pianofrieak2

Proof please? Let me use a radical example to show illogical reasoning. 1. I don't have a right to deprive others of euthenizing themselves. 2. If I don't want to, I don't have to. Right so far? OK, let's use an example. If you don't agree with murdering, then don't deprive my rights of being able to murder someone. If you don't want to, that's fine. You don't have to. But don't limit me. See how your reasoning makes absolutely no sense? And anesthesia said I was being "pompously dogmatic." I would just like to ask you to prove that to me. Thanks!

You are told what to think by your emotions or your own personal ideals. I am told what to think by God. And since when do I "pontificate"? It's not like I go bashing my views on others or tell anyone who disagrees with me that they're going to hell. I merely make my points based on Scripture.

Where does it say that? I don't doubt you but haven't ever heard of that before. Could you give me a Scripture?

I think that the sickening liberal leftists who campaign for abortion would sharply change their tune if it was them in the womb about to be killed. Now, about euthenasia. I define euthenasia as being mercy killing for those who are terminally ill. I carry the, what I believe to be, Scriptural view that euthenasia is wrong for several reasons. 1. Your body is not your own. It has been purchased by Christ and should be respected as such. 2. Everyone has purpose and giftings, at all times in all circumstances. Just because you are a terminally-ill patient doesn't mean you have nothing to contribute. You can give hope to others, tell of your experience, give back to the community. You can still make a difference. And, besides, it means much more when you realize death is coming and you still think of others. 3. We're all going to die. You may have an idea of when you're going to die, but that doesn't mean we're still on that same path. As much as we don't like thinking about it, we're all going to die. There's no way we can get around it. Some will die when they're 5, some at the age of 12, some at the age of 17, and others at the age of 88. We may hope we don't die that early, but no one besides God really knows. They may just have a better idea of the time. Basically, I liken it to a movie line I once saw:

You remarked about me judging people, you said stuff about Scripture and the Christian God...forgive me for assuming you were a Christian. As a Christian, I can judge your statements with the truth of Scripture. I can't judge whether or not you are going to heaven, and I should be careful about myimpressions of people since they can be wrong. But at least know what you're talking about before you start making assumptions about my belief and about Scripture. Thanks. BTW, your fear of hell IS warranted. But since you seem to be so confident in your beliefs, I'm not going to debate you. And quit assuming things about me. If you want to know what I believe, read the Bible. That way you don't have to assume! :wink:

I think we've totally destroyed this topic here, but I don't like it when people slam me, especially when they claim to be so accepting of others. Now, you say "quoting Scripture doesn't make you a man or woman of God." Did I ever claim to be one? No. But I am quoting the Scripture to prove my point, which, ironically, goes against yours. And you claim to be a Christian? Perhaps not, but at least my view is Scriptural. *gasp* Are we not to test the spirits? That's in the Scripture. Now, no offense, but that sure sounds like judging to me. Are we not to judge truth? Hmm...interesting statements you just said. God is the only one that can judge one's HEART. Man can only see the outward appearance and actions. I can only base my views of others on their actions and beliefs. Based on your stated beliefs, which do not agree with Scripture, I would say you are not a Christian. Not being mean. Not condemning you to hell. Not name-calling or calling you stupid. Just pointing out the obvious. I'm judgemental? Aren't you judging me? *sigh* God said that worshipping anyone but Himself is wrong. But Jesus is God. So if I'm worshipping Jesus, why would I not be worshipping God, of whom Jesus was a reflection of in this Earth. :? Now I'm judgemental and going to hell... All from a person who doesn't believe in judging people? I'm sorry, but I seem to see some hypocrisy going on here. Secondly, I don't judge someone based on their beliefs. I merely compare them to Scripture. That's all I did! Please...if you're going to claim tolerance and acceptance, then please at least be like that in all things. Don't make me an exception. :wink:

OK, I'm going to give you some Scriptures that prove my point and then leave. But before I do, let me address some of your points. 1. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian, just as being in a garage doesn't make you a car. 2. If you believe in Jesus and what He said, then you would see that He said he was the only way to heaven. 3. If you've read the Bible, you would see that Jesus is the only way to heaven: excluding everyone else. Let me give you some Scriptures: John 14:6, "Jesus said, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.'" John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not presh but have everlasting life."--believe in Jesus...no one or nothing else. John 1:29, "The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, 'Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.'"--not one Lamb of God but THE Lamb of God. Now all of those are pretty exclusive. The first one is the most direct and is found that same way in all translations in all Scriptures. Now, I don't see how anyone can say that there are other ways to heaven and still be a Christian. Jesus was pretty exclusive.

