The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by cascade9 In many ways acceptance of other gods as at least possibly real is one of the ways that monotheisms have used to erode other belief systems.

The 10 Commandments in the OT state that (yes this is English not Hebrew/Aramaic) "you shall have no other gods" etc. To me this indicates that at the very least Judaism acknowledges the possible existance of other gods.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Since some groups of people are one-eyed bigots the whole is idea should be assumed to be unreal and/or imgainary? That is almost as crazy as blind belief.

I wish I had your way with words, that is my point. Both sides of this discussion are one eyed and can't see any point in anything the other side is saying.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Of course you dont see any compassion, tolerance, or forgiveness. Look at the positions that bluegospel is taking. Its a lawyers position, with the bible as the law, with no possibility that the bible is in any way incorrect.

Blue has one purpose here and when he comes across someone who asks uncomfortable questions he simply ignores them or disappears for a while. Blue, regardless of his belief in how much knowledge he has, really doesn't know much about what he is talking about with regards to this topic.

Originally Posted by cascade9 Because of that and the way that bluegospel is using this thread as a soapbox for his message, IMO this should be closed or rolled into the religion thread. This is not a discussion, its a very poor attempt at proselytism.

Blue is not much different to some other participants in this thread. He is actively seeking converts to his belief while others are actively pushing their own beliefs with no possibility that anyone else can be correct.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 You infer by your posts that God is a mythological being/creature that he does not exist. The burden of proof is upon you when you infer that to prove it. So far you have not done this at all.

A definition of mythological, according to the links given to us by you:

a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, especially one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

In which part does it say that mythological beings necessarily do not have to exist?
But even if it would be saying that, you know that it is impossible to proof the non-existence of any god, in the same way as it is impossible to give a proof that Bertrand's teapot revolving the sun does not exist.

Wikipedia is hardly a reliable academic resource and I am surprised you resort to it.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Yes wikipeadia is such a brilliant resource that you use, thanks for sharing

You are right, Wikipedia is of course totally made up and biased to support my point of view and I shouldn't have used it. May be the Encyclopedia Brittanica is more reliable (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...eriodization):

sraelite culture initially resembled that of its surroundings; it was neither wholly original nor wholly primitive. The Hebrews were seminomadic herdsmen and occasionally farmers. Their tribal structure resembled that of the West Semitic steppe dwellers known from the 18th-century-bce tablets excavated at the north-central Mesopotamian city of Mari; their family customs and law have parallels in the Old Babylonian and Hurro-Semite law of the early and middle 2nd millennium. The conception of a messenger of God that underlies biblical prophecy was Amorite (West Semitic) and also found in the tablets at Mari. Mesopotamian religious and cultural conceptions are reflected in biblical cosmogony, primeval history (including the Flood story in Genesis 6:9–8:22), and law collections. The Canaanite component of Israelite culture consisted of the Hebrew language and a rich literary heritage—whose Ugaritic form (which flourished in the northern Syrian city of Ugarit from the mid-15th century to approximately 1200 bce) illuminates the Bible’s poetry, style, mythological allusions, and religious or cultic terms. Egypt provides many analogues for Hebrew hymnody and wisdom literature. All the cultures among which the patriarchs lived had cosmic gods who fashioned the world and preserved its order, all had a developed ethical system expressed in law and moral admonitions, and all had elaborate religious rites and myths.

I would have quoted the academic resources you want, but sadly I wasn't able to find one that is not only available commercially. I recommend the book The History of God, I posted a link to a summary earlier in this thread, may be you missed it because that summary was posted on (oh no!) Wikipedia, so I post it again(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God):

Armstrong begins with the rise of the cult of Jahweh, one of the pagan deities of Canaan. According to Armstrong, the cult of Jahweh consisted of a variety of ethnic groups that migrated in three waves to Canaan. These groups were united by their "loyalty to Yahweh."

To me, in times like these it is most-appropriate to recall the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant.

In the original version of this tale, the blind men were up-in-arms against one another, so certain were each of them that their position was "right." The point of the story, of course, being that they all were, in fact, equal fools.

Yes, yes, in our vernacular, these are all "mythologies." But that does not make them "wrong." Especially it does not make one of them "right" at the exclusion of all the others. Especially not to the point where it justifies any one "taking up arms against" (even metaphorically speaking) someone else, as has been going-on here so far for thirteen pages.

