|
Post by Isapop on Jan 28, 2018 23:24:32 GMT
Isapop “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 I think I'm doing you a favor by unburdening you from having to try to argue that God doesn't hate sinners.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Jan 28, 2018 23:25:51 GMT
Isapop “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 You know, if somebody wants to demonstrate their love for me, I'd prefer their chosen method of doing so not include human sacrifice. Because that's messed up. Just sayin. I'd still take it over a fruitcake.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 28, 2018 23:44:31 GMT
1. Tsk, tsk, tsk. 2. I don't doubt them because I can easily duplicate them. 3. A good telescope, yes, how much time depends on how close a small object orbits a center of mass of two larger objects. The closer, the faster it would have to be. If its orbit were too large it would be taken over by one of the larger objects. 1. Your willful ignorance doesn't change the reality of relativity. 2. You can't duplicate the experiments that make semiconductor devices a reality, do you doubt them? Okay, my comments about the "orbit" of a small object near a LaGrange Point were not my usual high quality. The math, upon examination, is different. It is more like an "oscillation" perpendicular to a line from one larger object to the other. That line of course is rotating with the true orbit of the larger objects. There, that's my usual level of precision. I am fully aware that simply because I have seen no proof of relativity does not mean it doesn't exist. I never said it doesn't exist. It does however very much mean that I have seen no proof. None of that should bother you at all. I can't see the wind, but I can see what it does. Are you done now?
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 28, 2018 23:50:14 GMT
captainbryceIf I say I hate Shakespeare...in what way would you understand that? Do I hate Shakespeare's personality? Or his writings? What would you say is more likely? So parents who condemn their misbehaving children are by your rationale either evil or unloving? I find this logic perplexing to be honest. It's called a hypothetical. The crime that sends a person to hell ultimately is rejecting Jesus and God's forgiveness, which happens to have an eternal consequence. The free gift of salvation is available to all. It's up to us to receive or reject it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 29, 2018 0:10:23 GMT
You know, if somebody wants to demonstrate their love for me, I'd prefer their chosen method of doing so not include human sacrifice. Because that's messed up. Just sayin. I'd still take it over a fruitcake. Now a fruitcake is a nice way to demonstrate positive emotions. Or ice cream. Ice cream is great! A good rule of thumb is that if it involves somebody dying, it's not a great way to demonstrate love.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 0:31:49 GMT
tpfkar If I say I hate Shakespeare...in what way would you understand that? Do I hate Shakespeare's personality? Or his writings? What would you say is more likely? You guys are funny. "A froward man" and "an ungodly man" aren't ambiguous even outside of explicit context. To hell? Of course. Especially since God has the power to make them in the first place without the unpleasant attributes, as he already makes countless that way. God creating out of whole cloth, actually out of nothing, is very unlike parents triggering existing biology and then raising. And not applicable. "rejecting Jesus and God's forgiveness" doesn't even make good nonsense. Forgiveness doesn't require acceptance by anyone except the one supposedly doing the "forgiving". And in this case the "forgiver" is trying to "forgive" someone else for His own actions. she should forgive them
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Jan 29, 2018 0:59:21 GMT
captainbryce If I say I hate Shakespeare...in what way would you understand that? Do I hate Shakespeare's personality? Or his writings? What would you say is more likely? Contextually, it would be more likely to conclude that you hate his writings. The difference is, Shakespeare was a REAL person, with real writings that we can analyze and critique. The passage in Proverbs refers to a hypothetical “person” committing an act that can be condemned, but strangely isn’t. The bible could have been much clearer by declaring that God hates the act (sin) of sowing discord among the community. In a similar way that you might argue that God only hates the act of male homosexuality, not homosexual people. Of course, that argument is doomed to failure as well since it also clearly says that men who have sex with men are doomed to hell regardless. I know you do, because you keep likening God to a human parent (a ridiculous comparison considering that human parents actually raise their children, while God leaves no evidence of his existence, much less involvement with his. But the real reason you are confused is because you seem to think there is some moral equivalency between a grounding a child, or giving them a spanking as a corrective punishment, to allowing your child to suffer in hell for all eternity and then forgetting about them. But that is not a reasonable comparison (for obvious reasons); one is intended to ultimately HELP the child, while the other is intended to hurt them forever. There is no logical purpose to “hell” as envisioned by Christian fundamentalists, and it serves no righteous or just purpose. It is merely to satisfy God’s appetite for revenge, an EVIL emotive response born out of wrath. Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord. I know. But logic demands that I also consider the morality of your hypothetical if you want to claim God as “all good”. Irrelevant. Even if all of that was true (exactly as you believe it to be), it’s STILL immoral and evil due to the disproportionate nature of the punishment. Because whatever the crime was, it doesn’t compare with the response. To allow another to suffer endlessly would make you an evil person (regardless of their crime).
