Religion/Spirituality Theism Discussion (Abrahamic Religions, Religious Philosophy, etc.)

[rapbeats]

if the magician has taken thousands of forms throughout history and been wildly inconsistent and ludicrous, then yes

whats wildy inconsistent to someone who says his human race has not been around that long. vs a supreme being thats been here forever? to find consistency or inconsistency. you have to find patters and have a lack of patterns. i've said this before. if you dont know enough, how can you tell someone "its not a patter"? you dont know that. you may have to look further( which is something we may not be able to do with our current tech). and once you can see further that may be when you pickup a pattern. that will make everything you said before that about the lack of consistency obsolete. cause remember WE are only discovering what the magician has done. we are discovering the completed tricks. then when attempt to go backwards to find out how it was done. we dont know how to make up anything from scratch witthout first seeing it done in nature.

just because you figured out WHY the sun has been shining for all these centuries on a scientific level. doesnt mean you know if someone or something made it shine.

We dont know if someone or something put the laws in place, the ingredients that are out there in space and in here on earth. because thats exactly what it is. there's a pot of gumbo in solar system next to us. ours may be some kind of lasagna with secret sauce. just cause you figure out the secret behind the sauce. doesnt mean there was no cook to begin with.

that is flawed logic.

The truth is this. lets say for arguments sake. there is no creator. science would never be able to Disprove a creator anyway. science will always only be able to prove how something thats already out there is working. nothing more, nothing less. it cant tell you "someone is behind all of this."

So stop looking for science to say yay or nay to "is there a God."

now the God of the bible created everything, which means he is everything. no he didnt go shopping at a store to get these ingredients to make his soup called the universe. He is the soup. the soup came out of him. lets say for arguments sake. God coughed up planets and sneezed out Stars every so many 1000 years. and we find the source of where these planets/stars are coming from. even if we find a single point where they come from. we still wont scientifically know "hey thats GOD, thats the creator of all things." scientists will call that area "the cradle of all things in the known universe." no more and no less. they cant place a face on it. unless said being decides to reveal their physical self.

 

[rapbeats]

the thing about pascals wager is that you're talking about one god. there are thousands of gods that have existed throughout history, and an atheist only believes in ONE less than a christian/muslim/idiot. thats why i dont buy into that argument

lets be honest, billions will tell you that jesus is the only way to salvation, while billions will tell you that's false . imo that simple fact deads the entire argument over whether or not this bullshyt should be relevant

so because a lot of people say one thing should be it, and a lot of people say the other should be it makes YOU confused. therefore you conclude God must not be real. again FLAWED LOGIC. to have millions on one side and millions on the other side. doesnt prove or disprove God's existence. its not about how many people believe. which makes something TRUE.

if i'm in a room full of toddlers. they may not believe 2+2 = 4, they may think its 1. but it does equal 4. and i'm the only person that believe's it in the room.

 

[NoMayo15]

whats wildy inconsistent to someone who says his human race has not been around that long. vs a supreme being thats been here forever? to find consistency or inconsistency. you have to find patters and have a lack of patterns. i've said this before. if you dont know enough, how can you tell someone "its not a patter"? you dont know that. you may have to look further( which is something we may not be able to do with our current tech). and once you can see further that may be w

 

[the cac mamba]

so because a lot of people say one thing should be it, and a lot of people say the other should be it makes YOU confused. therefore you conclude God must not be real. again FLAWED LOGIC. to have millions on one side and millions on the other side. doesnt prove or disprove God's existence. its not about how many people believe. which makes something TRUE.

if i'm in a room full of toddlers. they may not believe 2+2 = 4, they may think its 1. but it does equal 4. and i'm the only person that believe's it in the room.

if you followed my posting youd know that ive claimed several times that there may very well be a god, but no human can comprehend it or know what it is.

my jesus example is a perfect example of that

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

Is this a rhetorical question? Why not just use common sense.

No religious book was ever intended to be a science book so only a fool would use it as such.

It's actually a really valid point. Do you really think early Christians didn't take the bible as the literal word of God? They would burn you at the stake for saying some parts weren't meant to be taken literally. The fact that you as a reader can decide yourself what parts to take literal and what parts to not take literal shows that you don't really need the bible for guidance at all.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Do you really think early Christians didn't take the bible as the literal word of God?

