A question to all the married men
superstar4410

If there are two individuals knowing each other for a relatively short time on the same page and know that they want to marry each other and have discussed marriage and have studied together comprehensive pre-martial workbook material in preparation for marraige how/when does the guy go about the proposal.

(A) Wait till they are very close (99% assuming they are like at 85%now) and fully developed relationship-wise and when he gets to that point then propose.

OR

(B) Propose knowing they both have discussed marriage and use that engagement period as time to get even closer ( from their 85% to 99%).

The pros I see for option A is that you're not rushing

The pros for option B is that when do you really know when you are at the 99% since relationship are like a process not a journey or destination and when you get marry you will continue to grow even more so if they both know thats what they want and have prayed about it.

I think another reason this might even be coming up is that they are Christian and thus not having sex until marriage and Christian couples thus when they know they have found that person they want to get married so they dont fall to sin(pre-martial sex), where as other couples who are already having sex don't feel a rush to marriage because well they are already very intimate(though yes marraige is more than just sex)

Evert

Doesn't make sense to me to quantify "99%" and "85%", what do you even mean there?
I'm not married, but here's my advice: don't until you know you want to. It's a lot of hassle, a lot of money and a lot of emotional hassle, and generally not worth it if you're going to break up within a year anyway. So don't do it unless you can be reasonably sure you're not going to do that.
As for when you're the no-sex-outside-marriage type (an outdated point of view if you ask me, independent of whether you call yourself Christian or not, but up to everyone to decide for themselves), not sure. But ask yourself whether marriage is supposed to be the sort of thing where you ask someone to marry you so you can do it for the next couple of months, then break up, marry someone else for a bit, etc. If you don't think that's what it's supposed to be (and certainly I don't think that's what it's supposed to be), then don't get married just because you want to have sex with eachother.

Uh... in short, do what feels right.

Dizzy Egg

Shouldn't you only get married if your religous, like, Christian or whatever..

superstar4410

Good point Evert, Yea I too am a Christian so I agree with the whole wait till marriage thing, but the wait till it feels right is what a lot of people say.

They also say if you have to ask if you're ready, you are likely not ready if you have to ask.

Steve Terry

I also think that you shouldn't make a statistic out of marriage :P If it feels right then it's probably ok. If you have any doubts then hold off.

Dennis

It should not ever matter for you what they(who anyway?) say about things.

Take control of your own life and don't limit yourself by any silly regulations brought unto you without your consent by the religious group you were accidentally born into.

edit: Actually never mind. Just re-read the thread title and realized I'm not supposed to be commenting on it.

GullRaDriel

Stop asking silly question. Act.

van_houtte

Stop asking silly question. Act.

this. If you have to ask an internet forum about stuff like this, u still have a lot of life experience to gain.

Also, no sex before marriage is silly. Are you a virgin?

From reading ur threads, you sound like a cry baby, not sure if you're ready or man enough for commitment. Also, IIRC, you just started dating couple of months ago. Chill, take ur time, especially since she's your first gf, you have a lot to learn about relationships, take this as a learning opportunity.

axilmar

Wait until you are certain with a high degree of certainty that the girl is appropriate for you, then propose to her.

Johan Halmén

"If there are two individuals knowing each other for a relatively short time on the same page and know that they want to marry each other..."

Good... good...

"...and have discussed marriage..."

Good... good...

"...and have studied together comprehensive pre-martial workbook material in preparation for marraige..."

Um... good... I guess... but don't rely on every printed word.

"...how/when does the guy go about the proposal."

OMG! After all that you do together, is it still expected that the guy make the proposal? What freightens me is that the more TV channels we have in Finland, the more they send cheap life style programs produced in USA, showing us a US life style that young people are eager to adapt. There are even Finnish equivalents to most of the programs, showing that Finland seems to make huge steps backwards, towards Middle Ages. I'm talking about all these wedding related programs.

And everyone, who has had pre-martial sex is not a non-Christian.

Onewing

When the flirtation leaves, but yet you still remain, is when you should get married.

bamccaig

Discuss a prenup first. Seriously. Seriously. I don't care how much you love her or how much you think she loves you (you can never really know if she's acting or not), there's a good chance it won't last forever, and there's a very good chance that she'll take half your shit if it doesn't.

Eddie Murphy said:

[You don't own the pussy. You're leasing it. With the option to buy. Be careful though. You lose half when you trade in.]

Dizzy Egg

See Bams Sig

van_houtte

I wouldnt take bamccaig's advice on relationships, he has little to no experience in this subject

Tobias Dammers
Dizzy Egg said:

Shouldn't you only get married if your religous, like, Christian or whatever..

Marriage is a ritual to announce officially that you both are seriously committing to your relationship. You can follow a religious rite, but you can also keep it strictly "worldly" - nothing silly about that. If you're a Christian, then it makes sense to undergo a Christian wedding; if you're non-religious it doesn't, but that doesn't mean you can't get married, nor that being married means anything less - you commit to your relationship in a way that feels serious for you.

As for the original question: Dude, you're on your own. There is no general rule for these things. If it feels right for you, and you're certain enough it feels right for her as well, do it.

bamccaig

Marriage is a ritual to announce officially that you both are seriously committing to your relationship.

I read that long ago the "best man" would go out and kidnap the woman and then she'd be tied up until her will to leave was gone. Then a string would be tied around her finger to remind her what it was like to be tied up and to not attempt to leave. Apparently the ring today is a remnant of that string. How romantic. :P

I think marriage still comes down to that for men; it's sort of a way to claim the woman for yourself. A less literal sense of ownership. You obviously can't [openly] tie them up like that any more, but I guess the hope is that if she says yes then she's agreeing to be yours "forever". Of course, even the people that seem to be so in love change their minds, so in practice it hardly means anything. I think love is mostly in our own heads. We want to believe that it's something magical and special, but in practice it's not... We like to think of love as a singular shared bond between two people, but in practice each person probably has their own erroneous beliefs about who the other person is, what they feel, what they think, etc.

AFAIK, everybody agrees to be together forever (well, until one of you dies anyway) when they get married, but these days (in the Western world at least) the majority of marriages end in divorce. And odds are that when most of these people got married, both people wholeheartedly believed that the other one loved them and wanted to be together forever, even if they didn't feel the same. You can assume that you know your girlfriend, fiancée, or wife better than all those other poor schmucks did, but you'd probably be fooling yourself. :(

We all like to think of marriage as a romantic thing. I imagine most people want to get married. I do. Reality doesn't lie though. Just because she says "yes" and then "I do" doesn't guarantee she loves you, nor that she'll love you forever. It doesn't guarantee that she won't fuck the mailman. It doesn't guarantee that she won't rob you blind when she divorces you. A prenup is harmless in a "true" marriage; a marriage that lasts forever. It generally only takes effect if you divorce. I honestly can't understand why any guy would agree to marry a girl that refused to sign one... That's just stupid.

