History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum LockedAtheism

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
Author
Zaitsev View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 16-Oct-2006
Location: The Hill
Status: Offline
Points: 1008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zaitsev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 12:03
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

You can't create something out of nothing? Then it seems you just argued against the creation of the Universe as explained by Gensis, and backed it up with scientific evidence. Well done.


I'm glad to see you've accepted the invalidity of the Big Bang Theory in explaining the start of the universe. However, I'm rather dismayed that you don't understand the "nature" of the "supernatural". One cannot apply natural laws to a supernatural being, that's what the word means.
 
Quote How can you claim perfect laboratory tests were performed?


I didn't say perfect tests were performed, you should real more carefully. I said they were performed in perfect conditions. That's a completely different thing.

Quote Life took hundreds of millions of years, and highly intense and varied conditions across the surface and sub-surface of planet earth to eventually be created from the elements responsible for organic products.


Life too hundreds of millions of years..... for what? You never finished that sentence. However.... where's the evidence? That seemed to be your argument against God. Thing is, this has been tested and the tests were negative. So not only is there no evidence to suggest this is true, but there is evidence to suggest it is impossible. You should try to be more consistent in your beliefs.
 
Quote Incorrect. God is the most complete explanation. But complete does not necessarily equal correct. Just because it attempts to explain more, that does not give its explanations any further merit or validity.


Not only does it explain more, but it also explains things that science cannot. It explains things science has been trying to for thousands of years, and has still failed to do.
 
Quote Science is still the best explanation. It explains a limited amount about the universe and backs it up with the best evidence we have available. Theism tries to explain everything about the universe, and backs it up with no credible evidence whatsoever.


However, we can look at it this way. Religion has provided explanations for thousands of years and has yet to be proven false. By comparison most scientific "truths" get proven false a few years after they're "proven" false. Alot of "scientific theories" lack any evidence too.
 
Quote Yes they do have scientific merit. Scientific method does not require science? What planet are you on?


Last I checked they didn't have broadband on mars Rolling%20Eyes Scientific method does not require "science" at all. Scientific method is simply a method of investigation based on experimentation and proof. You should read up on the term before you use it.
 
Quote If the older theory in question was never backed up with evidence, but by faith alone, no rebuttal of it is necessary. So when are you going to get around to proving God?


I think I pretty successfully proved God when I told you to look out the window. I'm pretty sure, if you read up on scientific method as I suggest, you'll find there's no talking about faith in there at all. I'm pretty sure it doesn't discriminate, unlike yourself.
Straw Man - a weak or sham argument
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 12:39
Originally posted by Zaitsev Zaitsev wrote:

However, I'm rather dismayed that you don't understand the "nature" of the "supernatural". One cannot apply natural laws to a supernatural being, that's what the word means.
 
The supernatural? That's the best you can come up with? Supernatural doesn't exist, except for lunatics.
 
Quote Life too hundreds of millions of years..... for what? You never finished that sentence. However.... where's the evidence? That seemed to be your argument against God. Thing is, this has been tested and the tests were negative. So not only is there no evidence to suggest this is true, but there is evidence to suggest it is impossible. You should try to be more consistent in your beliefs.
 
For life to form from inanimate elements, obviously.
And if the tests are imperfect, which I do claim in total validity, then you just based your last conclusion on imperfect tests. My arguments are therefore obviously consistent, and it is you who needs a hand with piecing together your argument.
 
Quote Not only does it explain more, but it also explains things that science cannot. It explains things science has been trying to for thousands of years, and has still failed to do.
 
Wrong, it attempts to explain them - it doesn't actually succeed in doing so with evidence. I could claim the Flying Spaghetti Monster explains everything in Gensis and how to make a greate vodka cocktail - so by your logic the Flying Spaghetti Monster trumps your Abrahamic God thanks to a more extensive explanation of the universe.
 
Quote However, we can look at it this way. Religion has provided explanations for thousands of years and has yet to be proven false. By comparison most scientific "truths" get proven false a few years after they're "proven" false. Alot of "scientific theories" lack any evidence too.
 
Yes, explanations, wrong explanations. See my earlier comments. And if you disagree, worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
 
Originally posted by Zaitsev Zaitsev wrote:

Last I checked they didn't have broadband on mars Rolling%20Eyes Scientific method does not require "science" at all. Scientific method is simply a method of investigation based on experimentation and proof. You should read up on the term before you use it.
 
