This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Hell
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Orranis
I think you can, although swearing and calling people names probably isn't required or desired.
I know, I wasn't referring ot this thread specifically. In past threads I would come out and state something as fact, and immediately I would get people saying I was an idiot and it clearly wasn't true. etc, etc.
Personally, I'm not trying to disprove anything. Were I to label my stance, it would probably be "Let's stop trying to prove that God exists, because you can't, likely because God designed it that way to make 'Faith' something worthwhile. And since you can't, any attempt will be futile, and will likely hurt your case rather than help it -- a search for proof implies acceptance that it may not exist."
And I actually agree with this phrase very much.
So you'd have us go to hell without trying to talk us out of it?
No, he'd try to talk you out of it, but not by trying to prove that God exists, but to talk you into having faith.
I haven't seen him do that. He's advocated his faith, but not presented it to others. Proving something, by my definition, requires a tad bit of faith, because you can't be 100% sure of anything. I need to know that space has a theoretical curve before proving worm holes.
Post by
Monday
I haven't seen him do that. He's advocated his faith, but not presented it to others. Proving something, by my definition, requires a tad bit of faith, because you can't be 100% sure of anything. I need to know that space has a theoretical curve before proving worm holes.
I have presented it to you guys.
You blew it off. Why should I continue to try and prove it to you when I know for a fact you will never even consider joining?
Proving something, by my definition, requires a tad bit of faith, because you can't be 100% sure of anything. I need to know that space has a theoretical curve before proving worm holes.
Exactly.
Post by
Squishalot
I haven't seen him do that. He's advocated his faith, but not presented it to others. Proving something, by my definition, requires a tad bit of faith, because you can't be 100% sure of anything. I need to know that space has a theoretical curve before proving worm holes.
When did I say he was proving anything?
Post by
Heckler
I disagree. We might think that, but I'm pretty sure that if the Old Testament account of things was reasonably true, then the Israelites at the time had plenty of evidence and proof of God's existence, so it's theologically unlikely that God intended for himself to be unprovable.
I suppose my point was that if God really wanted to prove his existence to me, he could -- but he hasn't. What he's done to or for others matters little if he's not done them to me directly...
To quote Thomas Paine:
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
It is a contradiction in terms and ideas, to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second-hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication — after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
I make the assumption (for myself only) that God either does not exist, or exists and does not mean to prove his existence to me. I can't know which is true, so I accept it as an unanswerable mystery of existence (and therefore, unimportant -- if God does not exist, then he does not. If he does, but I cannot know, then I'm not supposed to know).
Post by
Orranis
Proving something, by my definition, requires a
tad bit
of faith, because you can't be 100% sure of anything. I need to know that space has a theoretical curve before proving worm holes.
Exactly.
Personally, a tad bit of faith does not go as far to include that crackers were invented by an enslaved desert tribe, after killing hundreds of innocent children, rushed out and managed to part the red seas, killing an Egyptian army, and spends months chilling in the wilderness doing absolutely nothing but #$%^&ing about food and being burned to death by their incredibly moral master who plays overprotective father abusing anyone who ever tries to touch Moses.
Post by
Monday
OK, so you want me to say that you should have faith through my religion right? (At least that is what I interpret you to be saying).
Personally, a tad bit of faith does not go as far to include that crackers were invented by an enslaved desert tribe, after killing hundreds of innocent children, rushed out and managed to part the red seas, killing an Egyptian army, and spends months chilling in the wilderness doing absolutely nothing but #$%^&ing about food and being burned to death by their incredibly moral master who plays overprotective father abusing anyone who ever tries to touch Moses.
Well, not a tad bit. Refer to my quotes below about faith. I argued in the only way I could.
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
So I say that you need to have faith before he will show unto you that the church is true. Skree, it sounds like you never truly had faith if you could be shaken from your Church after the death.
21 And now as I said concerning faith—faith is not to have a perfect knowledge of things; therefore if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true.
Another thing to throw in there, about the question "Why doesn't God just make us perfect?"
