevant. Also, Hell is a pagan concept derived from Greek Mythology. While the concept of Gehenna is important in Revelation, and for that matter, also for the Gospels, Gehenna is not Hell, and Hell is a false teaching.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Genesis 2:11- it's talking about the location of eden and it says "in Havilah where there is Gold." That always seemed a strange statement to me because in Genesis you have God, Adam and Eve.(...) why would Gold be of any consequence to any of them? Also, it leads you to believe that there are already existing countries. (Havilah, Nod, etc..)


Genesis was written by Moses. When he wrote it, places like Havilah, Nod, etc, already existed and were known. The addition merely helps the reader situate himself geographically. It has no further implications.


Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Well somewhere in the Bible, i believe its Genesis it talks about the first, second and third earth ages where God had created other earths and other people and then it shuts down and says nothing more after that.


No, it says nothing of such on the Bible.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
This is like saying which came first, the chicken or the egg. Who created God? Who created the universe? God couldn't exist unless he had the universe to exist within, the universe couldn't exist unless God created it.


There is nothing preventing our Universe from being merely a fraction of a bigger "megaverse" that God is part of. Like in that movie, Men in Black, with the whole galaxy contained within a dog's collar.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Really? He's God. He's all powerful, all knowing, He created all these vast and wonderful things, and yet, he can't endow man with knowledge and comprehension whilst creating him? This is a bit contradictory and, either says that A.) God is NOT all powerful and some things are beyond his capability. or B.) He has created man for his own personal amusement to see what he will do while demanding that we worship him without question and hanging an eternal punishment overhead for not worshipping him for good measure.


Or C) He considers that the joy of figuring out this stuff by ourselves is something worthwhile, and it is. You don't like to hear the end of the movie when you start watching it, do you?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
There are alot of problems here. 1) The one that I pointed out in a previous post. (Jealousy) 2) The fact that Christians have made a religious icon out of Christ (A graven image) after God expressly forbids it. 3) And then, states that he will punish the children for the father's sins for several generations. A truly loving God would never punish multiple generations for something the father did. (Do you have children? grandchildren? I do, and even though my kids do things that I don't approve of, I would NEVER punish my grandchildren for their parents trangressions. Now who's more loving and benevolent?)


I took the liberty of numbering your points so I could address them easier. 1) Your point about jealousy is incorrect. You keep scrambling around trying to justify the claim that jealousy is a sin because it is envy, although you can't answer the very simple question to why the word jealousy was used, and not envy. You state that they are exact the same thing, but you failed to support it. 2) I agree that icons are a problem. Good thing I don't use them. 3) I'd like to know how many "truly loving Gods" you have ever met so you can state with such certainty that a truly loving God would never punish multiple generations for something the father did. Also, I'd like to know since when you have ascended to the position of a God so you can use yourself as a valid example.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
This leads me to looking at the God of the OT and the God of the NT. Wouldn't you say there is a difference in personality of the God described in these two testaments?


No, there isn't.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
OT God is wrathful and vengeful, NT God is more forgiving. (...) Even the concept of dangling the punishment of hell is not a fair argument for free will.


Funny. Setting aside the fact that Hell is a pagan mythology, you say that the OT God is wrathful and vengeful, and NT God is forgiving, but Hell isn't mentioned anywhere in the OT by the wrathful and vengeful God.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
The accepted view in Christianity tends to run that:
1.) The devil was cast down in Genesis and appears in the garden to tempt Eve.
and, on top of that
2.) He is supposed to have come to earth and married in Genesis 6:4 in his bid to corrupt the seed of man.(I have a different view of this passage as well.)
3.) At the time of Job he is said to have had access to both Heaven and earth.
4.) By the time of Isaiah 14 he is thrown out of Heaven onto earth.
5.) In Zechariah 3 he is in Heaven again.
6.) He is on earth in Matthew 4. and is "cast out" at the time of Jesus' death, according to the popular view of "the prince of this world" being "cast out" at that time.
7.) There is a prophecy of the devil being 'cast out' in Rev.12.
8.) The devil is "chained" in Rev. 20, but he and his angels were chained in Genesis, according to the common view of Jude verse 6. If he was bound with 'eternal chains' then, how is he chained up again in Rev. 20?


