to the atheists

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Kolbe
 
Reply Wed 18 Feb, 2009 12:16 pm
@click here,
click here wrote:
Do you have a verse that refers to God/Jesus as a pacifist? If interpreted from the Bible if Jesus is a pacifist then so is God, if God is a pacifist then he wouldn't have helped his people win battles/wars etc..


Seeing as how Jesus was meant to be part of the holy trinity, and since wrath is a sin, I would assume him to be sin-free. As such, he was not. Why, if he is all loving, should god not be a pacifist then? The bible is no absolute truth of anything, most rational priests will say this, so please do not entirely rely on it for truths.

click here wrote:
Jesus's anger in the temple was righteous anger. The same kind of anger that God shows to people who refuse to do as he says. ex. Sodom and Gomorrah.

Just because we may not have an exacting interpretation of why Jesus cursed the fig tree doesn't mean that he is ambiguous. It is not that the situation can have more then one meaning it is only that the situation is unknown as to why such and such happened.


So anger, therefore sin, is justified as long as it is deemed righteous?



click here wrote:
I think that you would have to severely falsely interpret that to assume that it is not meant to be viewed as literal

So no you should not kill his family. As the Bible states it is the government that does this punishment.


Funny, my philosophy teacher who took a degree at a leading university, somewhere in Belgium, calls it one of the most misinterpreted bible verses in history. That alongside money being the root of all evil. I shall have to ask her about that
 
click here
 
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 10:13 am
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:
Seeing as how Jesus was meant to be part of the holy trinity, and since wrath is a sin, I would assume him to be sin-free. As such, he was not. Why, if he is all loving, should god not be a pacifist then? The bible is no absolute truth of anything, most rational priests will say this, so please do not entirely rely on it for truths.


Kolbe wrote:

So anger, therefore sin, is justified as long as it is deemed righteous?


Where do you get that 'wrath is a sin'? Jesus was a sinner?

No sin is not righteous, what can be is anger.

You say that God is all loving. You do know there are lots of instances in the Bible of God hating/detesting actions or people.

I could give you loads and loads of verses of God taking his anger out on people or directing others to kill someone who angered God through their actions.

If it was as simple as 'God can not be angry' then you'd have loads of Bible critics jumping all over the loads of verses of God killing people.



Kolbe wrote:

Funny, my philosophy teacher who took a degree at a leading university, somewhere in Belgium, calls it one of the most misinterpreted bible verses in history. That alongside money being the root of all evil. I shall have to ask her about that


Ok? I would think that someone who has a degree in Religion would be the better person to consult then someone who has spent some of their time in religion.
 
Kolbe
 
Reply Thu 19 Feb, 2009 03:10 pm
@awoelt,
It is not that god cannot be angry, as that would limit his very definition, but the fact that god should not be angry. Have you not heard of the seven deadly sins accepted by christianity on the moral 'Things to Not Do' list? Let's see; Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Pride and Wrath. As god is meant to be the ultimate good, without sin, and anger is a sin, you see the conclusion I come to.

This is why I dislike the abrahamic god. Why should I bow down and worship something that man has the potential to be the moral better of? What gives this hypothetical being of utmost power the right to burn down entire towns and villages and in a spurt of hypocrisy turn round and tell me not to kill. God may apparently work in mysterious ways, but the supposedly all-loving good guy put around by the sermons and the preachers in these modern times really doesn't seem all he is cracked up to be.
 
click here
 
Reply Fri 20 Feb, 2009 01:24 am
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:
It is not that god cannot be angry, as that would limit his very definition, but the fact that god should not be angry. Have you not heard of the seven deadly sins accepted by christianity on the moral 'Things to Not Do' list? Let's see; Greed, Gluttony, Sloth, Lust, Envy, Pride and Wrath. As god is meant to be the ultimate good, without sin, and anger is a sin, you see the conclusion I come to.

This is why I dislike the abrahamic god. Why should I bow down and worship something that man has the potential to be the moral better of? What gives this hypothetical being of utmost power the right to burn down entire towns and villages and in a spurt of hypocrisy turn round and tell me not to kill. God may apparently work in mysterious ways, but the supposedly all-loving good guy put around by the sermons and the preachers in these modern times really doesn't seem all he is cracked up to be.


