We hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
religon
Topic Started: Jan 12 2007, 06:48 PM (2,148 Views)
Paper
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Even many Christian people say, hate the sin, not the sinner, and God sees all sin as equal in his eyes.

Of course, being agnostic, I create my own rules, so I don't think God hates anything that doesn't harm others. In that sense our society decides what harms others and what doesn't.

Curst Saden and cvn-tv-dip, your both zealots :P :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OcelotJay
Member Avatar
<3 mine [big]Miaow[/big]
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
cvn-tv-dip
January 16, 2007 03:21 AM
If you literally saw someone physically drowning, would you say, "I'm going to do my homework, so tell me if you decide to believe that you're really drowning!"?

Whilst one can use drowning as a metaphor, to then cross over into the realms of reality and compare actual drowning to sinning is crossing the boundaries of logic. Granted in the Christian belief sinners go to Hell, thus one may be inclined to wish to save them, but there is a gaping chasm between drowning and going to Hell: one does not choose to drown, save in suicide perhaps (and before you ask, yes, I do not believe in attempting to save people from themselves), whereas one chooses to sin.

I know, you'll wonder how that last part is applicable if I believe homosexuality is not a choice; we're talking on God's terms, not my own. According to Him - or so people profess - it is a choice thus I'm not going to throw in my own beliefs in order to argue Christianity on its own terms (muddying the waters is never helpful). The point being: going to Hell is not comparable to drowning in a literal sense; metaphorically, yes, but not literally. To drown is to die, to sin is not; sinning is about being stained and deemed unworthy of being in God's presence. That isn't on the same level as someone simply dying, regardless of the means. On a metaphorical level, drowning represents being "in too deep" and essentially risking one's life or essence from one's own actions; sin is quite similar in that one who chooses to sin is essentially drowning themselves, dooming their soul to Hell unless they are saved (just as one will die if one is not rescued).

But yeah, the message isn't quite the same when you attempt to compare one who sins to one who drowns in the real world. The meaning is metaphorical, not literal, ergo one who drowns in the real world is not comparable to a sinner, only the manner of their death in a spiritual sense draws some comparison.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zetah
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
blade-slinger
January 12, 2007 10:27 PM
I'm considered an atheist but I'm open to the idea of there being a god at some point in time so some people call me agnostic. :)

That would mean you are agnostic, no? :ermm:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deltasix
Member Avatar
Me
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Zetah
January 16, 2007 08:42 AM
blade-slinger
January 12, 2007 10:27 PM
I'm considered an atheist but I'm open to the idea of there being a god at some point in time so some people call me agnostic. :)

That would mean you are agnostic, no? :ermm:

No. You can have faith in atheism, you can believe that there is no God, but still be open minded.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
thegoth
Member
[ * ]
PENTACOSTAL :alcario:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paper
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
It depends how you look at it. Atheism is split into two categories:
Strong Atheism - Where a person is sure that there is no God
Weak Atheism - Where a person doesn't particularly hold any specific beliefs in God

I'd say that weak Atheism is a group of three sub-categories within Agnosticism:
Non-practising agnosticism - Where a person doesn't care to give it any thought
Ignosticism - Where a person believes that the question of God is meaningless
Agnostic atheism - Where a person doesn't know if a God exists or not, but does not believe in God
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deltasix
Member Avatar
Me
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Agnostic atheism - Where a person doesn't know if a God exists or not, but does not believe in God


A term I've used in the past to describe myself, but stopped because people can't grasp the concept of what you stated. To many it HAS to be on or the other.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LoR-Sean
Member Avatar
Tuna Taco's > DocuBunnehs
[ *  *  * ]
WOW..... this topic is very interesting... i personally am a "Independent Baptist", so after reading this topic i naturally have alot of things to say... but i will try to remain as unbiased as possible.

I personally have heard all the arguments and disputs about Jesus and of God. And of my own free will do i still choose the blood of Christ.

I know of many religons and i have studied many of them.... In fact i used to be greatly involved in Wiccan. But i have long past strayed from that.


