Separate names with a comma.
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to sign up today.
Discussion in 'Theocracy' started by Rawshik, Apr 3, 2011.
Hahaha! You sir... that was complete ownage!
You just won the game. The thing is the Big Bang is sciences way of "reaching out" to the religious. It doesn't even begin to make sense. It is saying that time is linear, a straight line. This has yet to be proven. Some religions believe time is a wheel. Some people even belief time does not actually even exist. According to my interpretation of the Bible time cannot exist as Heaven and Earth would never be able to cooperate as God already knows all that will happen therefore Heaven pretty much exists after Earth exists meaning there is a massive lag on respawn when you die and go to Heaven.
uh no, your free to repeat that, but that is how circular reasoning works.
"The God of the Bible does have emotions. And if you read more than the first half of my post, you'd see quite clearly people like you must exist that do not believe so that belief from those who do is legitimate."
Incorrect, the validity of something not depend on negative views, you can scream and shout 1+1 = 12986776 but it's still 2.
"And, sir logic, did you know astronomers are convinced the universe had a point of origin. What some uninformed individuals call the "big bang"
If anyone can satisfactorily explain the big bang in such a way that it doesn't violate the first law of thermodynamics, I will convert to atheism."
For Alex, lawl, like your religious superstition has been proven? Are you serious?
One, wrong gender, do I have to spell out which parts I have since 3 of you became insulting I see no reason to hold back.
Two, the big bang like all other facts Christians refuse to accept has been well explained by science for quite some time. The first law of thermodynamics bullcrap has been on apologetic websites for as long as you've been alive. Also it's not SOME astronomers, it's according to the VAST MAJORITY of scientists. "Contrary to widespread belief, such an event need not have violated any of the conventional laws of physics. The laws of physics merely imply that a Universe which appears from nowhere must have certain specific properties. In particular, such a Universe must have a zero net value for all conserved quantities. To indicate how such a creation might have come about, I refer to quantum field theory, in which every phenomenon that could happen in principle actually does happen occasionally in practice, on a statistically random basis. For example, quantum electrodynamics reveals that an electron, positron and photon occasionally emerge spontaneously from a perfect vacuum. When this happens, the three particles exist for a brief time, and then annihilate each other, leaving no trace behind."
3, you can not simply convert to atheism, it's a simple disbelief.
Hahahaha! And no we are not Anthropomorphizing God. He, in fact, invented emotions.
What you're telling me is there's an all knowing being up in outer space crying right now because he knowingly invented faulty beings, this begin to make sense at what point? He then tossed this faulty holy hand grenade at the earth, screwed it up, but then sent himself as an inferior being onto it to dive onto the grenade so we'd not get, wait not we, we werent alive....what was I thinking....
An omniscient being would not have any use at all for emotions, this is anthropomorphism. So how easily I can reverse the situation?
"Also... why are you trying to make your statements sound complex by throwing in "flashy" words? Hahaha! If your are such an intellectual, then please make VALID points"
Because I've been educated, I've made several, I can't help that you and your inferiority complex don't like it, Ma'am. Once agian, saying 1+1 = 2 is invalid doesn't make it invalid, it simply means you can't identify what is valid. Try learning about fallacies.
"I know this will probably all offend you but you did make some VERY INVALID "points". I suggest you make some valid ones"
Every post toward me was meant to be offensive, burrrrrn the witch, get her!!!!! Oh wait that's illegal now.....call her names! lol Let me know when all 4 of you have stop beating up gay kids long enough to have read some Aristotle and get back to me. Don't bother respond with insults, or your started it BS, I'm done in this thread. You 4 are are incapable of adult conversation.
Although I'm convinved the Bible and science go pretty well together, in general conversation they don't seem to do so. The irony is that the religious accuse science of all kinds of nasty tricks and lies and that the scientists oversimplify the Bible. They both tend to be blind in the other field but behave like experts ('that's all been shown long ago...').If interested in how the Bible and science relate, then try to have an open mind. Don't assume everything in the other field is meant to attack what you believe, because that's not the reason it's out there.
Here's a hint: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. This does not contradict any Big Bang theory. Reading on, it does also not rule out God as the creator of life.
Back on topic: sometimes the lyrics of anti-christian or anti-religious bands show where the religious have gone wrong. Actually listening to these lyrics could keep things sane.
In case you were hoping I wouldn't read your response, I do apologize - I did, in fact, happen to notice your quote (not your own thoughts, incidentally) only began to address the big bang, and then went on to talk about phenomenon that happen now - in the already existing universe. Phenomenon that could not have happened prior to moment 1, since there was literally nothing.
Also, I'm not trying to change what the Bible says about God, as your 1+1 analogy seems indicative of. The Bible is full of quotes about God's emotions - read Psalms sometime. John says "for God so loved the world...". The first 2 chapters of Romans are all about how God grew impatient with humans, even "giving them over to their sin." And, since I assume we're arguing about the Christian God, that includes everything He did as Jesus Christ. He felt rage toward the venders in the temple. He was annoyed by His disciples sleeping in the garden. He clearly felt agony and pain when the Romans tortured and killed Him. And He loved. Everyone from the wealthy to the scum of the earth, He loves them, healing the sick and wounded and eventually dying for all of them. So, are you actually going to try and tell me God, as He is described in the Bible, has no emotions? That we're tying to make Him more human? That in and of itself is funny, because Genesis 1:26 says "let us make man in our image"
Well my education took me to music, psych and history, I'm no authority on that.