That is a bad conclusion to come to. Like I said before do you not think that every religious critic would just stand by and watch as the Bible detailed multiple events of 'hypocrisy'?

Anger is not always a sin. Your being absolutist and saying that the Bible says that all terms of anger are wrong. Well that is incorrect. You have falsely interpreted thinking that the Bible contradicts its self. I honestly have never heard someone make this argument before and that is because it doesn't stand.

If you don't wish to subscribe to the Bible because it tells of a God that should be feared that is fine but don't draw conclusions from it that are wrong and misleading.
 
Kolbe
 
Reply Sat 21 Feb, 2009 02:00 pm
@awoelt,
Anger is not wrong? How so? It clouds reason, can be substituted by cold logic and in the end you often feel like a fool for being angry anyway. No, I don't say the bible says that all terms of anger are wrong, I said it was accepted by christianity as being wrong: which can be two completely different things. Thomas Aquinas held the four virtues and seven deadly sins, at least I believe it originated from him, and yet a lot of teachings are based on his ideas. Question my conclusion all you wish, but don't say that it is wrong without your own argument behind it.

I don't see how absolutism can be entirely wrong, also. Give me a realistic way of saying that genocide is justified. To kill a country/race of people. No? That's because it is always wrong, thus absolutism is not completely disregardable.
 
click here
 
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 08:07 am
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:
Anger is not wrong? How so? It clouds reason, can be substituted by cold logic and in the end you often feel like a fool for being angry anyway. No, I don't say the bible says that all terms of anger are wrong, I said it was accepted by christianity as being wrong: which can be two completely different things. Thomas Aquinas held the four virtues and seven deadly sins, at least I believe it originated from him, and yet a lot of teachings are based on his ideas. Question my conclusion all you wish, but don't say that it is wrong without your own argument behind it.


The reason I say that it is wrong is that you are only picking and choosing which information you wish to take from.

You are saying that one specific part of Christianity says that this is wrong. What you have done is taken it out of context. You can't assume that from one example that 'anger' is always wrong. If you look at the Bible as I said you will notice that there are lots of times when 'anger' was not wrong.

You say that Jesus turned over the tables in the temple and that was wrong. You get that from the Bible and then go on to say that its a contradiction to his character because the Bible says anger is wrong. Though if you read more of the Bible you will notice that it is situational. So you have 'proven' your arguement with only the data that you choose to except.


Kolbe wrote:

I don't see how absolutism can be entirely wrong, also. Give me a realistic way of saying that genocide is justified. To kill a country/race of people. No? That's because it is always wrong, thus absolutism is not completely disregardable.


I could give you an example but I would first need to know where you stand so let me ask you a question.

Why is killing a country/race of people wrong? You may say that it violates a persons rights as a human. When you say that you can not be talking about the rights in a legal sense. As those rights are all created by man so then by defintion those rights are not absolute.

So you must be speaking of the 'human rights' in a natural absolute way. If you can justify the existence of absolute universal eternally existent human rights then you can say that genocide is absolutely wrong. If you can not do that then I don't see how you can justify it as absolutely wrong it then only comes down to a matter of opinion.
 
Kolbe
 
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 09:18 am
@click here,
click here wrote:
The reason I say that it is wrong is that you are only picking and choosing which information you wish to take from.

You are saying that one specific part of Christianity says that this is wrong. What you have done is taken it out of context. You can't assume that from one example that 'anger' is always wrong. If you look at the Bible as I said you will notice that there are lots of times when 'anger' was not wrong.

You say that Jesus turned over the tables in the temple and that was wrong. You get that from the Bible and then go on to say that its a contradiction to his character because the Bible says anger is wrong. Though if you read more of the Bible you will notice that it is situational. So you have 'proven' your arguement with only the data that you choose to except.


So what you are saying is that some foundations of belief are only partially applicable? I ask why that anger, in those situations, is not wrong whereas other anger is. Is it intention? Motive? In the end, there is anger. Not justice, not righteousness, but anger. I don't see how a set of rules can decree something absolute and then apply it situationally, it makes little sense. You say to read the Bible and, while I admit the book itself does not mark anger as specifically wrong, it has been regarded as such for centuries. Take the tenant of not murdering from Exodus. Though there may be disputes as to the definition of murder, it is known that in Numbers 31:17-18 murder was heavily supported.

