Are those who believe, wrong.

Jan Ardena

05-03-02, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Markx
Jan, do you mind telling me where can I find original sin, in your translation>? and how would u justify original sin there?lol. Adam sined, big freaking deal, get over it. Why do you all christians have to drag it to all humans?? Humans are not born with SIN. [/B]

He said: Get ye down, both of you, all together from the Garden with enmity one to another; but if as is sure there comes to you guidance from Me whosoever follows My guidance will not lose his way nor fall into misery.
(Qur'an: Translation of the meaning, 20:123)

What is the original sin that Adam caused?
He disobeyed the will of God, and obeyed his lust, this was the cause of his transgression.
As a result he was banished from the garden of Eden.
God left His instruction, “but if as is sure there comes to you guidance from Me whosoever follows My guidance will not lose his way nor fall into.” This obviously means that the only way of reversing the effect of sin, was by Gods guidance, or in other words that is how they could become pure, as they were originally. So the original sin had been introduced and that meant that any human being who does not seek Gods guidance, act according to His Will, is acting according to that original sin.

Afterwards Allah say;

20:124. "But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment."

That confirms it, if you turn away from His message (the holy prophet, Muhammad), your life will be narrowed down (ordinary mortal) and he will rise up ignorant of truth, God, blind, on the day of judgment.

So it is not that we are automatically condemned, it means from the moment we are born we are ignorant until our eyes are opened by the torchlight of knowledge of God, and from there we can seek Gods guidance, without this we are ignorant and therefore we live short, or narrowed down lives. This was only made possible by the original (first) sin.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Red Devil

05-03-02, 09:16 PM

When the pro religious side look for "proof" they always turn to quotes from "holy books" but don't forget, these are works of man - not gods. These quotes are for guidance for those who believe in that particular aspect - not proof.

Tinker683

05-03-02, 11:09 PM

My usual rhetoric to relgionists who turn to holy books is " Prove it's authenticity, in every aspect that you claim it to be " and it saddly falls short. Jan Ardena is a wonderful example.

Jan Ardena

05-04-02, 04:03 AM

Originally posted by Red Devil
When the pro religious side look for "proof" they always turn to quotes from "holy books"

No.
When the pro-religious side look for “guidance” they always turn to quotes from “holy books”

but don't forget, these are works of man - not gods.

How do you know, do you have any proof?

These quotes are for guidance for those who believe in that particular aspect.

What do you mean by “who believe in that particular aspect?”

not proof.

You need proof because you are not sure, but generally, people who believe in God, know that God exists, and that is what matters.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
My usual rhetoric to relgionists who turn to holy books is " Prove it's authenticity, in every aspect that you claim it to be "

Why do I need to prove something I know is authentic?
You are the one that needs proof.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cactus Jack

05-04-02, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[/I]Why do I need to prove something I know is authentic?
You are the one that needs proof.

Ah, how do you know its authentic? For one to verify knowlege one must reason, they go hand in hand. If you cannot provide reason then you have no knowlege. You cannot go on Faith because faith is a useless word and a useless ideal, faith in something proves nor shows anything. And "you are the one that needs proof." is blatantly attempting to turn his argument against him so you can escape. You cannot prove its authenticity, he takes the negative standpoint showing so, he doesn't have to prove anything.

Jan Ardena

05-04-02, 09:01 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
You cannot go on Faith because faith is a useless word and a useless ideal, faith in something proves nor shows anything.

Faith is the first step toward knowledge, before you can understand anything you have to be prepared to take things on face value, otherwise you close yourself off to everything you cannot see, and end up with only information, but no understanding. That does not mean you believe, it means you are attracted to that particular mode of knowledge and therefore humble. Then comes understanding of that faith, then knowledge, then belief.
Your understanding of faith says alot about you.

And "you are the one that needs proof." is blatantly attempting to turn his argument against him so you can escape.

I've already told you i don't need proof, why can't you just accept my statement about myself regardless of whether or not you believe me. Surely it stands to reason that if i needed proof then i would say so, there's no shame in asking for something.

You cannot prove its authenticity, he takes the negative standpoint showing so, he doesn't have to prove anything.

I cannot prove it to you, because you do not wish to know, if you really wanted to know, you would search for yourself and then argue your point through your own experience, but i have yet to see any logical argument that shows that the scriptures are not authentic, irregardless of whether i am trying to escape or not:)

Love

Jan Ardena

Cactus Jack

05-04-02, 09:12 AM

"Faith is the first step toward knowledge, before you can understand anything you have to be prepared to take things on face value" You are going on the "you have to have faith in knowledge and reasoning" wrong, without these concepts we could not be having this conversation right now, we could not have any conversation at all. You do not have faith in logic or reasoning - they are how we think, communicate, act. And taking things for face value - if you give me our perception of the world is incorrect due to our sense or some other kind of argument I'll scream! (no offense)

I accept your statement about yourself believing they are true, I never said otherwise.

"I cannot prove it to you, because you do wish to know, if you really wanted to know, you would search for yourself and then argue your point through your own experience, but i have yet to see any logical argument that shows that the scriptures are not authentic, irregardless of whether i am trying to escape or not"

Jibberish, attempting to throw me off. I do not have to provide a logical argument, you do. I have the negative standpoint which means I do not believe in your statement because there is no proof, you must show me some. If you said a zipzort exists and I contradicted you and said show me proof and you couldn't then I would win the argument - a zipzort is a meaningless word, and you have no proof to back it.

Xelios

05-04-02, 10:37 AM

Proving God does not exist is impossible. You cannot prove something doesn't exist.

The onus of proof is on Theists to show that he does.

Rambling on about how great god is may have worked for the past 2000 years, but we're getting to a point now where people need to present solid evidence for anyone to take things seriously.

Hopefully in another century we'll finally get rid of religion... just like people stopped thinking the Earth is the center of the universe.

Jan Ardena

05-04-02, 12:46 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack

"I cannot prove it to you, because you do wish to know, if you really wanted to know, you would search for yourself and then argue your point through your own experience, but i have yet to see any logical argument that shows that the scriptures are not authentic, irregardless of whether i am trying to escape or not"

[I]Jibberish, attempting to throw me off.

How have I attempted to throw you off?
If you asked me what it is like to fall in love, I can only tell you from my understanding, you may choose to believe or dis-believe, but it doesn’t mean my explanation is jibberish, just my own experience. Love of God is on the same wavelength, it is personal. I cannot make you believe something you don’t want to any more than you can make me.
If you took time to understand what the scriptures say and mean, then you would understand that relating to God is entirely personal.
The reason you have this enmity against God is not due to the true meanings of the scripture, but to the ignorant, demonic dogma that has been handed out over the centuries, not by men representing God, but representing there own personal lust and greed, and ooing it in "the name of God."
Now you say I am trying to throw you off, I say as far as I can see, the idea of God has always been around. The vedas were written thousand of years ago (smreeti) and before that they were passed down aurally (shruti), you question me as to how I know they are authentic.
Why should I have any reason to doubt their authenticity?
I read them, it makes perfect sense to me, why then do I need to prove that they are authentic?
Do you get my point?
You, on the other hand are in doubt, therefore you need proof of their authenticity, I do not.
Try and at least see where I am coming from, otherwise this ping-pong kind of argument could go on forever, and what would be the point in that?

I do not have to provide a logical argument, you do.

It is my perogative, the kind of proof you want will never be found with your state of mind, it is like waving a cup outside and say “here is some oxygen.”
At least try and understand that God is pure spirit and can, as a person, only be percieved through purifying yourself, those are the rules. God can be percieved on a physical level but you have to develop your understanding potential, and as you don’t believe in His word there isn’t much chance of that.
If you want to know of God, then at least try and put some effort into it, rather than wanting someone else to do it for you.