I have heard some one say that christans who "convert" people are evil. thats very interesting. How is the fact that Jesus has forgiven and forgoten all of your sins, and that when he looks at you all he see's is you covered in his blood of sacrafice. how is that "Evil"? i would really wish to know that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Zetah
Member
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Deltasix
January 16, 2007 01:51 PM
Quote:
 
Agnostic atheism - Where a person doesn't know if a God exists or not, but does not believe in God


A term I've used in the past to describe myself, but stopped because people can't grasp the concept of what you stated. To many it HAS to be on or the other.

So what's the difference between that and a plain Atheist?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LoR-Sean
Member Avatar
Tuna Taco's > DocuBunnehs
[ *  *  * ]
"If a man has failed to find any good reason for believing that there is a God, it is perfectly natural and rational that he should not believe that there is a God; and if so, he is an atheist... if he goes farther, and, after an investigation into the nature and reach of human knowledge, ending in the conclusion that the existence of God is incapable of proof, cease to believe in it on the ground that he cannot know it to be true, he is an agnostic and also an atheist - an agnostic-atheist - an atheist because an agnostic... while, then, it is erroneous to identify agnosticism and atheism, it is equally erroneous so to separate them as if the one were exclusive of the other..."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Curst Saden
Member Avatar
One of the Last True Trekkies
[ *  *  *  * ]
cvn-tv-dip
January 15, 2007 10:21 PM
Curst Saden
January 15, 2007 08:13 PM
cvn-tv-dip
January 15, 2007 05:44 PM
Curst Saden
January 15, 2007 10:49 AM
This is getting annoying.  This always happens when we debate.  You keep saying that my posts aren't logical or that i'm not reading when i fact i do take a look and try to think it through, and that your posts often come to a contradiction, or something just utterly confusing that's supposed to explain it all when it really doesn't.

Why do you think I keep telling you this? It's because it's as I've said.

Do you know what my point is? Let me try once again to clarify for you. People can speak. They are allowed to convince. In response, the listener can accept or reject.

You quoted Paper's post and now you act like you own the thread. That means you haven't bothered to answer my response to Paper's post. That's why whatever I've already said in response to Paper, you've ignored, assuming that I've never said anything back. Thus you miss out whatever I've said in that response.

To Paper: This isn't about the topic of religion, really. I've already said my viewpoints on that, and discussed it with you. Rather, it's how Curst Saden treats these posts, which really hinders my efforts to discuss properly. It's true that you don't have to read every single post in the thread. But if Curst is to respond to me, he should read what I've said first, and from the content he replied with, it's clear that he didn't. Don't you know that it's annoying when you find out you've already replied to what someone said before he posted it? If he's clearly telling me something, and yet he is refusing to read my responses, that's basically rudeness in discussion.

It's become impossible to debate with you! You keep putting words in my mouth! You keep saying my responses aren't enough! I've had it! I'm leaving this God-forsaken topic.

So you give up? :rolleyes:

I don't see what's so hard about it. I discuss with you a topic. I said something in response to what you said. You should do the same.

All you have to do is properly read my posts and understand what I am trying to point out to you, and in response, say something that will make the thread go in logical order.

...

By the way, I really think you've acted out on panic rather than logical reasoning, when you said the following:
Quote:
 
What's more important than saving drowning brothers and sisters?  Lets see, family, friends, homework, school, jobs, phisycal, mental (and i guess spiritual) health, need i go on?

If you literally saw someone physically drowning, would you say, "I'm going to do my homework, so tell me if you decide to believe that you're really drowning!"?

That's what I'm talking about. Regardless of what you might believe (affecting your response), if I see that you're drowning, I would want to save you, and reach out a hand. That act, done on my part, is solely affected by what I believe.

That's my response to your post about "What if I don't believe?!" But again and again, you repeat that exact phrase without regarding my response to it. At least Paper actually said something in response.

It's impossible to debate with you. I try to think up a good response, but i guess we just don't work good together.

And don't talk to me about logical reasoning (you should know what i mean).

Seeing a real person drowning is different from spiritual drowning, as you see it.