Numbers31:17-18 wrote:
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.


Secondly I ask how did I take it out of context? If it is a tenant of modern christianity then it surely applies to all christianity. Also, of course I would pick and choose what would support my claim, if I chose what would destroy it then it would be a very poor claim indeed. Everybody chooses what they wish, whether it be quotes, interpretations or their own opinions with reasons, that doesn't automatically make an argument invalid.


click here wrote:
I could give you an example but I would first need to know where you stand so let me ask you a question.

Why is killing a country/race of people wrong? You may say that it violates a persons rights as a human. When you say that you can not be talking about the rights in a legal sense. As those rights are all created by man so then by defintion those rights are not absolute.

So you must be speaking of the 'human rights' in a natural absolute way. If you can justify the existence of absolute universal eternally existent human rights then you can say that genocide is absolutely wrong. If you can not do that then I don't see how you can justify it as absolutely wrong it then only comes down to a matter of opinion.


What? Why is genocide wrong? You can't seriously have that question in your mind. It takes many many multiple lives, which is itself unjustifiable in the removal of the entirity existence, and thus doesn't allow for individual judgement. It's incentives are usually the removal of a problem which indeed is not a problem, merely propagated as one, thusly relying upon deceit for it to happen. I cannot believe this, why is genocide wrong? What defines right and wrong to you, other than a wizard in the clouds and a book written by his supposedly corrupt creations?

Yes, I do believe in absolute human rights, and should probably get round to reading the thread you have begun on it. No I cannot prove anything eternal, due to it's very eternal nature. Human rights are representative of the golden rule of christian faith; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I do not wish to be killed, therefore I do not kill. I do not wish to be raped, therefore I do not. Even if, as you say, it comes to a matter of opinion then opinion will be that genocide is wrong. What is the point of a relative question if its answer is absolute anyway?
 
click here
 
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 03:58 am
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:
So what you are saying is that some foundations of belief are only partially applicable? I ask why that anger, in those situations, is not wrong whereas other anger is. Is it intention? Motive? In the end, there is anger. Not justice, not righteousness, but anger. I don't see how a set of rules can decree something absolute and then apply it situationally, it makes little sense. You say to read the Bible and, while I admit the book itself does not mark anger as specifically wrong, it has been regarded as such for centuries. Take the tenant of not murdering from Exodus. Though there may be disputes as to the definition of murder, it is known that in Numbers 31:17-18 murder was heavily supported.



Secondly I ask how did I take it out of context? If it is a tenant of modern christianity then it surely applies to all christianity. Also, of course I would pick and choose what would support my claim, if I chose what would destroy it then it would be a very poor claim indeed. Everybody chooses what they wish, whether it be quotes, interpretations or their own opinions with reasons, that doesn't automatically make an argument invalid.


When I say you take it out of context I'm referring to exactly what you did in this post. You quote 2 verses from the Bible and you have quoted other verses from the Bible and you say that they conflict. Though if you look at other verses in the Bible you will notice that they do not truly conflict.

I'm sure you can find many verses where it is directed in one verse: "kill" and in another verse "never kill" but you have to know why the command of either 'kill' or 'never kill' is being given and in what way the word 'never' is being used. If you choose to quote some verses from the Bible but not others that is where I have issue. That is because the Bible answers in verses the questions you have qualms about but you don't seem to be interested.

Yes anger is situationally wrong just as killing is situationally wrong. God commanded Moses to kill those who were violaters of the law though if an Israelite were to kill another Israelite on his own accord especially through his own opinion it would be wrong.


Kolbe wrote:

What? Why is genocide wrong? You can't seriously have that question in your mind. It takes many many multiple lives, which is itself unjustifiable in the removal of the entirity existence, and thus doesn't allow for individual judgement. It's incentives are usually the removal of a problem which indeed is not a problem, merely propagated as one, thusly relying upon deceit for it to happen. I cannot believe this, why is genocide wrong? What defines right and wrong to you, other than a wizard in the clouds and a book written by his supposedly corrupt creations?

Yes, I do believe in absolute human rights, and should probably get round to reading the thread you have begun on it. No I cannot prove anything eternal, due to it's very eternal nature. Human rights are representative of the golden rule of christian faith; "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". I do not wish to be killed, therefore I do not kill. I do not wish to be raped, therefore I do not. Even if, as you say, it comes to a matter of opinion then opinion will be that genocide is wrong. What is the point of a relative question if its answer is absolute anyway?