</rant>

Neil Black

A prenup is also a great way of saying, "I don't trust you. I think you're going to leave in a year or two."

It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. "He doesn't trust me, why should I be trustworthy? I'll fuck the mailman... he probably thinks I am anyway."

van_houtte

i know you like to cry SS4410, but i'd hate to see you become this man :'(
{"name":"Crying.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/c\/9c48467ea928e077744053c7de20a61b.jpg","w":320,"h":413,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/c\/9c48467ea928e077744053c7de20a61b"}Crying.jpg

GameCreator

A prenup is the best formal test to see if your woman can discuss financial matters maturely. If you get into a fight over that then that's your best indication you shouldn't marry.

About marriage: it doesn't matter. Know the person (not some workbook) as much as you can to ensure that it lasts. But that said, a friend of mine has been married over 5 years and recently the marriage has been getting stale and both his wife and he are cheating on each other. So like I said, it doesn't really matter. But get the prenup for sure.

Karadoc ~~

I'd be in favour of the "99%" option. I think it's a good idea to behave as though you are already married before you actually get married. (live together, share finances, etc. for long enough to be reasonably sure that you can bear to be around each other like that.)

In my view, a relationship should last because the relationship is strong and the people want to be with one another. Marriage should not be seen as a way of strengthening the relationship, but rather as a way of signaling to others that the relationship is strong already.

Crazy Photon

What GameCreator said. Living together makes or breaks relationships, and you can always marry later if/when you feel like it. What's even more important than getting married is to actually do what it implies (taking care of each other, support each other in times of need, accept each other even though neither are perfect, and so on).

EDIT: With that said, we are probably getting married after 5 years of living together (we are not sure of the date though, since there are other family problems that need to be taken care of first).

blargmob

A prenup is also a great way of saying, "I don't trust you. I think you're going to leave in a year or two."

More like, "I am a responsible man that will take effective precautions in the event of a fallout."

StevenVI

Since I actually am in the demographic you are seeking advice from, my opinion is that two people should not make up their mind to be married if they do not feel like they fully know each other. Thus I would vote for the (A) category -- they should make sure they know exactly what they're getting into before going ahead and committing to it.

I have enough ex-girlfriends that I am very grateful to not be chained to, even though I thought that each one of them was the greatest thing before I fully knew them. (And on the flipside of that, I wouldn't trade my wife for anything, she truly is the greatest thing :).) I would say that getting to know each other is part of the dating process. Once a couple has finished this stage, they are ready to move on to committing themselves to each other for the rest of their lives.

With regards to sex, that is a challenging issue. My personal belief is that waiting until you are married is the best way to approach it, though I do understand how difficult it is to refrain from this behavior. I would say it is a matter of will-power though, in that people should keep themselves under control until they know for sure that they want to be with their boyfriend/girlfriend for the rest of their lives -- there are too many risks associated with it (pregnancy, STDs, emotions, etc) to give in to their desires before fully knowing what they are dealing with.

Steve++

Only get married if you want to have kids and be tied down for the rest of your life.

superstar4410

Well said Steven,

and Yes Steve I do want to have kids and i've never been a guy to date many girls so being committed (tied down) to one special lady is not a problem for me.

With the whole living together thing, I've heard that stats show that couples who live together are more likely to get divorced than couples that don't (though logically you wouldnt think so).

I've heard the research shows that living together is not good if you plan on getting married, I looked and found this

Living together before marriage ups chance of divorce: study
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jT-imXqoWfT1zg_1Xuo-A_DiL5Cg

Living together before marriage doesn't significantly raise likelihood of divorce: study
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-03-03/entertainment/27057883_1_cohabiting-couples-marriage

Report: Cohabiting has little effect on marriage success
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-03-02-cohabiting02_N.htm

So with the 3 different studies, one is saying living together makes it worst.
Another is saying make it more likely that u'll get divorced but not a significant amount
and the last is saying it has little effect on helping the marriage be successful.

So different degrees but I haven't found one article that says it helps make the marriage last.

This is what I'll do.
I like the points said about:

(1)When the flirtation goes and you are still there then you are ready
(2)The dating process is about getting to know each other, once you complete that stage you are ready
(3)If you have to ask is it time, ur not ready, when ur ready you will know and it will feel right.
(4)Another one i'm adding, when you two have gotten so close that you've seen her at her very worst and seen all her secrets and negative personality traits and you still want to put your full trust in that person, then you are ready.

Thanks

Evert

I've heard that stats show that couples who live together are more likely to get divorced than couples that don't (though logically you wouldnt think so).

I've heard the research shows that living together is not good if you plan on getting married

You know what's really striking? Everyone who gets a divorce got married first. :o
So if you're worried about going through a divorce, then what you should most definitely not do is get married.

I would be highly suspicious of such "studies" without knowing a lot more about what they tested, how they tested it and what their control groups look like. I have heard the anecdotal story that getting married can kill your relationship: couples who have been together 10+ years before marrying and break up within six months of getting married.
What I do know for sure is this: getting married is not a method of curing your relationship if things are heading for rough water. Neither is having babies, yet people try both these things to safe a floundering relationship (who wants to work out their problems if they can have a miracle cure?).

Onewing

During a very rough patch in our marriage, we discussed divorce. We had pre-marital sessions where we decided "divorce" was the equivalent of a dropping the f-bomb, and should never be used, whether in humor or seriously. Nonetheless, we discussed it anyway, because everything was going really bad. It was even perfectly plausible to believe after we split that we would find someone else and be happy, as if that was the solution to our problems.

Ultimately, I decided good or bad, "I'm with you and that's the way it's going to be". After all, I did vow "till death do us apart." But, to remove cliche and religious limitations, I said we have to at least wait until the uncontrolled events around us that are causing our current misery have subdued and we have experienced better times before considering to bring this matter up again.

We're still recuperating from those rougher times, but we are quite a bit happier and excited to bring our first child into the world. Though I do sometimes find myself envying other relationships, I believe that is really just human nature. There is no question about my love for my wife, that much I've determined is unconditional. Even in the rough times I would do anything to make her life better, which is why divorce came up in the first place.