Because it's polling different people's feelings about COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. IT'S A POLL. Thus, it's a poll of the world. Yes, the results are by Britain but where does it say it got the results from? From a travel company. Now don't just throw out the results because they're by a British company. Maybe they're right. Honestly, I've never been to Europe so I wouldn't know. But, again, don't just dismiss them because of the person. That's the ad-hominem logical fallacy. :)

Not a Christian. Not a Christian. Next! :roll:

I found this on yahoo and found it really funny. Here's the link if you want to view the actual webpage, (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060520/ts ... etyoffbeat) but I've already copy-pasted it for you. Comments anyone? Experiences? Just found this article pretty funny.

Yeah, same here. That's kinda weird. My condolences go to you and his friends. I'll keep you in my prayers.

my_pet_worm's point, since all of you missed it, is based on two premises: 1. Most evolutionists do not believe in God. They say science explains everything. 2. If there is no God, then what started the whole Big Bang? Those are his two points. I think they are extremely valid in this case, but, Ghost, you are the one exception to the rule. I, for one, am interested in seeing how evolutionists that do not believe in God can answer the foundational questions of our universe. The overarching theme is that they can't. They can try to explain, but then they get stuck with "Well, what was before THAT?". That's really about it. The only other smokescreen after that is, "What made God?" which is, of course, a very foolish question. And Ghost let me ask you a question: Why do you believe in evolution? If God created the world, then why would He wait all this time for the world to develop? The Bible said He created the world in 6 days. Bible contradicts evolution?

Wow, I'm impressed you know that. However, Jehovah is actually more commonly used in Judaism, the Jewish religion. It's quite similar but not the same as Christianity (Oh, how I hate using that term. Maybe I should make up the term "Christ-follower." That would be better...)

Well just because God exists doesn't mean you're going to heaven. Besides, what does "ralted" mean?

Wow, I really enjoyed reading that. You surely thought about it before you said it, so props to you. While I would agree that science throws God out the window in trying to explain certain aspects of creation, I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about the aspects that actually affect our personal lives. How about healings? How about the mere coincidences that stack up and, looking back, make us wonder. Now I know you may just say it's coincidence or healings were just the doctor making a mistake, but that's only because you put your faith in the natural. Everyone puts their faith in something, whether it be science or the supernatural. So when one says, "Evolution doesn't require faith," they are being ignorant and foolish. Yes, and I have no idea why. I know the one Scripture they all use, but why CAN'T the Bible be taken literally? Why compromise? Even Christians believe in the micro-form of evolution, for it's obvious: macroevolution we have problems with. Please explain. I am wondering how you compare love to the fight-or-flight response that our brain always has. I believe absolute morality IS innate. Why do kids look around before they steal cookies from a jar or get that gut feeling when they lie. It's innate, but, again, one can suppress the conscience enough to where it becomes silent in the face of pure evil. And your statement about absolute morality being impractical...I fail to see any other morality actually BEING practical, as you say. Yeah but those sort of things can be adequately described as a survival mechanism. IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m talking things like 3rd World Labour, Cloning etc. Concepts that donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t directly deal with your survival (however I may be wrong, empathy/apathy would be a good survival mechanism). You donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see any clear consensus in moral judgements independent of evolution (if such things even exist). I would say that the Bible is clear on those kinds of subjects, but people don't always listen to the Bible, do they? Just because people don't obey the Bible doesn't mean it doesn't talk about them.

Senior Skip Day. :o (What a waste of time and thought...)

I'm very confused. At times you seem to be a Christian but at the end you become a postmodernist, Christian scientist, and believer in scientology. I've never seen such a blend...

Isn't that proving the 10 Commandments? I'm sorry, but I fail to see your point against the Bible...if that is indeed your point. Perhaps I'm mistaken. As for Ghost's comment on it not being innate: I would argue that it IS innate (conscience) but it can be overriden and eventually suppressed. Romans 2:12-16 says, "12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares." More Scripture: Isaiah 51:7 "Hear me, you who know what is right, you people who have my law in your hearts: Do not fear the reproach of men or be terrified by their insults. Jeremiah 31:33 "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. Hebrews 10:16 "This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds."