I believe genocide is wrong. I believe that with your current presuppositions you can not say that genocide is absolutely wrong or right. You state "I do believe in absolute human rights". Do you believe that absolute human rights are those that are given by the law to the people? If so then those aren't the absolute human rights that I speak of. I speak of absolute right to life outside of law or man made ideas.

You can by no means justify absolute human rights as an intangible law that should be followed and if not followed is absolutely wrong.

I would be interested in how you justify absolute human rights. (remember I do not speak of them as in the legal sense as those are man made and by defintion not 'absolute')
 
Kolbe
 
Reply Sat 14 Mar, 2009 10:30 am
@click here,
Sorry for the lateness of this reply, I had some IRL issues to sort out.

click here;50349 wrote:
When I say you take it out of context I'm referring to exactly what you did in this post. You quote 2 verses from the Bible and you have quoted other verses from the Bible and you say that they conflict. Though if you look at other verses in the Bible you will notice that they do not truly conflict.

I'm sure you can find many verses where it is directed in one verse: "kill" and in another verse "never kill" but you have to know why the command of either 'kill' or 'never kill' is being given and in what way the word 'never' is being used. If you choose to quote some verses from the Bible but not others that is where I have issue. That is because the Bible answers in verses the questions you have qualms about but you don't seem to be interested.

Yes anger is situationally wrong just as killing is situationally wrong. God commanded Moses to kill those who were violaters of the law though if an Israelite were to kill another Israelite on his own accord especially through his own opinion it would be wrong.


If you could find me a verse which, once looked at, says "Hey despite what I said over in Exodus 20:13, murder is okay in some situations". Until I see one then surely I have the right to say that the Bible conflicts. You say that "kill" and "never kill" are situational, but why are they? If people adhere so strongly to the other commandments, and many other rules, as absolute then what makes this so very different? And if I was not interested, then I would not be here. Come then, teach me. In what situation does never not mean never? Why is it that an Israelite killing for his reasons should be different to God doing it for his own?

If we look at Christian Doctrine we can clearly see the facts of the sanctity of life, backed up by Genesis 2:7 ("And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."), thus we can declare life sacred. As God would love all his creation, (I don't need a specific quote here, this is pretty much the message of the entire New Testament) then surely he would preserve this sanctity. However there are oh so many sections and verses which would prefer to kill someone for what they have done that to do the loving thing and guide them away from the path instead (Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Romans 1:24-32, Numbers 1:48:51, 2Kings 2:23-24, 1Samuel 6:19-20, Isiah 14:21, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Hosea 9:11-16, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Isiah 13:15-18, to name but a few) as opposed to Matthew18:21-22 in which is preached constant forgiveness. Can you see my confusion?

click here;50349 wrote:
I believe genocide is wrong. I believe that with your current presuppositions you can not say that genocide is absolutely wrong or right. You state "I do believe in absolute human rights". Do you believe that absolute human rights are those that are given by the law to the people? If so then those aren't the absolute human rights that I speak of. I speak of absolute right to life outside of law or man made ideas.

You can by no means justify absolute human rights as an intangible law that should be followed and if not followed is absolutely wrong.

I would be interested in how you justify absolute human rights. (remember I do not speak of them as in the legal sense as those are man made and by defintion not 'absolute')


There are no rights outside of man or man made ideas, simply because man gives rights to himself. You speak of rights outside the legal sense but that is exactly what rights are! They are the legal set of rules which dictate how we should treat and be treated. If laws made by man are not absolute to you then fine, believe what you want, but they are there for a reason surely. Just a quick question, though, you say that genocide cannot be absolutely wrong or right, but is there any situation logically possible in which it is right? Very well then, a better, more everday example should be called for. Rape. The forcible sexual penetration of a victim against his or her will. Please inform me as to how the ideas of rape, and the laws surrounding a definite example, are not absolutely wrong. You preach that human rights are not absolute, due to the very nature of being human, but you don't seem to give examples of situations where they are not absolutely applicable.