Trumgottist

Also, no sex before marriage is silly.

No, it isn't.

Vanneto

Yes, it is. My parents have had sex before marriage all their life (and still do). Never hurt them...

(though logically you wouldnt think so)

I'd think so. Living together means you notice each others 'imperfections' more often. That leads into fights and so on... Living separately doesn't create an environment for those things.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Also, no sex before marriage is silly.

You ought to be glad your ancestors living before the invention of marriage didn't think so.

Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

You know what's really striking? Everyone who gets a divorce got married first.

That is the only statistically relevant thing in this thread.

Things people commonly divorce over (money, infidelity, child rearing, abuse) are not affected very much by living together prior to marriage. i.e., Losing your job in five years has nothing to do with whether or not you moved in together first. Likewise, after time, your wife will be less attractive than younger women regardless of whether or not you moved in together prior to marriage.

Of course living together speeds up the relationship to the point where boredom of each other will set in faster, if that were to be a problem. But other than that, I don't really see how living together first helps you notice the major problems that cause divorces. (Unless one of those divorce causing things happen while you are living together, but then just refer to Evert's comment.)

And having sex before marriage only hurts marriages because the married guy will realize that he no longer gets it as much, and as such, has a good and valid reason to cheat. 8-)

Oh, and one other thing, I think a common reason for marriages that quickly (< 3 years) end up in divorce is that the man was pressured by the women to get married, so he did, just because he hadn't found any one else better yet. i.e., The marriage was the only way to temporarily extend the relationship, which was always going to be doomed.

GullRaDriel

Life is not like a study. You're an idiot if you think so.

The human mind, how the people feel interactively, that are things one can only live by himself.

There is a manual, still it only says "go, man, go !!"

Tobias Dammers

My 0.02$: The best explanation for the relationship between pre-marital cohabitation and divorce would be a hidden variable. The type that refuses to live together without being married is often also the type that tries to avoid a divorce at all cost. And conversely, those who are more casual about marriage will have no problem living together whether they're married or not, and they will be equally casual about divorcing, the only real obstacle being the associated price tag.
And this basically means that such a study, no matter what the outcome, is pretty much worthless for all intents and purposes.

james_lohr

Tobias, I think you've got it spot on.

Also remember that some partners will not divorce no matter how dire their circumstances because they hold marriage as sacred agreement with God, even if they would be fully justified in getting divorced. This can be just as tragic as divorce.

superstar4410

Very true Tobais

OnlineCop

My wife and I knew each other for a few months before I proposed. Then we set a long engagement (6 months) to really get to know each other and make sure it was "right." At 24, we were virgins when we got married. We're coming onto 7 years now.

If your first worry in getting into marriage is "when will this end in divorce?" then it's not the right marriage. Ignore the statistics: they just tell you what other people think you aught to do since it's the norm.

Screw the norm; make your own decisions.

We've had 4 fights in our entire marriage, and 6 disagreements. None have been about money, since we established early on what we planned to do with the money, rich or poor. Only a handful of the disagreements had to do with kids (how many, how to discipline them, whether to homeschool or public school them), and they were minor discussions that we compromised on.

As my fiance, I took her to pick out rings. She did the "smart thing" and gave me about 5 options to choose between, and left me to make my own decision based on what would (and simply would NOT) look good on her. The relationship was only just talking about marriage in passing terms; nothing set in stone at that point.

And if you want to get married at church, by all means, get married in a church, with everyone's blessing. You don't need a shotgun wedding (drive through at Vegas is NOT a wedding), and if you're going to do it "the right way" by abstaining until marriage, you will be happier for it (IMHO):

video

torhu

That guy in the video just makes me puke.

Karadoc ~~

I agree with torhu. I find that guy in the video somewhat sickening.

He has a pre-set value: no sex before marriage; and he has made up a bogus theory to justify this a priori value. The whole video is about him spewing propaganda for his made up theory. I find his theory to be narrow minded, and a little bit insulting to my gender and my way of life.

I have been with my partner for over eight years now, and we never intend to marry, and we understand that we may or may not stay together for the rest of our lives. I don't feel like we are in any way 'messed up' by our relationship – nor are we in any danger of being messed up.

All this crap in the video about 'imprinting' 'focusing on the girl' doesn't really have anything to do with marriage anyway. He talks as though sex before marriage is all about lust and one night stands, and thus men – who are allegedly a weak minded gender – will be imprinted with some kind of evil message about how sex works... but marriage somehow prevents this from happening. But the reality is that whether people love each other or not is independent on whether they are married. Many couples love before marriage; many never marry at all; and many couples marry for a kind of love which is short-lived, and might as well be called lust. So the guy's whole point about sex before marriage being dangerous, and sex after marriage being emotionally safe, is a flawed argument. In my opinion, the real point he should be making is this "Don't treat your partner as a sex object. Treat them with respect." That's the point he is dancing around; but he just dresses it up like it has something to do with marriage. It doesn't.

Matthew Leverton

He has a pre-set value ... and he has made up a bogus theory to justify this a priori value.

Sounds like he'd fit in with the scientific community then. 8-)

Arthur Kalliokoski

I concur with the idea that sex before marriage is good.

Interviewer: "So, you want a programming job. Have you ever programmed before?"
Me: "No, one time I saw a GWBasic listing in a 'Creative Computing' magazine back in 1984 and it made me sick!"
Interviewer: "Perfect! We won't have to make you unlearn a bunch of bad habits then!"

Edgar Reynaldo

Just where is it in the Bible that God says we shouldn't have sex before marriage? Can anyone actually tell me that? I don't think so, because it comes from the teachings of churches, and not the teaching of Christ. It must turn a lot of people off to Christianity when churches teach their own doctrine instead of Christ's.

Matthew Leverton

It's quite clear that fornication and adultery are forbidden in the Bible, in both the Old and New Testament. Of course, if you can redefine those terms to exclude whatever you are doing as a good, moral Christian, then continue to feel good about yourself.

I should add that I think the only teachings on the subject directly from Jesus is basically that he equated the sin with lusting ... not the act of sex itself. So he took even a more strict view than "sex before marriage is bad," although he didn't believe in radical punishment (stoning) for it. He also considered sex among remarried (previously divorced) people as adultery.

Edgar Reynaldo
Quote:

Be fruitful, and multiply.

No mention of marriage there...

If you define fornication as sex without love, then sure I think it's wrong, however if you define fornication as sex before marriage, I think you're wrong.

Matthew Leverton

No mention of marriage there...