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 29, 2018 2:39:23 GMT
There are people who not only are incapable of balancing a chemical equation, they are not even aware they need to balance them. Nevertheless they believe in science. They tarnished the name of science. You appear to believe the name of science cannot be tarnished. You are tarnishing it yourself somewhat even at your distance from it. Perhaps you're in no-true-Scotsman mode. I sympathize, but you need to play fair. If you're going to hold religion accountable for all the silly things its unqualified followers believe, then you need to be held accountable for all the silly things the "followers" of science believe. There are some doozies lately as we see here. Likewise if you're going to disregard the foolish things people believe are science then you owe it to me to disregard the foolish things people believe about god. Either of us could "win" by careful selection of followers of our own side but not the other. No dispassionate judges want to see such an unfair fight. First, you didn't show the "how" and "where" I've put "too much faith" in science. Second, what "silly things" do science believers believe in that I should hold them accountable for? And "silly things" should be something more substantial than "stuff Arlon does believe/finds silly." As for religion, I hold it accountable for things the actual religion states, not just just what its believers think. Sure, fundamentalism is silly, but I see that as more a fault of ignorant believers than The Bible, much of which was undoubtedly meant allegorically (though much of it wasn't). It follows the scientific method. It's published in a journal. It's peer-reviewed and other scientists agree it followed the scientific method. The results are published. I can't do the experiment myself Again with the double standard, are you really not aware that scientists have investigated spiritual phenomena? Can you not list the proofs of the spirit? One of them is extrasensory perception. One of them is speaking in a language the speaker has never studied. Another is psychokinesis, but it is extremely more rare. I've been over this here before at great length. Many of those are easily faked for people who are not firsthand witnesses. If you are a firsthand witness they can be considerably more convincing perhaps even to the point of qualifying as "proof." Now if you can dismiss those phenomena then you owe it to us in the interests of fair play to dismiss the "science" that is also not repeatable. First, your reply seems completely unrelated to what I was saying about science being science regardless of whether I (or anyone) believes in it. Second, what double standard? My standard is the scientific method and rationality. If religious claims (or the "spiritual phenomena" you refer to) were experimentally proven and published in peer-reviewed science journals and accepted by all (or even the vast majority) of scientists, then I would believe in them too. Find me a scientific journal that published a confirmed study on psychokinesis. ... religion has never been proven right ... any global flood would've left unmistakable evidence ... As with amateurs of any walk, some of the things you say do not deserve a response. So go ahead and explain how a global flood could've happened without leaving a single trace anywhere in the geological record. What in the world that's changed in 25 years could've possibly had any affect on cancer death rates except advances in medical science? Better and fresher foods, working less hard, less exposure to foul weather, all these and more could reasonably lead to better health and progress against cancer. Working less hard is especially interesting because the improvement in the health of males is slightly better than for females, logically because the females were already working less hard. First, I don't know how you'd show these things have actually happened in the last 25 years. Second, I dare you to produce a single study that links any of them to cancer death rates. See, if these things were the cause, then they wouldn't have happened equally on a global level. So if you can find parts of the world where they work just as hard and/or have less fresh foods, but still have access to modern cancer treatments, and the death rates have still dropped, then you could rule out the former as causes for the drop. So my never having met a physicist/engineer means you can disbelieve Relativity? Lol, Arlon-sequitor. You really need to learn how science works. I'm not kidding here. Physician, heal thyself!