On to the bible, yes I realize what it says, but what I'm telling you is that it defies logic. If a being has 100% knowledge, it has NO emotions as an omniscient being. The problem here is that unless we can show a god did in fact create mankind without a doubt then we must assumed, as we've witnessed so many times in human history, that man created god's in our image. We give them powers, etc etc, feelings. I realize there are plenty of psychological trappings in the bible. Predicting there will be wars, and other things. Having been close to polytheists many times I'm sure the bible writers knew it was best to say we're like our god, because it appears unture. Also keep in mind "god" wouldn't have a sense of touch to be omniscient either.
Also omnipresent, how is this possible with even a single object taking up the smallest bit of space?
Never meant to start an argument, just wanted the original poster to search deeper on the free will statement.
Who says? Really... you have been taught to think that way. You think we are narrow minded?
Emotions are a gift and they exist... but we don't have the control over them that God has.
I'm not forcing this stuff down your throat but this is a truth. You can't know these things...
Knowledge and emotion are not mutually exclusive. And how could you, or I, possibly begin to explain a being that functions on such a higher level than us? How could we hope to understand it? We couldn't. So I defer to the bible, and you make irrational jumps in logic that, if you know everything, you can no longer feel.
God being everywhere isn't a problem, because I believe the only time God was corporeal was through Jesus Christ. After His ascension, the only time we will meet God in a visible, solid form is in the afterlife.
Please don't project your disdain for education onto me, it's unhealthy. You're seriously trying to falsely correlate education with being narrow minded just to apply your crutch to me? Shame on you.
This argument is fallacious, we can't understand an omniscient being (Actually a super simple concept) so therefore it must be true! This is an argument from ignorance.
Next you can call my argument irrational, but you can give me a fallacy. lol Calling it irrational is simply your way of saying "I can't refute it, but I don't like it!!!!". Emotions are chemicals responses, NOT rational thought. The Christian god 1, makes no mention of having an endocrine system to pump hormones into it's 2, brain for it to breakdown proteins, 3 thus an omniscient being with none of these factors would simple experience hyper-rational. No emotions, whatsoever, unless you can show me 1 god, 2 that he does have the parts needed for emotions. Also, I'd argue if we were made in the Christian god's image.....then we'd not be physical beings at all.
Not what he said.
Clearly, omnipresence and omniscience are theological issues. They can't be expressed in this kind of logic.
Can we go back to the original topic? That's about music and lyrics and reasons to listen to something or not. Personal opinions in a field we all can relate to.
Are you sure emotions are simply chemical responses? How do you account for individuality? Take a sociopath. He would have the same chemicals as you, but feel no empathy or remorse. Or any form of personality disorder, not just antisocial. They all affect emotions in one way or another, but their chemicals are the same as ours. I would agree that chemicals like dopamine can trigger emotions, but they aren't the only cause. Of course, I believe in a soul and you do not, so I'll say it's the soul and you will convolute what I said (as you've done the last several posts) and restate your point in different words.
And I never said that it must be true because we don't understand it. I said we couldn't possibly understand, and I choose to believe in it. Given the object is the subject of the debate, to understand it's nature, it's existence is secondary. In order to glimpse insight into the understandable, real or not, we must defer to the only known writings on the subject. THAT is what I said.
Agreed. Holy derailment, Batman. Start a new thread if you want. This has become pointlessness.
Yo guys, what kind of Christian example are we setting here??
I am being honest when I say that I truly want Vacant_Planets, whoever she is, to be saved. Would all of you guys say the same?? This conversation is getting really offensive, and for no reason!
If you don't have truth and reason to back up your beliefs, the best you can do is be silent rather than damaging the Christian example by acting like you don't have God's love.
Indeed, I have learned the hard way on other forums when I was younger by posting in these kind of debate threads, and in the end it really is pointless. I've had interesting discussions with friends on the Christianity vs Science debate (not that I'm that knowledgeable on the topic) and at least in-person you can keep a high level of conversation. In a forum, and other impersonal means of communication, I find it too often degenerates into a heated debate with neither side making good arguments.
Also, one cannot reason with someone to save them. It is not scientific knowledge that saves someone - that would be pretty weak; it's the Holy Spirit that saves, working inside them to change their heart. In that case, if making arguments over the correctness of science is not helping save someone, it's certainly not worth the disharmony it causes.
Best to both agree to disagree. All manner of arguments are never going to sway either side if they truly believe what they do!
EDIT: when I say "Christianity vs Science" I personally don't believe there needs be any division between the two, and I am from both camps, but the debates often end up as each side attacking the other in my experience.
Now, on the topic, which I found an interesting read, I personally avoid music that directly defies Christianity - I find it too offensive, so it's not fun to listen to. I don't come across that very often though. There's also the question of questionable lyrics, and I avoid songs that go completely against my moral beliefs and such. I see my music as defining me as a person so I take some care in ensuring other people see a definition of me that doesn't contradict what God would want others to see in me.
Yes, in the "second topic" remember that the Holy Spirit works greatter than us, and some times we can get a grip on the Praying zone!!!
on the "first topic" the thing is that we are trying to be like Jesus, so, as the letters says: "WWJD" listen Deicide cds or Theocracy CDS?
Yes, good call! What Would Jesus Do, as cliched as it may be, is the best way to sum up this thread.
Well yes, sometimes christianity can be as easy as Jesus did, but we like to get it on the hard way,
Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world. 16 Anyone who believes me and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe me will be condemned. 17 Everyone who believes me will be able to do wonderful things.
If anyone wants to continue the debate just put it in my "Off-topic" thread please... as I sort of made it for such things. People probably don't wanna see this kind of junk every time the check the boards. My bad, as I was included in this debate. I apologize... but IF you feel this debate is not over (though I sort of think it's over myself) continue in the "Off-topic" thread I created a while ago.
Back to lyrics I guess? What do you guys think of Pain of Salvation?
I haven´t hear them... let me get them and I´ll talk!!!!