No, they didn't and 'Creationism' was an 'answer' to evolution being taught in schools during the Scopes Monkey Trial, so is actually a very recent thing. As far as what to take 'literally', I can give you a few examples since the text is used by ancient history scholars, but it is not a history book as we know it, nor a science book. The 'guidance' it offers pertains to the human condition during times of stress, anger, jealousy, happiness, contentment, elation, hopelessness, etc.
​

 

[noon]

No, they didn't and 'Creationism' was an 'answer' to evolution being taught in schools during the Scopes Monkey Trial, so is actually a very recent thing. As far as what to take 'literally', I can give you a few examples since the text is used by ancient history scholars, but it is not a history book as we know it, nor a science book. The 'guidance' it offers pertains to the human condition during times of stress, anger, jealousy, happiness, contentment, elation, hopelessness, etc.
​

Or "cherry picking" as it's known. The problem is, seeing as various denominations of Christianity can't decide which parts they and everyone else should or shouldn't take literally it becomes a problem for all of us.

 

[ADevilYouKhow]

Did it ever look good for creationism?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Or "cherry picking" as it's known. The problem is, seeing as various denominations of Christianity can't decide which parts they and everyone else should or shouldn't take literally it becomes a problem for all of us.

It's actually pretty easy to know which are literal and which aren't, but you'd have to know the history of the region and why specific texts were written to make that distinction. Also, Christianity has NEVER been one all-encompassing ideology, like any other. There is no problem for 'all of us' due to it or Islam or Judaism or any of the other religions around the world.​

 

[noon]

It's actually pretty easy to know which are literal and which aren't, but you'd have to know the history of the region and why specific texts were written to make that distinction.​

Then why the whole creationism/evolution debate?

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Then why the whole creationism/evolution debate?

There really is no 'debate'. Evolution is taught in school.​

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

It's actually a really valid point. Do you really think early Christians didn't take the bible as the literal word of God? They would burn you at the stake for saying some parts weren't meant to be taken literally. The fact that you as a reader can decide yourself what parts to take literal and what parts to not take literal shows that you don't really need the bible for guidance at all.

I don't follow because the Bible never claimed to be "the literal word of God". If your point is based on that I see a huge flaw from jump.

You also seem to have "early Christians" confused with European Christians and American colonists, who lived centuries later.

Furthermore, how do we know not to take anything we don't take literally, literally? If I say it's raining cats and dogs would you take that literally? Why or why not?

 

[noon]

There really is no 'debate'. Evolution is taught in school.​

Yes there is. You are involved in one. One side may be clearly incorrect but there is still debate. You do realise there are lots and lots of evangelical Christians who claim it to be true and are trying to get creationism taught alongside evolution in schools as "opposing opinions".
Though admittedly I'm not sure what your stance is on all of it. If you understand and accept evolution why are you arguing?

 

[noon]

Furthermore, how do we know not to take anything we don't take literally, literally? If I say it's raining cats and dogs would you take that literally? Why or why not?

You haven't told us how you can tell which parts you take literally? How far does it go? Do you take the concept of Hell and Heaven literally? Eternal punishment? Life after death? And if not, why don't you just dismiss all the rest of the stuff? After all, there's nothing in there that tells how to behave morally that we don't already know through learning as a society.

 

[Jesus Shuttlesworth]

You haven't told us how you can tell which parts you take literally? How far does it go? Do you take the concept of Hell and Heaven literally? Eternal punishment? Life after death? And if not, why don't you just dismiss all the rest of the stuff? After all, there's nothing in there that tells how to behave morally that we don't already know through learning as a society.

Once again, we use common sense. Is hell literally a fire? I don't know. Maybe. Maybe not. But it doesn't matter. The point is hell is a miserable place, maybe unfathomable to us so simply described as a fire, a somewhat imaginable torture to us. The message is do right and be rewarded, do wrong and be punished. This is an easy choice, not a "selfish" one. You should want to do right over wrong anyway, so the choice should be extremely easy.

If I call your arguments do you think I literally mean your argument has gained a bunch of unhealthy weight and become ill with some disease? Why or why not?

So again, I ask, how do you ever know when to take anything literally or not?