All of us are "the blind man," occupying this planet which is well beyond our comprehension for a scant seventy-odd years (if we're lucky), and then, poof! we are gone, and (presuming that we somehow still exist to know anything at all) not quite sure exactly what it was that we just experienced. Realizing that, from stem-to-stern in this mortal life, we never really knew even though often we presumed that we did.

Let each one of your fellow passengers regard this Mystery in his or her own way. If you feel that they are wrong, even vitally wrong, let it be ... for it could well be that both of you, all of us, are "equal fools." But no matter what we are, we are "fellow passengers, then 'poof!'." Don't spoil the ride. For you, for them, or for us.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD A definition of mythological, according to the links given to us by you: In which part does it say that mythological beings necessarily do not have to exist?

The part thats says "made-up".

Main Entry: mythological  [mith-uh-loj-i-kuh l] Show IPA Part of Speech: adjective Definition: mythical Synonyms: allegorical, chimerical, created, fabled, fabricated, fabulous, fairy-tale, false, fanciful, fantasy, fictitious, fictive, folkloric, imaginary, invented, legendary, made-up, mythic, mythologic, nonexistent, pretended, storied, supposititious, traditional, unreal, untrue, visionary, whimsical

Originally Posted by TobiSGD But even if it would be saying that, you know that it is impossible to proof the non-existence of any god, in the same way as it is impossible to give a proof that Bertrand's teapot revolving the sun does not exist.

Now this is where discussions like this are absolutely childish. You cannot prove that any god does not exist so you resort to inserting side tracks to prove your point.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD You are right, Wikipedia is of course totally made up and biased to support my point of view and I shouldn't have used it. May be the Encyclopedia Brittanica is more reliable (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...eriodization): I would have quoted the academic resources you want, but sadly I wasn't able to find one that is not only available commercially. I recommend the book The History of God, I posted a link to a summary earlier in this thread, may be you missed it because that summary was posted on (oh no!) Wikipedia, so I post it again(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God):

I didn't miss it and I even read it first time you posted it. The link to "A History of God" (the first link to it) goes to a page that is about a book that says "A' not "The" history of God. it is one persons interpretation of history. The dead give away that this is an interpretation is where the article says and I quote

Originally Posted by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_God According to Armstrong.

Where are the facts for what you claim Tobi?. You posted something as though it was fact yet it is obvious by reading it that is is only an opinion.

The Wikipedia page is not peer reviewed and has 3, read it 3, references which are in the book itself. If you look even further you will see that the article is probably an Amazon review. Let me ask you this question. Do you think this page on Mad Magazine is an article about a scholarly work?

Regardless what I post, you can dismiss it as one persons opinion, since every article, regardless if it is an academic work or not, is written by a person. And I really wonder why a summary of a book should not contain references to that specific book.
It seems to me that you feel personally offended and will dismiss anything that I say for exactly that reason, so this whole discussion is pointless.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 But you infered that. If you believe in predestination then you believe God's judgements and rewards are already set, if you don't believe in predestination then they are not set. You said "should be condemned" so you are either saying it is mankind who is condemning or that God hasn't made up his mind yet. So answer me this Blue, what do you believe?

I believe God encompasses time. He is now, he is (not "was") yesterday, and he is (not "will be") tomorrow. God created humanity as an object in time. Each person has limited free-will, in time, whereas God's free-will is absolute transcending time. He created each person to do as they choose, within their capacity. People are grateful to God that they have any capacity, or else they resent God for limiting their capacity. God fully knows at once--before, now and after--which they will choose. Each is predestined to be in favor with God, yet most choose otherwise.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Regardless what I post, you can dismiss it as one persons opinion, since every article, regardless if it is an academic work or not, is written by a person. And I really wonder why a summary of a book should not contain references to that specific book.

You tried, unsuccessfully, to make out that that article was the answer. It is not, it is just someones opinion of someone elses opinion. You were asked a specific question about a specific comment you made and all you can give is one persons opinion about another persons opinion. Thats like someone saying I heard from a mates, grandfathers, daughters, sisters, aunts, brothers, pet dogs, alien friend with a glowing finger, that you picked your nose in Red Square Moscow so you must have done it! The article provides no evidence for what you claim as truth, the article gives no references outside of the book, the article in a site you seem to be claiming is a scholarly source is a book review from amazon.com and has quite possibly been written by a complete fruitcake.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD It seems to me that you feel personally offended and will dismiss anything that I say for exactly that reason, so this whole discussion is pointless.

