Wait a sec. I'm not cocky. I'm penisy.

Towards and Against by Amorphis

Hey Redy,

My beliefs are provisional. I'd change my mind if there was documented evidence that praying to a specific god made an amputee's limb grow back. That's a simple, reasonable task for an "all-powerful" deity who answers prayers, sincerely wants a relationship with me, and doesn't want me to burn in a fiery furnace for eternity. I'm still waiting though.

I think the point you're making is that if I covered myself with chocolate, more women will LOVE me. My gosh. It's so simple.

Cuz you have a five-head?

Hmmm. I've heard people say:

I love having fun, I love music, I love the cold weather, I love clouds, I love that purse, I love those shoes, I love tacos & burritos, I love Cheetos, I love purple.

Am I silly for thinking that “love” is being trivialized?

Sounds like the opening scene to a 70's porno.

Succinct. I agree.

Faith is belief in something despite evidence, or when evidence refutes it.

This is my kinda doctrine. I think Homer Simpson said it best,

"Ah, beer. The cause of and the solution to all of life's problems."

Amen.

No offense, but I think your comment is a bit naive. The "truth-claims" made by the religious and nonreligious should be discussed/debated/argued to determine which have merit, and are useful for instruction. I'm not out to convert or deconvert people to my way of thinking, but I definitely want people to ask questions. Of course, I don't have all the answers, but I can recognize invalid arguments and unsound conclusions. I hope people point mine out because that can help me better discover the truth.

BTW, not all religions "preach peace" in the colloquial sense. Peace could mean dominating others with a particular theology and under duress, they submit to your dogma. It's hardly a respectable or virtuous practice.

All the more reason to debate, and discuss these issues.

TO Spider:

You're attacking straw man arguments. It's NOT logically impossible to believe in the God of the Bible, and still think he communicated his words to mankind in the form of allegory and metaphor. Many "Christians" don't take the creation or flood stories as literal truth, and yet they retain a strong faith in the orthodox concept of God. It's not an all-or-nothing deal to them. Historical and empirical evidence would invalidate your argument.

You wrote: God's minor limitations to His power effectively make God all powerful.
Sorry. I don't know what you're getting at, but that claim is nonsensical. Please review.

How is it "logically impossible" for God to put into effect a system where humans have the freedom to choose right or wrong, but choose right without coercion or him intervening? They still retain free will in that instance. An "all powerful" god would have this ability. It's NOT analogous to a square circle though. That argument is illogical by a definitional disproof only.

No problem. Thanks for clarifying your definition to me. Much appreciated.

However, there's still a problem (IMO) with the first type. The "moral teachings of Christ" aren't always in agreement. There are four different views of fasting attributed to Jesus. There are two different views of marriage attributed to Jesus. Also, I can't see how the Beatitudes listed in the Sermon on the Mount could be viewed as a livable, workable code of behavior for a person in the 21st century, but I'm open to suggestions.

Good luck.

Hey Feral,

There's another "Bible" with 73 books. Why not that one? It's bigger.

Hey Abra,

Post another thread. I'll check out your arguments

Sorry, Redy

I believe in NOT doing the things listed in my first paragraph of my previous post, AND of course, NOT boiling a kid (goat) in its mother's milk unless it really brings out the flavor.

Whoa. The Torah as a moral "measuring stick"?!? Not sure if I'd advocate stoning homosexuals, executing disobedient sons, killing people who practice witchcraft, exterminating villages if their beliefs differ from your own, stoning women who fail to cry out when being raped, forcing women to marry their rapists, and the list goes on and on and on.

Sure, I'll keep the tenth commandment--I won't boil a kid (goat) in its mother's milk.

I'll do my best to give your remarks a charitable reading; however, isn't your second & third statements "either/or fallacies"? It's like when C.S. Lewis claimed Jesus was either Lord, Lunatic or Liar. Why not include Legend as well? As with your argument, one must reject/accept God, can't someone accept the God of the Bible, but treat all the miraculous and absurd stories as literary allegories? That seems a more reasonable approach to me, IMO.

The "all-powerful" you mention isn't really all-powerful though, right? He can't make a rock so heavy he can't move it, or create a world where humans have free choice, and always choose the good. Doesn't it follow then, that he's not really "all-powerful"? As such, shouldn't you put limitations on your "all-powerful" God concept?

I'm confused by the statement, "Christianity can only be (debated) on its merits as a religion." On Page 2 of Kal’s “To Those That seek Answers” you wrote, “Christianity is the state of a human heart, not a religion.” It appears that you're equivocating. I'm not saying you're wrong, but your argument needs clarification.

Thanks for your input.

Spider:
It's not "an appeal to reason". It's strictly faith. A person is within his/her epistemic rights to reject such fantastical claims when there is sufficient empirical evidence to do so. It's necessary for you to provide sufficient, independently verifiable evidence to justify your claim of a "miracle". The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim.

It is completely reasonable to take this event out of the bible and say that it couldn't happen because it's based on an unproven and possibly faulty premise that the bible is the literal, inerrant and infallible word of God. Prove those first, then you can have a "reasonable" argument.

Until then, it's an appeal to faith NOT reason. Could your God create a rock so big that even he couldn't move it? Little joke.

Have a good day! :)

TO Kal: I respect your right to believe what you want. It's your prerogative. However, my questions have not been answered in a way which allows an open, intellectually honest discussion. To pursue that end, you have to clearly define your terms and definitions other than making an arbitrary appeal to a standard like "I do not practice any added fourms of doctrine other than what is written in the bible." That statement doesn't explain your position or views on Christianity, but it dismisses my entire line of questioning that I presented earlier.

No offense, it would have been better to stipulate in your OP what your personal tenets of faith are, so I don't confuse your concept of Christianity with another. I feel that was a reasonable request.



TO Spider: Appeals to personal faith as authority is a logical fallacy. It's a postmodernist tactic that makes truth-claims out to be whatever suits your fancy and in effect, answers nothing when rationally scrutinized. In accordance with that argument, every claim made by a Christian is true as long as it's believed, but if two disagree on the grounds of faith, then logically, they can't both be right. One is most definitely wrong. Now, multiply that by the 30,000+ denominations, and the millions of Christians on the planet, and you'll see what a huge problem you've created with that line of reasoning. We're back to square one for determining what's truth. Of course, the problem worsens when Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, etc. use the same argument.

Thanks to both of you for your input.