Accepted by whom? I have studied over a hundred different denominations of Christianity, and I have never stumbled upon a single one that accepted anything remotely close to what you said.

1) The devil is not casted out in Genesis. It says nothing of such in Genesis and you're just speculating. He was, however, free to roam around and remained free to roam around for a long time.
2) No, he isn't. Demons descended from Heaven, but it says nowhere that Satan had any part with this. He may be guilty of many things, but the Bible does not ascribe this to him.
3) And remained free to roam around until Revelation 12.
4) It says casted down, not casted out. It doesn't mean what you think it means. It means demoralized.
5) Yes, as he could as he was free to roam around.
6) Jesus used the expression "I am already seeing Satan being casted out". This is an idiom used to imply certainty.
7) Yes, now he was casted out.
8) The devil wasn't chained in the past. Jude 6 only says that the demons were chained (because of the events that caused the flood), not that Satan was.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Leahn: Jealousy also means, "Vigilant in guarding something" and "Intolerant of disloyalty". It does not imply an individual not complete. Not all jealousy is sin.


Jealousy also means "Mental uneasiness from suspicion or fear of rivalry, unfaithfulness, etc., as in love or aims."

God clearly defines that he fears rivalry from other Gods by how he states he will "visit his wrath." He wishes to possess mankinds attention/praise/what have you, and if he doesn't get it, he punishes.. Not just the transgressors, but his offspring.

To envy is to feel resentful and unhappy because someone else possesses, or has achieved, what one wishes oneself to possess, or to have achieved.

You can spin it however you like, in my mind, the two are synonymous, and that will not change.

[quoteLeahn: ]Oh, my God. Capital letters. Your argument suddenly is much more rational now. I wouldn't have believed you if you didn't write in all caps. Except that you are repeating back to me what I already said. Are you trying to disagree with me by agreeing?

Yes, capital letters. I am not agreeing with you in any way. I was trying to clarify that what I saw you as quoting was a partial scripture wherein 24 characters from a dream proclaimed that God was worthy. A dream that was then written into Revelation (No S, to concede that point to you of my hasty writing), then added to the bible, a book that is only considered a historical document by Christians.

[quoteLeahn: ]Accepting that the Bible is a historical document is a given for a Christian. Exact what is your argument?

Ok, it's a given for a Christian. That demands that I have to accept it as such? Without multiple, reliable, corroborations? Not hardly.


Leahn; You seem to be claiming that the Bible fails to explain why we should still worship Jehovah in spite of the fact that the Bible acknowledges other Gods, as long as you ignore what the Bible says about the subject


God acknowledges other Gods, but he demands that people worship him? That's like Obama acknowledging other candidates but we can only elect him.


Leahn: iginally posted by SumerianSoldier
Revelation 14: 4 states that only 144,000 Jewish men who have not defiled themselves with women were redeemed. (...) Hell is an important concept in the revelations.

Widly off-topic and irrelevant.


Really? Wow, if you read the bible like that, you would come away with a different belief.



Leahn: Also, Hell is a pagan concept derived from Greek Mythology. While the concept of Gehenna is important in Revelation, and for that matter, also for the Gospels, Gehenna is not Hell, and Hell is a false teaching.


PS 139:8
Prov 23:14
Prov 27:20
Matt 5:20
Matt 5:29
Matt 11:23
Matt 16:18
Matt 18:9
Luke 16:23
James 3:6
2 Pet 2:4

Do you pick and choose your teachings, study yourself, or just go off what your pastor tells you?


Leahn: Genesis was written by Moses. When he wrote it, places like Havilah, Nod, etc, already existed and were known. The addition merely helps the reader situate himself geographically. It has no further implications.