I'm not personally offended, and you saying that again shows that you are trying to shield yourself from providing anything meaningful here. Instead I am watching a discussion with a person, who I have seen previously come out with brilliant posts, post material that is, for the want of a better word, crap and trying to pass it off as "gospel" truth. So of course you think our discussion is pointless because you have nothing to give and can't even produce a decent comeback to my first paragraph in my previous post where you deliberately ask

Originally Posted by TobiSGD In which part does it say that mythological beings necessarily do not have to exist?

to which I answered the part thats says "Made up. You haven't even got a come back for that and nor will you ever have but you will keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong just like Blue does who has finally come back and thinks he answered a question but in actual fact he has done what you have been doing and hasn't answered it.

So now to Blue.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I believe God encompasses time. He is now, he is (not "was") yesterday, and he is (not "will be") tomorrow. God created humanity as an object in time. Each person has limited free-will, in time, whereas God's free-will is absolute transcending time. He created each person to do as they choose, within their capacity. People are grateful to God that they have any capacity, or else they resent God for limiting their capacity. God fully knows at once--before, now and after--which they will choose. Each is predestined to be in favor with God, yet most choose otherwise.

I bet you were hoping my eyes would glaze over with this and I wouldn't respond because you think I' and others are not as smart as you are? I asked you a simple question with regards to predestination and you can't even answer that without the whole airy fairy bit to start with. Lets pick the predestination bit apart shall we.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Each is predestined to be in favor with God, yet most choose otherwise.

This simple bit tells me you have no idea of the theology behind Predestination. You see Blue if it is predestined that you, or anyone else for that matter, is one of the chosen it is not up to you, or anyone else for that matter, to choose to be in favour with God. It has been predestined before you, or anyone else for that matter, was born what will happen. That is what Predestination is. You can fluff about for 99.9% of your life and the last year or so become a "born again" Christian but the choice of doing so was not yours. Do you get that? So I'll ask you again with regards to predestination and condemnation how you sugested people should be condemned and for a memory push I'll even quote where I asked the question.

But you infered that. If you believe in predestination then you believe God's judgements and rewards are already set, if you don't believe in predestination then they are not set. You said "should be condemned" so you are either saying it is mankind who is condemning or that God hasn't made up his mind yet. So answer me this Blue, what do you believe?

Originally Posted by k3lt01 So now to Blue. I bet you were hoping my eyes would glaze over with this and I wouldn't respond because you think I' and others are not as smart as you are? I asked you a simple question with regards to predestination and you can't even answer that without the whole airy fairy bit to start with.

Actually k3, you're trying to force me into 1 of 2 (or otherwise) pre-defined molds that I will not fit into. I don't subscribe either to the "predestination" or the "free-will" position. The fact is, the Bible doesn't support either what the "predestinationists" or the "free-will" campers outline so perfectly. The fact is that God does love everyone and predestines them to be godly. The fact is, people quite often disregard his perfect plan for them and go their own way, which liberty God allows them.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 Lets pick the predestination bit apart shall we. This simple bit tells me you have no idea of the theology behind Predestination.

Actually, I've quite forgotten it, having dismissed both views.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 You see Blue if it is predestined that you, or anyone else for that matter, is one of the chosen it is not up to you, or anyone else for that matter, to choose to be in favour with God. It has been predestined before you, or anyone else for that matter, was born what will happen. That is what Predestination is. You can fluff about for 99.9% of your life and the last year or so become a "born again" Christian but the choice of doing so was not yours. Do you get that? So I'll ask you again with regards to predestination and condemnation how you sugested people should be condemned and for a memory push I'll even quote where I asked the question.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 You said "should be condemned" so you are either saying it is mankind who is condemning or that God hasn't made up his mind yet. So answer me this Blue, what do you believe?

When I say, "should be condemned," I am honoring God's judgment--he is right condemning that one. Neither of your suppositions is the case.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Regardless what I post, you can dismiss it as one persons opinion, since every article, regardless if it is an academic work or not, is written by a person. And I really wonder why a summary of a book should not contain references to that specific book. It seems to me that you feel personally offended and will dismiss anything that I say for exactly that reason, so this whole discussion is pointless.

Actually, although it is all opinion, it is not necessarily to be dismissed, because every opinion is either true or false.

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs To me, in times like these it is most-appropriate to recall the fable of the Blind Men and the Elephant. In the original version of this tale, the blind men were up-in-arms against one another, so certain were each of them that their position was "right." The point of the story, of course, being that they all were, in fact, equal fools.