And how are all man made laws, by definition, not absolute? Just because one day the paper they are written on will fade or burn, along with the rest of humanity, does that mean that the ideas behind them would do so? Or would a civilisation after us, if there is to be one, bring the same ideas into their society? Anything intangible or transcendant cannot be justified or disproven, simply due to their nature, due to agnostic principles, so your argument attempting to justify or injustify them in their intangibility will just go round in circles! It's like arguing about what is inside a box that cannot be opened!
 
click here
 
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 03:19 am
@Kolbe,
Kolbe wrote:

If you could find me a verse which, once looked at, says "Hey despite what I said over in Exodus 20:13, murder is okay in some situations". Until I see one then surely I have the right to say that the Bible conflicts. You say that "kill" and "never kill" are situational, but why are they? If people adhere so strongly to the other commandments, and many other rules, as absolute then what makes this so very different? And if I was not interested, then I would not be here. Come then, teach me. In what situation does never not mean never? Why is it that an Israelite killing for his reasons should be different to God doing it for his own?


Just so you know I am by no means a very studied Bible theologian.

Lets take things a little deeper then shall we. We must remember that the OT was not written in English but in Hebrew (and some Aramaic though in this situation Hebrew). If we look at the word in Exodus 20:13 for 'murder' with the Hebrew text we will see the word "רצח: râtsach" We will also find this word used in Deuteronomy 5:17. Ok so it is seen that God commands Christians not to commit or do the act of "râtsach"


Now let us look at a few other uses of this Hebrew word in the Bible and check the context of it.
(Bible Version NKJ)

  1. Numbers 35:6: "...to which a manslayer may flee..." Manslayer being the word representing the Hebrew word. As to background on this verse. Manslayer refers to someone (in this case) who had accidentally killed someone. An example is given in Deuteronomy 19 as to what an accident is. Someone is cutting a tree down with and axe and the axe head flies off and kills someone.
  2. There are 3 uses of the Hebrew word in Deut 19 also talking about accidental death as well as in Deut 4. As well as many other uses of the word referring to the same slayer found in Joshua.
  3. Deuteronomy 22:26: "...for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him ..." This context is comparing a man who kills his neighbor to the act of a man raping a woman. In the situation of the man killing his neighbor it is understood that this act of murder is wrong where as the murder shall be put to death and the person murdered was innocent as well as the person who was raped (it goes on to say because she screamed so obviously she resisted) Interesting enough is how if you look at the verse before the above verse (25) you will notice it says that the rapest should be put to death using the Hebrew word "מוּת mûth" which is translated "to die". So in these verses there is an obvious usage of 2 different words referring to the taking of a life. Both when read in context can be understood.
  4. Judges 20:4: "So the Levite, the husband of the woman who was murdered ..." This use of the word murder is referring back to chapter 19 where the mans concubine was raped and placed dead at his doorstep. He describes the act upon her as murder or as again the Hebrew word: " râtsach"



I am not going to break down and compare the rest of the uses of the word in the Bible but I will give you all of the verses if you wish to do so on your own:


Exo. 20:13; Num. 35:6, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31; Deu. 4:42; 5:17; 19:3, 4, 6; 22:26; Jos. 20:3, 5, 6; 21:13, 21, 27, 32, 38; Jdg. 20:4; 1Ki. 21:19; 2Ki. 6:32; Job 24:14; Psa. 62:3; 94:6; Pro. 22:13; Isa. 1:21; Jer. 7:9; Hos. 4:2; 6:9;






There are all of the uses of the word used to describe "kill" in the 10 commandment. You will notice that not once did I give a translation for the word (I did translate "מוּת mûth" though we are not referring to that word) instead I used to Bible to reference other direct uses of the same word.


So then no I do not need to find a verse like: "Hey despite what I said over in Exodus 20:13, murder is okay in some situations". I tried earlier to explain to you in context but you rejected it. Now we break down to the original Hebrew text that your translation gets its meaning from and we notice that you must define the word of which you speak.


If we wished to then go on after viewing all verses in context and to ascribe a definition to this Hebrew word I myself would write something like: Murder which is accidental or committed in sinful hate towards another or in jealousy etc.. it is wrong.


Of course accidental murder is impossible to avoid as it is an accident though that doesn't mean that that makes it right.


Kolbe wrote:

If we look at Christian Doctrine we can clearly see the facts of the sanctity of life, backed up by Genesis 2:7 ("And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."), thus we can declare life sacred.