I have the negative standpoint which means I do not believe in your statement because there is no proof, you must show me some.

Why must I, why don’t you try and find out for yourself??

If you said a zipzort exists and I contradicted you and said show me proof and you couldn't then I would win the argument - a zipzort is a meaningless word, and you have no proof to back it.

Maybe so, but “God” isn’t a meaningless word, there are volumes of literature written about God, most from people who has come to the point of God consciousness, and a small amount from God Himself.
It is entirely up to you.
I am not a preacher trying to win converts, i just like debating. In this scenario it doesn't matter to me whether you believe or not, i am just, like you, stateing my point of view.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cactus Jack

05-04-02, 03:55 PM

I see what you are saying, however. If the scriptures are based on a word/ideal that has no meaning than they in turn have no meaning. I have attempted to show you the Idea of God is not only completly unfounded but contradictory, therefore the literary works of which you speak would be worthless. I could write volumes on a zipzort and if enough people began believing in its existance and thinking by doing so they would get to be immortal and happy then they would and in turn write more books about the zipzort. But this wouldn't give it anymore meaning.

And yes you do have to prove something to me, I have found out the information I seek with the exception of where is the proof of what you speak? By asking you a question based upon logical reasoning I allready have conducted I take the negative standpoint and you must prove your thoughts.

"If you took time to understand what the scriptures say and mean, then you would understand that relating to God is entirely personal.
The reason you have this enmity against God is not due to the true meanings of the scripture, but to the ignorant, demonic dogma that has been handed out over the centuries, not by men representing God, but representing there own personal lust and greed, and ooing it in "the name of God." " - But are you not just providing another interpratation out of billions of others? How can you know what the scriptures mean if the debates upon them have been limitless? Further, and more importantly, how can you give me proof of there validity? And by my explaination above that means you must give me proof of God.

P.S. - I'm Sorry about the jibberish thing, misunderstood what paragraph meant now that you eplained cleary. I apologize
~Cactus

Red Devil

05-04-02, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[/I]

You need proof because you are not sure, but generally, people who believe in God, know that God exists, and that is what matters.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tinker683
My usual rhetoric to relgionists who turn to holy books is " Prove it's authenticity, in every aspect that you claim it to be "

Why do I need to prove something I know is authentic?
You are the one that needs proof.

Love

Jan Ardena.

I need no proof - I know these books are not only wrong but hypocritical and invariably trip themselves up with claim and counter claim. I am sure believe me. In every aspect - by that I mean dependant on which "holy book" your reading. Even the bible has thousands of variants - which is correct - if any?

Tinker683

05-05-02, 05:29 PM

Jan,

Why do I need to prove something I know is authentic?
You are the one that needs proof

Percisely my point. I'm going to need proof from you to show me that any bit of your theology is correct. If you can't do that Jan, then I'm not obligated to believe you. It's that simple.

And until you do, I don't see why I, or anyone else here, should reguard any further statements as valid, since you've done nothing to prove your claims about the BG, or any of other gods and godesses you claim are real.

Tyler

05-05-02, 06:26 PM

Think of it like this Jan.
From everything we know about human history, we can conclude that man at one point worked in tribes with a single Shaman or religious leader. Not a Christian leader.

So Christianity evolved over time. Christianity came about later than societies.

So I think about it like a democratic law process.

You claim there's a God. You prove it.

You claim someone is guilty. You prove it. Not they have to prove their innocence, you have to prove their guilt.

Cactus Jack

05-05-02, 07:04 PM

Yeah, that shows it well.

Markx

05-06-02, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[/i]

Jan,
Sorry for the delay. I don't have a computer at home any more. So I had to wait till monday. I think that was your interpretation of orginal sin. I don't think so, that muslims refer it as a orginal sin. Also muslims do not believe that, that sin is carried by all humans. It was sin by adam and only he suffers. Simple is that. Also, Quran states many time that sins are strictly dealt between God and the person. No one takes other's sin with him/her.

**That confirms it, if you turn away from His message (the holy prophet, Muhammad), your life will be narrowed down (ordinary mortal) and he will rise up ignorant of truth, God, blind, on the day of judgment. **

Not sure what do you mean by ignorant, but according to Quran every one will have full knowledge on judgment day what they did in life and what was right and wrong etc etc. I can't say from my own for what reson word blind is used here. It could be a metaphor?. Anyways. My point was regarding original sin. I think you understand what I was trying to say.

That's possible that we born ignorant. But I think it could same with or without religion. And again the real message of all the religions refering to one God was the same. There are always agreements and disagreements in religion. For me, I go with what satisfy my mind.:)

Cactus Jack

05-06-02, 09:16 PM

As far as the topic above (debate on scriptures validity). Without response from Jan I think its Atheists 1, Theists 0.

Except Tinker, aren't you a theist? (not meant in offense)

Jan Ardena

05-07-02, 11:45 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Markx
I don't think so, that muslims refer it as a orginal sin.

It is the first sin by humans at that time. So it is the original sin by description.

Also muslims do not believe that, that sin is carried by all humans. It was sin by adam and only he suffers. Simple is that. Also,
Why did Allah say,

“but if as is sure there comes to you guidance from Me whosoever follows My guidance will not lose his way nor fall into.”

And,

"But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment."

Quran states many time that sins are strictly dealt between God and the person. No one takes other's sin with him/her.

Who said anything about taking others sin, the sin is not to take any guidance from God.

Not sure what do you mean by ignorant, but according to Quran every one will have full knowledge on judgment day what they did in life and what was right and wrong etc etc.

Ignorance, in darkness, devoid of light of God.
That is why the is Qur’an, so you make your life right before Judgement day, that is what these self-professed atheists mean when thy talk about ‘blind-faith.’

I can't say from my own for what reson word blind is used here. It could be a metaphor?. Anyways. My point was regarding original sin. I think you understand what I was trying to say.

Ignorant state, no knowledge of God. What else could it mean, unless it means blind literally.

That's possible that we born ignorant. But I think it could same with or without religion.

Of course it is the same, the original and bona-fide religion, is there to take us out of the ignorance.

And again the real message of all the religions refering to one God was the same. There are always agreements and disagreements in religion.

There needn’t be if you read or hear scripture carefully.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler
[B]Think of it like this Jan.
From everything we know about human history, we can conclude that man at one point worked in tribes with a single Shaman or religious leader.
So Christianity evolved over time. Christianity came about later than societies.

What are you talking about?
Christianity is not religion.

So I think about it like a democratic law process.

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

You claim there's a God. You prove it.

And who do I have to prove it to?

You claim someone is guilty. You prove it. Not they have to prove their innocence, you have to prove their guilt.

Tyler Tyler Tyler!!!
Stick with the conversation. :p

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
As far as the topic above (debate on scriptures validity). Without response from Jan I think its Atheists 1, Theists 0.

Sorry!:( I’m not playing games. :(

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cactus Jack

05-07-02, 12:02 PM

"Christianity is not religion" - Than what is it?

"You claim there's a God. You prove it." /"And who do I have to prove it to?"

Us, for we do not belive your claim that the scriptures are valid and as an above post of mine mentions: You must prove the existance of God to prove their validity.

"You claim someone is guilty. You prove it. Not they have to prove their innocence, you have to prove their guilt." /"Tyler Tyler Tyler!!! Stick with the conversation."

- He is, he is just trying to put the reason why you must prove your claims to us into percpective.

And about the whole points thing: Sorry, was just trying to get you to post again.

Red Devil

05-07-02, 12:14 PM

Nobody in any of these threads can prove to me that god exists - therefore he/she/it does not!

Adam

05-07-02, 12:28 PM

Well, it's fair to say that christianity does not represent all religion, I guess. But then in many ways it does. *shrug*

Tyler

05-07-02, 05:04 PM

Thanks Cactus, that pretty much is what I'm about to say.

