pianofrieak2

Lets not forget, this is coming from the person who says that Atheism is a religion. 1. I messed up. I already admitted: I meant "secular humanism" as a religion, of which atheism is their main tenet. 2. That was low and completely uncalled for. Using the ad-hominem argument is not only a logical fallacy, it makes you look ridiculous. Instead of making a point, you just show why I'm an idiot. I'm very upset with that comment of yours. Even though it's true what I said, I've already corrected it with another post of mine and you just brought it up to spite me. Great job! Now, on to your brother. Clearly you know nothing about the culture during the time of the Bible, especially in Jesus' time or you would know EXACTLY why Jesus used parables and imagry. You wouldn't think it was just to "make it easier to understand" because you would know that the parables Jesus used were not his own, and reflected an Eastern style of preaching consistant with the other 6,000 Rabbi's living at the time of Jesus. You would know why you can divide every single word Jesus said into 3 categories of an EASTERN style of thinking/preaching. Since you don't know these things, I'd suggest you not try and comment on them. Since I'm "clearly ignorant," would you please enlighten me and show me where I'm wrong? I'm very interested in finding out about this. Logic: I liked Lewis' analogy of Jesus being a liar, lunatic, or true. Please show me how that analogy is "wrong." As for his analogy of being slight differences, let me comment. 1. Murder has been wrong for all cases in all civilizations. You might disagree by saying child sacrifice and cannibalism is murder, but I would argue by saying that those rituals were sacrificial, not murder. 2. Stealing has been wrong. If people stole, it was to do something that was more right than stealing's wrong. Such as helping their civilization overcome another or invoking a particular god on their behalf. 3. Lying is wrong. If people lied, it was, such as above, on behalf of a greater good than lying's wrong. I think that's what he's getting at. As for the above mentioned things, those just show how the terrible depths that are in human nature. That's why we need new natures from Christ.

I dont' know if I would call Hebrew the "Eastern" way of thinking. Jesus used stories to make it easier for the people to understand. I mean, you can call it "Eastern" if you want to, but I think that's really stretching it. As for evolution...I'd have to agree with logic. The Bible is clear on which stance it takes and that is creationism. I don't know that much about the whole creation theory, nor would I call myself an expert in evolution. I don't claim to know everything, but I don't accept my belief blindly. One thing I DO know is this: Jesus has changed my life and I can never forget what He did for me that one night to "break my heart of stone and give me a heart of flesh."

Heh. Good call. Logic - before I continue further, I'm confused by your first point about the use of the word day. Explain a little further why it can only mean a 24 hour period. Thank you. I thought it was going to be interesting once you got here. What he's doing is getting the same Hebrew word, yom, and showing how it means a 24 hour literal day. You see, the same word, yom, is used in other passages to mean a 24 hour day. So to say that the yom in Genesis 1 is different from other "yom" is Scripturally unfounded. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that's what you're trying to say, logic.

logic you surprise me! I'm very impressed that you have taken the time to research the various beliefs. Great job, man! =D> I pray that through your readings, you will come to know the true God in a deeper way. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me. As to your topic about theistic evolutionists, I couldn't agree more. Expect a reply from Ghostranger pretty soon though.

"The Age of Reason" can be found free online and only takes a couple hours to read (5 or 6 maybe if you go through and try to look up the scriptures and try to piece together everything he's talking about); so if you don't agree with what he says about the Torah at least have read why he comes to that conclusion. (To be honest I don't think it would hurt you much to skip part 1) If you accept his claims that the author of the Torah is unknown then you basically have an anonymous book that has no authority to confirm anything that was written in it. I am not an expert in anything so I could only validate his reasoning as far as I could by following the scriptures he referenced. Saying that, here's my point: Do you accept his claims about the Pentateuch? If not, why? If so, how does this affect your view of the Bible knowing the foundation it rests upon has been stripped of any authority? To be perfectly honest, I'm not a major source of knowledge on the Pentateuch, so I can't really answer your questions. I do know that Moses is credited with writing the first 5 books of the Old Testament even though it is not proven. As for Chronicles being older than Genesis, I sincerely doubt that. But the Bible IS NOT written in chronological order. It's organized by sections. Poetry here, history here, prophecy here. I'm sorry to be bashful in answering your questions but, like I said before, I'm not an expert in the Torah. But, really, I'm not the one that should get the most offended. The Jews should! They base their ENTIRE religion on the first 5 books(and commentaries on those books of course). logic, have you ever read books in favor of Christianity? You seem to be truly searching out there. May I recommend some and you tell me what you think? 1. New evidence that demands a verdict (Josh McDowell) 2. Mere Christianity (C.S. Lewis) Mere Christianity is a pretty short read but it's so in depth that you have to keep reading it to get the full effect. Unless you're really smart, which you are, it might take you less time.