Well according to my dictionary, science is:
Originally posted by dictionary dictionary wrote:

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
. This definition is perfectly consistent with the scientific method. Say hi to the Martians while you are off in your own little world.
 
Quote I think I pretty successfully proved God when I told you to look out the window. I'm pretty sure, if you read up on scientific method as I suggest, you'll find there's no talking about faith in there at all. I'm pretty sure it doesn't discriminate, unlike yourself.
 
Look at the floor, that proves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your signature really does your style of debating justice.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Zaitsev View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 16-Oct-2006
Location: The Hill
Status: Offline
Points: 1008
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Zaitsev Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 12:53
Originally posted by Constantine XI Constantine XI wrote:

The supernatural? That's the best you can come up with? Supernatural doesn't exist, except for lunatics.


So are you calling all people who believe in God lunatics. Answer that question yes or no... and carefully.LOL
 
Quote For life to form from inanimate elements, obviously.


Oh quite obviously. There was a puddle, and over two hundred million years it sat still, perfectly undisturbed... and slowly turned into life. Rolling%20Eyes

Quote And if the tests are imperfect, which I do claim in total validity, then you just based your last conclusion on imperfect tests. My arguments are therefore obviously consistent, and it is you who needs a hand with piecing together your argument.


Actually no I didn't. For one thing, there is no such thing as a perfect test. If you'd like we could exclude all science based on that fact. Secondly, produce some evidence supporting this theory. I'm interested to see your proof. I've shown you the evidence against it, and it's pretty darn convincing.
 
Quote Yes, explanations, wrong explanations.


So now you know they're wrong. Prove it. LOL
 
Originally posted by Zaitsev Zaitsev wrote:

Well according to my dictionary, science is:
Originally posted by dictionary dictionary wrote:

systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
. This definition is perfectly consistent with the scientific method. Say hi to the Martians while you are off in your own little world.


I can see you're resorting to rather unfortunate personal digs, but anyway. You may have noticed I had science in inverted commas when I said that. Referring to science in the sense of organised research by "scientists".
 
Quote Look at the floor, that proves the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your signature really does your style of debating justice.


I'm not the one resorting to desperate sarcasm.LOL
Straw Man - a weak or sham argument
Back to Top
Constantine XI View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Lord of Hut River Province Principality

Joined: 01-May-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5711
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Constantine XI Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 15:26
Originally posted by Zaitsev Zaitsev wrote:


So are you calling all people who believe in God lunatics. Answer that question yes or no... and carefully.LOL


Warewolves and vampires are part of the supernatural in which you set so much store. Anyone who believes in that most definitely is a lunatic.

Quote
Oh quite obviously. There was a puddle, and over two hundred million years it sat still, perfectly undisturbed... and slowly turned into life. Rolling%20Eyes


Which shows you have not read about the chemical reactions and radioactivity which transformed inorganic matter into animate and self replicating matter. And actually here you are resorting to desperate sarcasm, go figure.

Quote Actually no I didn't. For one thing, there is no such thing as a perfect test. If you'd like we could exclude all science based on that fact. Secondly, produce some evidence supporting this theory. I'm interested to see your proof. I've shown you the evidence against it, and it's pretty darn convincing.


Show me some tests which were done to a standard encompassing acceptable laboratory conditions to test this.

Quote
So now you know they're wrong. Prove it. LOL


We've been through this, no need to prove that which is not supported by any evidence at all.

Quote
I can see you're resorting to rather unfortunate personal digs, but anyway. You may have noticed I had science in inverted commas when I said that. Referring to science in the sense of organised research by "scientists"


Well then learn to express the true meaning of your comments properly, otherwise people will have to remind you of how silly it sounds to say "scientific method contains no science".

Quote I'm not the one resorting to desperate sarcasm.LOL


I'm just making use of your methodology. It's a shame you find your own method of explaining existence as "sarcastic", it must reflect on the reasoning you used when trying to claim theism has more scientific validity than science itself.
It is not the challenges a people face which define who they are, but rather the way in which they respond to those challenges.