"What are you talking about?
Christianity is not religion."

Here is one definition of the word 'religion' from Dictionary.com

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

'Christianity'...

"The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus"

So please exactly what the hell you mean.

"And who do I have to prove it to?"

If I am expected to believe in God, I will need to be shown hard evidence first. I would believe a religion if the case for it would stand in a court of law in Canada.

"Tyler Tyler Tyler!!!
Stick with the conversation."

Um, I am. I was showing you how I put believing in religion into a logical sense.

Jan Ardena

05-08-02, 07:06 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
"Christianity is not religion" - Than what is it?

Christianity is a means by which one comes to know God.

Us, for we do not belive your claim that the scriptures are valid and as an above post of mine mentions:

Then don't believe, it is your choice. No matter what i say or do you are not going to believe because you don't have any faith other than what you can see with your eyes.
God Himself is not going to come before you on the basis of your ignorant order, if you want to see God then follow the regulative principles.
If you want to understand that everything we see, is an emination of God, then first you make the effort by understanding Who and What God is. :)

- He is, he is just trying to put the reason why you must prove your claims to us into percpective.

Who's claiming anyone's guilty?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler
Here is one definition of the word 'religion' from Dictionary.com

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

'Christianity'...

"The Christian religion, founded on the life and teachings of Jesus"

So please exactly what the hell you mean.

Christianity is a means to understanding 'Religion' Gods Religion as He has ordained in His scripture.

If I am expected to believe in God, I will need to be shown hard evidence first. I would believe a religion if the case for it would stand in a court of law in Canada.

If you are expected to believe in God, then do it, there is enough scripture for you to understand. If you don't want God in your life, then thats cool, its entirely up to you. Read the caption at the bottom of page.
What do you mean hard evidence? :D

"Tyler Tyler Tyler!!!
Stick with the conversation."

Um, I am. I was showing you how I put believing in religion into a logical sense.

Well that wasn't very logical then, was it??:p

Love

Jan Ardena.

Tyler

05-08-02, 09:40 AM

"Christianity is a means to understanding 'Religion' Gods Religion as He has ordained in His scripture."

Why must theists change the dictionary?? Is it the 11th commandment that states Thou Shalt Change Thy Dictionary In Debate With Infidels???

Christianity is a religion. Plain and simple. There is no extra shame in that word.

"If you are expected to believe in God, then do it, there is enough scripture for you to understand. If you don't want God in your life, then thats cool, its entirely up to you. Read the caption at the bottom of page.
What do you mean hard evidence?"

It's cool, eh? With you? That's good. But with God? No. According to the all-mighty Christ, I'm gonna rot in hell for not worshiping.

By hard evidence I mean evidence that is undebateable. For instance, I have hard evidence that a force holds you to the ground because you don't float around (or I don't at least, not when sober...).

"Well that wasn't very logical then, was it??"

Yes, yes it was. It followed quite logically.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-08-02, 10:05 AM

Posted by Jan Ardena:
"God Himself is not going to come before you on the basis of your ignorant order, if you want to see God then follow the regulative principles. "

Does this mean that in order to find God I have to fill out a declaration of religion form in triplicate and submit it to the proper Bureau of Christianity? What the heck are regulative principles?

And by the way, technically believing in God but refusing to prove it to others is a form of schizophrenic delusion, a self-propogating paranoia or something like that. Hey, I'm not an MD here.

Jan Ardena

05-08-02, 10:52 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Does this mean that in order to find God I have to fill out a declaration of religion form in triplicate and submit it to the proper Bureau of Christianity? What the heck are regulative principles?

You don't know, but yet you want proof of God. :p

And by the way, technically believing in God but refusing to prove it to others is a form of schizophrenic delusion, a self-propogating paranoia or something like that.

What kind of proof would suffice?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Jan Ardena

05-08-02, 11:03 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tyler
Why must theists change the dictionary?? Is it the 11th commandment that states Thou Shalt Change Thy Dictionary In Debate With Infidels???

The dictionary description of God, spirituality, religion etc, does not fully describe these phenomenons, it merely give and idea based on loose conceptions. If you want to know what religion is, read scripture or ask devotee.

Christianity is a religion. Plain and simple. There is no extra shame in that word.

But it is 'not religion.'

It's cool, eh? With you? That's good. But with God? No. According to the all-mighty Christ, I'm gonna rot in hell for not worshiping.

Good!!!
You're doing your own work in finding out. If at the end you don't believe, then that is up to you. If you're not sure then delve deeper. One thing is for sure neither me nor anyone else can do it for you.

By hard evidence I mean evidence that is undebateable. For instance, I have hard evidence that a force holds you to the ground because you don't float around (or I don't at least, not when sober...).

What you are talking about is knowledge, only you can decide if it is non-debatable, otherwise everything is debatable.

Yes, yes it was. It followed quite logically.

How so:confused: :confused: :confused:

Love

Jan Ardena.

Red Devil

05-08-02, 12:35 PM

Thats a Moslem term isn't it? I am a pagan, heretic, unbeliever, whatever but infidel - naw! I have a button badge which says "Smile You've just met a Pagan" ;)

Cactus Jack

05-08-02, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]And by the way, technically believing in God but refusing to prove it to others is a form of schizophrenic delusion, a self-propogating paranoia or something like that.

What kind of proof would suffice?

A logical, rational argument which we cannot dispell in a similiar fashion.

And now I get what you mean, christianity is a religion but it is not the only religion.

And the "must believe in God" thing is a strong arm tactic, spiritual black mail. Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell. - Yeah right.

"The issue is: Why has christianity found it necassary and desirable to suppress free inquiry with the threat of force?........The answer is obvious - and revealing. Christianity is peddling an inferior product, one that cannot withstand critical investigation. Unable to compete favorably with other theories, it has sought to gain a monoply through a state franchise, which means: through use of force" - Atheism: The case Against God by G.H. Smith

Jan Ardena

05-09-02, 02:32 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
A logical, rational argument which we cannot dispell in a similiar fashion.

I have given many logical arguments which in my view proves authenticity, but if you want more clarification, then you have to make some effort.

And now I get what you mean, christianity is a religion but it is not the only religion.

Christianity in its real sense is a means to reawakening ones relationship with God, through spirit, ones you come to that platform, then it is real religion.
If you want to be a mechanic, you learn from someone who is a mechanic, although you are performing mechanical tasks, you will not become a mechanic until you are qualified. Similar thing with Christianity.

And the "must believe in God" thing is a strong arm tactic, spiritual black mail. Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell. - Yeah right.

Could you show me where it says, "Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell."

Well thats how you see it, you must have got that from somewhere. Why don't you follow through and develop a deeper understanding.

"The issue is: Why has christianity found it necassary and desirable to suppress free inquiry with the threat of force?........The answer is obvious - and revealing. Christianity is peddling an inferior product, one that cannot withstand critical investigation. Unable to compete favorably with other theories, it has sought to gain a monoply through a state franchise, which means: through use of force" - Atheism: The case Against God by G.H. Smith

Don't worry about Christianity, just try and learn about God, then you will understand more about Christianity in its pure sense and the way it has been manipulated by atheistic heirachies.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Xev

05-09-02, 02:45 AM

I have given many logical arguments which in my view proves authenticity, but if you want more clarification, then you have to make some effort.

Jan, you and logic is like Nelson's Tao - Yang is you, Yin is logic. Opposites.

Could you show me where it says, "Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell."

Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

1 Corinithians 13:7
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

That, and, I might mention that the history of Christianity is a history of opposition to science and knowledge.

Don't worry about Christianity, just try and learn about God, then you will understand more about Christianity in its pure sense and the way it has been manipulated by atheistic heirachies.

Athiests have heirarchys? WHY DOES NOBODY TELL ME THESE THINGS?!!