I can accept this argument as logical, as something that would be written down later after having come down from an oral tradition. It bears consideration in my further researches.


Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
Well somewhere in the Bible, i believe its Genesis it talks about the first, second and third earth ages where God had created other earths and other people and then it shuts down and says nothing more after that.



Leahn: No, it says nothing of such on the Bible.


I have to agree with Leahn on this one. I believe this is an outlook generally accepted by a Jehovah's witness and one IMO, that is highly flawed, even from my perspective.


Leahn: There is nothing preventing our Universe from being merely a fraction of a bigger "megaverse" that God is part of. Like in that movie, Men in Black, with the whole galaxy contained within a dog's collar.


So there are God's that rule the other "megaverse's" but this one is God's to do with as he sees fit? And that logic is still just as flawed. It doesn't give the explanation of who created God and this particular universe or the Deity that created the megaverse.


Leahn: Or C) He considers that the joy of figuring out this stuff by ourselves is something worthwhile, and it is. You don't like to hear the end of the movie when you start watching it, do you?


So we're a movie for God? Or his own private gag reel?


Leahn: I took the liberty of numbering your points so I could address them easier. 1) Your point about jealousy is incorrect. You keep scrambling around trying to justify the claim that jealousy is a sin because it is envy, although you can't answer the very simple question to why the word jealousy was used, and not envy. You state that they are exact the same thing, but you failed to support it. 2) I agree that icons are a problem. Good thing I don't use them. 3) I'd like to know how many "truly loving Gods" you have ever met so you can state with such certainty that a truly loving God would never punish multiple generations for something the father did. Also, I'd like to know since when you have ascended to the position of a God so you can use yourself as a valid example.


1.) This is perspective, we will never see eye to eye on this.
2.) Agreed
3.) None, I've never met a "truly loving God." The Christian God is often portrayed as such by his sheep, even though he kills and destroys with impunity. So let's see... God without love, that visits his wrath on the heads of generations for transgressions of the father, while murdering multitudes before they have had the chance to atone for their sins is worthy of me kneeling before him? Not hardly.
4.) As to my ascension? With the biblical God as my example, all I have to do is denounce any contenders to my way of thinking, kill off everyone that doesn't agree with me in mass genocide except for a few people who do agree with my tenets and will later write about my accomplishments; send them out into the world with a few commandments that I don't have to follow, and then let them know that if the veer off course, I'm gonna punish them. Oh, and probably their children as well.

No difference in OT/NT God? Really? Ok. You roll with that strange perspective.


Leahn: Accepted by whom? I have studied over a hundred different denominations of Christianity, and I have never stumbled upon a single one that accepted anything remotely close to what you said.


I'm curious, what is Satan's timeline here? When is he cast down? When does he attempt to corrupt the seed of man? Etc, and so forth. I am willing to listen to your diatribe on this.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
God clearly defines that he fears rivalry from other Gods by how he states he will "visit his wrath."


Clearly to whom, dude? To you? Citation needed. You have nothing to offer in support of your statement but your own opinion.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
You can spin it however you like, in my mind, the two are synonymous, and that will not change.


Good thing that you are openly admiting that you are going to ignore any and all evidence presented against your argument in favor of what is in your mind. Point is, your mind doesn't dictate reality. If all your cases rests on the fact that, in your mind, both words are synonymous, then you don't have a case.

You're free to think whatever you want. You're not, however, granted the right to have everyone bend to your distorted views of reality.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Yes, capital letters. I am not agreeing with you in any way. I was trying to clarify that what I saw you as quoting was a partial scripture wherein 24 characters from a dream proclaimed that God was worthy. A dream that was then written into Revelation (No S, to concede that point to you of my hasty writing), then added to the bible, a book that is only considered a historical document by Christians.


The original argument was on the lines that the existence of other Gods somehow would threaten the Christian faith. Somehow, it threatened your faith. My point, that you repeatedly miss, is that the existence of other Gods is irrelevant. You worship Jehovah not because He is the only God, but because He is the creator. If the 24 elders, that service God, worship Him because of such, why do you expect Christians to need further reasons?


