By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Bible prophecy coming true - A One World Religious/ Economic/ Government System

Kasz216 said:

That's good, because usually you do and it makes you look like a jackass.

He's explaining it poorly but you don't really need to have faith to understand it... it's actually really quite straightfoward when you cut to the heart of Christianity.

Man is inherently good.

Those who find god and themselves and adhere to there better and true nature.  While those who choose not to adhere to there better nature freely choose to act wrong and as such find themselves outside of god because rather then focus on the spiritual and the each other.  They focus on the physical, and themselves.

Believer or not, it's fairly easy to see how that ties up everything and largely explains everything including "Why do good things happen to bad people."

 

Really the whole free choice vs divine will thing is better questioned under the "God knows what choice your going to make so how is it free will arguement" that is made against evangelicism and that suggests full true ominpotent god.

Though even that isn't really a contradiction.  Since if I travel to the future one week and find that you decide to have a diet coke over a coke, then go back to my time....

I've in no way negated your free will.

Man isn't inherently good. And are you suggesting that people who don't believe in god are "bad"? (see italics) You can't say that something is "good" because god asks it. That's just lazy thinking (if you can even call it that). I expected better from you (did I?).

As for the underlined, that does not negate free will, it just negates the purpose of life.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Around the Network
lestatdark said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
lestatdark said:
DélioPT said:
The world was more devided than it is now and there`s a "push" for unity at the expense of "individuality", so it could be easier to control the masses. And you know, Satan is the false light that many will follow as to feel empowered - one way or the other.
Prophecies have also existed to this day like the Marian apparitions - which people should carefuly read.

Kinda ironic that you put it in those terms, when it was cristianity itself during the dark ages that almost destroyed the individuality for much easier control of the masses. The crusades, the inquisition, the witch trials, hundreds of thousands killed in the name of trying to annul everything that was different and that didn't mold itself by the christian thought and moral code. 

Have a look at how humanity suffered a massive technological, ideological and even humanitarian downgrade after the fall of the Roman/Greek ideology and rise of the christian ideology. That is why I sincerely scoff at these kind of religious claims that the christian message is the one true message and that everything had been predicted and prophecized by them. Were christianity to have won over the scientific advance during the age of enlightment, we wouldn't have this conversation now. 

It's disingenuous to say that Western Europe had a big fall because of the rise of Christianity, even though the Dark Ages coincided with it. The Church was pretty much the only vehicle keeping knowledge alive in the West (which gave them a monopoly on information that they later abused to an extent), so they deserve credit, as if the Church hadn't been around as an institution, most of that knowledge would have been lost (though it would have been reclaimed i suppose)

Plus the Church ended a few barbaric practices of pagan times. I'm not saying the Church is blameless in history, far from it, but it isn't responsible for the dark ages

Eventually anyway...  Some of that shit we've just gotten back last century. 

Even then the Dark Ages weren't that dark though... granted largely thanks to the Christian Church as mentioned.

It wasn't really so much a time of "going backwords" but a time of limited foward movement... and even then there was plenty of progress made before the "Renissance".

In reality a lot of it is just framing that got spread out and blown out of proportion like culture.  Like all of those "People thought the earth was flat at this time" suggestions and all kinds of shit that people think is true about history but historians will tell you is bullshit.


What people don't totally comprhend is that printing presses and computers and shit didn't exist then.  It was actually fairly hard to keep information alive and well through generations, espiecally when all kinds of people died early.

It's like when Galen died, rather then those who came after him surpassing and expanding on his works, they each took parts of his work as other parts just fell away and nobody really focused on observation and expermentation... (in the west).

Actually this part is total BS. Information was passed on and kept in massive libraries, the most important of all being the alexandrian library, which at it's peak capacity was bigger than any current library nowadays and that lasted for at least 8 centuries, until someone came and though "hey let's us burn all this pagan knowledge down because it's an affront to our beliefs". 

Er, no it isn't.