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2018 9:55:37 GMT
FilmFlaneur For instance the rabbis in the Mishnah declare that a girl may be legally betrothed by intercourse as early as age three (Niddah 5:4). The age that a boy can contract a valid marriage appears to be age nine (Niddah 5:5 and other passages), even if extremes were largely hypothetical I fail to see how any of this is relevant. You asked for evidence for child marriage etc in biblical times, did you not? Something that I see below you accept as historical fact. There is also the issue of judging ancient peoples by modern standards but I am sure you really know that. See below for a more balanced assessment of Mohammed's bride. QED then and I thank you. Again I see necessary irony eludes you. People who regard the Bible literally true say, and free of inconsistencies and plain errors, are guilty of the same thinking, my friend. But this diversion is noted. Despite your sweeping claim, some modern Muslim scholars have more recently cast doubt on the veracity of the saying, or hadith, used to assert Aisha's young age. In Islam, the hadith literature (sayings of the prophet) is considered secondary to the Qur'an. While the Qur'an is considered to be the verbatim word of God, the hadiths were transmitted over time through a rigorous but not infallible methodology. Taking all known accounts and records of Aisha's age at marriage, estimates of her age in fact range from nine to 19. I hope that helps. For one thing, in a society without a birth registry and where people did not celebrate birthdays, most people estimated their own age and that of others. Aisha would have been no different. What's more, Aisha had already been engaged to someone else before she married Muhammad, suggesting she had already been mature enough by the standards of her society to consider marriage for a while. Finally, It might also be noted that, of the many criticisms of Muhammad made at the time by his opponents, none focused on Aisha's age at marriage. One reason being that, as I have said - and you have admitted above - child marriages were viewed differently then. If you are judging all holy books and history so strictly in modern eyes then also ask how old was Rebecca when she was married off to Isaac? Then there is such things as Num 31:18 and the Moses [God's] vengeance on the Midianites and the hint of child rape: "... save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man." Not every woman, note. And you didn't reply as to why I should not consider your Jesus as possibly gay as he remained unmarried and numbered mostly men among his intimates. You are obviously closer to Islam than I am, since I have no idea what this refers to.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Jan 29, 2018 11:08:45 GMT
1. First, you didn't show the "how" and "where" I've put "too much faith" in science. 2. Sure, fundamentalism is silly, but I see that as more a fault of ignorant believers than The Bible, much of which was undoubtedly meant allegorically (though much of it wasn't). 3. Find me a scientific journal that published a confirmed study on psychokinesis. 4. So go ahead and explain how a global flood could've happened without leaving a single trace anywhere in the geological record. 5. I dare you to produce a single study that links any of them to cancer death rates. ... happened equally on a global level ... 1. I notice you have not challenged my claim that there is a discrepancy between cancer cure rates and cancer death rates. I assume this means you have the same data I do. I also notice you have not explained the discrepancy. Then perhaps you accept my explanation as you really ought. There's the first batch of people with too much faith in science. The second batch is the set of people who think statistically insignificant data in the cancer death rates justify today's insane health care costs. 2. Thanks, now if only more people, especially atheists, would admit that. 3. I explained that the "proof" only works with people who have firsthand information and control of the scene. Other people can readily dismiss the stories having no certainty they were not faked. The scientists involved in these investigations, being more intelligent than yours, understand there is no proof for the general masses and do not bother. I have told you I know people who believe they have proof of spiritual phenomena but refuse to claim it because they understand science well enough to know that it isn't proof to people who were not there. 