Christianity

[poppa x]

Hi Jayfox, me back for another serve. I think it's 40 all at the moment.
Let me get this straight.
God has pre-ordained everything.
He has given us the opportunity to make our decisions. But he knows what we will decide and what will happen.
Correct?

So God has pre-ordained a 0-6 start to the season?
I reckon he's got his work cut out convincing most of us that 0-6 is part of his grand plan. I mean. Why us? Why not Collingwood?

 

[evo]

Heres Dawkins doing a reading of his 'God Delusion' and a question answer session afterwards.

Not exactly groundbreaking stuff, but worth a look if you were considering buying the book.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,303,Reading-of-The-God-Delusion-in-Lynchburg-VA,Richard-Dawkins--C-SPAN2

 

[Tiger Attack]

Jayfox, what do you do when the Tigers play on Sundays? Do you go, or watch it on TV, or do you ignore it because it's on the Sabbath?

Well, the sabbath wasn't a Sunday for a start, it was a Saturday. I definitely go to or watch the footy on Sunday though. I just go to church first. Keeping the sabbath is about resting for one day a week and trying to use that day to spend some time reflecting on God. If I had a game myself on a Sunday, I would play and probably not go to church though. I may try to pray or read the Bible that night, however.

So respect for the Sabbath, doesn't necessarily preclude you from following other recreational activities?

 

[Rosy]

As I said, if you were perfect then I would have no problem with worshipping you as there has only been one who was perfect.

I don't believe I'm perfect but I don't believe I'm a sinner either. People are welcome here whether they believe in me or not, as long as they're civil and treat others with respect. I think that's far more important than being worshipped personally.

 

[jayfox]

Jayfox, what do you do when the Tigers play on Sundays? Do you go, or watch it on TV, or do you ignore it because it's on the Sabbath?

Well, the sabbath wasn't a Sunday for a start, it was a Saturday. I definitely go to or watch the footy on Sunday though. I just go to church first. Keeping the sabbath is about resting for one day a week and trying to use that day to spend some time reflecting on God. If I had a game myself on a Sunday, I would play and probably not go to church though. I may try to pray or read the Bible that night, however.

So respect for the Sabbath, doesn't necessarily preclude you from following other recreational activities?

No.

 

[jayfox]

Hi Jayfox, me back for another serve. I think it's 40 all at the moment.
Let me get this straight.
God has pre-ordained everything.
He has given us the opportunity to make our decisions. But he knows what we will decide and what will happen.
Correct?

So God has pre-ordained a 0-6 start to the season?
I reckon he's got his work cut out convincing most of us that 0-6 is part of his grand plan. I mean. Why us? Why not Collingwood?

I am enjoying your humour of late, Poppa Hex. The 0-7 start that we are in, which will be 0-8 by tonight I think, is a test of our faith. In Richmond, not God! I'm sure once Terry realises that we are all genuine supporters he will stop this pain and give us our reward of a premiership. It is in his timing though! :hihi

 

[jayfox]

As I said, if you were perfect then I would have no problem with worshipping you as there has only been one who was perfect.

I don't believe I'm perfect but I don't believe I'm a sinner either. People are welcome here whether they believe in me or not, as long as they're civil and treat others with respect. I think that's far more important than being worshipped personally.

The analogy clearly isn't perfect but let me ask you this Rosy. Have you ever acted, posted or PM'd in a way that you thought was either insensitive, wrong or that you may not have been completely happy with, in the past?

 

[Tiger Attack]

No.

OK, so the day of rest theory isn't a day devoted to worship?

Jay, how do you account for differences in religious observances by the various denominations of the christian faith?

Is there a 'true' way?

 

[jayfox]

OK, so the day of rest theory isn't a day devoted to worship?

Jay, how do you account for differences in religious observances by the various denominations of the christian faith?

Is there a 'true' way?

Different denominations have slightly different takes on some issues. As long as the core message is correct then these minor differences of opinion do not matter. Where there is large differences, for example whether Jesus is actually God in human flesh or just a prophet or good man, that is when it does matter.
I am a protestant and I believe that the protestant understanding and literal interpretation of God's word is the correct one. I have been to a catholic church many times as well but prefer the protestant churches.