I'd have to say my Dad. He's been wonderful in staying active in my life, encouraging me in my activities, and being a great role model for when I become a parent. He's the best Dad ever. =D>

Just because they don't believe it's sacred doesn't mean it isn't. It's like saying "I don't believe in gravity so it doesn't exist." Non-Christians should get married! The Bible condemns promiscuity and there's nothing wrong with getting married. I'm still confused why you're thinking non-Christians can't get married. They can still enter into the covenant between God and each other...they just may refuse to believe in God but the covenant still exists. I understand that about people getting married all over the world. But it's something that God put into the heart of everyone who is human. The desire to be love and be loved. Obviously the greatest representation in this physical world is marriage. It's why so many get married and why marriage has been around since the creation of the world. The government legally binding two people of the same sex isn't a marriage because a marriage means so much more. It's a covenant between the two in front of each other and God. The government recognizes it for legal reasons, but it means much more. That's all I'm saying. Marriage is much more than a legal document. And because it is, God has set guidelines for it.

Forums: I'm not sure but it's probably this annoying, foolish, Bible-believing freak who can't leave well enough alone. It really varies depending on your theological beliefs lol. But that's ok. Real life: A lot of fun...sometimes I'm crazy and sometimes I'm really quiet. It just depends on who I'm with. I'm fairly smart...top of my class so that's good and everything. Tennis rocks! I would also agree with Ghost. Although I wouldn't say that Phil is intimidating...is that a bad thing? :-k Don't know about LP very much. Sorry buddy. But I would also say that I like reading logic-is-overrated posts. He's so interesting. And, yes, Astralinre is mysteriously brilliant lol. Ghost is Mr. Philosophy if you ever have a philosophy question. vmser is the math genius of the forums too. He's one of those brilliant Belgians.

Where would you say that leaves non-Christians who get married? Should it even be legal for non-Christians to get married? Um, of course. It's between two people...not just between two Christians. I think that because Christians have new natures (2 Corinthians I think..."the old has gone; the new has come") it works best. Where did you get that idea that they couldn't?

Boy, Tigra, you got really upset there. I'm not judging Astra or calling him a terrible person for disagreeing with me. Actually, we're friends on these forums and enjoy talking with each other. But you probably didn't know that. :wink: As for Astra's comment, I would probably say that marriage is much more than a legal document binding the husband and wife (or should I say 2 people) together. Marriage is a sacred covenant between two people, which is why the Bible says one should save yourself for marriage. Consummation is an act of unifying the two physically whereas marriage unifies the two spiritually in the eyes of the government and in the eyes of the church and God Himself. Emotionally is a whole other issue which really can't be dealt with unless the two people have new natures (if you're confused, please ask me). If marriage is, as I believe, a sacred covenant, then everything about remaining a virgin until marriage makes complete sense. This is why God is strongly against divorce, for you are breaking the vow you made in front of God, between the two of you, and others. Marriage is the earthly representation of our relationship to God. You know, God is pretty big into this whole covenantial relationship.

OK, Astra, you interested me. If you're a Christian, do you believe the Bible to be the infallible Word of God? (2 Timothy 3:16) If so, then how do you NOT oppose ga marriage? Romans 2. :-k Just wondering!