4. I'll only answer this one under protest. I don't like speculating about what happened on Earth 4.5 thousand years ago, much worse 4.5 billion or whatever. It is not "science" in the same sense as repeatable physics and chemistry (I especially enjoy) even though it employs them to some extent. I think people who argue about the age of the Earth are exceptionally tedious bores, whatever their discipline or lack thereof. That's batch 3 by the way. I enjoy fiction about many unanswered questions in science, but only as the creative speculation it is, not the "science" many think it is. It would be a mistake to assume that the rate of tectonic movement is as slow as it is now. Most assumptions about the distant past are a mistake. If the rate were quite rapid in the past that would introduce the possibility of rewriting the face of the Earth a few times over. Is there a strong scientific basis for this belief? Not really, which is why I don't like speculating about it with you. 5. You betray your complete ignorance of statistical analysis with this question. Already having too many factors thrown in the mix to measure the effects of any of them, you now want to throw in other countries with even more differences in tangled interaction as if that will clear anything up.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2018 12:24:49 GMT
1. First, you didn't show the "how" and "where" I've put "too much faith" in science. 2. Sure, fundamentalism is silly, but I see that as more a fault of ignorant believers than The Bible, much of which was undoubtedly meant allegorically (though much of it wasn't). 3. Find me a scientific journal that published a confirmed study on psychokinesis. 4. So go ahead and explain how a global flood could've happened without leaving a single trace anywhere in the geological record. 5. I dare you to produce a single study that links any of them to cancer death rates. ... happened equally on a global level ... 1. I notice you have not challenged my claim that there is a discrepancy between cancer cure rates and cancer death rates. I assume this means you have the same data I do. I also notice you have not explained the discrepancy. Then perhaps you accept my explanation as you really ought. There's the first batch of people with too much faith in science. The second batch is the set of people who think statistically insignificant data in the cancer death rates justify today's insane health care costs. 2. Thanks, now if only more people, especially atheists, would admit that. 3. I explained that the "proof" only works with people who have firsthand information and control of the scene. Other people can readily dismiss the stories having no certainty they were not faked. The scientists involved in these investigations, being more intelligent than yours, understand there is no proof for the general masses and do not bother. I have told you I know people who believe they have proof of spiritual phenomena but refuse to claim it because they understand science well enough to know that it isn't proof to people who were not there. 4. I'll only answer this one under protest. I don't like speculating about what happened on Earth 4.5 thousand years ago, much worse 4.5 billion or whatever. It is not "science" in the same sense as repeatable physics and chemistry (I especially enjoy) even though it employs them to some extent. I think people who argue about the age of the Earth are exceptionally tedious bores, whatever their discipline or lack thereof. That's batch 3 by the way. I enjoy fiction about many unanswered questions in science, but only as the creative speculation it is, not the "science" many think it is. It would be a mistake to assume that the rate of tectonic movement is as slow as it is now. Most assumptions about the distant past are a mistake. If the rate were quite rapid in the past that would introduce the possibility of rewriting the face of the Earth a few times over. Is there a strong scientific basis for this belief? Not really, which is why I don't like speculating about it with you. 5. You betray your complete ignorance of statistical analysis with this question. Already having too many factors thrown in the mix to measure the effects of any of them, you now want to throw in other countries with even more differences in tangled interaction as if that will clear anything up. So then: two no-answers to direct questions, one "I don't like to speculate" (something you do all the time when it suits) ending with an insult of Eva's intelligence. Great answering skills, Arlon!