Jan Ardena

05-09-02, 08:38 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Xev
Romans 14:21
It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
14:22
Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
14:23
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

1 Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
6:21
Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

1 Corinithians 13:7
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

That, and, I might mention that the history of Christianity is a history of opposition to science and knowledge.

Still can’t see where God says, "Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell."

Ahiests have heirarchys? WHY DOES NOBODY TELL ME THESE THINGS?!!

I have, but you won’t listen. :p

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cactus Jack

05-09-02, 10:20 PM

You have not provided such an argument of which I speak. You have just given your feelings, inscite. Nothing to convince us.

Xev

05-10-02, 12:48 AM

Still can’t see where God says, "Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell."

Where does the Bible claim to be the word of God? Since when does God even exist?

In any case, you're being specious. Obviously, it does not say that outright - and I conceded that. However, the history of Christianity has been the history of taking certain passages like that and construing them to mean "thou shalt not question"

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity (...) It is this which drives us on to try to discover the secrets of nature, those secrets which are beyond our understanding, which can avail us nothing and which men should not wish to learn (...) In this immense forest, full of pitfalls and perils, I have drawn myself back, and pulled myself away from these thorns. In the midst of all these things which float unceasingly around me in everyday life, I am never surprised at any of them, and never captivated by my genuine desire to study them (...) I no longer dream of the stars."
Augustine of Hippo (St. Augustine), whose death in 430 a.d., marks the begining of the Dark Ages in Europe. (quotted in Sagan, C. "The Dragons of Eden", p247.)

Edit to add:

1 Corinithians 14:38
But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

2 Corinithians 10:5
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ

Jan Ardena

05-10-02, 07:03 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
You have not provided such an argument of which I speak. You have just given your feelings, inscite. Nothing to convince us.

How would you know, you obviously haven't understood properly what i am saying.

Who is us?
Haven't you got your own mind?

Anyways, you still didn't answer my question regarding your flippant remark, tell me where God says, "Either do not question (because you'll find out we're lying) or burn in hell."

Xev,

Where does the Bible claim to be the word of God? Since when does God even exist?

Er……..we are not debating these points, are you sure you have the right thread?

"There is another form of temptation, even more fraught with danger. This is the disease of curiosity (...) It is this which drives us on to try to discover the secrets of nature, those…………….
……………………….Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

What is the point of all these quotes? They do not answer the question or come even close. And you question my logic??

Cactus Jack,

Seeing as this may be becoming a quote fest, here is one, tell me, if you like, what you think it means.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
-George Bernard Shaw, writer, Nobel laureate
(1856-1950)

Love

Jan Ardena.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-10-02, 10:00 AM

Hang on, Jan Ardena, are you saying that we have to believe in God before we can have it proven to us? Or are you saying that there is no proof, we just have to believe in it, i.e. faith. (And don't tell me that faith is proof, by definition faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof.)

And we all understand what you're saying, that's why we're questioning it. Those quotes are relevant, too. He's making a point that Christianity, even though it may not necessarily say so word for word in the bible, historically Christianity does have tradition of using a "believe or burn in hell" tactic.

And technically you never answered my question about what "regulative principles" are.

Jan Ardena

05-10-02, 10:06 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Hang on, Jan Ardena, are you saying that we have to believe in God before we can have it proven to us?

No.

Or are you saying that there is no proof, we just have to believe in it, i.e. faith.

No.

Those quotes are relevant, too. He's making a point that Christianity, even though it may not necessarily say so word for word in the bible, historically Christianity does have tradition of using a "believe or burn in hell" tactic.

If you know that, then prove it.

Love

Jan Ardena.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-10-02, 10:13 AM

"Hang on, Jan Ardena, are you saying that we have to believe in God before we can have it proven to us?"

"No."

"Or are you saying that there is no proof, we just have to believe in it, i.e. faith."

"No."
----------
So you're saying that there is definitive proof of God then?

"Those quotes are relevant, too. He's making a point that Christianity, even though it may not necessarily say so word for word in the bible, historically Christianity does have tradition of using a "believe or burn in hell" tactic."

"If you know that, then prove it."

Um... read a history book. Any of them. Trust me, you'll find it most enlightening to use a source other than the bible. I'm sorry, but if you honestly don't believe that christians have ever used this tactic, then you have got a lot of history to catch up on. *cough*crusades*cough*

Markx

05-10-02, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Hang on, Jan Ardena, are you saying that we have to believe in God before we can have it proven to us? Or are you saying that there is no proof, we just have to believe in it, i.e. faith. (And don't tell me that faith is proof, by definition faith is the belief in something for which there is no proof.)

And we all understand what you're saying, that's why we're questioning it. Those quotes are relevant, too. He's making a point that Christianity, even though it may not necessarily say so word for word in the bible, historically Christianity does have tradition of using a "believe or burn in hell" tactic.

And technically you never answered my question about what "regulative principles" are.

Interesting view. I don't think that any one can give you a solid prove that there, here is God meet Mr. God . I am not sure what kind of Proof you are looking for. Please explain what kind of Proof do you want?. And you are right about Faith, it is believe in unseen.

I also don't think there is any thing wrong with evalution and religion going togather. I only have problem with beeing ancestor of Monkeys. Lot can be said in favour or against it. Where do we go after we die?. If there is after life or not? What religion is true ? and lots of other questions like this, also depends on our personal interpretation of life, religion and ideas etc etc. Our nature of thinking our way of life, our child hood, culture's traditions etc etc. Lots of factors. Since I converted to Islam I believe it is the true religion and Quran is true book of God, but when it comes to proof? No! there aren't any rays or voice coming out of that book. It is my belief, I chose it that way. I was given a option and I picked what satisfies me. I rather belive in unseen then taking my chances after life, if there is any. I am not losing anything. It is simple enough for me, No fancy ho ha in this for me.
Maybe I believe becasue I wanted to believe. I won't go out and brag about it. I think it was pretty interesting reading major religous books and then interacting with scholars or religious people from different religions. Anyways, I believe in what if factor of life after death. If there isn't any God then same will happen to me like any one else but if there is?? Then I am screwed :D :D.

So please tell, what proof are you looking for? what is your concept of proof from God? or for God.

Adam

05-10-02, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Hang on, Jan Ardena, are you saying that we have to believe in God before we can have it proven to us?
That seems to me to be almost the definition of the word "faith". I don't agree with it myself.

Godless

05-10-02, 11:25 AM

Interesting quest this one!, Jan's form of logic is ilogical, in trying to prove that which has no proof.

a fallacie and I qoute Jan; "I have given many logical arguments which in my view proves authenticity, but if you want more clarification, then you have to make some effort."

As Xev has pointed out, Jan your vision of "logic" is an illusion, from the first point of accepting a supernatural existent, you've have allready given up on logic!.

There is 0 logic in your arguments Jan, there's no way that you can possibly prove to anyone the existence of a supernatural being, by using logic, nor reason. Your acceptance of these supernatural force, is something you have come to accept in faith, and believe, not in logic or reason.

Adam

05-10-02, 12:36 PM

Which begs the question: What exactly is the value of belief against reason? A very big question. To be honest I must say that sometimes faith in things is more important to me than reason. For example, despite all evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe that most people want to be good.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-10-02, 01:06 PM

"To be honest I must say that sometimes faith in things is more important to me than reason. For example, despite all evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe that most people want to be good."

Oh man, not me. I have a few rules of life:

1) Treat everyone that you don't know as a complete moron unless you know definitevely otherwise.
2) Never trust anyone to do anything ever unless you personally supervise them in doing it, because they will let you down.
3) Most people will sell you out for their own advantage.

And people say I'm cynical. I say I'm a realist.

Cactus Jack

05-10-02, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
You have not provided such an argument of which I speak. You have just given your feelings, inscite. Nothing to convince us.

How would you know, you obviously haven't understood properly what i am saying.