Back to Top
Praetor View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Jun-2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 383
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Praetor Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13-Oct-2007 at 15:50
Gentlemen.....please calm yourselves before we must close yet another of these threads, by all means continue your debate or rather turn it from an argument into a debate. I think it would be of more value if definitions are given to key terms and points are elaborated upon so as to avoid going around in circles and the frustration that causes.

Regards, Praetor.
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.

Back to Top
WolfHound View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WolfHound Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 05:23
Whoa theres a lot of bashing here. Whats wrong with being Atheist. I was raised Christian but I eventually questioned religion. I did some research and I found that Christianity is not what I believe in. A lot of things were covered up or never taught to Christians. For instance most Christians don't realize Jesus was not born on December 25th. That the 1st bible was written in Greek. The first written stories of Jesus never appeared to the late 60's AD. Numerous years after Jesus's life. Then I took world religion's which even strengthened my view of there being no true religion. Believe what you want to believe but please don't believe something just because someone else says it. Instead look to yourself to develop your own beliefs. Whats wrong with questioning religion and other beliefs. I feel that following something blindly kills the individual. 
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 06:16
Originally posted by WolfHound WolfHound wrote:

Whoa theres a lot of bashing here. Whats wrong with being Atheist. I was raised Christian but I eventually questioned religion. I did some research and I found that Christianity is not what I believe in. A lot of things were covered up or never taught to Christians.   
 
Well, it isn't as if the information was covered up; it does, however, require a bit of research. One could spend a lifetime and not probe beyond the surface of the history and theology of the Church. Now, on to a couple of points of interest...
 
Quote For instance most Christians don't realize Jesus was not born on December 25th.
 
Just because most Christians don't realize it doesn't mean there was an attempt to cover it up. Indeed, this would be one of the first things you learned from many Christian sources on the subject of Christmas. Incidentally, the Mithraic and other pagan occultic roots of the dating of Christmas are proudly proclaimed in the liturgical cycle of the eastern Church.
 
Quote That the 1st bible was written in Greek.
 
I daresay that most Christians are well aware of the fact that the books of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek. Many may be unfamiliar with the alleged Aramaic roots of Matthew, as well as the development of the Septuagint canon, but you would be hardpressed to find a large number of educated Christians who were unaware of this basic fact.
 
Quote The first written stories of Jesus never appeared to the late 60's AD. Numerous years after Jesus's life.
 
Well of course; this is just a reflection of the natural development of oral tradition into written tradition. You will note that there was little need for a written account while the Apostles were still alive and extremely active in the Church wherever she was to be found.
 
Quote Then I took world religion's which even strengthened my view of there being no true religion. Believe what you want to believe but please don't believe something just because someone else says it. Instead look to yourself to develop your own beliefs. Whats wrong with questioning religion and other beliefs. I feel that following something blindly kills the individual.
 
Well, I would argue that you haven't comprehensively studied Christianity, and that this affects your ability to "develop your own beliefs." I think that it is a great cause for sadness that so many Christians who have questions don't feel comfortable trying to seek answers in the very environment in which their questions have arisen.
 
The situation may be likened to that of a man who read a difficult passage in a book and, instead of seeking understanding by reading the passage again, simply threw the book away and picked up another. Inevitably such a man will end up acquiring and discarding many books in the course of his life or, if he despairs of ever finding one he can understand, he will simply stop reading.
 
Best regards in your spiritual journey.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2007 at 15:33
I say the biggest thing most christians don't know about is all the conventions held to determine what was canon in the bible, and what wasn't. There was the book of Enoch where a rogue angel went down with an army and raped women who later birthed killer Giants, or Adams first wife, Lilith, who was on equal footing with man and was cast out for being independent and now hates the children of Adam and Eve. And ofcourse Eve being created to be a servant of man. They also debated whether Jesus was Divine or not.
All of these thrown out of the book or edited and decided by mere men, not any godly power. And these are only three examples of many.
 