Godzira, I understand that about philosophical reductionism. How would you answer my questions? Also, if everything is created by our consciousness, then is our thinking created by our consciousness? How do you know what your thoughts are reducing to be true? Hmm...seems to be completely illogical.

Man, all the Heat need to do is get LeBron and they've got it set. Why, they wouldn't need any other good players. Honestly, I couldn't believe the Mavs lost. They started off poorly and got progressively worse. Of course, Howard and Nowitzki had the worst game of their lives. I think that the Mavs won the first two, got cocky, and now are going to take it to the Heat. Mavs in 6. Easy. Especially with home-court advantage for the two after this next game.

You could, but then again, like you said it's irrelevant. What we should have done is made a new topic about philosophy but oh well. It is clear that science cannot prove or disprove God. Thus... I think the question comes down to this: If you believe in a god, which god do you choose and why? New topic?

Believe it or not this is not my first run in with the philosophical reductionism debate. So, instead of reducing for another three pages, lets drop right to the bottom. Perhaps everything I know is flawed and nothing exists other than in my own consciousness. If that be the case it is irrelevant. It is irrelevant because the things I perceive are still my reality and thus the way I interact with that reality is still valid. So you see, I would need faith if I wanted to believe that everything around me is real as it appears. However faith is not required because real or not I accept it as my reality. That acceptance trumps the requirement of faith. I'm sorry to go back a page, but since this is my first time with the philosophical reductionism debate, let me ask you a question. You seem to be an expert in the subject. :) How do you "know" that you can't "know" anything? That would mean that you have known everything and know enough to know that you can't know anything which is, of course, contradictory. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the theory, but that's what it seems to be to me. EDIT: And evilperson, check your PMs. I don't want any confusion of people thinking it's that time of month yet.

I don't think he's saying that they don't know anything about God/gods, but that they profess that they don't know whether God/gods exist, thus making them ignorant (not knowing) in that one area. Despite the fact that you are going to disagree with me, I will make the point. NO ONE knows that god exists. You my believe that he exists to the point of ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅknowingÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Logic is defined thus : 1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning By that definition, my beliefs are logical as a result of the thought and empirical processes that I use to arrive at my open ended conclutions on which my beliefs are based. reasoning towards what cause? Obviously something that your beliefs value.

How do you know your beliefs are logical?

Actually it was quite on-topic for what we were discussing. Now we're discussing the morality of homosexuality which wasn't at all what my comment was made for.

If you want to make the species survive better, why live comfortably when you can save more lives?

Our point for Godzira is that he can say nothing to us if we just "think" homosexuality is unnatural, thus being contrary to what we should accept. He can't prove homosexuality is natural which is our entire argument. Right, Ghost?

But being selfish is logical. People really only care about protecting their young. Their family. Their kids and grandkids. :-s But people always look down upon selfishness, which is illogical. And since you esteem logic so high...what's your point exactly?

That's right, Ghost. That's right. If homosexuality is condoned because animals do it, then you must also condone cannibalism.

Thank you, Ghost. Actually, let me take this logic argument further. If you don't believe in God, then you are merely an animal with impulses. But how do you know what impulse to obey? All impulses claim to be satisfied at the expense of every other impulse. For instance, if you want a piece of candy, one impulse says to steal it. It'll be fun, exciting, and won't be a big deal. The other impulse says to pay for it because it's the right thing to do. Oh, wait. We can't use the word right. Because it will be beneficial to the 7-11 market and, eventually, be a part of the macroeconomic system in the United States. Why do so many people pay for their stuff? It doesn't make any logical sense. Your 65 cent candy bar plays virtually no role in the global market. Yet we have a morality that says stealing is wrong. Besides, your comment about protecting your fellow man: If you actually looked at that logically, you would be giving all of your money to the kids in Africa who have no food. How much do you give to the kids in Africa? If you're such a logical person...

Do you care to logically answer our questions on dermining morality concerning homosexuality, especially me and Ghost's comments?