Astralinre

Most of what we accept as true, we accept because of faith in authority. I have faith in my science text book, so I accept as true what it says about the orbits of the planets, even though I'll likely never observe them myself. I have faith in my history text book, so I accept as true that Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States, even though I'll likely never verify it myself. I accept that T.S. Elliot wrote Murder in the Cathedral, because I have faith in the publisher and my English teachers to tell me correctly. Since so much of what we "know," we accept by faith, faith is certainly important to function in the real world. This is not to say that we shouldn't question our sources or that we should forgoe reason. However, we cannot verify everything for ourselves. If you do not accept by faith what other sources tell you, then you are left with no knowledge but what your narrow range of experience has given you. While some may be fine with believing only their few experiences, I find it impractical. In short, I do believe faith is a virtue, because most of what we know, we know because of faith in authority, and if we reject faith as a way of knowing, we find that we know very little. We need knowledge to function in society, therefore we need faith.

You depress me. He makes me miss my pet squirrel. Come home, Twitch! I wanna meet Twitch! *Gives muffin* : Well, because you asked so nicely... :)

You depress me. He makes me miss my pet squirrel. Come home, Twitch!

And everything you've said would be correct if there were no God. Everything I've said is wrong according to your assumptions. Everything I've said is right based on my assumptions. For you to say, "I presuppose the non-existence of God, therefore any system which claims God exists is wrong" is intolerant. And whether there is evidence for God or not is irrelevant to this specific point: a presupposition is what you believe before you think, before you look at the evidence. Since you presuppose his non-existence, you'll only accept the evidence against him. Since I presuppose his existence, I'll only accept the evidence for him. Haven't I made it abundantly clear that I presuppose God's existence and you don't? My point is that the Christian system makes sense when taken as a whole. That doesn't necessarily make it true, but it does make it a reasonable faith. And yes, I have considered that God may not exist and looked at the implications of it. If he doesn't exist, the whole Christian system is absurd. However, if he does exist, the whole Christian system is sublime. I understand if you disagree with Christianity. I'm just trying to teach you to respect it, rather than dismiss it as unreasonable crap, as you've done so often in the past.

Or rather, God the Son became a man, lived a perfect life, took the sins of the world upon himself, and died a painful death on the cross so that his rebelious creations could listen and obey. I don't believe I mentioned free will anywhere. Though if I'm happy with being a slave to God, why would I want to be free? It's the nature of love to bind itself. If I love God, then surely I am happy to not be free from Him. Then God failed, and Jesus isn't the Messiah at all. A great majority of people DON'T listen and they DON'T obey. Isn't a wonder then why Jews believe he wasn't the Messiah. 'Sides...Jesus' death wasn't that bad. People have been killed in much, much worse ways than what he got. His was like a 7 on a scale of 1-10, and that's if you count the pre-flogging, if that even happened. I haven't read enough of the Bible to know, but I watched The Passion of the Christ and it did...Could have just been for dramatic effect. ANYWAYS, if you don't include that, it was like a 5. Man, people nail themselves to crosses for FUN nowadays. I said so that they could, not that everyone would. Christ himself said that few will choose life in Him over rebellion. Now, I don't believe it matters whether or not crucifiction was the most painful possible death, but it's still pretty bad. Just look up a medical report of what happens to the human body during those hours on the cross. Ugh.

I'll see if I can find some proof, but I do know that I've seen plenty of History Channel documentaries in which a new pharaoh tried to wipe out knowledge of the previous pharaoh. They would deface statues, destroy inscriptions and paint over old drawings. Actually, it's not a bad analogy at all, because it supports my point. Being brainwashed into believing something as a child has no bearing on that something's validity. I don't believe there is a lack of evidence, just that those who don't believe in God already tend to dismiss it. Those who presuppose materialism reject the supernatural by definition. Of course, this is completely consistent with a Christian worldview. Humans are sinful, in rebellion against God, so they would naturally dismiss evidence for his existence, so that they could be free from him, as you mentioned in the other thread. Though if it is true that those who don't believe in Christ are going to Hell (which it is within the Christian system), then it is morally wrong NOT to tell people so. If you see a friend about to stick his hand into the fire, and you don't stop him even though you know it will burn him, then surely you are doing the wrong thing.

Here's a list of the Founders, from the old tip.it site. "Founded by STEEL Corporation Inc. Dmonik, BlueRose13x, Lightning, Starlude, Xentia, Kibble, Rodrigo, DOC IRON 9, Sir Beachy, Stud6900, Hitman X and Silverion"

Silverion. :P

Or rather, God the Son became a man, lived a perfect life, took the sins of the world upon himself, and died a painful death on the cross so that his rebelious creations could listen and obey. I don't believe I mentioned free will anywhere. Though if I'm happy with being a slave to God, why would I want to be free? It's the nature of love to bind itself. If I love God, then surely I am happy to not be free from Him.