It's examples like this that made me athiest, alot of inconsistencies and the idea of normal humans deciding what is acceptable and what isn't and even continues to this day, all makes it seem false.
Though I do try to stay open minded in the idea that maybe I will find a god or something supernatural to believe in, but I'm not holding my breath.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 00:33
How can one "develop their own beliefs" when we (should be) seeking the truth in the world around us? If I threw a match inside a tank of gas to see what happens, because I don't believe what others say I could find out that they were right, it does explode! We don't know all the answers that's for sure so we must be careful of the sources we learn from to help make this a better world for ourselves and others.
elenos
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22-Oct-2007 at 05:11
Originally posted by SearchAndDestroy SearchAndDestroy wrote:

I say the biggest thing most christians don't know about is all the conventions held to determine what was canon in the bible, and what wasn't. There was the book of Enoch where a rogue angel went down with an army and raped women who later birthed killer Giants, or Adams first wife, Lilith, who was on equal footing with man and was cast out for being independent and now hates the children of Adam and Eve. And ofcourse Eve being created to be a servant of man. They also debated whether Jesus was Divine or not.
All of these thrown out of the book or edited and decided by mere men, not any godly power. And these are only three examples of many.
 
It's examples like this that made me athiest, alot of inconsistencies and the idea of normal humans deciding what is acceptable and what isn't and even continues to this day, all makes it seem false.
Though I do try to stay open minded in the idea that maybe I will find a god or something supernatural to believe in, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
Well Search, to be fair you ought to represent the Christian perspective on the development of the canon of Scripture. After all, basic Christian ecclesiology is founded on Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit, which leads the Church "into all truth." Thus the Councils, when viewed in light of this promise, are far more than gatherings of "mere men," and were indeed influenced by a "godly power" (in fact, this godly power was actually God, himself). Wink
 
That said, if you look through many of the works that were excluded from the canon, you will notice that the reasons most of them were discarded are fairly obvious. You seem to be enamored of Lilith and the Book of Enoch. You will note, however, that the myth of Lilith is based on pre-covenant mystery cults, rather shoddy exegesis, a couple of apocryphal references, and medeival legend. Though the myth has gained ground in the modern era--and particularly in the slipshod research of leading figures of various New Age cults--upon closer examination it is almost certainly spurious. 
 
The Book of Enoch presents a rather more interesting example. You will note that the Ethiopian monophysites actually do regard it as part of the canon. You will also note that Jude actually cites the work. It was actually the Jews who first viewed this work as apocryphal. Some of the fathers believed that this was because the book actually contained prophecies pertaining to Christ. Many of the most noted fathers regarded it as inspired Scripture. That said, the Church determined, in accordance with the guidance of the Spirit, that it was not to be included in the canon.
 
You will find mention of the Nephilim in Genesis, as well as Enoch. The work is certainly an example of the development of early Judeo-Christian theology; it is not, however, Scripture. If you wish to understand why, I would suggest that you study the foundations of conciliar theology and pneumatology. There really are no "inconsistencies," although there may be explanations which you find inadequate. For my part, I shall stick to the promise of Christ and the interpretations of the fathers; it has served me well, and I have found that it is the system which best explains the perceptible world. I do applaud you for keeping your mind open--a true sign of intellectual maturity. I would encourage you to attempt to wrap your mind around the academic disciplines mentioned above; you will find it truly fascinating, and many of your questions may be answered. God bless. Smile
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 14:12
 
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Quote That the 1st bible was written in Greek.
 
I daresay that most Christians are well aware of the fact that the books of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek.
I think the surprise referred to here is the discovery that the Old Testament was first written in Greek (at least, the oldest text we have is in Greek).
 
It surprised me actually, though it's worn off in the meantime. Smile
 


Edited by gcle2003 - 23-Oct-2007 at 14:13
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 18:24
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

 
Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

 
Quote That the 1st bible was written in Greek.
 
I daresay that most Christians are well aware of the fact that the books of the New Testament were originally composed in Greek.
I think the surprise referred to here is the discovery that the Old Testament was first written in Greek (at least, the oldest text we have is in Greek).
 
It surprised me actually, though it's worn off in the meantime. Smile
 
 
Ah; that one makes a bit more sense. LOL
 
Yes, that one actually surprised me the first time I found out about it as well. Ever since the Reformation era capitulation to the Masoretic text, an alarming number of Christians (including me, at one point Wink) have labored under the assumption that the books of the "Hebrew Bible" were written in Hebrew. Thanks for clearing that one up for me; it seemed extraordinarily odd.
 