There were a FEW huge libraries... and a bunch of libraries created by the churches.

How many people had access to these huge libraries?

How many people could afford to saftely travel halfway across the country to access these libraries?

How many people could even read the books in the huge libraries?

Waaaaaaaay less then were needed to keep practice going in every day use.

 

Now, imagine the giant empire that protected travel across europe was destroyed... also, the empire that protected the shipments of builders and architects and whatever else...


It's kinda easy to see why the Early Dark Ages had their problems... and it had nothin to do with religion.

 

In general though you seem to be mistaking the historiography of the "dark ages" for the History of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_%28historiography%29#Rational_thought_and_the_study_of_nature



sapphi_snake said:

Kasz216 said:

That's good, because usually you do and it makes you look like a jackass.

He's explaining it poorly but you don't really need to have faith to understand it... it's actually really quite straightfoward when you cut to the heart of Christianity.

Man is inherently good.

Those who find god and themselves and adhere to there better and true nature.  While those who choose not to adhere to there better nature freely choose to act wrong and as such find themselves outside of god because rather then focus on the spiritual and the each other.  They focus on the physical, and themselves.

Believer or not, it's fairly easy to see how that ties up everything and largely explains everything including "Why do good things happen to bad people."

 

Really the whole free choice vs divine will thing is better questioned under the "God knows what choice your going to make so how is it free will arguement" that is made against evangelicism and that suggests full true ominpotent god.

Though even that isn't really a contradiction.  Since if I travel to the future one week and find that you decide to have a diet coke over a coke, then go back to my time....

I've in no way negated your free will.

 

Man isn't inherently good. And are you suggesting that people who don't believe in god are "bad"? (see italics) You can't say that something is "good" because god asks it. That's just lazy thinking (if you can even call it that). I expected better from you (did I?).

As for the underlined, that does not negate free will, it just negates the purpose of life.

A) Man isn't inherently good... that's an opinion... and a rather pointless one when it comes to the conversation.  It seems like your just trying to retreat from the arguement to "higher ground" so as to not admit fault by trying to replace your own beliefs with christian ones to try and find an incongruity.

B) Are people who don't believe in god "bad".    No.  that's certaintly a leap of faith.

C1) I never said it was good because it was something god asks.  It's good because, it's good, you disagree that thinking about others before yourself is good.

C2) Actually, you can say something is good because god asks it.  It's not lazy so much as it is logical.  If there is one ominipotent creation god, it stands to reason that he created everything and that includes abstract concepts such as good and evil.  An all creator god could decide that raping children is good, and we would disagree, and he would be right because he is the one who has control over reality, created reality this way and holds complete knowledge of everything.

To think otherwise is to hold the logical fallacy that you are the center of the universe and the one who gets to define these abstract qualities. This is something to keep in mind even if you don't believe in an all powerful creator god as it general shows where a lot of fallacies, ignorance and stubborness comes from.  Someone placing themselves as the center of the universe.  This may be a problem you yourself are facing... afterall, look back at A.  You simply said man isn't inherently good, rather then think from the mindset that man is inherently good.  Which if you did would make the whole thing eaisly understandable.

It would be illogical to suggest that an ominpotent creation god WOULDN'T always be right.

Hence why arguements around religious literature among believers tend to focus on the trasnlation, interpretation and possibility of it being faked.

D) So in your opinion, timetravel negates the purpose of life?  Or are you talking about the Christian sense of choosing correctly?  Either way I can't see how.  That's like saying that reading the end of a book negates the point of reading the book.



Kasz216 said:

A) Man isn't inherently good... that's an opinion... and a rather pointless one when it comes to the conversation.

B) Are people who don't believe in god "bad".    No.  that's certaintly a leap of faith.

C1) I never said it was good because it was something god asks.  It's good because, it's good, you disagree that thinking about others before yourself is good.