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Ok, it's a given for a Christian. That demands that I have to accept it as such? Without multiple, reliable, corroborations? Not hardly.


I have never demanded anything of such. On the other hand, you seem to be demanding that I don't accept it because you don't.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
God acknowledges other Gods, but he demands that people worship him? That's like Obama acknowledging other candidates but we can only elect him.


God demands that we worship Him because He created us. It is a fair request, as you owe Him your existence.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Really? Wow, if you read the bible like that, you would come away with a different belief.


Still off-topic and irrelevant.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
PS 139:8
Prov 23:14
Prov 27:20
Matt 5:20
Matt 5:29
Matt 11:23
Matt 16:18
Matt 18:9
Luke 16:23
James 3:6
2 Pet 2:4


We can address every single one of those passages, if you desire. It is gonna be lengthy, though.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
Do you pick and choose your teachings, study yourself, or just go off what your pastor tells you?


I actually study the original greek.



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


You wrote:

["God demands that we worship Him because He created us. It is a fair request, as you owe Him your existence."]

Which is an assumption, preceded by the clearly wrong assumption, that he also created cosmos, the earth or whatever creation-claims associated with this alleged character.

The logical conclusion is, that those accepting such assumptions as 'truth' worship this 'god', and leave those who don't to live without interference of any kind (also including no hijacking of academic methodologies, which is what this thread started by doing).



posted on Aug, 23 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
God clearly defines that he fears rivalry from other Gods by how he states he will "visit his wrath."


Clearly to whom, dude? To you? Citation needed. You have nothing to offer in support of your statement but your own opinion.

I see that you take the character Yahweh who claims to be creator as a truth telling god. His basic command is worship me alone or die.


DT 7:1 When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations--the Hittites, Girga#es, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you-- 2 and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3 Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4 for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. 5 This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. 6 For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession.

Q: Why must all these people die?
A: They will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods

Q: What happens if someone follows other gods?
A: LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you

I think this qualifies as a rather severe form of jealousy, the kind that sounds like, "Well if I can't have you, than no one will!!!" Boom!!! jealousy motivated domestic murder. And that's really all that the Old Testament is about.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
I have to agree with Leahn on this one. I believe this is an outlook generally accepted by a Jehovah's witness and one IMO, that is highly flawed, even from my perspective.


As a Jehovah's Witness myself, I can attest that his point of view has nothing to do with what is accepted by us.


Originally posted by SumerianSoldier
So there are God's that rule the other "megaverse's" but this one is God's to do with as he sees fit? And that logic is still just as flawed. It doesn't give the explanation of who created God and this particular universe or the Deity that created the megaverse.


It doesn't matter who created that megaverse, if it even exists. The same way that it doesn't matter who were Einstein's parents when he proposed Relativity. None of this changes the merit that He created us.


So we're a movie for God? Or his own private gag reel?


No, the Universe is a movie that God made for us to watch.



Leahn: 1) Your point about jealousy is incorrect. You state that they are exact the same thing, but you failed to support it. 3) I'd like to know how many "truly loving Gods" you have ever met so you can state with such certainty what a truly loving God would do. 4) I'd like to know since when you have ascended to the position of a God so you can use yourself as a valid example.


1.) This is perspective, we will never see eye to eye on this.
3.) None, I've never met a "truly loving God."
4.) As to my ascension? With the biblical God as my example, all I have to do is denounce any contenders to my way of thinking(...)


1) Only because you refuse to use a dictionary. You can keep stating that jealousy and envy are the same thing but even a cursory look at a dictionary should be enough to prove otherwise. But those that wish to remain ignorant will remain ignorant.

3) Then all your opinions on what a truly loving God would do, and what would a God have to do to be qualified as a "God without love" are just opinions, unfounded by anything but your own prejudice.

4) You didn't answer the question. When did you ascend into godhood?