Who is us?
Haven't you got your own mind?

You obviously haven;t understood what I'm saying. First off us is the members who have commented on this thread that either don't believe in God or the scriptures validity. Second, we do have our own minds. We have sought out information and have come to the logical and rational conclusions that there is no God and/or the scriptures are false. You say other wise - PROVE IT.

Markx

05-10-02, 05:16 PM

SpyFox,
Sorry to ask again but what kind of proof are you looking for? I mean what do you have in mind?. It is good question that you asked for proof but what exactly is we looking for? I see every one asking proof of God, but I haven't seen any one saying what they want as a or as proof.
thanks.

Jan Ardena

05-12-02, 03:55 AM

QUOTE]Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
So you're saying that there is definitive proof of God then?

Yes, but not using old rocks or radiometric dating.

Um... read a history book. Any of them. Trust me, you'll find it most enlightening to use a source other than the bible.

Then in that case read Bhagavad Gita, Bible or Qur’an, you will find these are far more enlightening depending on your taste.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Godless
Interesting quest this one!, Jan's form of logic is ilogical, in trying to prove that which has no proof.

I recently asked you if you love someone, and you answered yes, I asked you to prove it and you didn’t.
Are you illogical?

There is 0 logic in your arguments Jan, there's no way that you can possibly prove to anyone the existence of a supernatural being, by using logic, nor reason.

Are you deaf or blind?
Can you prove anything to me, especially if I have no intention of accepting anything you say. Truth has to be self-evident. We require proof because we don’t know or we are not sure, but proof is not truth, we still require understanding, nobody can teach understanding.
Everybody has logic of some kind, even animals. Logic varies according to the person and the persons state of mind. To say there is 0 logic in my arguments, without giving examples, shows that you are acting out of bitter emotion and a lack of reason.
What makes you think I want to prove the existence of a super-natural being to anyone, as I said, I don’t believe anything can be proven, unless there is co-operation on both sides, the teacher and the student.
I am not interested in proving physically, that a scripture is authentic, because to realise it you must first understand it, to understand it you have to live it, so then your whole life becomes an example of the scripture. At that point, there is no need of proof. It would be impossible to live a rock and roll lifestyle and be a totally dedicated doctor simultaneously because dedication means you have chosen that path for life or a sizeable chunk thereof.
I love the taste of orange juice, but I can’t prove it to you, nontheless it is still truth. I can tell you everything about orange juice, from how it looks, its contents, where it comes from, if I enquire from a superior brain, its molecular structre, but I cannot tell you how it tastes, even though I am in full knowledge. Taste is the whole point of orange juice, it is very simple, I’m thirsty, “there’s some orange juice, let me have some,” I drink, I enjoy, I go about my business, but I cannot tell you how it tastes, and I cannot prove that I know how it tastes, and I cannot prove to you that it is refreshing, YOU HAVE TO EXPERIENCE IT.
It is the same with God.

Your acceptance of these supernatural force, is something you have come to accept in faith, and believe, not in logic or reason.

I have already explained how faith works, it obviously meant nothing to you.
You think you are acting independantly, that you are in control, that you are cool because you don’t believe in something you cannot see. But the truth is you believe that God doesn’t exist, you claim that it is because there is no evidence, but I don’t believe you, I think you desire that God doesn’t exist and wouldn’t accept His existence anyway. Now this puts a different light on this strand of atheism. The fact that you BELIEVE means you are searching, it means you are living the life or trying, it is different from my situation only in the goal, so you are developing faith or already have faith and trying to gain understanding through cultivation of knowledge. Ignorance of spirituality, insticnts, is the new instituational religion, or in other words satanism.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Oh man, not me. I have a few rules of life:

1) Treat everyone that you don't know as a complete moron unless you know definitevely otherwise.
2) Never trust anyone to do anything ever unless you personally supervise them in doing it, because they will let you down.
3) Most people will sell you out for their own advantage.

And people say I'm cynical. I say I'm a realist.

Some people say how we treat others is nothing more than a reflection and expression of our true selves, so for example you don’t trust anyone because you are not trustworthy.
Trust is one of the greatest gifts, lose that and see how you fall.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
You obviously haven;t understood what I'm saying.

You haven’t actually said much if anything, you have been challenging which in my opinion doesn’t constitutes conversation.

First off us is the members who have commented on this thread that either don't believe in God or the scriptures validity. Second, we do have our own minds. We have sought out information and have come to the logical and rational conclusions that there is no God and/or the scriptures are false.

So you say you have all sought out information and have come to a logical conclusion, but what is this logical conclusion, if the scriptures are not valid as you all say, then I would like to know, if only to stop wasting my time with them. So I ask you CJ, please could you tell me the logical conclusion you have come to, on the scriptures being totally invalid.

I would appreciate it. THANKS.

Love

Jan Ardena.

Cactus Jack

05-12-02, 09:41 AM

Allright, I was going to comment on some of your arguments above. But you asked for my logical conclusions - my proof. First off I have shown why I do not believe in a God earlier in this thread, I will not reiterate.

The Bible: "In judging the veracity of the Bible we immediatley confront the fact it abounds with incredible stories and primitive superstitions. These elements alone disqualify it as worthy of belief. While the Bible may have some historic and literary value, it simply cannot be accepted at face value. In pulic libraries, one will appropriately find it shelved next to the mythology section." G.H. Smith

"When God speaketh to man, it must either immediatley; or by meditation of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately. How God speaketh to man immediately, may be understood by thos well enough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another, is hard, if not impossible to know. For if a man pretend to me, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily percieve what argument he can produce, to oblige me to believe it.....For to say that God Hath spken to him in the Holy Scripture, is not to say that God hath spoken to him immediately, but by meditation of prophets, or of apostles, or of the church......To say he hath spoken to him in a dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man..... So that though God Allmighty can speak to a man by dreams, visions, voice and inspiration; yet he obliges no man to believe he hath so done to him that pretends it; who being a man, may err, and, which is more, may lie." Hobbes

"Of the authors.... of many books, we are either in complete ignorance, or at any rate in doubt.....Further, we do not know either the occasions or the epochs when these books were written; we cannot say into what hands they fell, nor how the numerous varying version originated; nor, lastly, whether there were not other versions, now lost" Spinoza

We may, then, be abolutely certain that every event which is truley described in scripture necessarily happened, like everything else, acording to natural laws; and if anything is there set down which can be proved in set terms to contravene the order of nature, or not be deducted therefrom, we must believe it to be foisted into the sacred writings by irreligious hands; for whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected." Spinoza

One of the main arguments for the Bible is that of prediction or seeing the future before it happened. Excluding those written in such a way that anything could be taken, there are gross translation errors and other factors revealing that such predictions are false.

"This is a reference to the Old testatment passage, Isaiah 7.14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young women shall concieve and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

T begin with, this appeal to prophecy is based on mistranslation. The Hebrew word almah which means "young women" or "maiden" is made to read virgin. (for which the Hebrew word is bethula) by the author of Matthew-thus convienetly switching the Old Testament passage to meet his particular requirments." - G.H. Smith

Look at (Matthew 10.7, 10.23, 16.28, 23,36, Mark 1.15, 13.30, Luke 9.27, 21.32) for incorrect predictions.

So finaly we are left with the theist's argument that the people who wrote the Bible spent their whole lives studing religion, so we must appeal to faith of an expert. However, If we bring in two experts, one an Atheist, one a Theist. Both spent whole lives in pursuit of Philosophical answers, have the exact same amount of knowledge. The Theists would not claim the Atheist expert to be as he says, why? Because he does not follow their beliefs. We cannot simply have faith in experts, this faith comes from rational thought. If we knew both to be experts by knowing the literature they had read, and time the spent on said subject to be substaintial enough to be considered an expert in said subject than we could do so. And if the Atheist beat the Theist in a' debate they would not agree with the Atheist's expertise and further rely on the "you must have faith" argument. I have allready shown faith is false. And usless in this thread.