27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 And now, I, Moroni, would speak somewhat concerning these things; I would show unto the world that faith is things which are hoped for and not seen; wherefore, dispute not because ye see not, for ye receive no dwitness until after the trial of your faith.
Again, you need faith and to prove that you believe on your faith before he will present a miracle/sign unto you.
This any good you guys?
Post by
Orranis
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Actually, this seems to advocate Skree's point, not yours. He sincerely questioned whether God was true, and God did not appear before him.
Post by
Monday
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Actually, this seems to advocate Skree's point, not yours. He sincerely questioned whether God was true, and God did not appear before him.
Read the quote again. Moroni is referring to the Book of Mormon for one thing.
And for the other, he
questioned
whether God is true. He
doubted
. He never asked with real intent and faith in Christ, he asked as a last ditch attempt (from what I read on the blog) and he never really did believe he was true.
Post by
Squishalot
But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.
This argument would be valid, if we ceased to believe what we read in our textbooks about astrophysics, simply because we haven't experienced it and done the calculations personally.
I make the assumption (for myself only) that God either does not exist, or exists and does not mean to prove his existence to me. I can't know which is true, so I accept it as an unanswerable mystery of existence (and therefore, unimportant -- if God does not exist, then he does not. If he does, but I cannot know, then I'm not supposed to know).
And that's a reasonable assumption to make. Religious people who've had the 'tap on the shoulder', to paraphrase from someone else in this thread, have had the existence demonstrated to them acceptably, even if it doesn't present as evidence to the second, third or fourth observer as anything more than hearsay. But the fact that the revelation is inherently personal shouldn't give non-religious people the 'right' to slag off on the religious, because they cannot demonstrate (nor even believe) anything to the contrary.
I made the point in another thread. I don't believe that Skreeran has any right to criticise others' beliefs, without being affirmed in his own belief. If he doesn't firmly believe that
there is no god
, he shouldn't criticise others for believing that there is one. His belief is that it is likely that there isn't a god, that he generally doesn't think one exists. He may be standing on one side of the fence, but he's still got a fencepost
stuck up his arse
that he clings to as a security blanket.
Post by
Orranis
4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.
Actually, this seems to advocate Skree's point, not yours. He sincerely questioned whether God was true, and God did not appear before him.
Read the quote again. Moroni is referring to the Book of Mormon for one thing.
And for the other, he
questioned
whether God is true. He
doubted
. He never asked with real intent and faith in Christ, he asked as a last ditch attempt (from what I read on the blog) and he never really did believe he was true.
Not how I read it, from what I see, he used to be pretty devout.
We'll have to wait for him.
Subliminal message: Lore and Roleplay awaits!
Post by
Monday
Subliminal message: Lore and Roleplay awaits!
What? I can't hear you?
Why do I have a sudden urge to RP?
Post by
Orranis
Subliminal message: Lore and Roleplay awaits!
What? I can't hear you?
Why do I have a sudden urge to RP?
You're heart... Will explode...
Post by
Monday
Subliminal message: Lore and Roleplay awaits!
What? I can't hear you?
Why do I have a sudden urge to RP?
You're heart... Will explode...
Too bad I have two.
Quotes being messed up
Post by
Heckler
This any good you guys?
To me, it shows the foundations of your faith -- but as I've never questioned your faith (and see no reason to -- you're not me), I'm not sure if they're "good" since I don't know what you mean by "good."
I doubt it will be a "silver bullet" for use in the conversion of others however (if that's their intent) -- the quotes provide answers to some of the big questions, but they are from a book which may or may not have been written by God, or Ned, or Jimmy (and it's not a stretch to believe that a Human could have came up with every one of those quotes -- nothing internal to them implies divinity). (this is not designed to offend you)
What I like about them is they explicitly differentiate between faith and fact (however, this again could just as easily be credited to a human author trying to make his stories more believable).