Sure


Kolbe wrote:

As God would love all his creation, (I don't need a specific quote here, this is pretty much the message of the entire New Testament)



Is that so? I would like you to find some quotes and references.


You ask when did God not love his creation. Well I think we would have to really break it down again as to what we mean by love. Though there are definite instances in Genesis alone of God destroying much of his creation. The flood being a big example as well as Sodom and Gomorrah.


Kolbe wrote:

then surely he would preserve this sanctity. However there are oh so many sections and verses which would prefer to kill someone for what they have done that to do the loving thing and guide them away from the path instead (Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Romans 1:24-32, Numbers 1:48:51, 2Kings 2:23-24, 1Samuel 6:19-20, Isiah 14:21, Ezekiel 9:5-7, Hosea 9:11-16, Jeremiah 51:20-26, Isiah 13:15-18, to name but a few) as opposed to Matthew 18:21-22 in which is preached constant forgiveness. Can you see my confusion?



Are we not talking about killing anymore? Peter asks in Mathew 18:21 how often should he forgive a sin from his brother against himself. So obviously he is not talking about murder or he wouldn't be there to ask the question.


Let's stay on the topic of murder though.


Kolbe wrote:

There are no rights outside of man or man made ideas, simply because man gives rights to himself. You speak of rights outside the legal sense but that is exactly what rights are!



You said earlier you believe in absolute human rights. Yet now you say you believe in human rights under the law. When I refer to absolute human rights I do not refer to them having any relation to the law but them being outside the law. Please clarify next time that the rights you speak of are completely man made.


Kolbe wrote:

They are the legal set of rules which dictate how we should treat and be treated. If laws made by man are not absolute to you then fine, believe what you want, but they are there for a reason surely.



They are only 'absolute' under the law. The law does not have some ethereal garb over all humanity. The rules are only applicable if you wish to subscribe to the law. For example a law made in the United States has no relevance in China. So in China there is no point in even mentioning whether or not a law has jurisdiction there. Our laws in the US are our opinion and in China they don't care one bit what our opinions towards laws are. So even in the US it must be understood that how we 'should' or 'should not' be treated is in itself a matter of opinion written down by the lawmakers.


Kolbe wrote:

Just a quick question, though, you say that genocide cannot be absolutely wrong or right, but is there any situation logically possible in which it is right?



Outside the law rape is neither 'right' nor 'wrong' the terms do not even apply as those are terms that rely on a system of judgement.


You would not say that the act of 'blinking' is wrong or right. There is no law for or against it. Without the laws statement towards an action 'wrong' and 'right' have no relevance and even when they do both our a matter of opinion reflecting that which the law states.


Kolbe wrote:

Very well then, a better, more everyday example should be called for. Rape. The forcible sexual penetration of a victim against his or her will. Please inform me as to how the ideas of rape, and the laws surrounding a definite example, are not absolutely wrong. You preach that human rights are not absolute, due to the very nature of being human, but you don't seem to give examples of situations where they are not absolutely applicable.



Would you like to explain to me where someones "will" comes from? I will tell you. It exists by establishment of it by the government. So rape is only 'wrong' by law and outside of law it just is another action. All ideas of rape are merely opinions.


Kolbe wrote:

And how are all man made laws, by definition, not absolute?



Because that is how I am defining absolute: that which precedes the law. (simplistic definition)


You stated human rights as being absolute. They are not absolute outside of law.


If you don't believe in a being that creates a absolute human right or absolute rights then my friend you must understand that rape is no different then blinking outside of the law. Law is an opinion. Mainly stated to improve the growth of a society. Look at animals for example. They 'rape' each other all the time. Why are they different then us? Why do they deserve different then us?


Kolbe wrote:

Just because one day the paper they are written on will fade or burn, along with the rest of humanity, does that mean that the ideas behind them would do so? Or would a civilisation after us, if there is to be one, bring the same ideas into their society?



Many relativists would say that future civilizations would bring our ideas of laws to some extent into their culture as acts, when repeated, like 'murder' are self defeating. Meaning killing everyone makes survival impossible.


Kolbe wrote:

Anything intangible or transcendant cannot be justified or disproven, simply due to their nature, due to agnostic principles, so your argument attempting to justify or injustify them in their intangibility will just go round in circles! It's like arguing about what is inside a box that cannot be opened!



