[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

There is only one mediator between God and man: Yeshua, the Messiah.

While I accept other religions in the sense that they should all be allowed to exist and believe what they wish, I do not agree that they are all paths to the same God.

And I don't believe that as fallible men we have the scope of knowledge to decide what harms no one.

Three statements, one contradiction, and one answer to the contradiction...Sort of...
You can't have it both ways. If there is only one god, then other religions can't exist, and shouldn't be believed in or that is a violation of the firsat commandment. So, there must only be one god, so either:
all paths go to that god, or only your path does, in which case the non-believers are truly non believers, and violative of gods law...So, they can't have their own icon-filled path...

RE: the messiah, there is no evidence that he was the messiah...You must rely on quadruple hearsay, rumour, institutions of religious-politics that you yourself discount as incorrect and corrupt, and an emotional feeling to establish (hah! it establishes nothing, but I needed a word) that there was a messiah, and that you know his identity...Two things not able to be established, justified, proven, etc...

The major problem here is again the certainty with which you make these supernatural statements, not 2 posts after you freely admit that none of it can be proven until death...Do you not see how that seems like hypocrisy or insanity? THAT is the error of the biblial christian. Conviction of their rightness and belief in the face of admitting there is no proof of their truths.

Say you believe, but when you speak the words with the air of fact, proof, truth, or rightness, that credibility thing rears up and casts you down...Again.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

So you believe we are too stupid to know if we harm someone? Perhaps you have a deeper meaning and if so please do tell, but at the moment it sounds like you are saying that god is there to make sure you don't screw up. Personally I know if I have harmed someone, to me it means do not do it unless asked this goes for help but if you are asked to harm you may not do it. I would go into more detail with actual specifics but I know that will not be constructive.
It is good to hear for once that a follower of a Christian religion is accepting of other religions, as you are the first I have ever heard say that.

I am not saying we are too stupid, but rather that our human perspective is too small to take into account the harm our actions really cause.

God has set a set of standards to live by that are beneficial for us to live by. If we break them we suffer, even if it is not immediately evident.

I doubt you realize the impact on your actions outside your own perception.

I am sorry to hear the last sentence, I guess it means you have not been exposed to anyone who has read the Bible, and is trying to live by it.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

I am not saying we are too stupid, but rather that our human perspective is too small to take into account the harm our actions really cause.

Give me an example as I do not believe this to be true, but I am willing to open my mind and listen to reason.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

I am sorry to hear the last sentence, I guess it means you have not been exposed to anyone who has read the Bible, and is trying to live by it.

Open your eyes and look at history there is plenty of evidence that acceptance is in the minority of your religion. This could although be because it is the majority and intends to remain, so it could just be simple self preservation.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

Bear what is your view of Setianism?

Just another variation on a theme...Ancient peoples were suckers, because the world is a scary place, and the universe looks really big with no mass-lighting to dampen the brightness of the stars...

I have very little tolerance for any particular path...I think, from some fairly deep investigation, that doing anything like that -adhering to any single set of religious principles- is counter-productive and really against the natural order of the universe...

To throw an anti-science critique back at the religious:

Every time a system of scientific theory develops it gets modified over time to include new material, discoveries, and exceptions...Scientists say they are refining the idea, and making it more accurate and more complete...The religious say that means the science MUST be wrong...


Well, wouldn't that line of reasoning dictate that every evolution of religion has refuted the truth of the earlier paths, and so the whole of religion is wrong? Or at least the whole of the earlier religion is wrong? Or, whichever is newest is rightest, and so on and so on...

This critique doesn't work for the religiously-minded, though they are willing to levy it at non-believers/scientists...

They fail to realize that the belief in a religious path is fundamentally different from an acceptance of a scientific theory. One is intuited, emotionally-based belief, the other is observable factually-based knowledge or understanding.

Unless someone has actually seen Jesus, Set, etc. and talked to them -with an unequivical response- they just can't express the certainty with which most religious folks push their positions in conversation.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Just another variation on a theme...Ancient peoples were suckers, because the world is a scary place, and the universe looks really big with no mass-lighting to dampen the brightness of the stars...

I have very little tolerance for any particular path...I think, from some fairly deep investigation, that doing anything like that -adhering to any single set of religious principles- is counter-productive and really against the natural order of the universe...

To throw an anti-science critique back at the religious:

Every time a system of scientific theory develops it gets modified over time to include new material, discoveries, and exceptions...Scientists say they are refining the idea, and making it more accurate and more complete...The religious say that means the science MUST be wrong...


Well, wouldn't that line of reasoning dictate that every evolution of religion has refuted the truth of the earlier paths, and so the whole of religion is wrong? Or at least the whole of the earlier religion is wrong? Or, whichever is newest is rightest, and so on and so on...

This critique doesn't work for the religiously-minded, though they are willing to levy it at non-believers/scientists...

They fail to realize that the belief in a religious path is fundamentally different from an acceptance of a scientific theory. One is intuited, emotionally-based belief, the other is observable factually-based knowledge or understanding.