But the fact that the revelation is inherently personal shouldn't give non-religious people the 'right' to slag off on the religious
Aussie slang is confusing. I don't think I've "slagged off" on anyone, I certainly don't intend to. What Skeeran believes is Skeeran's business (and everyone else for that matter), and if he sees fit to attempt to sway others to his beliefs, then that is also his business as long as they have the freedom to reject him (just as it is for everyone).
As far as what he (or anyone else)
truly
believes -- that is not my place (nor yours) to judge or assume.
Post by
Monday
I made the point in another thread. I don't believe that Skreeran has any right to criticise others' beliefs, without being affirmed in his own belief. If he doesn't firmly believe that there is no god, he shouldn't criticise others for believing that there is one. His belief is that it is likely that there isn't a god, that he generally doesn't think one exists. He may be standing on one side of the fence, but he's still got a fencepost stuck up his arse that he clings to as a security blanket.
Reminds me of Ether 12:6 up there...
Post by
Orranis
I made the point in another thread. I don't believe that Skreeran has any right to criticise others' beliefs, without being affirmed in his own belief. If he doesn't firmly believe that there is no god, he shouldn't criticise others for believing that there is one. His belief is that it is likely that there isn't a god, that he generally doesn't think one exists. He may be standing on one side of the fence, but he's still got a fencepost stuck up his arse that he clings to as a security blanket.
This is a blatant misinterpretation of Atheism or Agnosticism. It's not because we have a fear of hell, it's because science states that you can't be 100% sure of anything, and accepted reality is simply the story that is backed by the most evidence. If we were 100% sure of our own beliefs, it would make us complete hypocrites.
Post by
Squishalot
Aussie slang is confusing. I don't think I've "slagged off" on anyone, I certainly don't intend to. What Skeeran believes is Skeeran's business (and everyone else for that matter), and if he sees fit to attempt to sway others to his beliefs, then that is also his business as long as they have the freedom to reject him (just as it is for everyone).
Wasn't inferring about you. Skree's made many statements in the past preaching hatred of those with religious beliefs. If he had a solid basis for those arguments, I'd respect that, but he doesn't.
As far as what he (or anyone else) truly believes -- that is not my place (nor yours) to judge or assume.
I'm attacking his statements, not him as a person.
I made the point in another thread. I don't believe that Skreeran has any right to criticise others' beliefs, without being affirmed in his own belief. If he doesn't firmly believe that there is no god, he shouldn't criticise others for believing that there is one. His belief is that it is likely that there isn't a god, that he generally doesn't think one exists. He may be standing on one side of the fence, but he's still got a fencepost stuck up his arse that he clings to as a security blanket.
This is a blatant misinterpretation of Atheism or Agnosticism. It's not because we have a fear of hell, it's because science states that you can't be 100% sure of anything, and accepted reality is simply the story that is backed by the most evidence. If we were 100% sure of our own beliefs, it would make us complete hypocrites.
Yes, but this is my point. If you're not 100% sure of your own beliefs, then you shouldn't be attacking other people and hating on them for believing in something that you don't write-off. Because God isn't incompatible with your view of the universe, there is no reason to ridicule and hate those who do believe God exists.
If that means that you should never hate or disrespect people who believe in God, then I think that's a suitable conclusion.
That, and I wasn't making any interpretation of atheism and agnosticism. I was interpreting Skreeran's beliefs as he's told it to us.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I am 100% certain that there is probably no deities. I don't have to take a definite stance on the matter to debate with people of other faiths just like you don't have to be sure about whether or not the higgs-boson exists to talk about Physics.
I didn't say that you can't debate the issue if you don't have a definite stance. I said that you can't ridicule and cry hatred on those who do have a stance.
I never hate people simply because they believe in God, it requires additional nastiness.
You're not Skreeran either. I don't hate people who are stupid and ignorant, I respect the fact that they're not as lucky as I am to have the education that I've had. I respect those who have a belief in religion, and I don't ridicule them either. He's clearly outlined the fact that he hates people who would ignore science and believe in faeries and magic.
Post by
57943
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.