|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 16, 2011 14:55:42 GMT
Murder, kill, it means essentially the same thing in this context. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder the innocent" either, so my point still stands.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 16, 2011 15:48:59 GMT
I think I believe more in what the one Philosophy Club member pointed out to me several weeks ago, as I mentioned three pages ago in this thread, where the Lord of the Old Testament is actually the Son, not the Father... The post is linked here.That implies that almighty God doesn't know everything, however the bible has said differently. Psalm 147:4,5 Psalm 33:13 Acts 15:18
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 16, 2011 17:11:50 GMT
That in no way applies such. ANyway, considering what sin is, saying a God is sinning against himself is rather absurd.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 16, 2011 17:20:19 GMT
That in no way applies such. Two vague pronouns are vague.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 16, 2011 17:39:19 GMT
Whatever. Deal with it.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 16, 2011 19:38:43 GMT
I think I believe more in what the one Philosophy Club member pointed out to me several weeks ago, as I mentioned three pages ago in this thread, where the Lord of the Old Testament is actually the Son, not the Father... The post is linked here.That implies that almighty God doesn't know everything, however the bible has said differently. Psalm 147:4,5 Psalm 33:13 Acts 15:18 Your claim is not convincing, as the bible could be indicating that it is the Father who knows everything, in contrast to the Son who, much like any other Son, has things yet to learn before he may be equal to his Father. Two of your data are not convincing, as they come from the part of the Bible that is known as intentional prose by men to give praises to God. You may as well say how almighty I am with the Dark Side of the Force and the infinite knowledge it brings me in a poem and, without the sarcasm, it would be the same as any other entry in the Book of Psalms. Your quoted verse from the book of Acts, on the other hand, is an infinitely better source than Psalms (well, almost any non-literary part of the Bible, really, would be better); however, I do believe they make the distinction here that it is the Father to whom all His works are known, as opposed to the Son, which is the point I was and am arguing. A warrant to connect your claim to your data would be helpful... In short, your limited data does not disprove my unprovable point, since it seems either that they are not as credible as others (i.e. taking from the Book of Psalms), or that they refer to the Father rather than to the Son. Of course, it would be helpful if I actually knew Greek and Hebrew at this point, since then I could ascertain for sure whether indeed your verse from Acts does indeed refer to the Son.
|
|
|
Post by Elmach on Apr 17, 2011 1:33:54 GMT
Murder, kill, it means essentially the same thing in this context. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder the innocent" either, so my point still stands. Back then, murder meant kill the innocent.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 17, 2011 3:54:49 GMT
Your claim is not convincing, as the bible could be indicating that it is the Father who knows everything, in contrast to the Son who, much like any other Son, has things yet to learn before he may be equal to his Father. Two of your data are not convincing, as they come from the part of the Bible that is known as intentional prose by men to give praises to God. You may as well say how almighty I am with the Dark Side of the Force and the infinite knowledge it brings me in a poem and, without the sarcasm, it would be the same as any other entry in the Book of Psalms. Your quoted verse from the book of Acts, on the other hand, is an infinitely better source than Psalms (well, almost any non-literary part of the Bible, really, would be better); however, I do believe they make the distinction here that it is the Father to whom all His works are known, as opposed to the Son, which is the point I was and am arguing. A warrant to connect your claim to your data would be helpful... In short, your limited data does not disprove my unprovable point, since it seems either that they are not as credible as others (i.e. taking from the Book of Psalms), or that they refer to the Father rather than to the Son. Of course, it would be helpful if I actually knew Greek and Hebrew at this point, since then I could ascertain for sure whether indeed your verse from Acts does indeed refer to the Son. That would imply that the Son and the Father are two different beings, however at John 10:30, Jesus says they are one and the same. You can not give attributes to one without giving them too the rest. My understanding is that the Son, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are all just different forms of one god. To say other wise would be to call Christianity a polytheism. Sorry, I thought you actually were trying to make a point that you wanted people to understand. Murder, kill, it means essentially the same thing in this context. It doesn't say "Thou shalt not murder the innocent" either, so my point still stands. Back then, murder meant kill the innocent. I would disagree. I'm pretty sure murder has always meant purposely killing in general. The only exception would be in the places where the death penalty remains.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 17, 2011 5:58:41 GMT
Even then a lot of people would call it murder.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 17, 2011 17:22:20 GMT
Alright, GGoodie, John 10:30 does admittedly leave me stumped...
|
|
|
Post by ganondorfchampin on Apr 17, 2011 18:18:13 GMT
It could mean one in purpose, not necessarily that they are the same being.
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 18, 2011 16:09:13 GMT
One being in spirit- different in body and mind, I think. Anyway, I am Ggoodie. Anyway, you know, trying to disprove my point by capitalizing on my apparently vague pronouns is kind of sad.
|
|
|
Post by Fringe Pioneer on Apr 18, 2011 17:36:12 GMT
Your IP does not belong to GGoodie, and your login username displays as "gloveparty"...