No one was around to officiate for Adam and Eve, so they had to have a kid out of wedlock.

But considering a man was killed by God for spilling his baby powder on the ground, I think you're on to something. We should all be making tons of babies 24/7. >:(

Quote:

If you define fornication as sex without love, then sure I think it's wrong, however if you define fornication as sex before marriage, I think you're wrong.

So by your logic, you think Jesus taught that two lovers who aren't married should have sex, at the same time as teaching that two lovers who are on their second marriage are committing adultery?

So either Jesus was terribly inconsistent, or you just don't want to adhere to the parts of the Holy Bible you don't agree with.

Arthur Kalliokoski

No one was around to officiate for Adam and Eve, so they had to have a kid out of wedlock.

But who married their kids? Adam and Eve? "Til death do you part. I now pronounce you brother and sister, er, man and wife!"

Matthew Leverton

Somewhere in the evolutionary past, whether in Genesis or before, brothers and sisters were getting it on.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I googled +brothers +sisters +"getting it on" site:youtube.com, thinking I'd find old clips of Soul Train, but I found a bunch of stuff I'd rather not go to...

Edgar Reynaldo

But considering a man was killed by God for spilling his baby powder on the ground, I think you're on to something.

I believe he was killed more for the fact that he refused to have children with a woman he had just married. (Alluding to the fact that he married her for lust instead of love.) That was also before grace was made available by Christ's sacrifice.

But I also don't believe that just because you have sex, you should automatically have children as well. Sex can be a token of love, and I don't believe there's anything wrong with showing love without also wanting to have children.

Mathhew Leverton said:

So by your logic, you think Jesus taught that two lovers who aren't married should have sex, at the same time as teaching that two lovers who are on their second marriage are committing adultery?

Divorce without repentance is considered a sin, yes. So until the divorce was forgiven, they were still technically married and would have therefore been committing adultery. I never said the Bible endorsed pre-marital sex, only that it never forbade it. And I will argue that you can have sex without being a fornicator as well.

But who married their kids? Adam and Eve? "Til death do you part. I now pronounce you brother and sister, er, man and wife!"

There was more than one 'day' where God created humans. Adam and Eve weren't the only human beings on the planet at that time. Remember how Cain was exiled and took a wife in a foreign land? How could he have done that if there weren't other people around? I can't give you a complete Biblical proof of it, but you probably wouldn't want one anyway.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Remember how Cain was exiled and took a wife in a foreign land? How could he have done that if there weren't other people around? I can't give you a complete Biblical proof of it, but you probably wouldn't want one anyway.

So, why does the Bible tell us about Adam and Eve? Why were they so special, and all the other thousands of humans ignored? Maybe because that wouldn't have fit the Babylonian myth they were pirated from?

Matthew Leverton

Divorce without repentance

Where does Jesus say that divorced people who say "sorry" can have sex without being adulterers?

To cut to the point, your comment of "It must turn a lot of people off to Christianity when churches teach their own doctrine instead of Christ's." is a bit hypocritical. You just think your understanding of the Bible is Christ's, despite the parts you are actually reading in and rewording and excluding to fit your viewpoint.

Arthur Kalliokoski

If you repent you can get to Heaven, so why not this small thing?

Edgar Reynaldo

So, why does the Bible tell us about Adam and Eve? Why were they so special, and all the other thousands of humans ignored? Maybe because that wouldn't have fit the Babylonian myth they were pirated from?

They are the line to which Christ was to come from. Satan seduced Eve, giving rise to his child Cain, trying to stop Christ from being born.

Where does Jesus say that divorced people who say "sorry" can have sex without being adulterers?

Not just 'sorry', but "LORD in the name of Jesus Christ please forgive all my sins". Being actually sorry instead of just saying it. When God forgives sins, they don't exist anymore, so they're no longer divorced or married and as such are free to marry again (or have sex without committing adultery as well).

Isaiah 43:25 said:

I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins.

Matthew Leverton said:

To cut to the point, your comment of "It must turn a lot of people off to Christianity when churches teach their own doctrine instead of Christ's." is a bit hypocritical. You just think your understanding of the Bible is Christ's, despite the parts you are actually reading in and rewording and excluding to fit your viewpoint.

What did I reword? How do you define fornication? I define it as 'wanton sex' or sex based on lust instead of love. Do you define all non married sex as fornication? If you do, I feel sorry for you. In the bible, the Hebrew and Greek words used for fornication are translated as first 'adultery' and second 'harlotry'. Does having sex with someone you love count as either of those to you?

Arthur Kalliokoski

Somehow the word "adultery" implies you have to be a grown up...

Matthew Leverton

Do you define all non married sex as fornication? If you do, I feel sorry for you.

I believe it's quite obvious that Biblically speaking "sexual immorality" is essentially all sex outside of marriage. (There are odd exceptions that allow a person to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law, etc.)

Why should you feel sorry that I don't feel compelled to twist the Bible to satisfy me? Or do you feel sorry that I don't think I have to follow it?

Quote:

What did I reword?

The doctrine that a person can be pardoned from future adultery is simply a doctrine you are making up yourself based on your own personal assumptions. That is the hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

Sure one could say "sorry" and get forgiven for past adultery, but they are still breaking Jesus' teachings the next time they have sex.

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Bible allows that, given that Jesus expressly forbids it. But you piece this from here and that from there to come up with a doctrine that makes you comfortable with Christianity.

Except for the most devout of scholars, this is what every Christian does (i.e., justify one's own belief in a certain thing by piecing together arbitrary concepts, while not applying that same sort of logic when it forms a contradiction to a belief). To write off those who believe that pre-marital sex is wrong as some people making up anti-Christian doctrines is not as clear cut as you believe.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I think this is what's meant by "immoral sex"

http://bible.cc/ezekiel/23-20.htm

Edgar Reynaldo

I believe it's quite obvious that Biblically speaking "sexual immorality" is essentially all sex outside of marriage.

Now the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Where does the Bible say that? Your current (previous) church may teach that, but I don't believe the Bible does. Where does the Bible say get married before having sex? Where?

Matthew Leverton said:

Why should you feel sorry that I don't feel compelled to twist the Bible to satisfy me?

I'm not twisting the Bible at all, you're the one twisting my words into something they're not.

Matthew Leverton said:

The doctrine that a person can be pardoned from future adultery is simply a doctrine you are making up yourself based on your own personal assumptions. That is the hypocrisy that I am speaking of.