Those are my conclusions.

~Cactus.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-12-02, 11:30 AM

Jan, if you cannot prove God using rational means, then you're going to have a very hard time getting people to believe in it. I just don't buy this "God is higher than science" crap. And yes, it is impossible to prove anything completely, but there is such thing as evidence, which does not support the God theory. You seem to be stuck on the idea that no matter what you say ever, no one will believe you. I'll believe you completely, if you offer rational scientific proof of God's existence. And you still never answered my question. What are regulative principles, and how does one "experience" God?

Every time you bring up a point and someone refutes it, you just come back with "you haven't understood what I'm saying." Maybe you're not explaining it very well then? I hear what you're saying about this belief and faith and so on, but it's frankly just rhetoric. It really means nothing. (If you really want, I can prove orange juice tastes good. It activates the taste receptors in your mouth, which then gets transmitted to your brain, which releases neurotransmitters, etc. Just give me a quarter million dollars, a test subject, an NMRI scanner, and a gastromatograph massspectrometer, and I'll prove to you exactly how it happens. No one questions it because it *can* be proven.)

Jan Ardena

05-12-02, 04:49 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by SpyFox_the_KMeson
Jan, if you cannot prove God using rational means, then you're going to have a very hard time getting people to believe in it.

Why do you think i'm try to get people to believe in whatever 'it' is?
I'm sure i've stated pretty close on to 1,000,000 times, it doesn't matter whether you believe or not, its not going to change anything. We are just debating. :)

As regard regulative principles, i don't think there's any point bringing them up, but if you insist, they are the instructions given by spiritual masters to their deciples and can be found in any of the scriptures.

Love

Jan Ardena.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-12-02, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
So you're saying that there is definitive proof of God then?

Yes, but not using old rocks or radiometric dating.

[/B]

What then? How does one prove God? And if proof is experience, then how does one achieve that?

(I used to be a christian, I never experienced God. I followed all the rules, and genuinely believed. This was when I was about 8 or 9 and didn't know any better. How do you explain this? Was I not faithful enough? I was 8 years old, I poured my heart into this and got nothing. That's among the reasons I'm athiest, incidentally.)

Cactus Jack

05-12-02, 09:34 PM

Oh, another thing I forgot. As I said, one must prove God's existance to prove the validity of the scriptures. The scriptures cannot be used to prove his/her/it's existance.

Also, are you going to comment on my post Jan? My hand got extremely cramped (accent mark over the e as in Shakespeare :) )writing it.

Raithere

05-13-02, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Jan Ardena
I am not interested in proving physically, that a scripture is authentic, because to realise it you must first understand it, to understand it you have to live it, so then your whole life becomes an example of the scripture. At that point, there is no need of proof.

I am atheist and a skeptic. I understand atheism and skepticism. I act according to these beliefs and live the life of an atheist. My life is an example of atheism and skepticism. I am happy, well adjusted, and kind to my fellow humans and animals. At this point, according to you, I need no proof for my beliefs or assertions. You are wrong. Atheism is the truth not Hinduism or Christianity. Religion is a deviation from the truth, a lie foisted upon us by institutions trying to assert control over our lives and our behaviors. If you don't believe me or disagree with me you simply don't understand because you haven't experienced it.

Did I follow your logic properly?

~Raithere

Jan Ardena

05-13-02, 08:27 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
The Bible: "In judging the veracity of the Bible we immediatley confront the fact it abounds with incredible stories and primitive superstitions. These elements alone disqualify it as worthy of belief.

Could he be talking about walking on water, parting seas, changing sticks into snakes, bringing people back from the dead, disappearing from one place and reappearing in another etc?

While the Bible may have some historic and literary value, it simply cannot be accepted at face value. In pulic libraries, one will appropriately find it shelved next to the mythology section." G.H. Smith

Most things are not accepted at face value until one understands, this is why understanding is so important, faith is the key. Through the advancement of science and technology we are able to understand more about our physical make up, certainly more than we did a hundred years ago. So if we take the time out to understand Who and What God is, we can understand that scriptures are not myths.

"When God speaketh to man, it must either immediatley; or by meditation of another man, to whom he had formerly spoken by himself immediately.

The scriptures are full of discourses between God and man, this I can work out for myself.

How God speaketh to man immediately, may be understood by those well enough, to whom he hath so spoken; but how the same should be understood by another, is hard, if not impossible to know.

A crude example, if you put you finger into an electric socket you will get an electric shock, if someone comes and touches you they will get the same shock.
God is pure spirit, He is described as ‘Absolute,’ anything He comes into contact with is immediately ‘spiritualized,’ this is why people go to holy places, because it had something to do with God or His devotee. He is also ‘Omnipotent,’ this means every part of Him can perform the tasks of every other part of Him equally. His words are non different from Him, so when He speaks, those words are God Himself.
God is in every living beings heart, so He knows you better than anyone, better than you know yourself. He knows if you are sincere, and will give you the intelligence required to understand Him, but only if it is your hearts desire.

BG. Chapter 4, Verse 11.

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly.

For if a man pretend to me, that God hath spoken to him supernaturally and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily percieve what argument he can produce, to oblige me to believe it.....For to say that God Hath spken to him in the Holy Scripture, is not to say that God hath spoken to him immediately, but by meditation of prophets, or of apostles, or of the church......

I can understand what the author is saying, and from his perspective he appears to be right, but he doesn’t understand the nature of God or the nature of the living entity, therefore he brings everything down to his understanding, which is what we all do, left to our own devices.
He doesn’t understand the Absolute aspect of God, he doesn’t understand how God is His word, he doesn’t understand that he is not his body but an eternal living soul, therefore he has no understanding of spirituality. It does not matter whether you believe or not, at least cultivate some understanding of God.

To say he hath spoken to him in a dream, is no more than to say he dreamed that God spake to him; which is not of force to win belief from any man.....

If someone came to me and said God spoke to them, it would be pointless to ask them for proof, but you could read the scriptures, find out how other people who directly spoke with God describe their experience, see how they acted as a result of speaking to God, and check the similarities, how they act is important.
Also, for someone to get direct contact from the Almighty Himself would mean that that person is a high ranking personality either demigod or demon and you would find that the time and place of discourse would already have been cooberated in the scriptures, it would be a fulfilment of prophecy.

"Of the authors.... of many books, we are either in complete ignorance, or at any rate in doubt.....Further, we do not know either the occasions or the epochs when these books were written; we cannot say into what hands they fell, nor how the numerous varying version originated; nor, lastly, whether there were not other versions, now lost" Spinoza

Spinoza doesn’t seem to know a lot does he?
Yet you say you have come to this conclusion logically.

We may, then, be abolutely certain that every event which is truley described in scripture necessarily happened, like everything else, acording to natural laws; and if anything is there set down which can be proved in set terms to contravene the order of nature, or not be deducted therefrom, we must believe it to be foisted into the sacred writings by irreligious hands; for whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected." Spinoza

Does he know everything there is to know about nature. We can see nature is very ordered and not random, does he know if there is a controller behind natures laws or a law maker?

One of the main arguments for the Bible is that of prediction or seeing the future before it happened. Excluding those written in such a way that anything could be taken, there are gross translation errors and other factors revealing that such predictions are false.

Again you could be right, but the essence of God is the same in all scriptures, according to time, place and circumstance, God is the goal of life, so He will always create the right circumstance for living entities who want to serve Him.