You seemed to be saying that human rights are intangible and/or transcendant.
 
nerdfiles
 
Reply Mon 16 Mar, 2009 09:56 am
@awoelt,
awoelt wrote:
The fact that if you sin without going through the repentance process you go to HELL!:devilish:keeps you from sinning. If there is nothing like that you will just say "oops. ill try not do that again." but you most likley will do it again. If you think you can disprove this tell me.


The existence of hell would need just as much belief as the existence of God. So if you can only be "pretty sure" about the existence of God, then you can only be "pretty sure" about the existence of hell.

Thus, there is no "fact that if you sin..." There's no fact of the matter. So you should not use fact in such a way for you might mislead your reader. Clearly, you wish to say "the belief in hell keeps you from sinning." Saying this corrected phrase makes your argument, at least, more consistent with itself.

There's no reason to disprove it as it is required of a person to have a conception of a thing for that person to have possible or probably beliefs about it and its existence. It goes without saying that whatever hell is, you have not seen it, and even if you did, you'd only be telling me of its nature. This would be hearsey which, even if you did actually visit hell and were not obviously intoxicated or drugged, no one would have to accept because of the kind of evidence that it is. And even further, since probable or possible belief presupposes some conception of that which is to be believed, saying that people should "probably believe in hell" in no way indicates what it is they should be believing, despite the characterizations written in the Scripture. For one, no one of my friends or peers could understand the content of my believing and the reason why I feel myself that I ought to believe in hell; and surely, I could believe in hell for the wrong reasons (reason which you certainly would disagree with) whatever those may be. Thus, by logical extension, I could believe in God for the wrong reasons (given the same characterization) whatever those reasons may be.

So claiming that one ought to believe in hell is an empty command that should not be persuasive to anyone. And holding hell to have probable existence, in itself, presupposes a skepticism so evident to me that I fail to see how even you could consider your own argument convincing.
 
weidersenmeier
 
Reply Fri 10 Apr, 2009 01:37 pm
@awoelt,
awoelt wrote:
Alot of people think that we do not need religon. Many say that we only believe in god because we want to think there is a heaven.:nonooo: They think it is stupid to do this. But for me, wanting there to be a heaven is only a part of why i go to church. Many things that come from church really help you in life, be there a god or not. I can not find one thing in my religon that does not help you in life. Even praying helps you:whoa-dude:! Even if there is no god (im pretty sure there is) it helps to believe in him. Alot of atheist will say "You can still live those principles without beliving in god". This is not true:nonooo:. The fact that if you sin without going through the repentance process you go to HELL!:devilish:keeps you from sinning. If there is nothing like that you will just say "oops. ill try not do that again." but you most likley will do it again. If you think you can disprove this tell me.




You say that you cannot think of one religion that doesn't help you in life, supporting religion as a whole to shoot down Atheism. However, I find it safe to assume that you would oppose principles of other religions as well.

For example, terrorists kill for their religion. (Islam does not equal terrorism) Would you justify a terrorist's behavior? Because all religion is good-as you've implied? I'm more than confident to say that you wouldn't. Terrorism doesn't really "help you in life". Many other religions, too, have questionable practices that a common population would find to be negative.

So I suppose to adequately argue with you, I must know what religion you're supporting, and then go from there. Christianity?
 
7skullz
 
Reply Mon 4 May, 2009 12:11 am
@weidersenmeier,
Quote:

For example, terrorists kill for their religion. (Islam does not equal terrorism) Would you justify a terrorist's behavior? Because all religion is good-as you've implied? I'm more than confident to say that you wouldn't. Terrorism doesn't really "help you in life". Many other religions, too, have questionable practices that a common population would find to be negative.


Although one MUST remember that the further away a religion is spread from its origin, the more polluted it becomes. Hence, the Vatican is sacred, as is Mecca, but Terrorists, who can in their own way can be called Martyrs, as they died for their religion, come (for the most part) from an area where Islam was taught by the students of students of students of teachers, so quite a few Islamic terrorists in say, Afghanistan, Believe EVERY WORD OF THE KORAN TO BE ABSOLUTELY 100% TRUE. NO DOUBT IN THEIR MINDS.:sarcastic: So, if they go off and show their dislike of the USA while they die for their religion, they go to heaven and get their 72 virgins. This my take on the problems of religion on general. It is purely blind faith. I like to KNOW for sure what I put my faith into and believe in. Hell, with the church saying what it did about "gay marriage is unholy, and the communion between a man and a WOMAN is sacred", CALIFORNIA banned gay marriage. CALIFORNIA. be cause it was pretty much told to do so by the branch of a branch of a branch of a polluted faith.