I'm not making anything up. When God forgives sins, they don't exist (they are blotted out). So when you get a divorce and you repent, you are no longer married or divorced, you have a clean slate. If you get married again, and commit adultery, it's still a sin and I never said otherwise. There's no hypocrisy involved here.

Matthew Leverton said:

Sure one could say "sorry" and get forgiven for past adultery, but they are still breaking Jesus' teachings the next time they have sex.

They are no longer married, so they are not committing adultery. Even God himself divorced Israel. Is God a sinner? I think not.

Jeremiah 3:8 said:

And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce; yet her treacherous sister Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also.

Divorce is frowned upon in the Bible, but also sometimes allowed for, given adultery has taken place and possibly at other times, but I don't care to research that for you at the moment.

Matthew Leverton said:

The burden of proof is on you to show that the Bible allows that, given that Jesus expressly forbids it. But you piece this from here and that from there to come up with a doctrine that makes you comfortable with Christianity.

Adultery is a sin, yes, so is divorce (sometimes, not always), but the blood of Christ washes away sins upon repentance. They don't exist anymore, and you are free to remarry if you wish. Would you call God an adulterer if he chose to remarry? I don't think so.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Would you call God an adulterer if he chose to remarry? I don't think so.

I'd call God a murderer for wiping out entire cities just so Jews can have a homeland in the Middle East.

Matthew Leverton

Now the burden of proof is on your shoulders. Where does the Bible say that?

There is no direct verse that will say exactly that. You'd have to go back and look into Jewish customs and laws at the time and what would be obviously assumed when (e.g.) Paul wrote about sexual immorality.

So there's no way one could ever prove to you that the Bible is against sex before marriage because:

  1. You don't believe it's wrong, and

  2. There's no direct verse to disagree with you.

However, there's no way one could ever prove to you that the Bible is against repentant, divorced people from having sex because:

  1. You don't believe it's wrong, and

  2. There's an indirect way to support your beliefs, despite there being a direct verse that disagrees with you.

My point, which you refuse (and will probably always refuse) to acknowledge, is that given a personal belief about moral topics, you will make sure to find a way to justify your beliefs.

Yet you think your indirect support is valid, but other people's indirect support is not. It's equivalent to the old "he's not a true Christian" line people like to use when a Christian does something that others are critical of.

Quote:

Even God himself divorced Israel.

Ever hear of a analogy? Your reasoning with that one is beyond hilarious.

Edgar Reynaldo

I'd call God a murderer for wiping out entire cities just so Jews can have a homeland in the Middle East.

Matthew 22:32 said:

'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

What business is it of yours what God does with his own children? They are still alive, he just brought them back to Heaven. It's highly doubtful he would have taken their flesh lives without good reason. Most likely idolatry. This was also before the dispensation of Grace that Christ bought for everyone. It's not a good thing to piss off the living God, now is it?

Arthur Kalliokoski

It's not a good thing to piss off the living God, now is it?

I do it (figuratively, since he doesn't exist) all the time. Even more nothing happens.

Tobias Dammers

Wow. And all that fuss about an old book.
The whole "no sex before marriage" thing was installed as a precautionary social norm, based on two things:

  • women can't have jobs, and therefor cannot sustain themselves economically

  • there is no reliable anticonception

So when you had sex before marriage, the outcome would often be a child with a single mother, who then had a huge problem - no husband to feed her and the child, and no other way of making a living. Such a child would typically become the responsibility of the community (you can't just kill the bastard or leave it to starve with his mother), and the authorities back then obviously didn't want too many of these cases.
That's all there is to it; God was only added for extra argumentative strength - "If thou commitst adultery, His wrath will be upon thee" just sounds a lot spicier than "Look, you don't want to have sex unless you are prepared to handle the consequences."

If you want to "save yourself" for other reasons that religious ones, go ahead. At least you won't risk waking up next to a total stranger, wondering what on Earth you saw in her the day before. Just don't expect it to be all magic and fireworks and mythical connection.

Matthew Leverton

you can't just kill the #@$#@ or leave it to starve with his mother

Why not?

If the goal of invoking religion is to prevent unsupported children, then the logical thing to make up would be that all children born out of wedlock are to be sacrificed to God.

No need to spoil the fun.

Edgar Reynaldo

There is no direct verse that will say exactly that. You'd have to go back and look into Jewish customs and laws at the time and what would be obviously assumed when (e.g.) Paul wrote about sexual immorality.

The meaning of fornication in the Bible is quite clear given the definitions of the Hebrew and Greek words used for it. 'Adultery', and 'Harlotry'. If you want to say that all sex before marriage is harlotry, that's up to you. But it's still just your opinion, and you have no proof that sex before marriage is explicitly disallowed.

Matthew Leverton said:

However, there's no way on could ever prove to you that the Bible is against repentant, divorced people from having sex because:

  • 1. You don't believe it's wrong, and

  • 2. There's an indirect way to support your beliefs, despite there being a direct verse that disagrees with you.

1) I don't believe it's wrong because it's not in the Bible.
2) What verse is it that disagrees with me? Let's see it.

Matthew Leverton said:

My point, which you refuse (and will probably always refuse) to acknowledge, is that given a personal belief about moral topics, you will make sure to find a way to justify your beliefs.

I go by what the Bible tells me. If that disagrees with what I believe then so be it, but I don't believe that it does (and you have shown me no proof that it does either).

I do it (figuratively, since he doesn't exist) all the time. Even more nothing happens.

I heard this from my pastor at Shepherd's Chapel once - "God only chastises those he cares about.". Probably not a good situation if God no longer cares to correct you anymore. Don't think you won't be responsible for all your choices on Judgement Day though.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Don't think you won't be responsible for all your choices on Judgement Day though.

I'm quaking in my boots NOT!

And my mom told me if I ate all those peanut butter sandwiches, I'd get constipated. When I pointed out that it wasn't happening, she said "Wait til you're older". I'm older now and still nothing.

Edgar Reynaldo

You may feel comfortable with your sins now, but when it comes down to it and you're faced with 1000 years living on the wrong side of Heaven with a chance of going into the Lake of Fire and no longer existing, you may reconsider.

Arthur Kalliokoski

you're faced with 1000 years living on the wrong side of Heaven with a chance of going into the Lake of Fire and no longer existing, you may reconsider.

And you get these facts where?

Matthew Leverton

2) What verse is it that disagrees with me? Let's see it.

Jesus said:

Quote:

But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Consider just the second half. Guy divorces woman because she's a bad cook. A virgin man marries her. He is now an adulterer.

But that's too radical for you, so you must invent some concept that if she apologizes to God for her husband divorcing her (despite her doing nothing wrong), then the man who marries her will not be considered an adulterer.

