263 replies to this topic

[Spademan]

So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these are sufficient.2. LOL The bible. (could substitute the LOL The koran or LOL Harry Potter book one.) Learn to evidence. Learn to circular reasoning. Learn to learn. 3. I just believe it because I believe it. Faith in faith. Belief in belief.Great. Good for you. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and just fly away.Or: Believing something because you believe it is stupid. It is a stupid way to hold views concerning reality. There is no method whatsoever to differentiate such a belief from delusion without empiricism. Without data or evidence. If there is evidence for it, it would not be a matter of believing it because you believe it, it would not be a matter of faith. Anyone at all able to make a cogent argument relating to the original post - or want attempt to defend one of these three positions?

[brvheart]

BaseJester, on Wednesday, February 22nd, 2012, 9:51 PM, said:

By reading the verses, in which Jesus specifically explains himself: "Of Israel" is not a hair color or gender or shingle style.

But the thing is, the Jews were the chosen people and Jesus was using this opportunity to tell everyone that he didn't just come for the Jews, but for the Gentiles also. It seems like he's doing the opposite of what you are claiming, regardless of how he said it.

Quote

You have to hypothesize an author who is actively hostile to his readers knowing what the hell he is talking about to even entertain the notion that the verses would contain irrelevant details (the woman's origin) but leave out other details that are vital to understanding the message.You could certainly argue that "of Israel" is a political distinction, but I think that is also splitting hairs on which sort of prejudice his statement represents.

If you read the New Testament you will see that Jesus often speaks in parables and often "seems" to be actively hostile to his listeners knowing what he is talking about. There are big portions of the gospels where the disciples and just sitting around going, "what the hell was he talking about?"

[brvheart]

Spademan, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 9:30 AM, said:

So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these are sufficient.2. LOL The bible. (could substitute the LOL The koran or LOL Harry Potter book one.) Learn to evidence. Learn to circular reasoning. Learn to learn. 3. I just believe it because I believe it. Faith in faith. Belief in belief.Great. Good for you. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and just fly away.Or: Believing something because you believe it is stupid. It is a stupid way to hold views concerning reality. There is no method whatsoever to differentiate such a belief from delusion without empiricism. Without data or evidence. If there is evidence for it, it would not be a matter of believing it because you believe it, it would not be a matter of faith. Anyone at all able to make a cogent argument relating to the original post - or want attempt to defend one of these three positions?

I think these are all fine points. I understand that the origins of the universe are unexplainable. I also understand that the Bible is something that can be easily dismissible without video evidence. I also understand that the scientific method is a much better way to prove something, than say, faith.You won't get any arguments from me.

[brvheart]

SilentSnow, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 2:32 AM, said:

There are far too many verses people disagree about to bother to list. It's a little amazing that you would even bother to dispute this point, but it is pretty damaging to the Christian view so I guess you have to put up some sort of token disagreement.

This is only true is you are adding every denomination that claims to be Christian... like Mormons, Catholics, or Episcopalians. These are three denominations that base the far majority of their "beliefs" on traditions in their denominations vs. actually what the Bible says, so they are easily dismissed from the discussion.If you weed it down to only the Bible believing, "in Christ alone, though faith alone" crowd, then there are only a handful of verses or doctrines that are in disagreement.

[Balloon guy]

SilentSnow, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 12:32 AM, said:

There are far too many verses people disagree about to bother to list. It's a little amazing that you would even bother to dispute this point, but it is pretty damaging to the Christian view so I guess you have to put up some sort of token disagreement. Here are a few that seem to directly refute the modern christian/neocon worldview. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.If thou lend money to any of my people that is poor by thee, thou shalt not be to him as an usurer, neither shalt thou lay upon him usury.Thou shalt not kill.

Don't know that there are any misunderstandings of these verses.I guess if you want there to be confusion you can make it up. But nobody thinks these verses are in dispute as to their interpretation.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 9:11 AM, said:

Don't know that there are any misunderstandings of these verses.I guess if you want there to be confusion you can make it up. But nobody thinks these verses are in dispute as to their interpretation.

If this was true, there would be no death penalty in this country.

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 9:23 AM, said:

If this was true, there would be no death penalty in this country.

Glad you recognize that the US legal system is based on Biblical ethics.

[DJ Vu]

I feel like this thread is going in circles even more than usual for this forum.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 9:34 AM, said:

Glad you recognize that the US legal system is based on Biblical ethics.

No no, if it was, there would be no death penalty. And poor dogs of races other than ours would have to do extra begging to get health ca...oh fuck.

[brvheart]

speedz99, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 12:03 PM, said:

No no, if it was, there would be no death penalty. And poor dogs of races other than ours would have to do extra begging to get health ca...oh fuck.

Or genders. Or homelands. Or differing social statuses.

[speedz99]

brvheart, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 10:14 AM, said:

Or genders. Or homelands. Or differing social statuses.