I would not accuse you of lying to advance your own case, but the only thing that I could fairly say is that I believe you to be saying things from which your information is not reliable... but this would rather turn into "believe in god/not believe in god" argument, if we went there. If I healed someone (rather God through me), then how would my information NOT be reliable? :? I think this might be a good place of a clarification of terms. What I believe you mean when you use the Bible or God's Word, I address as the divine will, the universal will, the True, the Proper, the Right, etc... the thing that is independent of all our meddling and subjectivity, the rules, so to speak. Good, let's clarify terms. John 14:6 says, "Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." 2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness." If you believe in Scripture, you must believe that Scripture is inspired by God. God does not lie, for it is against His nature. Thus, Scripture is completely true IN ALL CASES. Because it is completely true in all cases, it can be used for all people at all times. Truth does not change with the times, though the applications may change. Oh, and by the way: Our perceptions of truth do not change the truth's meaning. It just means we can break the absolute morality easier without facing condemnation. (Take cussing for example and compare it from 1920 to now). This is only because it is claimed to be the divine will of the universe. Any other will that claims itself as premiere and divine shares that characteristic. And they all fail except for Christianity. Can you give me an example that works in all cases? Again, the only reason that your philosophy "works" is because it claims to be the divine (universal, omniscient, etc...) moral code. So when I say it is not fit for transferrence, I guess I mean to say is that you have to accept a premise that lies outside the body of knowledge that we can test. No, my philosophy works because I have seen it active in my life, I have seen its fruits, and I have proven it to be true. I am not a Christian because my parents tell me it's true or because my favorite person is a Sunday School teacher (not true either but it's an example). I have tested it objectively against other religions and cults and have found it to be true. I do not assume it's true because it claims to be true. Every religion claims to be true, even tolerance (ironically). You can't take anything at face-value anymore. So your whole point is...gone? Ah, but the whole idea is that utilitarianism (or whatever other philosophy you choose) only works until a certain point. Again, my whole point is that Jesus' teachings (I use the term Christianity as the way it was meant to be...not the way it is seen now) work in all cases in all instances. If you can prove me wrong, please go ahead. As for your existentialist point, I would say that you cannot pick and choose. That's RELATIVISM. :) Application changes because society changes. One's perception (or understanding) of truth does not change the truth's meaning. It just makes it easier to break its laws without getting condemnation, as I said earlier. For last sentence, see 2 Timothy 3:16.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the four writers of the gospel all died natural deaths, and the information about certain apostles being imprisoned, mistreated, and dying unusual deaths came only from later Christian writers who heard "stories" that were past down. Jesus' death was the only one confirmed by outside sources during his own time. This is why most encyclopedias/sources of information directly go into Jesus' death, but descriptions of the supposed persecution and crufixions of the disciples are usually preceded by the phrase "later tradition states that..." You know, I would REALLY appreciate it if you would stop making guesses and start putting down some actual FACTS. Facts are nice. 11/12 disciples died terrible deaths. Now that you know how they all died, except for John who was exiled on the Island of Patmos. He died a natural death which was pretty terrible in and of itself. You know this how? Please stop making comments without any proof to back them up. Your next post is extremely interesting. Let me take a look at it. Bible and Vedas: I don't know have an answer for you yet. I WILL get back with you LATER. Nothingness: No, you cannot comprehend nothingness. It's like comprehending eternity. You cannot picture it, you cannot comprehend it. You can't imagine it. Thus, I don't see how your point is even on-topic. What made matter? But, besides, I don't have to think up a question to prove God exists whether or not I believe it to be true. By the definition of God, He exists outside of one's belief of Him. He has certain traits which are given to God and to no other being in the world. It's a part of Him. What makes you and bear so adamant about the fact that the spiritual realm cannot interact with the physical realm? It just HAS to leave the material world alone after it CREATES it? Again, you're assuming your premise which shows how you assume conclusion. What's wrong with pushing the supernatural into the physical realm? If the spiritual realm, as you say, CREATED the physical realm, surely it can interact with the physical realm UNDETECTED by scientific instruments. Once again I ask, WHY CAN'T HE? And HugATree, as an evolutionist, you MUST be able to give valid reasons for not accepting the supernatural as existent. If you say the supernatural does not exist, then how do you explain the creation of the world? Also, how would you describe love if you deny the spiritual?

Bear, I don't know if Astra's claim is actually true. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But since you're not omniscient, you really have no idea. None of us do. Only God, who is omniscient, can have all of the knowledge to make that decision. And, besides, Astra showed in Scripture how God can do whatever He wants (as long as it doesn't contradict His nature, basically) showing God isn't hypocritical. Now, take a thought experiment with me. Think of nothing. That's right, nothing. Most people think of a white room with nothing in it, but that's not true. You have a room and walls. Think of nothing. Out in space? Well, there are molecules in space. Problem is: You can't think of nothing. You can't comprehend "nothingness", just like you can't comprehend eternity. Our minds can't even think of them. Try thinking of another color. Our minds are limited in what we can comprehend or even fathom. Eternity and non-existence are both something we can't understand. We can guess at how long it will be but it's never really exact. And I ask you again, what is the your system of "absolute truth morality?" (truth and morality are both nouns, by the way) Let me remind you that - It cannot be science, as you said and - It cannot be religion, as you helped me explain: My basis for truth is God's Word. Not religious doctrine or what some guy in Rome tells me to believe. Not even my pastor. The ONLY true basis for truth is Scripture. Christianity isn't about religious rules. It's actually gone away from that in the New Testament. It is about relationship with Jesus. It's about His grace and mercy that enables one to receive salvation and eternal life. It's about His justice that helps one realize just how wonderful He is to give it to oneself. It's a paradox, how God is just but merciful, but true in every sense. If so, I'm sorry but it happens. But don't get all onto people with unsubstantiated claims simply because people have ignored you. Those are called spam and help no cause in this debate.