 

[Curtiger]

He came to save all people. He gives everyone the opportunity to be saved and all that he asks is that you believe in Him as God's son and repent of your sinful ways. Everyone has this opportunity and, as the Bible tells us, he wants none to perish.

This is pretty much contradicted by the fact he knows the futures of every single one of us, past, present and future though isn't it? Not much use giving us the opportunity to go to heaven if the outcome is already defined.

Dipso, this point is one that I can see you are struggling with so I will try to explain it a little better.
God came to Earth to save all of us.
God gives all of us a chance to believe in Him.
God knows the future and knows what we will ultimately decide.
But He still gives us the opportunity to make our own choice, otherwise we could argue that we didn't have the opportunity of that choice.

So in short, it is purely our decision, but he knows what we will decide, but still gives us the full opportunity to make that choice independently.

I think this is 'Compatibilism' - the belief that free-will and predestiny can co-exist. Doesn't sit right with me.

 

[Tiger Attack]

OK, so the day of rest theory isn't a day devoted to worship?

Jay, how do you account for differences in religious observances by the various denominations of the christian faith?

Is there a 'true' way?

Different denominations have slightly different takes on some issues. As long as the core message is correct then these minor differences of opinion do not matter. Where there is large differences, for example whether Jesus is actually God in human flesh or just a prophet or good man, that is when it does matter.
I am a protestant and I believe that the protestant understanding and literal interpretation of God's word is the correct one. I have been to a catholic church many times as well but prefer the protestant churches.

'Some issues?'

'Minor differences?'

I would have thought that someone such as yourself who takes a very literal, fundamentalist view of the bible, would find these differences very hard to accept?

 

[Curtiger]

You know what I find most interesting about this thread is that is is becoming an atheists hideout. If you guys don't believe in God, and are so adament in your beliefs, then why would you spend so much time on a thread devoted to discussing him? Surely if in your minds he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist. Fullstop? Why bother debating the topic?
I debate the topic because I truly believe in Him and want as many people as possible to know His love for us and to have the chance to be saved from certain judgement. But I'm not sure what the deal is for you guys?

Because it is a search for 'truth'.All philosophers have to consider 'God' even if to only then confirm their atheism.You seem, throught this thread, to be under the impression that somehow the religiously pious have some sort of ownership on the question of God.

By way of example,let's say I'm a socialist, want to confirm socialism to myself-I still have to heavily consider captialism.I should read people through history who've studied and furthered both Socialism and Capitalism.

Also,because their are so many religious in society that the atheist have to co-exist we have to consider their beleifs.To understand Western society,you have to have an understanding of Christianity.It's shaped our(as a people) laws and 'values'

This reminds me of Karl Popper's concept of falsifiability - the idea that the systematic elimination of other possibilities is the best way to test the 'truth' of a theory. As you say, evo, one should really consider other possibilities bfore commiting themselves to a particular theory/ideology (if they should commit at all).

We love our Wiki don't we? ;D

 

[evo]

I'm loving your work today Dancing Milk.

Keep on truckin'

Socrates agrees. I do ld

 

[Tiger Attack]

Was it Socrates who invented Plato, or the other way around?

 

[Stripes]

As for the philosophers, why take the viewpoint of mere men when you can get the viewpoint of God from his word?

How do you know the Bible in its entirety is the word of God when it was written and published by man?

You only need to stand in a row of 10 or so people and wisper something to the first, who then passes it to the second, and so on. The person standing at the end of the row will invariably never receive the original message as it was first spoken.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

As for the philosophers, why take the viewpoint of mere men when you can get the viewpoint of God from his word?

How do you know the Bible in its entirety is the word of God when it was written and published by man?

You only need to stand in a row of 10 or so people and wisper something to the first, who then passes it to the second, and so on. The person standing at the end of the row will invariably never receive the original message as it was first spoken.

Yes, as far as the bible goes, the chain of evidence is well and truly broken.