"This is a reference to the Old testatment passage, Isaiah 7.14:
Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young women shall concieve and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

T begin with, this appeal to prophecy is based on mistranslation. The Hebrew word almah which means "young women" or "maiden" is made to read virgin. (for which the Hebrew word is bethula) by the author of Matthew-thus convienetly switching the Old Testament passage to meet his particular requirments." - G.H. Smith

The point is, a young woman did concieve and bear a son who was know as Imanuel, who had a serious effect on the world, whether or not she was a virgin or whatever is neither here nor there. I know that God, who is the Supreme Controller can do what He likes, so it is entirely possible.

So finaly we are left with the theist's argument that the people who wrote the Bible spent their whole lives studing religion, so we must appeal to faith of an expert. However, If we bring in two experts, one an Atheist, one a Theist. Both spent whole lives in pursuit of Philosophical answers, have the exact same amount of knowledge.

We require knowledge to gain understanding, there are people who have a tremendous amount of knowledge, but they have very little understanding. The holy prophet Muhammad was illiterate, he couldn’t read or write but yet God used him as his viceroy, so knowledge is not as important as you think, devotion is far superior to knowledge.

The Theists would not claim the Atheist expert to be as he says, why? Because he does not follow their beliefs.

I am not concerned so much about the arguments between theists and atheists, that’s not where you will find God.

We cannot simply have faith in experts, this faith comes from rational thought. If we knew both to be experts by knowing the literature they had read, and time the spent on said subject to be substaintial enough to be considered an expert in said subject than we could do so. And if the Atheist beat the Theist in a' debate they would not agree with the Atheist's expertise and further rely on the "you must have faith" argument. I have allready shown faith is false. And usless in this thread.

Faith is not false, it seems that you people always try to move the floor from under the feet of the faithful by using the shallow, atheistic dictionary terminology of faith. If you want to really know what faith is, then ask someone who is faithful.

Those are my conclusions.

Where is the logic, your mentors don’t have any idea about the transcendental nature of GOD or His Devotee, so straight away they are at a serious disadvantage.
I would like to hear why 'you' don’t think the scriptures are valid, hopefully in the near future.

Love

Jan Ardena.

SpyFox_the_KMeson

05-13-02, 10:15 AM

Most things are not accepted at face value until one understands, this is why understanding is so important, faith is the key. Through the advancement of science and technology we are able to understand more about our physical make up, certainly more than we did a hundred years ago. So if we take the time out to understand Who and What God is, we can understand that scriptures are not myths.
So how exactly is science going to prove God's existence?

A crude example, if you put you finger into an electric socket you will get an electric shock, if someone comes and touches you they will get the same shock. God is pure spirit, He is described as ‘Absolute,’ anything He comes into contact with is immediately ‘spiritualized,’ this is why people go to holy places, because it had something to do with God or His devotee. He is also ‘Omnipotent,’ this means every part of Him can perform the tasks of every other part of Him equally. His words are non different from Him, so when He speaks, those words are God Himself.
God is in every living beings heart, so He knows you better than anyone, better than you know yourself. He knows if you are sincere, and will give you the intelligence required to understand Him, but only if it is your hearts desire.

But when I was 8 years old, it was my heart's desire, and I got nothing. Why is that?

...but he doesn’t understand the nature of God...
He doesn’t understand the Absolute aspect of God, he doesn’t understand how God is His word, he doesn’t understand that he is not his body but an eternal living soul, therefore he has no understanding of spirituality. It does not matter whether you believe or not, at least cultivate some understanding of God.

Here we go with the "he didn't understand" thing again. Did it ever occur to you that if so many people don't understand the concept of God as a higher form, maybe there's something wrong with it?

Does he know everything there is to know about nature.
Do you know everything there is to know about God?

does he know if there is a controller behind natures laws or a law maker?
No, and neither do you.

Again you could be right, but the essence of God is the same in all scriptures, according to time, place and circumstance, God is the goal of life, so He will always create the right circumstance for living entities who want to serve Him.
Except the Muslims, Buddhists, and Jewish, of course. They're not christian.

...devotion is far superior to knowledge.
Yea, like the devotion of radical religious terrorists?

I am not concerned so much about the arguments between theists and atheists, that’s not where you will find God.
So where do I find God? If I live my whole life devoted to God will I find him? Then how do I know atheism isn't correct? After all, I didn't live my life as an atheist.

If you want to really know what faith is, then ask someone who is faithful.
Okay, what is faith?

Where is the logic, your mentors don’t have any idea about the transcendental nature of GOD or His Devotee, so straight away they are at a serious disadvantage.
So what gives you the ability to know about the "transcendental nature of God" that no one else seems to have? Brain implants?
Here goes the "you know nothing about it because you have no faith" argument again. *sigh*

I would like to hear why 'you' don’t think the scriptures are valid, hopefully in the near future.
So why exactly are 'you' so sure the scriptures are valid? Because you followed them? Did you research them, cross reference them with known history, etc.?

uberyiff

Cactus Jack

05-13-02, 10:19 AM

Could he be talking about walking on water, parting seas, changing sticks into snakes, bringing people back from the dead, disappearing from one place and reappearing in another etc?

I was thinking along the lines of being brought back from the death after crucifixtion and then raised into the heavens, but you get the idea.

Spinoza doesn’t seem to know a lot does he?
Yet you say you have come to this conclusion logically

I have, we are still very much in the dark about how, when, by whom and how many times the Bible was written or changed.

Does he know everything there is to know about nature. We can see nature is very ordered and not random, does he know if there is a controller behind natures laws or a law maker?

I respond with a quote "Let us grant the premises of this argument and see where it leads. Order is exhibited in nature; order requires a designer; therefore God exists. Surely, the wonderous regularity of nature - where acorns grow into trees and planets revolve around the sun - cannot be the result of mere chance. There must be a master planner at work.

It is now up to the theist to answer the question: Who designed God? Surely, nothing as complex and intricate and intricate as a supernatural intelligence can be resut of mere 'chance.' Therefore, there must be a super-designer who designed God. But a super-designer would require a super-super designer, and so on ad infinitum. Thus, by the premises of the teleogical argument, we are led to an infinite series of transcendental designers - a 'solution' that leaves much to desired. If an orderly universe requires explanation, the positinf of a god does not provide it." - G.H. Smith

Now the second part of the argument comes up: All creatures seem to be designed out to go for natural ends, or goals. Surely a designer must be behind this.

Once again : "To exists is to exist as something, and to be something is to posses specific, determinate characteristics. In other words, every existing thing has identity: it is what it is and not something else. To say that something has determinate characteristics is to say that it has limited nature, and these limits necassarily restrict its range of possible actions. The nature of n entity determines what it can do in a given set of circumstances." - G.H. Smith

We require knowledge to gain understanding, there are people who have a tremendous amount of knowledge, but they have very little understanding. The holy prophet Muhammad was illiterate, he couldn’t read or write but yet God used him as his viceroy, so knowledge is not as important as you think, devotion is far superior to knowledge.

So the way to true knowledge or understanding is ultimate devotion, without questioning. Leaves little room for free thought doesn't it? Read my post on Christianity vs Technology" thread, has some incite on this.

I am not concerned so much about the arguments between theists and atheists, that’s not where you will find God.

Of coure it isn't, because the expert which is an Atheist crushes the theist's poor logic.

Faith is not false, it seems that you people always try to move the floor from under the feet of the faithful by using the shallow, atheistic dictionary terminology of faith. If you want to really know what faith is, then ask someone who is faithful.

Allright then, what is it?

Why I don't believe in the scriptures validity? First for arguments presented on this thread against them and second to prove their validity one must prove God's existance and on this thread I have allready presented arguments against that. The idea of God is contradictory, completely unfounded and unecassary. Faith is simply something created so you could still believe in it without any logic or proof. Faith is not a necassary tool for understanding.

Plus you didn't hit at the heart of one of my arguments in the above post. I was not trying to argue the nature of God or his communication, simply that humans lie and that there is no way in proving communication with some god. Another argument against the scriptures and any other revelation for that matter.

