ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children
or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"
My Religion
- Thread starter Guyver
- Start date
- Status
agnosticism is for the lazy, the retarded or children
or those suffering from brain damage, which would be covered under "retarded"
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Doser asks, repeatedly:
Guyver throws a little hissy fit, squirms and finally answers:
Right, just as I suspected - there is no proof you will accept of Jesus' resurrection
Guyver throws a little hissy fit, squirms and finally answers:
Right, just as I suspected - there is no proof you will accept of Jesus' resurrection
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Dismissed by a troll :dizzy:
I don't think guyver quite understands how things work here :chuckle:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
OK, so you're brain damaged to some degree from taking one too many uppercuts to the chin
That explains a lot
And here I was thinking you were a Canadian :chuckle:
Well, you said it. It depends on how you define the word "religious".
I am using the term in the sense of one's worldview. Does one believe that God exists and if so what sort of God does one believe in. In that sense, everyone is "religious" in one way or another.
This surely is referring to the hideous doctrine of original sin, which is not biblical and it is not true, not in the way that most Christian's understand it anyway.
God absolutely does not, would not, will not ever hold anyone responsible for someone else's sin - period.
Ezekiel 18 is an entire chapter of the bible on this exact issue where God commands Israel to stop saying such things...
Read it - please! Of all the possible objections to Christianity, this one at least you can put down as something someone lied to you about. It just simply is not true.
I should point out that when I ask questions like "What is it that you think is irrational about Christianity?" I'm referring to biblical Christianity, not Catholicism or Calvinism or whatever other "ism" you're likely to think of. Christianity is caricatured on television past the point of recognition and what passes for Christianity on most Christian television channels is so wildly irrational and idiotic that I can hardly believe that anyone buys it at all.
The Christianity I'm talking about is that which is strictly rational and entirely biblical. As I said in my previous post, I do not claim to have every detail of my doctrine correct but I wasn't kidding when I said that Christianity is the only rational worldview. All things that are true are rational, by definition. Thus, the more rational the worldview the more similar it will look to the biblical worldview. Ayn Rand is an excellent example of this. She was the most Christian atheist that probably ever lived. Don't misunderstand me, she hated God, hated Christianity and hated Christians but every objection she had against Christianity was something that Christians often teach but that is not biblical and most everything she stood in support of is entirely biblical. In fact, the doctrine of original sin was one of the doctrines she most hated and rightly so. Ayn Rand went to hell because of poor Christian doctrine that was born out of mindless traditions and blind belief rather than a sober minded (i.e. rational ) analysis of what the bible actually teaches.
You just pulled this stupidity out of your backside.
The three laws of reason that you didn't even know existed before I told them to you were first written down (so far as we know) by none other the Aristotle! So don't lecture me about Aristotle until you've read at least one book on the basics of philosophy.
If one believes that God is immutable, they have Aristotle to thank - not the bible.
If one believes the everything is predestined, they have Aristotle to thank - not the bible.
Aristotle was a brilliant mind who was wrong more than he was right in my view but no matter how wrong he was on so many other things, the contribution he made to epistemology with his laws of reason out weigh his errors by a million to one. His laws of reason are the single most important contribution to mankind that any philosopher could ever accomplish. They are responsible for nearly every thing in your life, from the hospital you were born in to the computer screen you're looking at right now and every piece of technology in-between has, at its root, the laws of reason to thank for it's existence.
It should be pointed out, however, that Aristotle did not invent the laws of reason, he simply figured them out and wrote them down. There is some evidence that these concepts were understood by people before the Classical period but Aristotle gets the credit because his work is the oldest that exists and because his writings are what has educated the west world about these ideas ever since.
I understand fully what it means. It is you who does not. Even your fence sitting on the issue uses the very laws of reason that you're on the fence about. Every word you speak, every keystroke your type is an affirmation of the laws of reason.
As if I care about what impresses a man who rejects the world's religions on the basis of a rational thought process but who is completely unfamiliar with the most important feat of epistemological thinking in the history of philosophy.
I did not read rejection per se, but rather a failure to accept them. My point is that you can't do either accept or reject them without making use of them. It is you who misunderstand me, not the other way around.
And if you think I'm wasting your time then stop responding to me.
:rotfl:
Not even worth a response.
Catholics do NOT promote the laws of reason except perhaps on some superficial level. They openly and proudly promote the concept of antinomy in their religious beliefs. That is, they are fully comfortable with accepting a doctrine that is irrational BECAUSE it is irrational. It is the willingness to accept doctrines that do not make rational sense that they call "faith". It is piety, in their minds, to accept the contradictory as true.
This is true of very nearly every religious system in existence and is even true of most Christian sects! The idea that you could come on here and pretend that the Greek pantheon of gods was in anyway based on, or even promotive, of the laws of reason is perhaps the most laughable thing I've read on this website in years, (not counting the insanity on the flat earth thread of course).
Anyone who is in pursuit of a rational worldview, that's who.
There are not multiple brands of logic and reason, at least not sound logic and reason. And the pursuit of truth is the entire point of this entire discussion. As I said when you first stated that you had rejected the world's religions by means of a rational thought process, reason is a significant step in the direction of biblical Christianity. What has come after has been me simply trying to establish whether your claim of having used a rational thought process was actually true.
I have yet to meet one. I've met plenty of people who call themselves that but I have yet to discover anyone who actually is a real agnostic. They have all been functional atheists.
Those that do exist, do not exist for long....
Proverbs 8:17
I love those who love me, And those who seek me diligently will find me.
Jeremiah 29:13
And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Clete
Last edited:
Yes. We do disagree on that point and many others. At least it seems that we are doing so somewhat politely, which is the right way to do it, IMO.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
Right Divider
Body part
We'll need to see a state issued photo ID along with a recent copy of a utility bill and a recent credit card bill. All with valid current addresses.
:nono:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Is that a truth or a belief?
You stated it as a fact, so I assume you believe it to be a truth.
So how do you go about determining the truth of your belief?
Last edited:
If I were to be insulting to others, like you and the other "Christians" around here do....I wonder if I will start getting thanked for my posts. Then, I think about it....and I realize that it is only the Christians who will be thanked for insulting others.....
Then, I laugh and think.....what a fail, there's just too much irony there.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
TRUTH is found only in Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture is revelation from God and thus is the sole authority and source of TRUTH.
Scripture studied through comparing Scripture with Scripture is the methodology to finding TRUTH.
Faith in the Word of God alone justifies a soul.
Jesus Christ personified the Word of God.
John 14:6
Is the book of Romans true? The book of Romans says the exact opposite of what you just said. You said you don't like liars....but you said God wouldn't hold someone accountable for another persons sin. But the bible says he did. So who is lying.....you or the bible?
"Therefore, as through [h]one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous."
Please don't talk to me, about me, or participate in this thread. I thank you for leaving and not talking.
Wrong. Truth is all around you. You smash your face into a brick wall, it will hurt. That is truth and it is not found in the bible. That one's on me....free of charge.
You're welcome.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So, politely, I ask again: what proof would you accept of Jesus' resurrection?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And yet it can be proven false, and therefore nothing more than a falsifiable belief that may or may not be true, conditionally
What criteria do you use to determine whether something is a falsifiable belief or is an absolute truth?
- Status