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on Apr 18, 2011 22:31:12 GMT
Glove, he was commenting that "Deal with it." is not in any way a valid argument or even a sensible one.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 19, 2011 1:14:17 GMT
omg me too!
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on Apr 19, 2011 3:09:00 GMT
Wait what? I don't remember typing that... Er..... What... I'm confused. "Deal with it" Was me commentating on that he has said two vague pronouns are vague. Which isn't really an argument.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on Apr 19, 2011 3:26:00 GMT
I said that because I couldn't tell what your post meant in any way, shape, or form do to your bad use of pronouns.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 19, 2011 23:14:59 GMT
I recently went into an organized theological debate (well, watched it anyway), and I must say I like their style. Essentially, one side asks the other a question, they get a chance to respond, the first side gets time to counterargument, the other gets a chance to counter the counterargument.
Perhaps we allow one side to state a question, give the other side one day to counter it, a half day to counter the counter, and a half day to counter the counter of the counter, after which we change topics. Should keep the thread from getting flamey.
For the first question, I propose: Why is any one particular religion more important than other, far older, far more popular ones?
|
|
|
Post by izacque on May 28, 2011 23:36:05 GMT
Answer: To my knowledge, Christianity is the only religion that offers salvation as a gift and stat's impossible to work your way to salvation. This is logical because it is fair.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on May 28, 2011 23:43:14 GMT
That said, the god of Christianity also supposedly gave people free will, but threatens them with severe punishment if they do not do what he sees fit. This is illogical because free will isn't truly free if there are consequences for certain actions.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 29, 2011 2:52:44 GMT
Also, Christianity is by far not the only religion that offers salvation. Buddhism, the Greek religion, Egyptian mythology. All offer salvation in some form or another. I also don't see how this makes it any more of a logical religion than any other: Since when does "pleasing" equal "true"?
|
|
|
Post by GloveParty on May 29, 2011 4:32:34 GMT
Since when does "pleasing" equal "false"? Since when does "not pleasing" equal "true"?
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 29, 2011 4:34:43 GMT
Exactly. Whether something is pleasing or not has no bearing on its factuality. Now, back to the question: Why Christianity?
|
|
|
Post by izacque on May 30, 2011 14:32:31 GMT
Budhism, Greek Religion, etc. All require that the follower do something for his salvation. Why is that unfair? Because it's like bribing the judge.
In the Christian model, God is the judge who sees our sin and says "mmkay, that's death penalty material." Then Jesus is all like, "GAIZGAIZ! I've got an idea! how about, I die for this dude instead?" Then God is like, "mmkay, the penalty would still be paid. Sinner! Do you accept this offer?" And then the sinner is like, "omgz, thank you, bro! you are a good man! *worshipworshipworship*"
In other models, it's like the god looks at the sinner and says, "you done some bad things, boy." and the sinner says, "mmkay, well I'll do some good stuff, too and it'll even out!" And god's like, "trolol sounds good to me!"
This allegory only deals with sin-based religions (what most religions are). I realize there are some religions that focus more on achieving some sort of enlightenment. But I ask, would you rather have your sins forgiven? Or spend your days trying to reach satori through your own efforts?
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on May 30, 2011 14:36:12 GMT
Almost all Christian sects believe that on some level you have to earn salvation. I have never met a Christian who would tell me that Jeffrey Dahmer went to heaven.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 30, 2011 20:04:56 GMT
Again, Izac, that only makes Christianity pleasing. Not true.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on May 31, 2011 2:31:40 GMT
I think you're missing the point, qwerty. If I steal money, I have to pay it back. It doesn't matter if I work hard to be a cool bud, I've still gotta pay it back. It'd be unfair for me to say, "nonono, I'll just help some widows and now I can keep the money." But if someone else offers to pay for me, then the debt is paid. Justice is served. And that is what I'm talking about when I say Christianity is more fair.
|
|
|
Post by GGoodie on May 31, 2011 2:41:19 GMT
But justice is not served. You still have money that isn't yours, and the person who paid for you is lacking there of. You still got away with a crime unscathed. And we won't even go into the paradox that is Jesus's sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by Qwerty on May 31, 2011 3:20:40 GMT
I think you're missing the point, Izacque. I don't care how "fair" it is (it isn't, but that's a discussion for another day). What I care about is the fact that its fairness has nothing to do with its reality.
Also, your analogy is false. Jesus died, so you don't have to pay the money back. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by izacque on May 31, 2011 18:36:55 GMT
first off, the person we "stole money" from is God. What Jesus did settled our account with God. That doesn't mean that I can steal from somebody on earth and then get away with it because Jesus forgave me. God won't hold me accountable to him. But we also have an obligation to carry out justice on earth.
Now I want to remind you of your question. Your question was: "Why is any one particular religion more important than other, far older, far more popular ones?" I answered with a reason why Christianity is more important than other religions. I never tried to use this train of reasoning to say Christianity must be true. Just that if you are already assuming the existence of God, and you want to figure out which religion most likely serves him, then Christianity is the way to go.
|
|
|