"To be boosted by an illusion is not to live better than to live in harmony with the truth; it is not nearly so safe, not nearly so sweet, and not nearly so fruitful. These refusals to part with a decayed illusion are really an infection to the mind. Believe, certainly; we cannot help believing; but believe rationally, holding what seems certain for certain, what seems probable for probable, what seems desirable for desirable, and what seems false for false." - George Santayana

"Doubtful. To accept faith just because it is cumstomary, means to be dishonest, to be cowardly, to be lazy. And do dishonesty, cowardice, and laziness then appear as the presupposition of morality?" - Nietzsche

Jan Ardena

05-13-02, 10:20 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cactus Jack
I was thinking along the lines of being brought back from the death after crucifixtion and then raised into the heavens, but you get the idea.

I have, we are still very much in the dark about how, when, by whom and how many times the Bible was written or changed.

There are many different brands of orange juice, some are nicer than others, but the essence is always the same, it is somewhere along the line made up of orange juice.
There are many different commentaries and translations of the scriptures, some good and some bad, but the essence is always the same, God.

I respond with a quote "Let us grant the premises of this argument and see where it leads. Order is exhibited in nature; order requires a designer; therefore God exists. Surely, the wonderous regularity of nature - where acorns grow into trees and planets revolve around the sun - cannot be the result of mere chance. There must be a master planner at work.

That’s it, there is the logic.

It is now up to the theist to answer the question: Who designed God?

Chapter 7, Verse 25.
I am never manifest to the foolish and unintelligent. For them I am covered by My eternal creative potency [yoga-maya]; and so the deluded world knows Me not, who am unborn and infallible.

Chapter 7, Verse 7.
O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Chapter 7, Verse 10.
O son of Prtha, know that I am the original seed of all existences, the intelligence of the intelligent, and the prowess of all powerful men.

Chapter 7, Verse 15.
Those miscreants who are grossly foolish, lowest among mankind, whose knowledge is stolen by illusion, and who partake of the atheistic nature of demons, do not surrender unto Me.

Surely, nothing as complex and intricate and intricate as a supernatural intelligence can be resut of mere 'chance.' Therefore, there must be a super-designer who designed God. But a super-designer would require a super-super designer, and so on ad infinitum.

Chapter 10, Verse 8.
I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

Chapter 10, Verse 6.
The seven great sages and before them the four other great sages and the Manus [progenitors of mankind] are born out of My mind, and all creatures in these planets descend from them.

Brahma-Samhitah, text 1

isvarah paramah krsnah
sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva-karana-karanam

TRANSLATION
Krsna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.

[I]Thus, by the premises of the teleogical argument, we are led to an infinite series of transcendental designers - a 'solution' that leaves much to desired. If an orderly universe requires explanation, the positinf of a god does not provide it." - G.H. Smith

According to G.H. Smith and other like minded individuals.

Once again : "To exists is to exist as something, and to be something is to posses specific, determinate characteristics. In other words, every existing thing has identity: it is what it is and not something else. To say that something has determinate characteristics is to say that it has limited nature, and these limits necassarily restrict its range of possible actions. The nature of n entity determines what it can do in a given set of circumstances." - G.H. Smith

Can’t see anything wrong with that. Where’s the argument, maybe I’m missing something.

We require knowledge to gain understanding, there are people who have a tremendous amount of knowledge, but they have very little understanding. The holy prophet Muhammad was illiterate, he couldn’t read or write but yet God used him as his viceroy, so knowledge is not as important as you think, devotion is far superior to knowledge.

So the way to true knowledge or understanding is ultimate devotion, without questioning. Leaves little room for free thought doesn't it?

In an ultimate sense you are almost correct apart from ‘without question,’ sometimes you have to question things in order to gain a clearer understanding., sometimes you don’t, it depends on your consciousness. Real devotees of God do not need to question the authority of God because they already know.

Chapter 9, Verse 22.
But those who worship Me with devotion, meditating on My transcendental form--to them I carry what they lack and preserve what they have.

Chapter 10, Verse 3.
He who knows Me as the unborn, as the beginningless, as the Supreme Lord of all the worlds--he, undeluded among men, is freed from all sins.

Chapter 10, Verse 22.
Of the Vedas I am the Sama-veda; of the demigods I am Indra; of the senses I am the mind, and in living beings I am the living force [knowledge].

Chapter 9, Verse 18.
I am the goal, the sustainer, the master, the witness, the abode, the refuge and the most dear friend. I am the creation and the annihilation, the basis of everything, the resting place and the eternal seed.

Chapter 18, Verse 61.
The Supreme Lord is situated in everyone's heart, O Arjuna, and is directing the wanderings of all living entities, who are seated as on a machine, made of the material energy.

Chapter 13, Verse 17.
Although the Supersoul appears to be divided, He is never divided. He is situated as one. Although He is the maintainer of every living entity, it is to be understood that He devours and develops all.
Chapter 13, Verse 18.
He is the source of light in all luminous objects. He is beyond the darkness of matter and is unmanifested. He is knowledge, He is the object of knowledge, and He is the goal of knowledge. He is situated in everyone's heart.

Of coure it isn't, because the expert which is an Atheist crushes the theist's poor logic.

I do not trust so-called experts or politicianS. :o
The reason I used scriptural verses was to show how much there is you don’t understand about God, and to show that your arguments are based on a poor fund of knowledge. If you are prepared to discuss ‘God’ then it is only fair that you have some idea of His nature, irregardless of whether you believe in Him or not.

Allright then, what is it?

If when you are in a classroom at school, being taught by a proffesser, you close your mind off to everything he says, even though you have no idea as to what he is saying is right or wrong, then where does that leave you? But on the other hand, if you accept that the teacher is an authority on that particular subject, and you listen attentively, then where does that leave you?

Faith is, initially being prepared to listen to something for which there is no physical proof of evidence, not turning off because you cannot see it with your eyes. Once you have developed this faith, you are then in a position to gain higher knowledge, knowledge that goes beyond what you can see. Then you start to analyse that knowledge and compare it with relative knowledge. For example in the BG Krishna tells Arjuna;

Chapter 2, Verse 13.
As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.

We can understand this through analytical study. The soul is the individual self, it is eternal, never changes. Here it says that as the soul passes in our current bodies through the ageing process, although we can see the body and mind has changed, the person is still the same. I and yourself are the same person we were when we were babies, that is why people still recognise us after all these years. But what has changed is the body, an old aunty or someone may remark how you’ve grown, but she still knows you are you. So if this is the case we can understand that the soul is unchanging and therefore has to exist, it has to transform.
We can also see in this world, that one has to act, there is never a moment when you are inactive in some way or other. So the soul has to act, so at the time of death we can understand that the soul leaves the useless body and passes or is born into another body so it can act, carry on where it left off (karma).
In order to understand this, you first need to have faith, the more faith you have, the more you will understand, until you come to the point of pure knowledge.

Plus you didn't hit at the heart of one of my arguments in the above post. I was not trying to argue the nature of God or his communication, simply that humans lie and that there is no way in proving communication with some god. Another argument against the scriptures and any other revelation for that matter.

True, humans do lie, but they also tell the truth, plus the point is not so much what a person says, it is what they do, how they conduct themselves and live their lives. This is what I mean by higher knowledge, it comes to the point where you have to know who to trust, this is all knowledge.

"To be boosted by an illusion is not to live better than to live in harmony with the truth; it is not nearly so safe, not nearly so sweet, and not nearly so fruitful. These refusals to part with a decayed illusion are really an infection to the mind. Believe, certainly; we cannot help believing; but believe rationally, holding what seems certain for certain, what seems probable for probable, what seems desirable for desirable, and what seems false for false." - George Santayana

Very nice words but what does he know?
This is what you should try and find out.

Love

Jan Ardena.