cuchulain

Member
  • Posts

    2,723
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by cuchulain

  1. 4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    I'm no Physicist, I simply believe God created time for us, and because of us. As to your hypotheses, the  book analogy applies to God, but I don't think the latter chapters of a book are set in stone since God being omnipotent as well as omniscient, has the capability of changing what may have been.

    So history literally changes to suit your beliefs...not egocentric at all.  Good luck with that b.s.

  2. 3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    Everyone is culpable.. Who threw the Hebrew new borns into the Nile? What army was chasing the Israelites to kill them. An evil ruler without subordinates to execute his acts of evil is powerless.

    In your judgement, the Nazi guards who forced Jews into the gas chambers were just innocent German citizens because they had nothing to do with the decision. 

    Following  orders does not exempt a person of responsibility.  

    No.  But the baker, the cobbler, the writers and musicians and multitudes who had nothing to do with anything weren't Nazis.  In your view it's all in or none.

  3. 23 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    It was demonstrated to be true... But for you, it still doesn't matter.

     

     

    I continue to disagree, the desire to associate with like-minded people to achieve a common goal does not equate to bigotry. Not allowing people to  engage exclusively with others who share their faith and values is an attempt to remove individual freedom and choice, all under the guise of political & social correctness. Its not about being forced to abandon one's own morals, its about being forced to include people who oppose your morals. If you agree that its good for the girl scouts to sell cookies to raise money, should they be forced to include you into their organization simply because you can sell cookies too? Fact is, you wouldn't fit in because your not a girl scout, just as Atheist don't fit in with a Christian group, because they aren't Christian.

     

     

    God did reveal himself, He was manifested in the flesh and rose from the grave. Hang tight, everyone will know, "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war. His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself. And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And LORD Of Lords." (Revelation 19: 11-16)

     

     

    “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live" (Exodius 1:15)..  "Then Pharaoh commanded all his people, “Every son that is born to the Hebrews,  you shall cast into the Nile" (verse 22). "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the LORD" (Romans 12:19). Paybacks a bitch ain't it :)

     

     

    My point being, how can one uphold the greatest commandment to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, when you don't even have faith that God exist? Love is greater than faith, but without faith, love is dead... i.e; I love my wife, but I don't respect her, I don't believe her, I don't trust her, I don't need her, and I'll do nothing for her

    So the Bible has contradicted itself.  The greatest is love.  But the greatest is faith.  Can't be both.  Which is it, when the book says one thing in one place and another in a different place?

  4. 41 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

     

    Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. 

     

     

    If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

    Spinned it so faith is more important even though your book literally says love trumps faith.  

  5. 3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    Many, or at least some Christians, place nothing above God.. So in that sense, yes its discriminatory because God gets priority. Graham doesn't differentiate between the mission and God. Its purpose was in His name, which supersedes the objective.  That's considered faith, not hypocrisy. The greatest commandment comes before the second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:36-40).  

    Wasn't there something in there saying of faith hope and love the greatest is love?  Guess you pick a different order

  6. 2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

     

    The dictionary isn't a point of view, it factually defines words. Atheist, noun meaning "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods".

    Your essentially implying that in time, the definition will change and 'Atheist' will not mean, "a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods"?

    Nonsense... But just for fun, what do you think 'atheist' will mean 100 years from now?

     

     

    I do not argue with the dictionary. The only time I generally argue the meaning of a word is in relation to the correct translation of a word, i.e; Hebrew to English or Greek to English.

    Example; "If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple" (Luke 14:26 NKJV).

    "Hate" is a bad translation, the Greek is 'miseo', better translated as 'love less' in English.

     

    How in the world am I arguing that the meaning of 'Atheist' is anything other than what Websters describes it as meaning? If you choose to spin it to mean something different than the dictionary definition, then its not me who's applying a double standard! And give a direct example of how I contradict my stated belief? Just more nonsense, because its never happened.

    You have stated previously that in god we trust supports the majority view so should be accepted by atheists.  Also, you recently said christians should be allowed to discriminate despite the majority view.

    Yes you.

    Contradicting a previous statement of belief.

    Because you lack consistency and integrity .

    • Like 1
  7. The simple remedy usually is a dictionary, you are right.  Yet, every time you argue something and decide the meaning of a word is different than everyone else, you refuse to acknowledge the dictionary definitions yourself Dan.  Do you know what that means, in dictionary terms?  Either double standard, or hypocrite.  Take your choice.  