C2) Actually, you can say something is good because god asks it.  It's not lazy so much as it is logical.  If there is one ominipotent creation god, it stands to reason that he created everything and that includes abstract concepts such as good and evil.  An all creator god could decide that raping children is good, and we would disagree, and he would be right because he is the one who has control over reality, created reality this way and holds complete knowledge of everything.

To think otherwise is to hold the logical fallacy that you are the center of the universe and the one who gets to define these abstract qualities. This is something to keep in mind even if you don't believe in an all powerful creator god as it general shows where a lot of fallacies, ignorance and stubborness comes from.  Someone placing themselves as the center of the universe.  This may be a problem you yourself are facing... afterall, look back at A.  You simply said man isn't inherently good, rather then think from the mindset that man is inherently good.  Which if you did would make the whole thing eaisly understandable.

It would be illogical to suggest that an ominpotent creation god WOULDN'T always be right.

Hence why arguements around religious literature among believers tend to focus on the trasnlation, interpretation and possibility of it being faked.

D) So in your opinion, timetravel negates the purpose of life?  Or are you talking about the Christian sense of choosing correctly?  Either way I can't see how.  That's like saying that reading the end of a book negates the point of reading the book.

A) Man is inherently good... also pointless.

C1) "It's good because, it's good"? Really? Using tautologies now?

C2) But humans are the center of the universe (our universe), and we are the ones who define abstract qualities. The reason why I reject the notion that man is inherently good, is simply because it's not verifiable, and quite frankly, disproven by real life experience. I'm quite capable of empathy, more so than most people, but I refuse to empathise with religious people.

The ideea is that an omnipotent, onmiprezent, omni-whatever god could create a universe, create all kinds of rules etc., however we are not mindless robots programed to act a certain way. We have the capability to think independently, interpret the world as we see fit, and this quite fraknly leads us often to find that the rules of the god are actually in contradiction with what we define as good for ourselves. At the end of the day "omnipotence", "all-knowing" are just impossible qualities that dictators attribut to themselves to justify their rule, and no one does it better than the "supreme dictator". These attributes are often extended to more earthly dictators, and I find this concept scary and dangerous, hence why I won't even liste nto such nonsense.

D) In my opinion, god knowing who will be "saved" and who will not, before these people even commit the respective actions kinda negates the whole purpose of life (according to Christians it's salvation, proving to god that you deserve to go to heaven, something that's obvioulsy pointless if god already knows who is gonna "be good" and go to heaven, and who is not even before the respective people are born).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

sapphi_snake said:

A) Man is inherently good... also pointless.

C1) "It's good because, it's good"? Really? Using tautologies now?

C2) But humans are the center of the universe (our universe), and we are the ones who define abstract qualities. The reason why I reject the notion that man is inherently good, is simply because it's not verifiable, and quite frankly, disproven by real life experience. I'm quite capable of empathy, more so than most people, but I refuse to empathise with religious people.

The ideea is that an omnipotent, onmiprezent, omni-whatever god could create a universe, create all kinds of rules etc., however we are not mindless robots programed to act a certain way. We have the capability to think independently, interpret the world as we see fit, and this quite fraknly leads us often to find that the rules of the god are actually in contradiction with what we define as good for ourselves. At the end of the day "omnipotence", "all-knowing" are just impossible qualities that dictators attribut to themselves to justify their rule, and no one does it better than the "supreme dictator". These attributes are often extended to more earthly dictators, and I find this concept scary and dangerous, hence why I won't even liste nto such nonsense.

D) In my opinion, god knowing who will be "saved" and who will not, before these people even commit the respective actions kinda negates the whole purpose of life (according to Christians it's salvation, proving to god that you deserve to go to heaven, something that's obvioulsy pointless if god already knows who is gonna "be good" and go to heaven, and who is not even before the respective people are born).


You may identify and define qualities, but that`s not equal to creating them.