Unless someone has actually seen Jesus, Set, etc. and talked to them -with an unequivical response- they just can't express the certainty with which most religious folks push their positions in conversation.

Do you believe there is a non-religious philosophical element to it or that it is not able to be separated from the setianism or the satanist roots?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Where you are being taken is to place "in mind" that excludes people of different faiths from communing with the one true god...Most people on earth have a mono-thiestic (or what could be) belief system, and for ANy path to exclude others unless they "obey" the tenets of any other path seems very ungodly and anti-spiritual...Most spiritual leaders from all faiths agree that it is sufficient to believe in something greater than the individual, without any requirement of any specific path or adherence to a particular text.

But your interpretation excludes the possibility that There is a Creator who set a particular system in place to establish communion with Him.

Originally Posted by analogbear

The error, by biblical christians especially but applicable to any person of a single faith who claims to believe, is a fundamental one: to accept as true that which can't be established as true. You want to believe (or feel like you believe, to be more accurate)? Cool. Believe that what you say you believe is possible. As soon as someone accepts the un-establishable as true, they cease to be credible.

So we are to believe, but not believe that what we cannot establish is true?
Sounds contradictory to me. Not to mention that you often make statements that are un-establishable as though they are true.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

Give me an example as I do not believe this to be true, but I am willing to open my mind and listen to reason.

Sex outside of marriage. Do you think there is no harm in it if both parties are consensual?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

Open your eyes and look at history there is plenty of evidence that acceptance is in the minority of your religion. This could although be because it is the majority and intends to remain, so it could just be simple self preservation.

The quailifer is "that have read the Bible and try to live by it's teachings".

There are plenty of things done in the name of "Christianity" that have nothing to do with the Bible. The Lord said this would happen.

[slorider18]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

Bear you should now to them everything is the work of the devil, especially free thinking.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

Three statements, one contradiction, and one answer to the contradiction...Sort of...
You can't have it both ways. If there is only one god, then other religions can't exist, and shouldn't be believed in or that is a violation of the firsat commandment. So, there must only be one god, so either:
all paths go to that god, or only your path does, in which case the non-believers are truly non believers, and violative of gods law...So, they can't have their own icon-filled path...

You know I never said there was only one god. You keep throwing that out there. I said there was one ultimate God; The Creator. There are other spritual being that are refered to as gods in the Bible, and worshiped as such by some.

Originally Posted by analogbear

RE: the messiah, there is no evidence that he was the messiah...You must rely on quadruple hearsay, rumour, institutions of religious-politics that you yourself discount as incorrect and corrupt, and an emotional feeling to establish (hah! it establishes nothing, but I needed a word) that there was a messiah, and that you know his identity...Two things not able to be established, justified, proven, etc...

You say there is no evidence. At this point in time there is no way to prove He was not the Messiah. Unless you were there to see all that unfolded first hand...

Originally Posted by analogbear

The major problem here is again the certainty with which you make these supernatural statements, not 2 posts after you freely admit that none of it can be proven until death...Do you not see how that seems like hypocrisy or insanity? THAT is the error of the biblial christian. Conviction of their rightness and belief in the face of admitting there is no proof of their truths.

Say you believe, but when you speak the words with the air of fact, proof, truth, or rightness, that credibility thing rears up and casts you down...Again.

So we should believe, but not to the point we think we are right? That sounds like hypocrisy or insanity to me.

[slorider18]

Originally Posted by Italgirl1971

It all just seems so.... convenient! Let's say I'm some total whacko person who thinks they are literally God's gift. You bet your ass I'm going to talk a whole lot about the horrors that will befall you if you FAIL to believe what I'm telling you about there being someone/something in this intangible place - let's call it "Utopia" - who will never make himself/itself known or seen to you, but you just have to believe he/it is there because if you don't not only will all the aforementioned horrors await you, but, well, you simply won't get to see Utopia... a place that you can only see once you die and only IF you live in a manner which pleases the invisible Utopian emperor. So do good things... or else! It sounds too much like a very elaborate fable.

Let me be a little more clear....people go to hell because they sin. Jesus died so that those sins can be forgiven without people going to hell. So the price for sin has now been prepaid for all people. He was preaching that people accept his gift of forgivness. If they reject his gift they have to pay for thier own sins. During his ministry he performed many miracles from healing the sick, restoring sight to the blind, raising people from the dead, and his own resurection. these illustrated the authority he had by which to forgive sin.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

Sex outside of marriage. Do you think there is no harm in it if both parties are consensual?

Yes, the female may be left with a baby and father to help. I can clearly see the problem there, do you have another?

BTW have you ever had sex out of marriage?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by slorider18

Originally Posted by leelover

But your interpretation excludes the possibility that There is a Creator who set a particular system in place to establish communion with Him.


So we are to believe, but not believe that what we cannot establish is true?
Sounds contradictory to me. Not to mention that you often make statements that are un-establishable as though they are true.

I don't exclude the possibility, I just see it AS merely a POSSIBILITY, not a certainty...And, because there are real actual historical events that indicate a less than uniform system of worship, communion, enlightenment, I question anybody with conviction in the supernatural.