     

    Double standard:  A set of principles that apply differently to one group than to another.

    Hypocrite:  a person who acts in contradiction to stated beliefs.

     

    I pick option two, for you...you have stated a belief, yet act in contradiction to it.  

  8. First, it wasn't documented in history.  It may have been documented in your religious book, but your religious book is not a history book, nor were it's writers historians.  They were pushing a specific belief system, and so cannot be considered in any way unbiased.  To be a history book, you need to know who the actual authors were and be able to vet their credentials and biases.  Since a lot of the bible is anonymous, that negates the historical aspect.  And you cannot prove that it was written by eye witnesses, as claimed in the article.

    Point two, is also entirely reliant on biblical "history", which isn't really history.  So no.

    Point three.  Straw man.  I haven't said they knowingly lied.  See, the argument began as "It cannot be proven because it isn't historically recorded".  Not, "they were promoting a knowing lie."  Thus your article has swapped out arguments to one that they can defeat.

    Why would they make up the ressurection story if jesus turned out to be a fraud?  I don't know why they would.  I don't know their motives.  Why does the guy I work with continually make up stories that are easily disproven?  Who can say?  Motive is irrelevant to the truth.

    Lies and deception are typically done for some gain.  Maybe.  But...being honestly mistaken?  You consider these testimonies to be written at the actual time of Jesus.  The problem is there is no proof that they were written at the time of Jesus.  Maybe they were written later, by people who honestly believed this to be the truth.  Maybe the stories were adopted from other cultures and the names were changed to protect the innocent.  I don't know their motive, but neither do you.

    Pulling off such a hoax, as if it were difficult.  At the time, many were illiterate.  Word of mouth was the primary means of transmitting stories.  They changed by word of mouth.  So by the time they were written down, maybe they changed.  On top of that, the writers didn't have a vast amount of opposition to their writings.  And then lets not forget the vast amounts of information that was lost throughout the centuries, some deliberately burned by the church.  But yeah, they obviously had no say in changing the bible, taking things out and deciding what went in, right?

    How do we know thousands of people immediately converted?  Show me the evidence.  And remember, your book is not really history, so it doesn't count.  Evidence not in your bible, that thousands immediately converted.

    Sorry, got tired of rebutting the same argument rephrased...so I quit reading.  Not really evidence.  It's an opinion piece, at best.  Maybe there was an actual Jesus, but even that cannot be proven.  The arguments provided seem stale to me.  Probably to many others as well.

    As Johnathan said, it boils down to belief.  If you believe, you will find this all compelling evidence.  If you don't, you will probably be able to point out the flaws as easily as I did.  The fact that the article says it isn't logical doesn't actually make it illogical, any more than the bible existing must make it true.

     

    • Like 1
  9. On 6/10/2020 at 2:31 PM, Coolhand said:

     

     

    Pay attention around 2:40. It has always amazed me how otherwise brilliant smart people use tools and thoeries for physical properties and observation on something metaphysical, and then complain it does not work.

    Similarly people use metaphysical hypotheses on physical properties with less success but insist it does work.

    • Like 1
  10. 18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

     

    There is.  There is the scientific method, which seeks after objective facts.  There is also the Socratic dialog, which examines ideas, by pushing them to their limits.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Myself, I guess I just don't see enough people in the middle 😀

  11. 19 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

     

     

    Why don't you think it's a red flag? It's a (very) small step from biometrics (measuring your vitals through your connected devices) to combining them to (already gathered data like) knowing where you are and what you are doing and then deriving insights into your "state of mind" while doing that there... 

     

    Yes, that (employment, jobs et cetera) is exactly what triggered me into thinking why are our governments more concerned with doing things like the Chinese did (mass social "distancing", and all the fall out that that brings) instead of the way the Taiwanese government did (extensive testing and targeted isolation which actually is more effective and has less fallout)...? Just doesn't make sense...

    It doesn't make sense.  But then, the government has a hard time delivering the mail properly, so it's also not terribly surprising either.

  12. Pete said it's baffling how some people don't see another view as valid, paraphrased.  It's equally baffling to me that the trend these days is to accept every view as valid.  It's a lot like overcompensation I think.  There should be a middle.  Open minded but not too much so that the brain just falls out.

  13. People are stupid.  They will believe any nonsense if they want to or have sufficient reason to fear it's true.  The reason is because they are experts who's heads are full of information and tidbits, most of which is untrue.  They think this qualifies them, giving special insight into the world.  In reality it blinds them and makes them stupid.