Thank you for reading my overly-long post. I must now go kill some mice.



-Skullz
 
Lily
 
Reply Fri 8 May, 2009 08:25 am
@7skullz,
7skullz wrote:
This my take on the problems of religion on general. It is purely blind faith. I like to KNOW for sure what I put my faith into and believe in.

-Skullz


I don't think the problem is whether you belive in some sort of religion or not, it is what you belive in. Yes, people have killed for religous reasons, but people have also killed because of non-religous reasons. God isn't the bad guy, acting without thinking is.
 
7skullz
 
Reply Sat 9 May, 2009 09:03 pm
@Lily,
Lily wrote:
I don't think the problem is whether you belive in some sort of religion or not, it is what you belive in. Yes, people have killed for religous reasons, but people have also killed because of non-religous reasons. God isn't the bad guy, acting without thinking is.


True, yet most who strongly believe in their religion and act without thinking (at least all the way through...) say that God guided their hand in doing it, and it was the will of God... That is what truly irks me. The KKK killed so many african-americans because they thought God had said that they mst, so as to rid the world of their "evil-presence".


-Skullz :whistling:
 
Lily
 
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 11:09 am
@7skullz,
7skullz wrote:
True, yet most who strongly believe in their religion and act without thinking (at least all the way through...) say that God guided their hand in doing it, and it was the will of God... That is what truly irks me. The KKK killed so many african-americans because they thought God had said that they mst, so as to rid the world of their "evil-presence".


-Skullz :whistling:


You have a good point there. You never hear about someone who belived strongly and acted without thinking when it comes to money.Quite the opposite actually, even if the result was murder. :listening: But religions are not pure evil, we can't ban religions ('cause the pope must do that, jk) but we can educate and teach respect. I think it's very wrong to teach christianity as the truth in school, but I think we should have lessons with philosophical disscusions.
 
7skullz
 
Reply Sun 10 May, 2009 04:03 pm
@awoelt,
true.


-Skullz
 
GUILLOTINEinc
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 05:51 am
@awoelt,
I think it's impossible to think that God is void of emotion, he must feel emotion much like we do, otherwise how could he become lonely enough to create us? The Bible shows that God is a being of conscience and emotion who can, frankly, make mistakes.
 
click here
 
Reply Wed 17 Jun, 2009 03:28 pm
@GUILLOTINEinc,
GUILLOTINEinc;69856 wrote:
I think it's impossible to think that God is void of emotion, he must feel emotion much like we do, otherwise how could he become lonely enough to create us? The Bible shows that God is a being of conscience and emotion who can, frankly, make mistakes.


God is not lonely. God is perfect and lacks nothing. By creating us he gains nothing. He also looses nothing through creating us. Where does the Bible show that God made a mistake?
 
Leonard
 
Reply Thu 13 Aug, 2009 07:51 pm
@awoelt,
To Atheists/Agnostics: It's hard for Theists to compete with a forum that has over 60% Atheists, let alone prove that god exists. I hardly get along with atheists on here, they're quick to start a debate regarding religion, and enjoy desecrating my beliefs. I don't think atheists are sinners, immoral, satanic, or anything of the sort, but I don't want to discuss my religion or have to fight off 2-3 atheists in a forum. It's disgusting that atheists attack me when i'm trying to get along with them, the Atheists and Theists that fight each other are pathetic, and need to stop. I have to agree that most atheists are smart people, but there are dumb Theists and Atheists. I was raised by a Catholic-turned-Lutheran and a Jew. The 'brainwashing' argument is absurd, it was my own choice to become Catholic, and I even went through a phase of questioning religion. Atheists, don't think we're stupid because most theists are stupid. I want to coexist with the nonreligious. If people are so Christian, why do they say they'd burn an atheist at the stake? Spoken like a true Christian, or rather the average Christian.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/21/2024 at 12:03:04