Since the Bible teaches that all humans are sinners, and that there will be many false Christians, I don't see any inconsistancy with a biblical worldview there. How do you know that one part is wrong? Because it goes against your own assumptions? Nevermind that the Christian idea of repentence means to turn completely away from sin, to cease the old habits of evil. The death and resurrection of Christ enables us to be forgiven of our old sins, and the Holy Spirit living in us enables us to not pursue sin. (This is not to say that Christians don't sin; the Bible teaches that there is still a battle between the sinful self and the Spirit of God in us for the rest of our earthly lives.) No, I'm saying you don't even consider that your assumptions may be wrong. You don't have to reject you assumptions; I'm just asking that you set them aside and try to see the world based on a different set of assumptions. If you don't try to do that, how can you understand those people and their beliefs? And how can you dismiss as false something which you don't understand? I've also been told since I was a small child that the planets orbit around the sun. I've also been told since I was a small child that apples grow on trees. Because I was a stupid child, and these things were drilled into my young mind, people shouldn't believe me when I say them. Whether or not someone was "brainwashed" into believing something has no bearing on that something's validity. And how many adults would believe the planets orbit around the sun if I told them today, but they had been told since childhood that they didn't? No matter what it is, if you walk up to a person and tell him something that goes against what he's always been taught, he's going to resist. The Egyptians were also notorious for destroying records of rulers or events they didn't like.

God giving a specific command in a specific context to kill a group of people does not make it universally acceptable to kill that group of people. And there isn't any contradiction between being told to give people the death penalty, then later being told to forgive those people instead. There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law. So God first said it was cool to stone people for such things (there is no context for it to be taken out of, either. It's flat-out 'do this, die' stuff), then Jesus came and said "Whoa, whoa. Cut that out." And Jesus is God, so God was wrong at first and wanted change. And God is infallible. Jesus didn't just come and say "Cut that out." In the beginning, man disobeyed God and became sinful. (In Christian theology, this is known as the Fall.) The Law was sent to govern God's people until he redeemed them from this sin. If someone broke the law, he took the punishment. Christ came to die for the sins of mankind. Think of it as paying a debt - in sinning, man created a debt to God which he could never pay back. Christ paid that debt for us; he took the punishment for our sins. Therefore, under the new covenant in Christ, the punishment for our sin has already been done - He took it for us. Therefore, God is not contradicting himself, nor changing his will. The sins which were once punished with death are still punished with death - only now, Christ has taken the punishment upon himself.

God giving a specific command in a specific context to kill a group of people does not make it universally acceptable to kill that group of people. And there isn't any contradiction between being told to give people the death penalty, then later being told to forgive those people instead. There's two covenants in the Bible - one old, one new. Under the old (Abrahamic) covenant, the focus was on the law and doing justice. Under the new (Messianic) covenant, the focus was on salvation from the law. (This covenant did not free people to break the law, but to obey it without worrying about messing up. It did not provide license to sin, but freedom to do good.) (Also, there is still mercy in the old covenant, such as sacrifices and cities of refuge, and there is still judgement under the new covenant.) Therefore, it is no contradiction for those under the old covenant to be told to kill lawbreakers, while those under the new covenant are told to forgive and instruct them. The new covenant began with Christ, which is why Christians don't stone people for adultery - the new covenant of Christ supercedes the old covenant of the law.

I wasn't trying to prove the truth or existence of anything; I was showing that the doctrine of the Trinity is a logically consistant view, not some ridiculous dogma that the Church shoves down everyone's throats, and that it makes the God of Christianity substantially different from Allah. And yes, you have said it was impossible; in fact, I think I recall you calling it "bullcrap." As for "Thou shalt not kill," many laws have justified exceptions or qualifications. For example, "honor your parents, in the Lord." (Obey your parents, unless they tell you to break the law.) If the Bible says not to kill, but later says "Do kill in this situation," then it's logical to assume that's an exception to the rule.

I thought that too until either Ghost proved me wrong or John lied. He didn't prove you wrong. He fed you what the church feeds him. That all the beings are one "because God has the power to be down like that". :roll: Tigra, I realize you refuse to try to understand Christianity so that you can flame it more, but here's something that might help you understand the concept of the Trinity, insomuch as that is possible for a finite being.

Haha, that's funny. Nevermind that all you ever do is blatantly ignore anyone who tries to honestly explain the Christian worldview to you, then keep on complaining about how it's crap. If you would actually be "tolerant" (oh, the irony), and try to understand another worldview, you wouldn't be so quick to flame. You dismiss Christianity as crap based on your own assumptions, never bothering to think that it might be reasonable based on other people's assumptions, then go on to repeatedly insult Christians for nothing other than their religion. You, sir, are a bigot, and yet for some reason, Section 1.5 of the tip.it rules doesn't apply to those who hate Christians. Here's a perfect example of you completely ignoring the Christian worldview and bashing a few parts of it that you haven't made any effort to understand. Ghost doing it doesn't excuse you doing it.