 

[evo]

Was it Socrates who invented Plato, or the other way around?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

;D

By the way,TA.Socrates and Plato got all the glory but I reckon Epicurus was da man.He 'keeps it simple stupid'

Suss him out.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Science can explain the wind.Its a movement of air due to change in pressure.Science can also expalin many of the things too small to see with the naked eye.Just because we can't see wind doesn't mean it requires faith to grasp it.

Science cannot explain God.

It's a silly analogy.

So what. The Bible explains many things about God and the history of mankind. Whilst perhaps not the perfect analogy, it is about believing in something unseen that you can feel and see the effects of.

Science cannot explain God. There is science's greatest limitation. But, if science could explain God, then God would be completely comprehensible by human minds, which of course he is not, otherwise he wouldn't be God, would he?

You know what I find most interesting about this thread is that is is becoming an atheists hideout. If you guys don't believe in God, and are so adament in your beliefs, then why would you spend so much time on a thread devoted to discussing him? Surely if in your minds he doesn't exist, he doesn't exist. Fullstop? Why bother debating the topic?
I debate the topic because I truly believe in Him and want as many people as possible to know His love for us and to have the chance to be saved from certain judgement. But I'm not sure what the deal is for you guys?

Well I see that this thread got hyperactive again in my absence. I can't resist this particular post.

I think evo responded well in saying that the discussion and research around theology is part of a greater quest for truth. Discussion and debate on the topic is not the sole domain of the believers.

Jay, your response reveals much about the difference between the way you view the world and how I view the world. I am certainly not "adamant in my beliefs" as my opinions are based on evidence, whereas yours are based on faith (sometimes in the face of evidence). My opinion is subject to change in light of new evidence (the "tap on the shoulder" that Rosy referred to). From reading your many posts it would seem that your views are quite rigid and dogmatic and you choose to frame the evidence in a way to support your stance, as opposed to looking at the most likely explanation for such evidence.

Another point that wasn't mentioned in response to your query over interest in this debate is that the irrational (in my opinion) views of certain individuals directly impact on the world I (and my family) live in. That impact can vary from our elected officials making policy and decisions based on religious views (cue our beloved health minister) to our PM's solution to the drought coming down to prayer (seriously), to fanatics flying airplanes into buildings, to the most powerful leader in the world declaring war on vague concepts using terms likes 'evil' to justify his actions. These are a few of the many reasons why I argue and will continue to argue against irrational views and encourage secularism within our society.

You may argue (correctly I would say) that most of the religious atrocities have been committed by fanatics and that they do not reflect the mainstream view of religious observers. However, I agree with those that argue that the sacrosanct status of religion in our society enables the rise of such fanatics.

On a lighter note.......

 

[Jools]

How do you know the Bible in its entirety is the word of God when it was written and published by man?

You only need to stand in a row of 10 or so people and wisper something to the first, who then passes it to the second, and so on. The person standing at the end of the row will invariably never receive the original message as it was first spoken.

Which was my point a long long time ago on this thread (boy is it long now) about so many different translations of the Bible. Who knows what exactly was written so long ago? The Catholic Church used a version called the Douay-Rheims Bible, which was translated from Latin into English in the 16th century. Latin being a dead language now, doesn't change. They also now use other versions such as the New Jerusalem and New American Bible.

 

[Curtiger]

Was it Socrates who invented Plato, or the other way around?

I think we both know the answer to that one.

;D

By the way,TA.Socrates and Plato got all the glory but I reckon Epicurus was da man.He 'keeps it simple stupid'

Suss him out.

YES! Epicurus' Letter To Menoeceus was my favourite text in philosophy class last year. Was sort of naturalistic, like Nietzsche, but at the same time metaphysical.
He could write simply - and with a sort of emotional appeal. Rather than the usual stoically boring ethics you have to read.
Plato was full of *smile*, and Socrates was a likeable cheat.



Perhaps we ought to take this to another thread? :don't know

I believe The Bevan will again return in our lifetime.It has been prophesised.

The moment I wake up...BEFORE I put on my make-up, I Ask Clay.