Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Challenge! Challenge!

11-22-2009 , 04:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet
So once again you are going to answer a question with a question? I'll answer yours once you answer mine: is God petty for valuing praise, belief and worship towards God over somone being a nice person towards other people?
Etrernal life is not dependant upon praise or worship only belief in His son Jesus Christ, that he was alive, was crucified and ressurected by God his Father and that people confess Jesus Christ as their "lord" meaning the lord, boss, head, master of their life.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 04:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Im ok with God doing the judging, im certainly not qualified for the roll.


But imo. A God wouldn't judge us for an entirety of reward or punishment (however you want to define it) based on a infinitesimally short life. And a really truly loving God wouldn't have any punishment at all. He would know we're child apes who just attained self awareness and are bound to be **** ups. He would probably have some type of reform school for the delinquents without any pain, torment or separation and he would instead use love as his tool to doing the reforming.
As you say you are not qualified to make such a judgement on how God determines things and makes judgments.

The problem lies in the fact that all on this forum have a wrong impression and understanding of God, which has been built into their believing by society and their parents, ect.

You all have learned wrongly and error regarding God and the bible and therefore your vision and perception is skewed, any comments you make regarding the subject of God or the bible come from a skewed and distorted and error filled belief and understanding of the whole subject.

This is the problem that you all are dealing with unfortunatley, your glasses have muck on them and need to be steam cleaned.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 04:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
These are all old testament laws and are not applicable nor written to you or anyone at all on the planet earth anymore. Thats the simplicity of that.

Your welcome
So these things were okay 2500 years ago? Did God change his mind? Or was he wrong the first time?
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 04:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
So answers are not found by reading?

What planet are you from?

Last I remember almost all answers come from reading or hearing from someone who has read something.

The problem is that you just do not like the method in which eternal life is recieved. Simple believing.

Should eternal life be based on skin color, looks, achievements in life?

There is not other way that is more fair than believing.
Something is not correct just because it is written down, no. But I wasn't even talking about that. I was talking about anecdotal evidence.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 05:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
Etrernal life is not dependant upon praise or worship only belief in His son Jesus Christ, that he was alive, was crucified and ressurected by God his Father and that people confess Jesus Christ as their "lord" meaning the lord, boss, head, master of their life.
Wow, another impressive dodge. Well done. But I think we're close. Here, I'll try again:


Is it petty for God to value 1) belief in His son Jesus Christ, that he was alive, was crucified and ressurected by God his Father and that people confess Jesus Christ as their "lord" meaning the lord, boss, head, master of their life over 2) humans being nice and kind and generous to each other.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 07:22 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
As you say you are not qualified to make such a judgement on how God determines things and makes judgments.
No im not. But i do get to speculate just like you on if there is A God how he would judge us.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
So these things were okay 2500 years ago? Did God change his mind? Or was he wrong the first time?
Are you serious? The old testament law was written for the people of that time, the Israelites. It was appropriate for the time...I cannot break down the whole word of God and explain it all to you in a few posts. I am sorry for that, if I could I would.

Times changed, people changed, events happened and more appropriate things are now in place.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 08:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arouet
Wow, another impressive dodge. Well done. But I think we're close. Here, I'll try again:


Is it petty for God to value 1) belief in His son Jesus Christ, that he was alive, was crucified and ressurected by God his Father and that people confess Jesus Christ as their "lord" meaning the lord, boss, head, master of their life over 2) humans being nice and kind and generous to each other.
Its not about being petty, thats not the point even though you are trying to make it the point, eternal life revolves around belief, not kindness or generousness.

Being kind and generous is not how eternal life is recieved, believing is.

Believing is not valued over these qualities its just a spiritual law that supercedes these, there are 3 main spiriual laws, Believing, Love and Hope.

Love, true love, Gods love cannot be lived without knowing what Gods love is, which is written in the word. So believing is the path to love, its the way to understand and know what true love is.

Mans love is based on emotions, Gods love is much higher than that, emotions cause irrational behavior, they are not bad, they are good but they have to be kept in check by something greater, the love of God.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 08:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
No im not. But i do get to speculate just like you on if there is A God how he would judge us.
The difference is I am not speculating, I am believing what He God says in His word, there is a difference.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 08:43 PM
Yes i understand you speak for God in a definitive way.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 09:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
These are all old testament laws and are not applicable nor written to you or anyone at all on the planet earth anymore. Thats the simplicity of that.