Saying "men is inherently good" isn`t the same as saying it´s 100% good or that he`s good 24/7. It means that people know right from wrong, in one way, and in another, taking into consideration that people were created as a reflection of God, people are born good, they might just choose another way, because you were made free.
The question is, when someone`s views clash with God`s, "why do they clash?". Everyone can tell a different reason, but they will probably be similar in essence.

God knows what will happen, but that doesn`t erase the fact that you will have to live your life and make choices along the way. That doesn`t even erase the part where He tries to put you on the right path. The purpose of life and knowing everything still has to "happen" to be real.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake said:
Kasz216 said:

A) Man isn't inherently good... that's an opinion... and a rather pointless one when it comes to the conversation.

B) Are people who don't believe in god "bad".    No.  that's certaintly a leap of faith.

C1) I never said it was good because it was something god asks.  It's good because, it's good, you disagree that thinking about others before yourself is good.

C2) Actually, you can say something is good because god asks it.  It's not lazy so much as it is logical.  If there is one ominipotent creation god, it stands to reason that he created everything and that includes abstract concepts such as good and evil.  An all creator god could decide that raping children is good, and we would disagree, and he would be right because he is the one who has control over reality, created reality this way and holds complete knowledge of everything.

To think otherwise is to hold the logical fallacy that you are the center of the universe and the one who gets to define these abstract qualities. This is something to keep in mind even if you don't believe in an all powerful creator god as it general shows where a lot of fallacies, ignorance and stubborness comes from.  Someone placing themselves as the center of the universe.  This may be a problem you yourself are facing... afterall, look back at A.  You simply said man isn't inherently good, rather then think from the mindset that man is inherently good.  Which if you did would make the whole thing eaisly understandable.

It would be illogical to suggest that an ominpotent creation god WOULDN'T always be right.

Hence why arguements around religious literature among believers tend to focus on the trasnlation, interpretation and possibility of it being faked.

D) So in your opinion, timetravel negates the purpose of life?  Or are you talking about the Christian sense of choosing correctly?  Either way I can't see how.  That's like saying that reading the end of a book negates the point of reading the book.

A) Man is inherently good... also pointless.

C1) "It's good because, it's good"? Really? Using tautologies now?

C2) But humans are the center of the universe (our universe), and we are the ones who define abstract qualities. The reason why I reject the notion that man is inherently good, is simply because it's not verifiable, and quite frankly, disproven by real life experience. I'm quite capable of empathy, more so than most people, but I refuse to empathise with religious people.

The ideea is that an omnipotent, onmiprezent, omni-whatever god could create a universe, create all kinds of rules etc., however we are not mindless robots programed to act a certain way. We have the capability to think independently, interpret the world as we see fit, and this quite fraknly leads us often to find that the rules of the god are actually in contradiction with what we define as good for ourselves. At the end of the day "omnipotence", "all-knowing" are just impossible qualities that dictators attribut to themselves to justify their rule, and no one does it better than the "supreme dictator". These attributes are often extended to more earthly dictators, and I find this concept scary and dangerous, hence why I won't even liste nto such nonsense.

D) In my opinion, god knowing who will be "saved" and who will not, before these people even commit the respective actions kinda negates the whole purpose of life (according to Christians it's salvation, proving to god that you deserve to go to heaven, something that's obvioulsy pointless if god already knows who is gonna "be good" and go to heaven, and who is not even before the respective people are born).

A) No it isn't.  Man is inherently good is a basis of Christian belief and must be taken as true when consdiering whether or not said statement is cotnradictory in the belief system.

C1) It's not a tautology.  Or do you disagree that helping others is good moraly?

C2) Again, this is all your opinion and irrelevent to the topic at hand and an attempt to retreat off the topic at hand to a arguemenatitive highground where you try to insert your own Dogma over the existing one to force flaws.  

This was afterall an analysis over what he said, and whether or not it was contradictory when concerning Christian Dogma. Your own personal beliefs are irrelevent.  To study whether it's contraditory or not one must accept the viewpoints as true and see if a contradiction happens when thinking as they do.