I'm curious, what is Satan's timeline here? When is he cast down? When does he attempt to corrupt the seed of man? Etc, and so forth. I am willing to listen to your diatribe on this.


Satan doesn't have a timeline. Satan has a deadline.


Originally posted by bogomil
You wrote:
["God demands that we worship Him because He created us. It is a fair request, as you owe Him your existence."]
Which is an assumption, preceded by the clearly wrong assumption, that he also created cosmos, the earth or whatever creation-claims associated with this alleged character.

The logical conclusion is, that those accepting such assumptions as 'truth' worship this 'god', and leave those who don't to live without interference of any kind (also including no hijacking of academic methodologies, which is what this thread started by doing).


Good thing that you understand that this is the logical conclusion that follows from the premises. Yes, what I said is an assumption. I am a Christian and I believe in the Bible and I assume it to be truth. It doesn't matter. Ultimately, everything we believe is based on an assumption. We only disagree on some of them. What is your point? That your assumptions are better than mine?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
I see that you take the character Yahweh who claims to be creator as a truth telling god. His basic command is worship me alone or die.


So? What does His desire to destroy those that oppose Him has to do with whether He tells the truth or not?

In fact, if He is a truth telling god, and He says "worship me alone or die", don't you think that it is a good reason to worship Him? After all, He isn't lying when He says that He will slay you if you do otherwise. He has done it plenty of times in the past, so you pretty much has more than enough evidence that He isn't bluffing and has more than enough power to follow through with the threat.

www.despair.com...


Originally posted by pthena
I think this qualifies as a rather severe form of jealousy, the kind that sounds like, "Well if I can't have you, than no one will!!!" Boom!!! jealousy motivated domestic murder. And that's really all that the Old Testament is about.


I never argued that God isn't jealous. I argued that the meaning of jealousy in the Bible isn't synonymous with envy.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


You wrote:

["Good thing that you understand that this is the logical conclusion that follows from the premises."]

The general use of standard logic amongst various forms of enthusiastic christians on this forum is very often deplorable, and it's almost unavoidable to bring 'logic' per se in, unless you want to spent 20 pages on circle-arguments and repetitious steamroller preaching. But it's good, that's done with.

Quote: ["I am a Christian and I believe in the Bible and I assume it to be truth."]

And being on a public forum, where you can be sure of meeting opposition to your assumptions, how do you then approach the situation. Just preaching your assumptions on a 'faith-basis', or are you willing to validate them by introducing an element of objectivity to the perspective? (Or other alternatives of your own choice).

Quote: ["It doesn't matter."]

I'm not quite sure, what it is, which "doesn't matter"; but generally such things as religion and other ideologies DO matter, as they in some cases can be a pestilence for mankind.

Quote: ["Ultimately, everything we believe is based on an assumption."]

As a philosophical scepticist, that's my opinion also. But in the meantime, until we reach the philosophical "ultimately", there's the ordinary pragmatic life to consider, where the faith vs. fact controverse plays a prominent role, and where epistemology is a city on Mars.

Quote: ["We only disagree on some of them."]

Are 'we' you and me, or mankind in general?

Quote: ["What is your point? That your assumptions are better than mine?"]

Depends on the perspective. Theoretically Hitler and Stalin could legitimately ask the same question, and from the outer reaches of epistemology claim philosophical 'egality'. But there's such a thing as application of philosophy also.



edit on 26-8-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by Leahn
 

And being on a public forum, where you can be sure of meeting opposition to your assumptions, how do you then approach the situation. Just preaching your assumptions on a 'faith-basis', or are you willing to validate them by introducing an element of objectivity to the perspective? (Or other alternatives of your own choice).


The original post that originated the reply was this one. It starts from a Christian point of view. It was answered with the same point of view. I have absolutely no problem dealing with arguments with logic alone, whenever a Christian point of view is not warranted, but it is pretty pointless of you to claim that I should not discuss matters of Christian Theology by using Christian sources.


Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["It doesn't matter."]