Your welcome
So what should I be following if that part of the Lord's word is wrong for me?
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 09:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wamy Einehouse
So what should I be following if that part of the Lord's word is wrong for me?
Nothing just believe and feel free to rape and pillage to your harts content.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 09:50 PM
Hey Pletho! We're really getting somewhere now. You've come really close. Let's go through it!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
Its not about being petty, thats not the point even though you are trying to make it the point, eternal life revolves around belief, not kindness or generousness.
Ok, so we acknowledged that belief is more important than kindness or generosity to God. Now I can accept that we should not use the word "petty", that's fine, leave that word out. If God is all-loving, why would he value our belief in him over our love, kindness and generosity for our fellow man?

Quote:
Being kind and generous is not how eternal life is recieved, believing is.
But what do you think of that? Do you think that is evidence of love?

Quote:
Believing is not valued over these qualities its just a spiritual law that supercedes these, there are 3 main spiriual laws, Believing, Love and Hope.
This is just semantics. When God sets the rules, and he sets one "spiritual law" as having an ultimate reward over the others, then I think it is fair to say that God values that spiritual law over the others.

[/quote]Love, true love, Gods love cannot be lived without knowing what Gods love is, which is written in the word. So believing is the path to love, its the way to understand and know what true love is.[/quote]

Well, let's accept that for a minute. Let's accept that believing is a good thing. And let's accept that God really likes when we believe in him. If he had to choose, wouldn't a supremely loving God prefer us to love and be kind and generous to each other (his children) over us just plain believing in him?

I've used the word "petty" because it seems so much less important. I'm using my reference point as a father. While I want both my children to love and be nice to me, it is still MORE important to me that they treat each other well, and other people well, than treat me well.

I do praise my son when he's nice to me. But I really go crazy with praise when he does something nice for his sister. They are both good things, but I value him being nice to others over him being nice to me. Why would god be so selfish as to value our believing him him over being kind and generous to his other children?

Quote:
Mans love is based on emotions, Gods love is much higher than that, emotions cause irrational behavior, they are not bad, they are good but they have to be kept in check by something greater, the love of God.
But the lesson God is giving here is that I don't value you being good and kind to each other as much as I value your believing in me. It's kinda a mixed message dontcha think if we're supposed to then go back and derive be nice to each other from that...
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 10:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
Only you can demonstate it and prove it to yourself, by your believing, if you do not believe you will not see.

Its simple, you do not have light in your bedroom UNTIL you flip the switch, you can't blame your neighbor for your unwillingness to flip the switch.
Blah blah blah, Pletho once again fails to understand belief is not a choice.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 10:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wamy Einehouse
So what should I be following if that part of the Lord's word is wrong for me?
None of it until you get past this verse:

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Once this happens then the following books are written specifically to the Christian.

Romans
I & II Corinthians
Galatians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
I & II Thessalonians

The Gospels are not written specifically to the Christian they are for our learning, they are still apart of the old testament, the law was still in effect during the Gospel period, after the day of Pentecost the Law was no longer in effect and new time, a new administration started the Grace administration, the law administration was fullfilled and ended by Jesus Christ.
Challenge! Quote
11-22-2009 , 11:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
Well, no one has made any sense at all regarding this subject, you all just say it happened, they say it happened and we believe it happened.

You then say that the Big Bang which according to you is how the universe came to be was caused by nothing, it just happened, which breaks a logical and simple law, the law of cause and effect.

Then you all say that something existed before our universe but you do not know what it was?

I am simply saying that yes there was something before this universe, and that something was God who has not beginning or ending. I am also saying that the universe was created, created biblically means that it came into existance from nothing, it was created by God.

If you want to call the creation of the universe the Big Bang, then thats fine with me, but the word simply says that God created it, brought it into existance.
God is a figment of your imagination, therefore he does have a beginning and ending.
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 01:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MajinBoob
God is a figment of your imagination, therefore he does have a beginning and ending.
I dont have that great of a imagination, sorry.
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 02:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
Are you serious? The old testament law was written for the people of that time, the Israelites. It was appropriate for the time...I cannot break down the whole word of God and explain it all to you in a few posts. I am sorry for that, if I could I would.