If you lack the critical thinking skills to do so, and decide to only look at anything ever through your own point of view, you won't see ANYTHING as ever being valid outside of your own beliefs... which is much more the cause of the problems and dictatorships that you complain about.

To Judge this you need to use Immanent Crique.  To explain it via a Wikipedia quote...

According to David Harvey, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the City University of New York (CUNY), "Critical theory at its most abstract and general level ... begins as a formal 'negativity.' As a dissenting motif, it selects some tradition, ideological premise, or institutionalized orthodoxy for analysis. As immanent critique, it then 'enters its object,' so to speak, 'boring from within.' Provisionally accepting the methodological presuppositions, substantive premises, and truth-claims of orthodoxy as its own, immanent critique tests the postulates of orthodoxy by the latter's own standards of proof and accuracy. Upon 'entering' the theory, orthodoxy's premises and assertions are registered and certain strategic contradictions located. These contradictions are then developed according to their own logic, and at some point in this process of internal expansion, the one-sided proclamations of orthodoxy collapse as material instances and their contradictions are allowed to develop 'naturally.'"


Therefore whether or not an Omnipotent god exists or not, it is irrelevent to the topic at hand.  In general your opinions or mine on dogma or reality are irrelevent.  All that is irrelevent is the general beliefs attributed to the statement.

 

D) If that's the case, then why as an atheist decide to live?  You are taking a very nihlistic view of life in such a case.  Aside from which, you aren't learning or living or growing then.



The book of Revelations was not written by John the Apostle, it was written by a man known as "john of Patmos" he sent a ton of letters to the church leaders of various places spouting off about insane crap and now it has been mis-attributed as being from someone that lived two centuries earlier. it's the same crap that leads folks to believe that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute even though the bible does not explicitly say this at all. To me this would be like a bunch of stuff written by Glenn Beck or Alex Jones being Cannonized in the bible because it scared people and kept them under rule.



sapphi_snake said:
richardhutnik said:
sapphi_snake said:
DélioPT said:
sapphi_snake said:
DélioPT said:


Actually it`s not. It`s quite the opposite really. Loving others doesn`t come without loving yourself. And God is love. You also have free will to do what you want with your life aswell - although there are consequences for all your actions -, so there`s all the room for individuality and unity with God.
Those who have faith find themselves within God without ever losing oneself.

Contradicting yourself, no?


Seems like it but it`s not a contradiction. It all comes down to what this really means: "Those who have faith find themselves within God without ever losing oneself."

See, it's all just contradictions.

Boring.... living dead, now THAT is a contradiction!

Good one!

I could of gone with the slow getaway car one, but I feel like my reply would never end

Anyhow, people can find the other Starburst contradiction ads.



Kasz216 said:

A) No it isn't.  Man is inherently good is a basis of Christian belief and must be taken as true when consdiering whether or not said statement is cotnradictory in the belief system.

C1) It's not a tautology.  Or do you disagree that helping others is good moraly?

C2) Again, this is all your opinion and irrelevent to the topic at hand and an attempt to retreat off the topic at hand to a arguemenatitive highground where you try to insert your own Dogma over the existing one to force flaws.  

This was afterall an analysis over what he said, and whether or not it was contradictory when concerning Christian Dogma. Your own personal beliefs are irrelevent.  To study whether it's contraditory or not one must accept the viewpoints as true and see if a contradiction happens when thinking as they do.

If you lack the critical thinking skills to do so, and decide to only look at anything ever through your own point of view, you won't see ANYTHING as ever being valid outside of your own beliefs... which is much more the cause of the problems and dictatorships that you complain about.

To Judge this you need to use Immanent Crique.  To explain it via a Wikipedia quote...