Fine, as long as we're being jerks to people begging us for help, it really doesn't matter if it's due to racism, sexism, nationalism, or hell, just because of the fact that they're poor. Let's just be jerks to them, because we're a bible-based society. And yes, after they beg enough we should help them. It's a better lesson that way.

[speedz99]

Is it sacreligious to say that jesus was being kind of an ******* to that woman? Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own? Or do you have to consider him to have been perfect at all times?

[Balloon guy]

speedz99, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 10:26 AM, said:

Is it sacreligious to say that jesus was being kind of an ******* to that woman? Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own? Or do you have to consider him to have been perfect at all times?

Perfect all the time.

[DJ Vu]

speedz99, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 10:26 AM, said:

Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own?

Pretty sure the story is that he was completely free of sin and therefore able to die for everyone's sins. If he was also a sinner, then he would just be paying the price for his sins, not our sins.Also, he had to willingly die for those sins, you can't just sacrifice an innocent baby. I know that's what you were thinking.

[brvheart]

speedz99, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 12:26 PM, said:

Is it sacreligious to say that jesus was being kind of an ******* to that woman? Wasn't part of the point of jesus that, as a man, he was a sinner like the rest of us, and died for all of everyone's sins, including his own? Or do you have to consider him to have been perfect at all times?

Sarcasm isn't a sin and Jesus used it a lot. At the time women were not equals with men, and for this woman to even approach and have a conversation with a celebrity male probably meant that you're reading the situation incorrectly. Jesus was probably very approachable and not a jerk, even though, accordingly to you living in a different culture 2000 years later, thinks that using an analogy which mentioned a dog was mean.

[speedz99]

Balloon guy, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 10:32 AM, said:

Perfect all the time.

Ah.

brvheart, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 10:54 AM, said:

Sarcasm isn't a sin and Jesus used it a lot. At the time women were not equals with men, and for this woman to even approach and have a conversation with a celebrity male probably meant that you're reading the situation incorrectly. Jesus was probably very approachable and not a jerk, even though, accordingly to you living in a different culture 2000 years later, thinks that using an analogy which mentioned a dog was mean.

So now you're arguing that when Jesus called her a dog and said he wouldn't help her, he was just being sarcastic? I guess it's true, it's hard to properly convey sarcasm via text messages, facebook, and biblical dialogue. I didn't realize jesus was well known for his biting wit. Although I'm glad you used the word "probably".

[speedz99]

I'm fine with being done with this one if you are, brv. Last word is all yours.

[bat]

Spademan, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 7:30 AM, said:

So as far as I can tell there isn't a single actual argument for either a deity or the benefit of libertarianism. The closest we have are:1. Something can't come from nothing. Fails for multiple reasons. First, the closest to "nothing" we are aware of is constantly producing particles and anti particles that head straight back to "nothing". Second, even if it were true that "something can't come from nothing", and if it is true that there was ever such thing as "nothing", it does not follow: therefore Yahweh. It does not follow: therefore someconciousthing.There are other reasons but these are sufficient.2. LOL The bible. (could substitute the LOL The koran or LOL Harry Potter book one.) Learn to evidence. Learn to circular reasoning. Learn to learn. 3. I just believe it because I believe it. Faith in faith. Belief in belief.Great. Good for you. I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I think about it every night and day. Spread my wings and just fly away.Or: Believing something because you believe it is stupid. It is a stupid way to hold views concerning reality. There is no method whatsoever to differentiate such a belief from delusion without empiricism. Without data or evidence. If there is evidence for it, it would not be a matter of believing it because you believe it, it would not be a matter of faith. Anyone at all able to make a cogent argument relating to the original post - or want attempt to defend one of these three positions?

I just want to know where the the constantly producing particles and anti particles came from to begin with and how they head straight back into 'nothing'? Dammit this is confusing.

[LongLiveYorke]

bat, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 3:40 PM, said:

I just want to know where the the constantly producing particles and anti particles came from to begin with and how they head straight back into 'nothing'? Dammit this is confusing.

We all want to know that. It's weird as heck. But it definitely happens.

[BaseJester]

brvheart, on Thursday, February 23rd, 2012, 10:36 AM, said:

If you read the New Testament you will see that Jesus often speaks in parables and often "seems" to be actively hostile to his listeners knowing what he is talking about. There are big portions of the gospels where the disciples and just sitting around going, "what the hell was he talking about?"

The gospels are not transcriptions of everything that happened around Jesus in his life. We don't see him go poop by the river just because "the cameras are rolling".When the author of the gospel tells us that the woman is Greek, but doesn't tell us her hair color, it means that it is important to his point that the woman is Greek. It's absurd to suggest an author who wants to obscure his meaning by leaving out the facts you need to understand the story. It's the informational equivalent of God putting fake dinosaur bones in the earth to test your faith.