-Akolouthos
Back to Top
WolfHound View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WolfHound Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 22:34
Yea, I learned that in World Religions class. I also learned that Zorastarism(sp)  influenced a lot of Christian beliefs. As well as Mithrasim. But I'm sure most people know about Mithraism. I feel that many people do not know outside influences on their religion. 
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2733
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SearchAndDestroy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2007 at 23:29
Quote After all, basic Christian ecclesiology is founded on Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit, which leads the Church "into all truth." Thus the Councils, when viewed in light of this promise, are far more than gatherings of "mere men," and were indeed influenced by a "godly power" (in fact, this godly power was actually God, himself). Wink
I don't think an arguement that can't be proven can be used to explain a mere man's choices.
Quote That said, if you look through many of the works that were excluded from the canon, you will notice that the reasons most of them were discarded are fairly obvious. You seem to be enamored of Lilith and the Book of Enoch. You will note, however, that the myth of Lilith is based on pre-covenant mystery cults, rather shoddy exegesis, a couple of apocryphal references, and medeival legend. Though the myth has gained ground in the modern era--and particularly in the slipshod research of leading figures of various New Age cults--upon closer examination it is almost certainly spurious. 
I think a mysterious garden, a man formed by clay and women formed by his rib, a boat that held two of every animal in a flood that took up the entire earth, a rogue angel that turned to a snake to tempt the first humans, and a man rising from the dead are all just as bad as the other examples.
Quote That said, the Church determined, in accordance with the guidance of the Spirit, that it was not to be included in the canon.
I could just as easily say that a spirit told me this story is wrong, no one could ever disprove it, though I'd probably be called insane.
Quote The work is certainly an example of the development of early Judeo-Christian theology; it is not, however, Scripture. If you wish to understand why, I would suggest that you study the foundations of conciliar theology and pneumatology.
From what I understand, it seemed to "pagan" at that time since it had killer giants birth by raped women by God's former angels.
Quote For my part, I shall stick to the promise of Christ and the interpretations of the fathers; it has served me well, and I have found that it is the system which best explains the perceptible world.
While I criticize it, I still admire those apart of religion. I think it is very healthy, and it does teach good. But I don't believe in following something without believing in it.
I honestly hope one day when I have kids that they do find a religion. I'll probably encourage it too.
 
 
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2096
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akolouthos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2007 at 06:32

Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

After all, basic Christian ecclesiology is founded on Christ's promise of the Holy Spirit, which leads the Church "into all truth." Thus the Councils, when viewed in light of this promise, are far more than gatherings of "mere men," and were indeed influenced by a "godly power" (in fact, this godly power was actually God, himself). Wink
I don't think an arguement that can't be proven can be used to explain a mere man's choices.

Well, I think you may be dissatisfied with many other areas of life that rely on intuition, emotion, spiritual development, and other intangibles. That said, your accusation that the councils were gatherings of mere men is untenable. First, it betrays an ignorance of conciliar theology; I really think that if you sought to research and understand the theological underpinnings of the councils, many of your questions would be answered. Second, even if they were gatherings not inspired by the Spirit (Christ forgive me for even entertaining the notion), they were gatherings of those who felt  themselves to be inspired, which would make the adjective "mere" a bit problematic. Wink
 
Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

That said, if you look through many of the works that were excluded from the canon, you will notice that the reasons most of them were discarded are fairly obvious. You seem to be enamored of Lilith and the Book of Enoch. You will note, however, that the myth of Lilith is based on pre-covenant mystery cults, rather shoddy exegesis, a couple of apocryphal references, and medeival legend. Though the myth has gained ground in the modern era--and particularly in the slipshod research of leading figures of various New Age cults--upon closer examination it is almost certainly spurious. 
I think a mysterious garden, a man formed by clay and women formed by his rib, a boat that held two of every animal in a flood that took up the entire earth, a rogue angel that turned to a snake to tempt the first humans, and a man rising from the dead are all just as bad as the other examples.
 
Ah, but not within a Christian exegetical context, which is the issue here. Certainly, even the intellectually and spiritually bankrupt historical-critical method would reveal problems with the Book of Enoch. Wikipedia has a fairly decent article on this. If you would like to study the book itself, as well as get a basic introduction to the context in which others have studied it, I would recommend the text in The Other Bible, from Harper Collins.
 
The long and short of it, however, is that this particular intertestamental apocalytic work was ultimately discarded by the Fathers, and that in spite of the support of several early ones. Surely you will recognize the authority of the Church to set her own canon?
 
Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

That said, the Church determined, in accordance with the guidance of the Spirit, that it was not to be included in the canon.
I could just as easily say that a spirit told me this story is wrong, no one could ever disprove it, though I'd probably be called insane.
 
And when your "spirit" has a multi-millenial record of interacting with and enlightening men, I will take him seriously. Wink
 
Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

The work is certainly an example of the development of early Judeo-Christian theology; it is not, however, Scripture. If you wish to understand why, I would suggest that you study the foundations of conciliar theology and pneumatology.
From what I understand, it seemed to "pagan" at that time since it had killer giants birth by raped women by God's former angels.
 
As I understand it, you are essentially correct: this is part of the reason it was discarded. The "Nephilim" are not a central theme in my studies, so this may be one area in this conversation where you can enlighten me. I do know that theories abound as to the nature of the "sons of God" and "daughters of men," with several that are extremely prevalent.
 
Originally posted by Search and Destroy Search and Destroy wrote:

Originally posted by Akolouthos Akolouthos wrote:

For my part, I shall stick to the promise of Christ and the interpretations of the fathers; it has served me well, and I have found that it is the system which best explains the perceptible world.
While I criticize it, I still admire those apart of religion. I think it is very healthy, and it does teach good. But I don't believe in following something without believing in it.
I honestly hope one day when I have kids that they do find a religion. I'll probably encourage it too.
 
And this is why I respect you, Search; you really do wish to seek understanding. I am merely suggesting that you may be seeking it in the wrong way, and in the wrong places. There is such a strong temptation to adopt the great mantra of this age: "There is no true religion." When I suggest that you study pneumatology and conciliar theology, I mean just that. It is not some sort of rhetorical ploy; I truly think that you would benefit, and that many questions would be addressed, if not answered outright. I leave you with a quote from G.K. Chesterton, which I believe sums up the problem that you, I (I was once an agnostic myself), and many others in the West have when encountering the faith of our fathers:
 
The point of this book, in other words, is that the next best thing to being really inside Christendom is to be really outside it. And a particular point is that the popular critics of Christianity are not really outside it. ... the best relation to our spiritual home is to be near enough to love it. But the next best is to be far enough away not to hate it. It is the contention of these pages that while the best judge of Christianity is a Christian, the next best judge would be something more like a Confucian. The worst judge of all is the man now most ready with his judgments; the ill-educated Christian turning gradually into the ill-tempered agnostic, entangled in the end of a feud of which he never understood the beginning, blighted with a sort of hereditary boredom with he knows not what, and already weary of hearing what he has never heard. ... For those in whom a mere reaction has thus become an obsession, I do seriously recommend the imaginative effort of conceiving the Twelve Apostles as Chinamen. In other words, I recommend these critics to try to do as much justice to Christian saints as if they were pagan sages. But ... when we do make this imaginative effort to see the whole thing from the outside, we find that it really looks like what is traditionally said about it inside. [G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man]
 
-Akolouthos


Edited by Akolouthos - 24-Oct-2007 at 06:35
Back to Top
WolfHound View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WolfHound Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 05:00
Cool, I still don't believe in Christanity. But I think its very healthy for people to question their faith. Don't accept everything you hear, form your own opinions and ideas. I just find it said people are slaves to their religion and don't know the history of their religion either. In other words be yourself and don't follow blindly.
Back to Top
elenos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 13-Jun-2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1457
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote elenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 07:11
Wolfhound, just a small point. The worship of Mithra arose from the many centuries earlier Zoroastrian faith. It became very heavy on astrology when it was found that the stars were accurate at keeping records of the seasons. Mithra was born to be the "Saviour of man" by killing the bull of worldly destruction who had fallen from the stars. The older faith had been overlaid by the rise newer ways of thinking and behavior brought about by the breakup of old Empires and the forming of new ones, the same position Christianity and all other faiths are in today. They simply have no answer for modern technology that leaves previous guesses at what causes life behind. Of course there are answers everywhere but for all the billions of "thinking" people on earth religious thinking lags behind by being stuck in the past and lacking in ideas.  

Edited by elenos - 26-Oct-2007 at 07:12
elenos
Back to Top
Garvm View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 06-Oct-2007
Location: Portugal
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Garvm Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 11:49
Sometimes people demand proofs for the existence or no-existence of God, and start big discussions about the true nature of the so-called proofs, talking about the impossibility to demonstrate that God exists or dont exists.
 