According to David Harvey, Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the City University of New York (CUNY), "Critical theory at its most abstract and general level ... begins as a formal 'negativity.' As a dissenting motif, it selects some tradition, ideological premise, or institutionalized orthodoxy for analysis. As immanent critique, it then 'enters its object,' so to speak, 'boring from within.' Provisionally accepting the methodological presuppositions, substantive premises, and truth-claims of orthodoxy as its own, immanent critique tests the postulates of orthodoxy by the latter's own standards of proof and accuracy. Upon 'entering' the theory, orthodoxy's premises and assertions are registered and certain strategic contradictions located. These contradictions are then developed according to their own logic, and at some point in this process of internal expansion, the one-sided proclamations of orthodoxy collapse as material instances and their contradictions are allowed to develop 'naturally.'"


Therefore whether or not an Omnipotent god exists or not, it is irrelevent to the topic at hand.  In general your opinions or mine on dogma or reality are irrelevent.  All that is irrelevent is the general beliefs attributed to the statement.

 

D) If that's the case, then why as an atheist decide to live?  You are taking a very nihlistic view of life in such a case.  Aside from which, you aren't learning or living or growing then.

A. It's irrelevant when the belief system itself is contradicted by reality. (then again, in culture reality doesn't matter, and appearently people confuse culture with reality often)

C1. You said "it's good, because it's good". That's a tautology. And I'd like you to show me how helping others is in itself good. I know you can't, but amuse me. And no refrences to Christian dogma please.

C2. This is what he said:

You also have free will to do what you want with your life aswell - although there are consequences for all your actions -, so there`s all the room for individuality and unity with God.

This is a contradiction. He sais that people have free will to do whatever they want with their lives, but also that god has deemed certain actions as being "right", and certain actions as being "wrong". In other words god isn't interested in people expressing their individuality, but rather in them caving in to conformity and "sameness". What room is there for individuality, when there already is a standard model that everyone has to adhere to in order for them to be "with god"?

Christianity is also a belief system that claims to explain reality, so I'd say that whether or not it actually has any connection to reality or whether it's pure fiction is quite important.

D. What's the relevance of what you wrote? It seems like you meant to write this regarding the above point. We were talking about what Christians "think", and I actually used Immanent Critique to illustrate this contradiction in their beleifs system. It's not what I think, it's the logical conclusion that you come to when using the very rules of the Chritian dogma: if life has meaning and purpose (the purpose being salvation, and proving to god that you deserve it), but god is all knowing and already knows what people will do before they do it (and essentially what people will be "good" and end up getting saved, and what people will be "bad" and end up in hell), then life is ultimately pointless, because the purpose Christians attribute to it is negated (they don't have to prove anything to god, as god already knows what they will do before they do it, so life can just be skipped altogether).

Also, why don't you answer the questions you asked me yourself. If I remember correctly you're not a Chritstian, or religious. Why do you, as a whatever you are, chose to live? I chose to live because I want to, and regardless of what others may think of this reason, I do not care. With my limited knowledge of the universe (no different than the knowledge that all humans have, whether they like to admit it or not), it's the best and most honest reason I can find to want to live, without resorting to fantasies and delusions to find justifications for life.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

DélioPT said:


You may identify and define qualities, but that`s not equal to creating them.

Saying "men is inherently good" isn`t the same as saying it´s 100% good or that he`s good 24/7. It means that people know right from wrong, in one way, and in another, taking into consideration that people were created as a reflection of God, people are born good, they might just choose another way, because you were made free.
The question is, when someone`s views clash with God`s, "why do they clash?". Everyone can tell a different reason, but they will probably be similar in essence.

God knows what will happen, but that doesn`t erase the fact that you will have to live your life and make choices along the way. That doesn`t even erase the part where He tries to put you on the right path. The purpose of life and knowing everything still has to "happen" to be real.

"Right" and "wrong" aren't universal qualities, they're culturally determined. What's "wrong" in one culture can be considered "right" in another and vice versa.

As for your last paragraph, it does not change the fact that life, using all the rules of Christian dogma, is pointless.  God may try to "put you on the right path", but he still knows whether you'll accept or not. Read my post to Kasz. I already showed that Christianity negates the very purpose it attritbutes to life.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)