Quote:

"Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"

Jesus answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.”

Again, no exceptions for people who are sorry. That's kind of an important thing to omit.

Edgar Reynaldo

And you get these facts where?

1000 years - look up the Lord's day.
Wrong side of heaven - read Luke.
Lake of Fire - read Revelations.

Consider just the second half. Guy divorces woman because she's a bad cook. A virgin man marries her. He is now an adulterer.

But that's too radical for you, so you must invent some concept that if she apologizes to God for her husband divorcing her (despite her doing nothing wrong), then the man who marries her will not be considered an adulterer.

Again, no exceptions for people who are sorry. That's kind of an important thing to omit.

So why did Jesus sacrifice himself then? For nothing? Or for forgiveness of sins and to defeat the power of Death (Satan's power, sin). If your sins no longer exist, how can they be held against you?

Arthur Kalliokoski

Wrong side of heaven - read Luke.
Lake of Fire - read Revelations.

I'd just as soon believe Mother Goose.

Matthew Leverton

What sin did the unjustly divorced women commit that she could possible ask forgiveness for?

Does it go like this?:

  1. man divorces wife

  2. she remarries

  3. has sex

  4. asks for forgiveness for having sex while being divorced

  5. she is no longer divorced

  6. ???

  7. profit

That's ridiculous. :P

Or is it more like:

  1. man divorces wife

  2. she asks for forgiveness for getting married in the future

  3. she remarries

  4. has sex

  5. it's not a sin because she already asked for forgiveness

  6. ???

  7. profit

If it's this one, then I apologize in advance for all my future sins. Now I'm free to do anything I want, and I'm all golden.

Or simply is nothing we do sinful any more since Jesus already died?

By the way, note that when Jesus rescued the adulterer from getting stoned by a crowd, he told her to "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "Congrats, whore, you can now have all the sex you want because I just forgave you for the last time you were sinning!" She was told to stop what she was doing; not that she was free to continue on sinning because Jesus had forgiven her.

type568

By the way, note that when Jesus rescued the adulterer from getting stoned by a crowd, he told her to "Go and sin no more." He didn't say, "Congrats, whore, you can now have all the sex you want because I just forgave you for the last time you were sinning!" She was told to stop what she was doing; not that she was free to continue on sinning because Jesus had forgiven her.

That's the point women typically miss..

Edgar Reynaldo
  • 1) Man divorces wife unjustly

  • 2) Woman is still married to man because the divorce was not just in the eyes of God.

  • 3) Woman repents to God, asking to be released from unjust marriage

  • 4) God sees that she has done no wrong and forgives her and allows her to remarry

  • 5) Woman is free to remarry

Or simply is nothing we do sinful any more since Jesus already died?

Of course not, but that doesn't undo the power of repentance and forgiveness.

I highly doubt that God will pre-forgive anyone.

Matthew Leverton said:

By the way, note that when Jesus rescued the adulterer from getting stoned by a crowd, he told her to "Go and sin no more."

As he was right to do so. Would it make sense to tell her to commit more adultery?

Tobias Dammers

That's ridiculous.

Of course it is. That's formalized religion for you. Leave logic out of it, it has nothing to do with anything.

Someone once tried to talk some sense into people, but it backfired badly.

Matthew Leverton

3) Woman repents to God, asking to be released from unjust marriage

Repents for what? She hasn't sinned by getting divorced. You are inventing this notion of being released from an "unjust" marriage. Why proclaim something to be immoral (getting remarried) if one can preemptively ask for forgiveness? It'd be less paperwork to just not call it immoral to begin with.

But that's all I have to say on this topic. Feel free to have the final word, and know in advance that I will be humored with whatever it is. 8-)

Tobias Dammers

Feel free to have the final word, and know in advance that I will be humored with whatever it is.

^ ++

Edgar Reynaldo

Why proclaim something to be immoral (getting remarried) if one can preemptively ask for forgiveness?

She's still married. Until God approves her 'divorce', she would still be committing adultery if she had sex. If she repents of her unjust marriage, I believe God would grant her an annulment and she would be free to remarry. What's so hard to believe about that?

(Some) Divorce is a sin, adultery is a sin, God has the power to forgive sins.

Final word. :P Or is it?

Tobias Dammers said:

^ ++

Laugh it up, while you can. ;)

GullRaDriel

I had sex long time before being married and still, and I'll never do a Christian ceremony.

I'm a criminal at each Christians eyes and will stay like that.

You ask for sin ? I'm all the sins you can fear: I'm French !

My mother just got married three times and divorced two.

If God or anyone isn't pleased with my condition of life, let me state that my condition does not engage yours. Go and sweep on front oy your door before coming and tell me what I have to do.

More precisely: If God or anyone isn't pleased, let it come down here and I'll kick his back so hard that he'll never be able to sit again.

If you remember God has nothing to approve or not: we have gained our free mind party with him.

Tobias Dammers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

Should cover most bases.

Johan Halmén

that he'll never be able to sit again.

But He is omnipotent.

Evert

But He is omnipotent.

Funny how he isn't when you try to argue the absurdity of that premise. :-X

Vanneto

4) God sees that she has done no wrong and forgives her and allows her to remarry

I don't want to start anything but... How does the woman know he has actually forgiven her? Does he come down and tell her? ???

Tobias Dammers
Evert said:

Funny how he isn't when you try to argue the absurdity of that premise.

Trying to argue the non-absurdity of that same premise is equally funny.

Homer Simpson said:

Can God make a taco so hot that He Himself couldn't eat it?

Arthur Kalliokoski

I suppose if you're talking about the thermal temperature of the taco, you could make it so hot it was a chunk of carbon, in which case it's not a taco anymore.

Spiciness, not so much.

Tobias Dammers

Regardless, the argument remains valid. If He makes the taco, and He cannot eat it, then He is not omnipotent. If He makes the taco, and then eats it, He has failed to produce a taco so hot that He Himself couldn't eat it, which also means that He is not omnipotent.

It's basically Gödel's argument translated to popular theology.

Johan Halmén

<meaningless_theological_yaddayadda>
Yes, God can make a taco so spicy that He Himself can't eat it. But He won't.
</meaningless_theological_yaddayadda>
Have a happy life!

Arthur Kalliokoski

I've always heard it as "Can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?".

Neil Walker

If it helps, I was drunk and figured if I proposed I'd get some sex that night as she was looking particularly tasty.