Times changed, people changed, events happened and more appropriate things are now in place.
Am I serious? Um, wow. Okay. What was different 2500 years ago that made torture, murder, and rape okay? Am I serious?
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 02:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
Am I serious? Um, wow. Okay. What was different 2500 years ago that made torture, murder, and rape okay? Am I serious?
At least it's an admission that wherever our modern moral impulses come from, they quite clearly do NOT come from religion.
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 04:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho
I dont have that great of a imagination, sorry.
Yes you do.
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 12:01 PM
C'mon Pletho, don't leave me hanging! We're so close to an actual answer here. Please respond to my post #163.

Thanks
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 04:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deorum
First of all, Eddi does not have to think that there is a better than 50% chance that it will happen. He just thinks it is better than a 1,000,000 - 1 shot to happen. I would not call that 'faith' by any definition of the word.

Second of all, this is called a fallacy of eqivocation. You have two definitions of the word 'faith' which you are using interchangeably. The first is 'confidence in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing' and the other is 'belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence'. The former definition applies to what Eddi is talking about. He is making a reasonable assumption, based on his understanding of what has been and is currently being achieved in the scientific community, that the odds of this occurring are better than 1,000,000 - 1 that science will be able to do what you claim is impossible within the next 20 years. This belief is not one which does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, which is your implication.

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow given the first definition. I do not have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow given the second definition. I have plenty of evidence to support that belief.
There is no fallacy because there is only one definition of faith: belief not based in proof. Confidence in truth value, trustworthiness etc. is just exactly that: confidence. I have a book recommendation for you: The Oxford Dictionary.

Really. So what is this "understanding" that the "reasonable assumption" is based upon? I'm going to ask you what I asked him, how do you come with 1M:1? (What's everybody's obsession with this number, anyway?) And now I'll ask you, why is it a reasonable assumption that this will be possible in ~20 years time? What evidence points towards this? Are you looking at the exponentially increasing rate of technological advancement, and advances in nanotechnology? If so, great. Now please point to what specifically leads you to believe that in ~20 years time we can achieve the feat of recreating life from base atoms after we've reduced them to to those base atomic components.

We're still unfathomably far from the next challenge... I won't trouble you with the details of that one.
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pletho

Times changed, people changed, events happened and more appropriate things are now in place.

Only between the OT and NT, of course. Obviously times haven't changed, people haven't changed, and events haven't happened since the NT. If they had, he'd have to write a whole 'nother book for us.

Everything is exactly as it was when God wrote the NT!
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 05:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardball47
There is no fallacy because there is only one definition of faith: belief not based in proof. Confidence in truth value, trustworthiness etc. is just exactly that: confidence. I have a book recommendation for you: The Oxford Dictionary.

Really. So what is this "understanding" that the "reasonable assumption" is based upon? I'm going to ask you what I asked him, how do you come with 1M:1? (What's everybody's obsession with this number, anyway?) And now I'll ask you, why is it a reasonable assumption that this will be possible in ~20 years time? What evidence points towards this? Are you looking at the exponentially increasing rate of technological advancement, and advances in nanotechnology? If so, great. Now please point to what specifically leads you to believe that in ~20 years time we can achieve the feat of recreating life from base atoms after we've reduced them to to those base atomic components.

We're still unfathomably far from the next challenge... I won't trouble you with the details of that one.
According to my Oxford Dictionary, there are several definitions of faith, including 1. complete trust or confidence, and 2. firm belief, especially without logical proof, which seem to correspond to the two definitions cited by Deorum.

And as for specific reasons to believe that life can be created from base atoms in the next 20 years - you've already cited more than enough. There is no claim that this will be accomplished within 20 years - just that it has (according to some) a better than 1 in a million chance.

If I recall, the reason for those odds was already explained. To some, it exceeds the probability of success, and to you, it falls far short - so both sides should be prepared to wager.
Challenge! Quote
11-23-2009 , 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oshenz11
According to my Oxford Dictionary, there are several definitions of faith, including 1. complete trust or confidence, and 2. firm belief, especially without logical proof, which seem to correspond to the two definitions cited by Deorum.
We have to pick nits here. If the entry for #1 requires proof, evidence or "reasons to believe" of any kind, then it doesn't mean what it says it means.
Challenge! Quote

      
m