Not contradictory, just shift the certainty out...Believe in what you want, but don't believe it is OBJECTIVELY true...It probably isn't, just based on variations on themes, historical events, etc, but that shouldn't prevent you the individual from following a good path. Look, it ain't the path I got a problem with, it is the certainty about divinity that really puts a thorn in my side, because I have had an awful lot of philosophical training, and the first thing done there is to discount a lot of faith-based material as insufficiently established.

I make no "statements" as a term of art that can't be established...I don't go through formal proofs because most people here just wouldn't get formal logic with or even without quantification, nor would anybody hang around for me to do a truth table on any of the complicated stuff...

See, I approach this all from a rational perspective, so I am not emotionally invested. Faith is an emotion, so anyone with "faith" is, by definition emotionally invested, and as such incapable of reason. The worst thing about fith is that it often takes the place of reason, and folks often unwittingly utilize self-fulfilling prophecies to "establish" the truth of their "faith" which is competely irrational...
I can prove/disprove/justify my various philosophical positions (with very few exceptions which I clearly identify as thoughts or opinions), whereas the "faithful" can at best emote. Look, faith is an emotion. I am not making that up, that is not an opinion, that is what faith is. So, it is impossible to utilize faith in any meaningful sense to take the place of reason...The contrapositive is also true, in that reason can't be taken to establish any kind of faith...That is why when we first talked about truth, epistemolgy and cosmology, I was very careful to state at the outset that faith is an emotion. The best one could do is justify knowledge of one's faith...But, that is justifying an emotion, not the existence of the object of the emotion...Remember the kid's love example...It requires the factual existence of the kid and those loving works in order to have something to attach faith in the love...That love/faith alone does not establish the existence of the kid...

The faithful sek to establish the existence of god by justifying their faith...This is a mishmash of reasonable principles, that indicates a lack of reason.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

You know I never said there was only one god. You keep throwing that out there. I said there was one ultimate God; The Creator. There are other spritual being that are refered to as gods in the Bible, and worshiped as such by some.

I am throwing nothing, merely looking at the first commandment.

Merely calling them gods doesn't make it so...

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

You know I never said there was only one god. You keep throwing that out there. I said there was one ultimate God; The Creator. There are other spritual being that are refered to as gods in the Bible, and worshiped as such by some.

If they are not gods then why are they called gods? Who is it that worships them?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by bryan4980

Yes, the female may be left with a baby and father to help. I can clearly see the problem there, do you have another?

And that is all that could possibly happen?

Originally Posted by bryan4980

BTW have you ever had sex out of marriage?

If I answer yes, then I would be a hypocrite? If someone enters a corner on their CBR1000RR at a rate of speed too high to safely negotiate that corner and crashes, they would then be unable to tell others it was unsafe to enter that corner at that rate of speed, right?

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by leelover

You say there is no evidence. At this point in time there is no way to prove He was not the Messiah. Unless you were there to see all that unfolded first hand...


.

You can't use a lack of negative evidence to prove the existence of something...Who are you, Michael Moore? Sounds like Farenheit 9/11 to me...No proof of NO CONSPIRACY must mean there is a conspiracy...Absolutely illogical, unreasonable, and irrational.

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

I am throwing nothing, merely looking at the first commandment.

Merely calling them gods doesn't make it so...

Reread the First Commandnent, your are adding your own ideas.

What does make them gods?

[leelover]

Originally Posted by analogbear

You can't use a lack of negative evidence to prove the existence of something...Who are you, Michael Moore? Sounds like Farenheit 9/11 to me...No proof of NO CONSPIRACY must mean there is a conspiracy...Absolutely illogical, unreasonable, and irrational.

It is just as irrational for you to make sttements that their was no Messiah, or that Mary was not a virgin. You have no way to prove your allegations.

I admit to believing that there is a supernatural, so you can call me all your list of names. The point here is that you most certainly cannot prove there is not a supernatural. It offendes the natural mind, but then wouldn't it?

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

And that is all that could possibly happen?


If I answer yes, then I would be a hypocrite? If someone enters a corner on their CBR1000RR at a rate of speed too high to safely negotiate that corner and crashes, they would then be unable to tell others it was unsafe to enter that corner at that rate of speed, right?

No, that is one possible occurance.
Yes you would be a hypocrite, which you may be by refusing to answer. In regards to the CBR, no you would be speaking of personal experience do not go to fast or you will end up like me.

[bryan4980]

Originally Posted by leelover

And that is all that could possibly happen?


If I answer yes, then I would be a hypocrite? If someone enters a corner on their CBR1000RR at a rate of speed too high to safely negotiate that corner and crashes, they would then be unable to tell others it was unsafe to enter that corner at that rate of speed, right?

Originally Posted by leelover

It is just as irrational for you to make sttements that their was no Messiah, or that Mary was not a virgin. You have no way to prove your allegations.

I admit to believing that there is a supernatural, so you can call me all your list of names. The point here is that you most certainly cannot prove there is not a supernatural. It offendes the natural mind, but then wouldn't it?

I am curious what have you witnessed to prove to you that there is a supernatural?