Why do people believe Santa exists? And hypothetically, if he does, why is he so mean? I guess it's fair to assume he exists and tell kids that's the case, and portray him as a friendly character in movies... Why he only brings present to spoiled, western children who already have everything plus more and are whining about not getting their upgraded 40gb iPod, instead of kids in third world countries who are starving to death and would appreciate a bit of candy and a doll is beyond my understanding though! Well actually if I remember correctly this whole Santa thing was created by Coca Cola, notice he wear red. The whole Santa thing has been told so many times the truth has been forgotten like all Myths and Legends have a base in reality, the tales have been told so many times, the truth has become mixed up in Fantasy. Looks like I went abit far, anyway I forgot who said the santa thing. Have a cookie if you read my whole post. Santa was not invented by Coca Cola; that's a false urban myth. Our modern idea of Santa is mainly a merging of the stories of St. Nicolas and the myths of Father Christmas.

It depends on how many Wet Willies he's given you. :P

I don't think there's shame, either, in "a simple life doing what someone else tells you to do." And by not getting excited about academia, I don't think you are necessarily committing to drinking in a pub being the highlight of your life. Surely there are other things besides alcohol and intellectual pursuit that can be important. Deep human emotional connection, perhaps? Romantic love? Eh? You can choose an intellectual lifestyle, but understand that it is not for everyone. It's great if you enjoy it. But if someone truly does NOT LIKE doing schoolwork - why should they continue to do something they abhor just because it is "responsible?" Isn't that just as much "doing what someone else tells you to do" as getting an (arguably) "brainless" job later? You are being incredibly elitist, and I think you should critically examine your judgements about other people :D I agree very much, and that's similar to what I was getting at earlier. There's no shame in a blue collar job, nor do higher wages necessarily lead to a more enjoyable life. I continue with my education not because I want a high-paying job, but because I love learning. With my grades and my intelligence (I don't believe the two are necessarily equal), I could do just about anything I wanted to do with my life. However, I find menial work, such as chopping wood, mowing lawns, or janitorial work just as satisfying as writing essays, solving complicated math problems, drawing Lewis structures, and discussing philosophy. There's a simple joy in getting a job done, and doing it well. That said, I don't think dropping out of school to pursue a trade you love will ruin your life. (Though if you drop out because of laziness, that's usually a whole nother matter.) An extensive education is not essential to enjoying life. So long as you take satisfaction in your work, why should it matter what kind of work it is or how much you get paid for it? Here's another tangent. Why is being a garbage man, a janitor, or a lawn worker any less dignified that being a doctor, lawyer, or business man? Surely the job of a santitation worker is even more important than that of a doctor. If there were no one to prevent the buildup of trash and waste, disease would be so rampant that doctors would be practically useless.

Well... It's looking at the date he's going to get.

Allow me to make a clarification: I'm not talking about loving things, but loving people. But none of you have answered my question yet: why must love be "special" or unique for it to be love? Love is still love regardless of how many people you love - why does the number of love's objects change its essence? Is one relationship in which you care for another person as yourself any less valuable if you have that same relationship with everyone? If so, why?

Triple posting for the lose? did it ever occur to anyone that god himself is a sinner? he flodded the world, right?, made the plagues, consequently people were murdured. Surely he knew this, or he wouldnt be god, right? he murdured people... :-k last time i knew, that is a sin. u rekon those people who died in the flood went to heaven? But what if God has the right to give and take away life, and the wisdom to know when it is appropriate or necessary to do so? If so, He's merely exercising what is within his right; that's not a sin, is it? i believe that people are at least entitled to being born without life-altering/threatening illnesses. If everything man has, including his existance, is a gift of God, and is dependent on nothing more than God's mercy (which is a part of Christian belief), then how can man be entitled to anything? A beggar doesn't throw a quarter back at a donor because he thinks he's entitled to a dollar. i tend to agree with Victor. if you already have something and have always had it, then its normal to you. You are used to it. But if you earn it, build a relationship, go through good times and bad, surely, you can see that this love can stant the test of time and is something more special than just 'normal'. So why would it not be better if every relationship were like this? Yes, it would be common, but why would that take away from the wonder of such a strong relationship?

But that would also be alot more expensive. :( Do you think *THEY* quibble about costs!? I think not! Do you think *HE* has Discovery Channel funding his projects!? I think not! :P

But it's not love if you love everything. Because then there is no emotion for hate or like. Which makes love the only emotion, so it is impossible to go beyond the normal emotion which is love in this case. If you love everything, then love means everything! Not nothing. It is no less meaningful if it is common. In fact, love is one of the few things which becomes more meaningful, the more it is spread around. To love one person as yourself is to touch that person deeply. To love every person as yourself is to touch all people deeply. Surely that is more meaningful? And yes, if love is the only emotion, then it is normal, but that doesn't make it not love. As I asked before, since when is love defined as only being for a small number?

I fail to understand why loving everything makes love any less valuable. I don't see any reason why loving everything makes love less "special." How does this happen? If you love everything, then love means nothing. It would therefore be just like likeing everything. It's only special when it refers to a few things. Which makes those few things above average, because you love them, or cherish them more. Since when is love restricted by number? Surely love's essence, what it is, does not change just because you love everything.

"Save the Zombies... for lunch tomorrow"