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Jan 29, 2018 12:45:55 GMT
Isn't faith a good thing? What's it good for? My question was meant two ways. One, we often hear folks, usually Christian folks, talking about faith as if it's a good thing, you know, "A man(person) of faith" "Faith in God" etc. So in a way I'm posing this to Christians and asking them, "isn't faith a good thing?" The other way is that, IMHO, one has to have faith in some basic things in order to navigate life. I use the phrase "accept things operationally" the same way. I accept operationally that I am not a brain in a vat and that the world around me is not my imagination. I accept operationally that my senses actually detect a real world around me and more or less accurately import that info to my consciousness and from that input my consciousness creates an image of my immediate surroundings accurately enough for me to get along. I accept operationally that many basic things about my life are true even though I can't prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt. I accept operationally that everything is based on a natural world. IOW I believe there is no (need for) a supernatural world/being/existence to explain such things as consciousness, life, apparent organization in the universe, apparent morality, or any of a number of things folks like to attribute to God. I call that having faith that any conundrum one can think of having to do with cosmology, ontology, epistemology, etc. is ultimately explained by a purely natural world.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2018 13:34:41 GMT
FilmFlaneurNo. this is what I asked: Do you have evidence that in biblical times it was common for 50 year old men to marry 6 year old kids? You failed to provide the adequate evidence. Out of sheer embarrassment. The Hadith is considered canonical scripture for sunni Muslims. Basically without the Hadith there is no Islam. 4 of the 5 pillars of the faith are derived from the Hadith. ALL classified authentic sources of even Aisha's own testimony confirm she was 6 at marriage and 9 at consummation. These alternate ages have been derived from misquotations, indirect sources, fuzzy dating techniques, and slander, in an attempt to cast doubt upon facts which have been unquestionably accepted by Muslims for 1,400 years. You copied all this from Islamic apologetics sites as it's point for point the exact desperate argumentation they use. I can't believe I'm arguing with an atheist liberal who's defending Islamic pedophilic marriages. Yeah course you don't. All of a sudden you're an expert on the science of Hadith, but haven't a clue on the most common Islamic creed.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jan 29, 2018 13:41:13 GMT
tpfkar Isapop “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8 Pretty twisted. And I will kill her children with pestilence and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2018 14:28:08 GMT
FilmFlaneur No. this is what I asked: Do you have evidence that in biblical times it was common for 50 year old men to marry 6 year old kids? You failed to provide the adequate evidence. Since this was not what I was saying, then the same answer would apply: that in regards to any common instances of 50 year old men and girls, if I ever make a claim specific to this, and how common it was, then be sure and raise it again. Meanwhile since you have already told me that "I don't doubt that it was more common for girls to be married off at younger ages in biblical times. " That's good enough for me and really answers your own question, whether it applies specifically to fifty year old men or otherwise, doesn't it? I am not defending anything. I am simply setting the historical perspective for this dispute - a key point about which, I notice, you have already agreed with. How old was Mary when Mary when the temple elders decided to find a husband for her and selected the husband by drawing lots, and Joseph whom they chose was a much older man? Given the fact of child brides allowable today in the USA in many states, I am sure you ought to find a more productive thing to rail at.
But back to Aisha and the reliability of sources for those interested in the details: the compilers of the books of Hadith did not apply the same stringent tests when accepting reports relating to historical matters as they did before accepting reports relating to the practical teachings and laws of Islam. The reason is that the former type of report was regarded as merely of academic interest while the latter type of report had a direct bearing on the practical duties of a Muslim and on what was allowed to them and what was prohibited. Thus the occurrence of reports about the marriage of Aisha in books of Hadith, even in Bukhari, is not necessarily a proof of their credibility. The hijra or emigration of Muhammed to Madina took place three years later, and Aisha came to the household of Mohummed in the second year after hijra. So if Aisha was born in the year of the Call, she would be ten years old at the time of the nikah and fifteen years old at the time of the consummation of the marriage. It is a fact admitted on all hands that the nikah of Aisha took place in the tenth year of the Call in the month of Shawwal, while there is also preponderance of evidence as to the consummation of her marriage taking place in the second year of Hijra in the same month, which shows that full five years had elapsed between the nikah and the consummation. Hence there is not the least doubt that Aisha was at least nine or ten years of age at the time of betrothal, and fourteen or fifteen years at the time of marriage. None of this is something I necessarily hold to, it is just offered as a proper historical balance to your view. Not everyone is so dogmatic and islamophobic as you. But I hope that helps.