On the other hand, suppose 12 messengers come from a far away land, claiming to have a message from their singular king. Yet none of them consist with the others. Since you were expecting the message from that king, you'd best discover the one with merit.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually, although it is all opinion, it is not necessarily to be dismissed, because every opinion is either true or false.

I agree with this but the problem is Tobi posted it as fact not opinion. Unfortunately for Tobi there is a huge difference.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually k3, you're trying to force me into 1 of 2 (or otherwise) pre-defined molds that I will not fit into.

Actually Blue, I'm not. I am trying to get you to make sense. You are the ultimate fence sitter because you hedge your bets. God either knows everything (meaning he knows what will happen in the future and that what will happen in the future cannot be changed, Predestination) or he doesn't.

Originally Posted by bluegospel I don't subscribe either to the "predestination" or the "free-will" position.

Obviously you do because you said we have free-will to choose.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The fact is, the Bible doesn't support either what the "predestinationists" or the "free-will" campers outline so perfectly.

Show me where it doesn't support either side, lets discuss it properly.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The fact is that God does love everyone and predestines them to be godly.

When are people goingto stop peddling this simple minded view of Judeo-Christian god?

Malachi 1 1The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi.
2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob,
3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.

Romans 9: 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Originally Posted by bluegospel The fact is, people quite often disregard his perfect plan for them and go their own way, which liberty God allows them.

You see there is an issue here, if God knows everything then he knows what will happen. Because he knows what will happen people do not have liberty like you are suggesting.

Originally Posted by bluegospel Actually, I've quite forgotten it, having dismissed both views.

You dismiss things without having studied or questionsed them. You say to Tobi opinions should not be dismissed but you dismiss things that don't fit in with your simplistic views of the Bible. You know very little about the Bible, and that is shown by your peddling of infantile theology, yet you keep pestering people. You do your cause a great injustice.

Originally Posted by bluegospel When I say, "should be condemned," I am honoring God's judgment--he is right condemning that one. Neither of your suppositions is the case.

The Bible says God condemms, it also says do not judge lest you be judged. You saying should be condemned does not honour anything but your personal choice. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, are you without sin? do you have the right to judge people? If God wants to condem let him I'm sure he doesn't need your assistance or your approval.

If you want to quote "a book," as the Ultimate Authority, then you need to first make it your business to understand precisely how "that book" came to be in your hands, "in its present, canonical form."

I regret to tell you: "you won't like what you find, if you actually look."

You happen to be gripping the two covers of an extremely politically cobbled-together book, ransacked by committee meetings throughout the 11th, 16th, and 17th centuries (among others), and calling it (simply because you were told to do so, at age four ...) as The Word Of GOD.™

If GOD actually wants to say something, he can use a donkey, or a rock, just as easily as he can use a human being.

If GOD™ wants to speak Absolute Truth™, he doesn't require a front-man.

What does GOD® actually say? Stuff like, "the wisdom of man is the foolishness of GOD." Stuff like that.

The blunt historical fact of the situation is that you have not one shred of "absolute truth" to stand on. Your house is built on shifting sand and you don't even know. You love to hear your own words echo in the Temple courtyard. I could frankly say the same with regard to both of you. So, stick that in your pipe and selah.

Originally Posted by k3lt01 You tried, unsuccessfully, to make out that that article was the answer. It is not, it is just someones opinion of someone elses opinion. You were asked a specific question about a specific comment you made and all you can give is one persons opinion about another persons opinion. Thats like someone saying I heard from a mates, grandfathers, daughters, sisters, aunts, brothers, pet dogs, alien friend with a glowing finger, that you picked your nose in Red Square Moscow so you must have done it! The article provides no evidence for what you claim as truth, the article gives no references outside of the book, the article in a site you seem to be claiming is a scholarly source is a book review from amazon.com and has quite possibly been written by a complete fruitcake.

I must come to the conclusion that you have problems to understand my posts. I have clearly stated that that specific Wikipedia article is a summary of a book in post #193:

I posted a link to a summary earlier in this thread, may be you missed it because that summary was posted on (oh no!) Wikipedia, so I post it again

Now you complain that the article gives no references outside the book (which I would think is pretty normal for a summary) and that that specific article is no scholarly source, which I never claimed. Actually I said exactly this:

I recommend the book The History of God

and gave you a link to a summary (and yes, I made the horrible and unforgivable mistake to misspell the exact name of the book).