The only downside was she still remembered the day after. Still, I've been married 13 years so my heart must have been in the right place ;)

type568

Have a happy life!

Thanks!

Evert

If He makes the taco, and then eats it, He has failed to produce a taco so hot that He Himself couldn't eat it, which also means that He is not omnipotent.

Ah, but surely, in his Almightyness, he can then proceed to make the taco less spicey so that he can eat it again!

Tobias Dammers
Evert said:

Ah, but surely, in his Almightyness, he can then proceed to make the taco less spicey so that he can eat it again!

OK then: Can God make a taco so spicy that He Himself couldn't eat it, and at the same time resistant to all attempts of de-spicing, so that not even He Himself could reduce its spiciness to digestible levels?

Vanneto

He can and still eat it. Why? Because he is God. No explanation necessary. Why do you guys try to bring logic here?

You don't need logic for this, just a few bible quotes and faith! Join us!

StevenVI

Yes, God can make a taco so spicy that He Himself can't eat it. But He won't.

I'm not sure if you're trying to be silly or not, but that seems like a the most plausible answer that could be given to a question of this nature.

If you put it in human terms, am I able to kill myself? Yes. Am I going to kill myself? No. Does that mean that I'm not actually able to? No, it means exactly what it means: that I'm not going to do it.

If that's too extreme, think of something less fatal: am I capable of skipping work and writing on Internet forums all day? Yes. Am I going to? I hope not... :P

You can apply the same logic to God. Is God capable of limiting himself? Yes. Is he going to? No. Does that mean he cannot actually limit himself? No, it means that he is not going to.

I see no failure in logic here.

23yrold3yrold

This again? The Bible says God isn't omnipotent. Perfectly logical. Get off it you cretins.

{"name":"2011-02-02.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/5\/951aeb4c8193a4bc8e4d1a3f85435d64.gif","w":740,"h":250,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/9\/5\/951aeb4c8193a4bc8e4d1a3f85435d64"}2011-02-02.gif

I wondered why this thread's post count ballooned ...

GullRaDriel

Good old God jokes ^^

type568

I wondered why this thread's post count ballooned ...

I've the same thoughts about various stock indices..

Evert

But He is omnipotent.

This again? The Bible says God isn't omnipotent. Perfectly logical. Get off it you cretins.

See what I mean?
Why don't you guys work out some sort of concensus of what you actually believe in. :P

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

Why don't you guys work out some sort of concensus of what you actually believe in. :P

What we believe is irrelevant. When people understand that there won't be 500 denominations.

During a gameday at work, we were playing Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and me and another fellow got into a disagreement because I was doing supers with qcf+2P like always and he said it was unfair because they had changed the controls from qcfqcf+P like in the previous Vs games and he wasn't used to it. Um, what? Checked online ... nope, it's always been qcf+2P in Vs, quit making excuses.

I said it in the last thread; the Bible lists things God can't do. Ergo, not omnipotent. Belief is irrelevant, and reality pisses on your comfort zone.

Neil Black

Aw, I missed the big religion argument. :(

Evert

During a gameday at work, we were playing Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and me and another fellow got into a disagreement because I was doing supers with qcf+2P like always and he said it was unfair because they had changed the controls from qcfqcf+P like in the previous Vs games and he wasn't used to it. Um, what? Checked online ... nope, it's always been qcf+2P in Vs, quit making excuses.

I said it in the last thread; the Bible lists things God can't do. Ergo, not omnipotent. Belief is irrelevant, and reality pisses on your comfort zone.

???
Anyway. Since I don't believe gods exist, whether they're omnipotent or not is a somewhat irrelevant and pointless question, a bit similar to "who would win in a fight, Batman or Superman?". Just pointed out that different people, although they all identify themselves as Christian (or believers otherwise), say different and conflicting things. If that annoys you and upsets you, well, tough.

GullRaDriel

Topic terminated ^^

Matthew Leverton

I said it in the last thread

Right; they could host their own shows on Fox News. They know if they continually spout off the same nonsense, that it will stick somewhere.

Neil Black
Evert said:

Anyway. Since I don't believe gods exist, whether they're omnipotent or not is a somewhat irrelevant and pointless question

If you're using the "an omnipotent being cannot logically exist" argument to say that God can't exist, then it becomes pretty durn relevant. And the "the Bible doesn't say God is omnipotent" argument was brought up in response to that.

23yrold3yrold
Quote:

???

Was there some confusion? The point is that reality doesn't care what either of us believed. The game's instruction manual says X, so in the context of the game X is true. The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true. Belief is irrelevant.

Evert said:

Just pointed out that different people, although they all identify themselves as Christian (or believers otherwise), say different and conflicting things. If that annoys you and upsets you, well, tough.

This is a human condition; why would it upset me? I do it, you do it. You can't get two random people to agree on pizza toppings, ffs.

Arthur Kalliokoski

The game's instruction manual says X, so in the context of the game X is true. The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true. Belief is irrelevant.

I don't believe either game manuals or the bible are necessarily correct. Weight loss ads and politicians promises are also quite misleading. Of the four, I'd put most faith in game manuals, as it's in their self interest to have it as accurate as possible.

Neil Black

I don't believe either game manuals or the bible are necessarily correct.

His point is that, if you're going to argue that Christianity is false (or true), then you need to argue about what the Bible actually says. Not what people claim the Bible says because it makes them comfortable or supports their lifestyle or whatever.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Tell me which version of the bible is the truth, then. King James?

Neil Black

I prefer the TNIV, myself. If you want to do in-depth textual criticism, though, you should probably learn the original languages.

For questions like "does the Bible say God is omnipotent", though, any decent translation will be sufficient.

EDIT:

23 answered much better below.

23yrold3yrold

Tell me which version of the bible is the truth, then. King James?

Well, hang on, let's keep this in context of the original discussion before we get too off-track. Which version of the Bible doesn't say that God isn't omnipotent?

Matthew Leverton

Not what people claim the Bible says because it makes them comfortable or supports their lifestyle or whatever.

Eh, not this stupid reasoning either. If you want to mock people who call themselves Christians, then you mock what they believe, regardless of what the Bible says.

But the thing regarding this issue, is that it is not commonly believed that God is omnipotent within Christian circles (especially among scholars and pastors), at least not in the ways they are laughing at here in this thread. So the only thing here that is showing is their ignorance about Christian groups.

Yes, most Christians use the word omnipotent, but you cannot give it your own non-Christian definition and then laugh at it. That's just bogus.

There are so many valid things that you could use to make fun of Christianity. It's simply unnecessary to make something like this up.