I'm not quite sure, what it is, which "doesn't matter";


It doesn't matter that it is based on an assumption. Everything is ultimately based on assumptions. Arguing that an argument based on an assumption is invalid is useful if you can prove that that assumption is incorrect, but arguing against axioms is pointless. You have yours, I have mine, we agree on some, we disagree on some. You can beg to differ because we don't share the same axioms, but unless you can demonstrate that my axioms are incorrect, it doesn't matter.


Originally posted by bogomil
Are 'we' you and me, or mankind in general?


Mankind in general.


Originally posted by bogomil
Quote: ["What is your point? That your assumptions are better than mine?"]

Depends on the perspective. Theoretically Hitler and Stalin could legitimately ask the same question, and from the outer reaches of epistemology claim philosophical 'egality'. But there's such a thing as application of philosophy also.


I still fail to see your point.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


Quote:

["It doesn't matter that it is based on an assumption. Everything is ultimately based on assumptions. Arguing that an argument based on an assumption is invalid is useful if you can prove that that assumption is incorrect, but arguing against axioms is pointless. You have yours, I have mine, we agree on some, we disagree on some. You can beg to differ because we don't share the same axioms, but unless you can demonstrate that my axioms are incorrect, it doesn't matter."]

And what are your 'axioms'?



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn


In fact, if He is a truth telling god, and He says "worship me alone or die", don't you think that it is a good reason to worship Him? After all, He isn't lying when He says that He will slay you if you do otherwise.

Actually no. Physical fear of destruction is not good terms for a relationship at all.

If you look, you will notice under my name a description: Exiled Shaman. Do you know what a shaman's job is? It is to confront the gods. I will tell you a story:

I grew tired of walking on egg shells around Jehovah, so I called him out for a showdown, high noon, main street. He didn't show. Again I called him out. He didn't show. So I tracked him down to his lair. Turns out he only has complete existence within the words of the Old Testament. I found him. He cringed and whined like a whipped puppy. "Have pity", he cried, "I didn't want to be like this. You can help me. You can free me." I considered his request, then rejected it. Then he reared up as if to strike. I sneered and he collapsed whimpering back into the paper and ink. Then I closed the book.


edit on 26-8-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by Leahn


In fact, if He is a truth telling god, and He says "worship me alone or die", don't you think that it is a good reason to worship Him? After all, He isn't lying when He says that He will slay you if you do otherwise.


Actually no. Physical fear of destruction is not good terms for a relationship at all.


No one said anything about "good terms". I said "good reason". It may be a good reason even if they are bad terms.


Originally posted by pthena
If you look, you will notice under my name a description: Exiled Shaman. Do you know what a shaman's job is? It is to confront the gods. I will tell you a story:


Since you admit it to being "just a story" then it is pretty pointless to ask you to substantiate what you just said. So I won't bother. On the other hand, I cannot help but to feel pity.

There will be a moment in the near future when every knee will have to bend, and people will be judged for their actions, if they were good or bad, and those words of yours will be remembered. And you will regret them.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


You wrote:

["There will be a moment in the near future when every knee will have to bend, and people will be judged for their actions, if they were good or bad, and those words of yours will be remembered. And you will regret them."]

While I mostly disagree with you, I have also had some respect for your intelligent approaches. This simplistic 'threat' position you present here is ...bleep.....



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Leahn


I cannot help but to feel pity.

Pity rather, those who have never met Yahweh, and yet worship him out of fear.


There will be a moment in the near future when every knee will have to bend, and people will be judged for their actions, if they were good or bad, and those words of yours will be remembered. And you will regret them.

There is an old saying, that I just made up: "If you are going to repent for it later, don't do it in the first place." For avoidance is of much greater value than regret.

Having said that, I go on to say, that even after careful consideration, I stand by what I wrote.

Torture may cause me to bend knee, and application of physical damage can result in my death, but that torture and death carried out by minions of the character under discussion are not any evidence of justice; or love, for that matter; or worthiness of worship.

edit on 8-9-2011 by pthena because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join