Hehe, we've got a New Age person on the boards!! :lol: (Just so you all know, New Age is NOTHING like Christianity...or Christ's teachings for that matter. It stems from the ideas of Hinduism and Buddhism but is one of the fastest religions in the world.) So God is in everything and is everything. The trees are God as is the plants, weeds, cement, dirt, foxes, you and me. So when I kill a roach, I'm killing god? Or how about when I mow the lawn? Am I chopping God up? (Boy that sucks) Christianity says that man is fallen and inclined toward doing evil. That's certainly quite different from your belief. For if we are all God, then we are all morally good. God created man "IN HIS OWN IMAGE." The soul is the eternal part of our being. It is what makes us "human." It is not the shape of God though. Just wondering, but have you ever been sick? And if we can do anything we want, why can't people (even people who believe like you) fly? I've read books by New Age people who have transcended time and all that, but it has been in their sleep. Why can't they fly in front of people as proof? That'd be kinda cool to see. I am a sinful person who has been redeemed. I am in more sin than I know but loved even more than that by a holy God.

Interesting topic. Personally, I think love is what makes humans different from every animal on the planet. It makes us different, better. But anyway, I can agree with your statement about quantifying love. Eventually we fall in love with the person's traits instead of who they are. I love you for the way you look or the way we have fun when we do X together. But isn't that what society is becoming? What can YOU do for ME? It's sad, but it's why marriages fail so much. When your focus is on you instead of 100% on your spouse, marriages get tough and then the people bail. It needs to be all about the other person. Love. Impossible to quantify. And, yet, I feel as if you need to look at the practical aspects of it. You can't just join a relationship for the feelings. Think about it! What happens if you get married and then the feelings disappear? You get older, the spouse gets older, and now you have no "spark." Do you just bail out? No, marriage is supposed to be a covenant, to survive through everything. Yes, trust your feelings but also look beyond that. Love is different. It's more than feelings. And the funny thing about love is this: It usually begins with friendship and turns into something deeper.

My all of one rolley smiley? Hmm... And Ghost, I was saying that's where he got his information from. It may not be true but it's what they teach in schools. At least his idea works.

I suppose you'll have to trust that I what I say is truth. I wouldn't lie to advance my case any, for I've been debating logic and philosophy in the other topic. Since you weren't there, it would be hard for you to take my words at face-value. But that's the only option we have left. I guess we're not fans of Nietzche, then. Lol! We? :P But we have demonstrated multiple times in the thread that it is the case. Just as the Big Bang as a theory has phenomena that it predicts will happen later (if the theory is valid), so does your theory. It would require me to have a much more extensive knowledge of the scripture to see some of the contradictions (and I'm fairly sure there are some) in what we do vs. god's will because we deem to be ethically proper. I think homosexuality may be another case in which we attempt to determine what it is that God really wants. Let me take your example of homosexuality (assuming you believe homosexuality is ok): (See also Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, 18:25. 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10; Romans 1:22-27) The Bible is clear on its position on homosexuality: WRONG. See above. I think we both actually apply Util. to some degree on this. I said in my first post that I started out figuring out what my desirable end was, and then how to work towards it. I think on some level, you do the same. If the end is to be united with your lord in heaven (forgive my lack of capitalization) then logic dictates you do your part to achieve that end. This would hinge on the argument that getting into heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number, I think you would agree to this. I still fail to see how we apply utilitarianism. Also, I fail to understand how logic dictates me to do my part to make sure that heaven qualifies as the greatest good for the greatest number. I'm confused on that comment, so I'm not sure if I agree to this or not. I think this is where we draw our line in the sand. If you accept that statement, you have to follow the requests he puts forward when it comes to morality. In this discussion, I have not argued that the notions are unsound, I have argued that they are not transferrable. You are correct in your statement. That really is where we draw the line. I claim that the Bible is God's Word and is the absolute, universal standard by which everyone is to base their lives. I'm sorry but I missed your point. By saying anyone who understands God's Word has the same legitimacy as Jesus is completely unbased. If your standard IS Jesus, then He is above you, and you are merely submitting your will to His. I fail to understand where you're coming from. Well, no offense to you, but I would hardly call that school Christian. In fact, I wouldn't say it is Christian at all. Sadly enough, Baylor's heading that way. So is SMU. My point is merely this: Jesus is the only universal truth that you can take at face value in all circumstances at all times without having exceptions or having to pick-and-choose which system to follow (utilitarianism in some cases, kantianism in others, common sense still in others). His view is stable and applicable at all times to all people. You are so wise! You don't have to argue me out of my religion to do that...You just have to come up with a reason why some philosophy works in all cases at all times to all people.