I want this to be THE LAST communication between you and me because i've had it. Since you're so intent on the whole "drowning" thing, i'll share a quote with you. I can't find the exact quote, but you should get the point.

A pious man once said to his followers: "It is sinful to take lives, and nobel to save them. So every day, i pledge to save a hundred lives. I go to the lake and save a hundred fishes from drowning. I lay them on the bank and they flop around. 'Don't be scared' i say, 'i am saving you from drowning.' And so the fish become calm and lay still. But i am always too late, and the fish die. So, i take those dead fishes and sell them at the market and use the money i earned to buy more nets, so i can save more lives".--Anonymous.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Paper
Member Avatar
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I very much like that example. It points out that not everyone is the same.

I am an Agnostic theist in that I feel that having a creator for the universe is logical given the evidence from religious sources. I disagree with the concept of Fideism and think that logic can be used to establish faith. However I accept that such a fact is unknowable, since such sources cannot be verified. I don't believe that it is inherently unknowable to man, I just believe that we haven't found the truth yet.

I very much enjoy the following logical argument of Fideism:
1. Christian theology teaches that people are saved by faith in the Christian god. (i.e. trust in the empirically unprovable).

2. But, if the Christian God's existence can be proven, either empirically or logically, to that extent faith becomes unnecessary or irrelevant.

3. Therefore, if Christian theology is true, no immediate proof of the Christian God's existence is possible.

I would say, however, that it is wrong. I think to know something exists still requires faith that it does exist. A person could easily deny the existence of a truth by using faith.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cvn-tv-dip
Member
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Quote:
 
Seeing a real person drowning is different from spiritual drowning, as you see it.


(this is also in response to Jay's post)

I'm not talking about such things. I'm talking about what the person seeing someone else drowning would do. Regardless of what the resulting revelation is in the end, whether or not the person really was drowning, the person seeing that would want to help. And thus that person would try to convince the other. On a larger scale, that person would with reason talk to the other.
Quote:
 
A pious man once said to his followers: "It is sinful to take lives, and nobel to save them. So every day, i pledge to save a hundred lives. I go to the lake and save a hundred fishes from drowning. I lay them on the bank and they flop around. 'Don't be scared' i say, 'i am saving you from drowning.' And so the fish become calm and lay still. But i am always too late, and the fish die. So, i take those dead fishes and sell them at the market and use the money i earned to buy more nets, so i can save more lives."

You should know that you're not the only one that can come up with quotes.

I already said my point. Whether or not they're fish or people, my point is that the person wanting to help would help. Whatever's in the lake would accept or reject.

I think you're saying that by trying to "help" them, you might put them in a worse situation; but, if that prevented any sort of help from being even offered, why bother talking at all? I've already brought this up.
Quote:
 
one does not choose to drown, save in suicide perhaps (and before you ask, yes, I do not believe in attempting to save people from themselves), whereas one chooses to sin.


Actually, it's not different. Just as a person fallen in lake would be drowning, in Christian beliefs, the one would already be a sinner. It's not about choosing to sin because the Bible states that people are born sinners and have a tendency to sin, and considering smaller things like lying, it doesn't seem very hard to sin. In spiritual terms, the lake would represent the sinful status, and the hand reached out would be the Gospel of Christ. That's why I used this analogy. The one that is offered the help would either accept or reject that belief.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doob
Member Avatar
- Guitar God
[ *  * ]
This is over controversial. People are arguing over pointless things. No one is listening to me but...You have your own beliefs and you can follow through with them. Apparently these people believe in arguing over what you can and cant believe in.
"You cant believe this it dont make sense"
"You cant say that it doesnt make sense"
"You cant argue with me lets argue some more!"
Settle this in a Poke battle...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ralahinn1
Member Avatar
~~Holy Navy Gun~~
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Faith is believing in things you have no real proof of. It's by debating like this that we learn about one another more. I would hope that everyone is happy here with what they believe(or don't). I would hope people continue to explore different religions so that they can both become firmly rooted in how they believe, yet form other opinions based on the new things they learn.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Community Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5