We are not all so close to Islam, naturally, to draw such accurate and unbiased conclusions as you. And there's still no reason why I should not, in the same slanderous way, view your unmarried and man-friendly Christ as necessarily gay lol. It is a two way street, Christian.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2018 14:49:30 GMT
Yes based on what I've researched the ages were 12-16 and higher. Not 6 year olds marrying 54 year old false prophets which is what you've been shamelessly trying to be defend and trying to justify for the past few days.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2018 14:52:00 GMT
Yes based on what I've researched the ages were 12-16 and higher. Not 6 year olds marrying 54 year old false prophets which is what you've been shamelessly trying to be defend and trying to justify for the past few days. Now you just seem desperate in light of what you already admitted. I have already quoted Hebrew and Muslim sources and you agreed with the basic historical fact of ancient child marriages. I then counterbalanced your Islamophobia with some more detailed historical perspective in the instance under discussion. That's all I can do, really - other than, again, remind you that I do not 'defend' anything. Any update on a prospective gay Christ?
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Jan 29, 2018 14:53:10 GMT
This usually confuses people because they think something like "they can't BOTH be going slower, because then they're doing the same thing". What they don't realise is that in making that statement they're doing what comes naturally - assuming an omniscient point of view to compare the two clocks. But that's the one thing you can't do, because such a viewpoint doesn't exist. Then I showed you an example with two church bells a mile apart where each observer at a bell hears his own bell before the bell a mile away. That situation creates the illusion that there is no omniscient point of view. Actually there is one and the bells sounded at exactly the same time in it. An observer equally distant from each bell would hear them sound at the same time although not the time in the omniscient point of view, but sometime just after. I was correct when I said any observer knowing his distance from any bell could know when it sounds in the omniscient point of view. Here you're simply positing an "omniscient point of view" without bothering to support it at all.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 29, 2018 15:09:18 GMT
Then I showed you an example with two church bells a mile apart where each observer at a bell hears his own bell before the bell a mile away. That situation creates the illusion that there is no omniscient point of view. Actually there is one and the bells sounded at exactly the same time in it. An observer equally distant from each bell would hear them sound at the same time although not the time in the omniscient point of view, but sometime just after. I was correct when I said any observer knowing his distance from any bell could know when it sounds in the omniscient point of view. Here you're simply positing an "omniscient point of view" without bothering to support it at all. Also, an observer would see something quicker than hearing it, since light travels faster than sound.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Jan 29, 2018 15:09:40 GMT
Yes based on what I've researched the ages were 12-16 and higher. Not 6 year olds marrying 54 year old false prophets which is what you've been shamelessly trying to be defend and trying to justify for the past few days. Now you just seem desperate in light of what you already admitted. I have already quoted Hebrew and Muslim sources and you agreed with the basic historical fact of ancient child marriages. I then counterbalanced your Islamophobia with some more detailed historical perspective in the instance under discussion. That's all I can do, really - other than, again, remind you that I do not 'defend' anything. Any update on a prospective gay Christ? Desperate? No mate. I made it perfectly clear the first time round that it was more common in biblical times for girls to be married off at a young age. And I specifically said that from what I understand the ages ranged from 12-16 and upwards. Go and read what I originally wrote and stop misrepresenting me. You're the one acting desperate by trying to excuse 54 year old Muhammad for marrying and molesting 6 year old Aisha by equating it to biblical marriages. You're nothing but a silly time wasting brainwashed deranged leftist pedophilia apologist Islam sympathiser. You're also a classic example of why I personally believe that militant atheists, leftists, Muslims, New agers, all share the same Antichrist spirit.
|
|