I`m an atheist because i think that is more than proved (to me) that God its no more than a fable, made to a better control of the society, through, first by fear of merciless punishment and later, with the cultural advancement of Humanity, as a kind of good father that is good and reward the just and try to amend the injust...
 
The proofs of the no-existence of God?
 
Well its sayed that God is good, omniscient and omnipotent then how to explain this:
 
- Wars
- Famines
- Plagues
- Children raped, tortured and killed for criminals
- People victim of the worst type  of phisic or mental abuse
- Terrorism against innumerable inocent victims
- Slavery (yes it still exist!)
- Politic leaders that can send thousands to the death, claiming that is patriotic, but in truth they want to keep his power and wealth
- In certain countries women are seen as inferior to the men
- People around the World keep persecute, torture and kill for religious, politics and economics reasons
- and so on...
 
After this are still three choices:
 
God is a fable, dont exist.
God is good, but is powerless and too weak to interfere.
God really exist, but is evil, and dont give a damn for is so-called sons.
Back to Top
Adalwolf View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 08-Sep-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1232
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Adalwolf Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 13:13
Originally posted by Garvm Garvm wrote:

Sometimes people demand proofs for the existence or no-existence of God, and start big discussions about the true nature of the so-called proofs, talking about the impossibility to demonstrate that God exists or dont exists.
 
I`m an atheist because i think that is more than proved (to me) that God its no more than a fable, made to a better control of the society, through, first by fear of merciless punishment and later, with the cultural advancement of Humanity, as a kind of good father that is good and reward the just and try to amend the injust...
 
The proofs of the no-existence of God?
 
Well its sayed that God is good, omniscient and omnipotent then how to explain this:
 
- Wars
- Famines
- Plagues
- Children raped, tortured and killed for criminals
- People victim of the worst type  of phisic or mental abuse
- Terrorism against innumerable inocent victims
- Slavery (yes it still exist!)
- Politic leaders that can send thousands to the death, claiming that is patriotic, but in truth they want to keep his power and wealth
- In certain countries women are seen as inferior to the men
- People around the World keep persecute, torture and kill for religious, politics and economics reasons
- and so on...
 
After this are still three choices:
 
God is a fable, dont exist.
God is good, but is powerless and too weak to interfere.
God really exist, but is evil, and dont give a damn for is so-called sons.


I'm not Christian but I can explain this for our Christian members: free will. People have free will and do as the please. Some people do great good for others, and some do great evil. All the things you mention are committed by people who do the latter (evil).

i'm surprised i can type this right now
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey
Back to Top
WolfHound View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 30-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 80
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote WolfHound Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Oct-2007 at 16:07
Originally posted by Garvm Garvm wrote:

Sometimes people demand proofs for the existence or no-existence of God, and start big discussions about the true nature of the so-called proofs, talking about the impossibility to demonstrate that God exists or dont exists.
 
I`m an atheist because i think that is more than proved (to me) that God its no more than a fable, made to a better control of the society, through, first by fear of merciless punishment and later, with the cultural advancement of Humanity, as a kind of good father that is good and reward the just and try to amend the injust...
 
The proofs of the no-existence of God?
 
Well its sayed that God is good, omniscient and omnipotent then how to explain this:
 
- Wars
- Famines
- Plagues
- Children raped, tortured and killed for criminals
- People victim of the worst type  of phisic or mental abuse
- Terrorism against innumerable inocent victims
- Slavery (yes it still exist!)
- Politic leaders that can send thousands to the death, claiming that is patriotic, but in truth they want to keep his power and wealth
- In certain countries women are seen as inferior to the men
- People around the World keep persecute, torture and kill for religious, politics and economics reasons
- and so on...
 
After this are still three choices:
 
God is a fable, dont exist.
God is good, but is powerless and too weak to interfere.
God really exist, but is evil, and dont give a damn for is so-called sons.


Good way to argue the point but like pointed out before most Christians will say god granted man with free will. I'm an atheist because no religions seem true except for Buddhism. Which is more of a way of life than religion. There are just too many contradictions in Bible, I haven't really studied the Qur'an yet. But Islam seems to be closely associated with Christianity and Judaism. Which I believe is false.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 6789>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.266 seconds.