I'm not personally offended, and you saying that again shows that you are trying to shield yourself from providing anything meaningful here. Instead I am watching a discussion with a person, who I have seen previously come out with brilliant posts, post material that is, for the want of a better word, crap and trying to pass it off as "gospel" truth. So of course you think our discussion is pointless because you have nothing to give and can't even produce a decent comeback to my first paragraph in my previous post where you deliberately ask Quote: Originally Posted by TobiSGD In which part does it say that mythological beings necessarily do not have to exist? to which I answered the part thats says "Made up. You haven't even got a come back for that and nor will you ever have but you will keep insisting that you are right and everyone else is wrong just like Blue does who has finally come back and thinks he answered a question but in actual fact he has done what you have been doing and hasn't answered it.

OK, you are right, I shouldn't have said mythological (although I still think that this word describes it exactly), because there are definitions that put the word in the same area as the fable or other made up stories, while other definitions state that a myth does not have to be made-up.
I personally can't tell if those stories about gods of any kind are true or not, but my research in that area brought me to the opinion that it is very unlikely that they are true. Of course I can't proof that gods of any kind do not exist, just because it is impossible to proof that something does not exist (which is by the way why I mentioned Russel's teapot) even for the most brilliant thinkers, at least happened something like that not til now.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I must come to the conclusion that you have problems to understand my posts. I have clearly stated that that specific Wikipedia article is a summary of a book in post #193:

Then I must also come to the conclusion that you misunderstand English. I asked for you to show proof of your statements. I did not ask you to post a book review that gives no proof of anything.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Now you complain that the article gives no references outside the book (which I would think is pretty normal for a summary) and that that specific article is no scholarly source, which I never claimed. Actually I said exactly this: and gave you a link to a summary (and yes, I made the horrible and unforgivable mistake to misspell the exact name of the book).

You're clutching at straws now Tobi hey? What part of proof did you not understand? I have not complained, I have pointed out the glaringly obvious. You didn't post proof you posted opinion and from a source that copied and pasted it from another source. That is not in any way shape or form an academic thing to do. If you believe copying and pasting is a good academic method then I understand completely why you post the way you do.

In Social Sciences, which discussions of religion actually fall under, it is common sense to give references to other works that back up your theories. The article does not do this so it is not a very scientifically written article and should never be offered as proof for something as difficult to prove as the existance or non existance of a and/or the god.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD OK, you are right, I shouldn't have said mythological (although I still think that this word describes it exactly), because there are definitions that put the word in the same area as the fable or other made up stories, while other definitions state that a myth does not have to be made-up.

You may think it describes it perfectly but when you think that you need to offer, which I asked for, proof of your theory. Unfortunately you didn't really offer proof.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD I personally can't tell if those stories about gods of any kind are true or not,

Then offer your thoughts as opinion not fact.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD but my research in that area brought me to the opinion that it is very unlikely that they are true.

This is fine you are allowed, believe it or not, an opinion. When you start speaking as though your opinion is fact and continue to do so even when you cannot offer any reasonable proof of it your argument falls flat.

Originally Posted by TobiSGD Of course I can't proof that gods of any kind do not exist, just because it is impossible to proof that something does not exist (which is by the way why I mentioned Russel's teapot) even for the most brilliant thinkers, at least happened something like that not til now.

Which is my point, just as Blue cannot prove any do. But your argument comes from a "scientific" slant, without any scientific resources to back it up, whereas Blues comes from a blind faith slant. The two sides will never meet until both sides recognise this and start discussing the issue in some sort of middle ground. The last part of your sentence is a brilliant but failed attempt at a jibe. Why failed? because it is not until now that even the most brilliant thinkers could nto prove something does not exist. They have never been able to disprove the existance of god. My entry into this current discussion does not change that and your posting of opinion does nothing for it either.

BTW Russels tea pot is a silly arguement to use in this modern time, it may have worked ok when Russel was alive but since then NASA and other organisations have mapped space junk and it can be very well confirmed that Russel's teapot does not exist. When Russel, and others like yourself, want to shift the burden of proof onto others you should sit back and think about the so called proof you offer. Plagerised book reviews that are not peered reviewed and offer no resource list or bibliography taken from Amazon and posted on Wikipedia are not a proof of anything except the person using it as proof really isn't up to any sort of academic discussion.