Neil Black

If you want to mock people who call themselves Christians, then you mock what they believe, regardless of the Bible says.

Sure, if you just want to mock them. If you want to actually argue against Christianity, though... that's a different question.

Matthew Leverton

You're getting confused. These people here aren't claiming that Jesus or Paul or the Bible taught that God can do contradictory things.

They are claiming that people who call themselves Christians today believe that. Then they mock them. It matters not what the Bible says. And that much of their argument is valid.

Then you come back with some silly statement like, "but they aren't true Christians." Again, that is irrelevant. Nobody on the outside cares if they are "true" or not. The only thing along these lines that's relevant is to say, "I don't believe that." Then they cannot mock you, but they can still justifiably mock other Christians who do.

But in this particular topic, their mocking just shows ignorance over what the majority of Christians actually believe. Yes, Christians will say God is omnipotent, but they will not say he can do everything.

The silliness with the rock example is pointless, because all you have to do is ask "Can God lie?" So the only thing they are left with is to mock how Christians define omnipotence. And at that point, who cares?

When you start making fun of the name given to a doctrine, instead of the doctrine itself, you're obviously in 100% troll mode.

23yrold3yrold

When you start making fun of the name given to a doctrine, instead of the doctrine yourself, you're obviously in 100% troll mode.

Pretty much that.

Neil Walker

I'm just glad I know that there is no god. I just pity those who spend half their day praying to something that isn't actually there and believing in something that simply does not exist.

Evert

If you're using the "an omnipotent being cannot logically exist" argument to say that God can't exist

I didn't.

Quote:

And the "the Bible doesn't say God is omnipotent" argument was brought up in response to that.

Nope, it was brought up in response to me pointing out that someone else posted God is omnipotent while generally people like 23 like to make a big deal about how he isn't. In case you didn't pick up on it, the person making the original statement is a Christian. Now I'm sure that statement was very much tongue-in-cheek, and so was my response to it, mainly alluding to the fact that we have one Christian saying "God is omnipotent" and others getting their undies in a twist about how he isn't.
He's your God, go figure it out!
In fact, the entire divine taco business is so tongue-in-cheek that I can't believe people think it's a serious argument.

The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true.

Ah, but you know it's not that simple. People split hairs endlessly about the interpretation of the texts in the Bible. Clearly not everyone agrees on what the Bible actually says. Even in the context of Christianity.

Yes, most Christians use the word omnipotent, but you cannot give it your own non-Christian definition and then laugh at it. That's just bogus.

Well, if we're going to argue that, then it's actually the reverse. The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything". You Christians can't just go and take a word, stick your own definition on it and then blame others for not using your definition. That is bogus.
Which ultimately boils down to (again) that if you're going to debate something (very remotely) like this, you need to clearly define what you mean by a particular word before you use it in a discussion. Otherwise you may as well argue semantics, which is not useful.

Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything

Does it? It seems to mean literally "all powerful" which I think is quite different from "able to do anything." And as I've said before, if the literal definition of omnipotence includes contradictory things, then the word ought to be thrown out of the dictionary, because you could never possibly attribute the word to anything.

But obviously that part is just a debate on semantics, like you have said.

Quote:

stick your own definition on it and then blame others for not using your definition. That is bogus.

In what context is omnipotence used in the scientific world? I'm pretty sure it stems mostly from a religious context...

It's understandable that a non-Christian person may be confused by the Christian doctrine of omnipotence. It's not understandable to continually pretend you've never heard about what it really means, continuing to spread nonsense Fox News style.

Neil Black
Evert said:

Well, if we're going to argue that, then it's actually the reverse. The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything". You Christians can't just go and take a word, stick your own definition on it and then blame others for not using your definition. That is bogus.

me points at non-Christians making their own definition of "faith" and then blaming Christians for not using it. :P

But yeah, you've got a good point there. We shouldn't use the word omnipotent because it clearly means something we don't intend.

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

Ah, but you know it's not that simple. People split hairs endlessly about the interpretation of the texts in the Bible. Clearly not everyone agrees on what the Bible actually says. Even in the context of Christianity.

It is that simple. People are not. People argue endlessly about this, but they argue endlessly about everything. You can't show me a Bible that doesn't say God can't lie. You can say otherwise, and I respect your right to an opinion. But thinking otherwise is about as effective as that guy thinking he could do super moves in MvC3 with qcfqcf+P. He can think what he likes. Beliefs are irrelevant.

Quote:

The word omnipotent has a well-defined meaning, quite literally meaning "able to do anything".

I've always felt the hyperbole is built into this word, since nothing can make a rock so big it can't lift it and still be omnipotent. God is, for all practical intents and purposes, omnipotent. Is he literally? No. But we assume you're smart enough to figure out what we mean.

Vanneto

This is all well and fine... Very amusing indeed.

The only thing that keeps me awake at night is that if Christians are wrong (and you are) and there is no afterlife, then the non-believers cant say the mighty "I told you so" or "IN YOUR FACE".

Damn. If there is a God, you win, if there isn't, you wont know. Its win-win for you. >:(

Tobias Dammers

The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true.

The key combinations in the game are falsifyable. What the Bible says about God is not. Non-belief in those key combinations can be countered simply by demonstrating that they work. Non-belief in God cannot be countered this way.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Vanneto said:

Damn. If there is a God, you win, if there isn't, you wont know. Its win-win for you. >:(

As my mom said, with a knowing nod "You'll find out". Put on ignore.

23yrold3yrold

The key combinations in the game are falsifyable. What the Bible says about God is not.

Are you incapable of reading it for some reason? Or are you misunderstanding this entire discussion?

Let's try a similar example. Can you easily verify from The Lord of the Rings that Frodo was the ringbearer? Is this falsifiable?

Matthew Leverton

God is, for all practical intents and purposes, omnipotent. Is he literally? No.

But again, I wonder when the word "omnipotent" came into use. I've always assumed it was used to label the concept of a god's "all powerfulness." Does it have context outside of that? If not, then there's really no abuse of the terminology.

Now if the original meaning of omnipotence was that gods could do logically contradictory things, then yes, the modern day meaning has definitely changed.

Omnipotence is better understood by the following questions:

  • Can you create a rock so big that nobody else can lift it? (Yes)


  • Can somebody else create a rock so big that you cannot lift it? (No)

If you want to poke holes at Christianity about this topic, then it's much better to ask questions of the following nature:

"Since God can do anything he wants and he does not want anybody to perish, then why does he allow people to perish?"

Then you'll get into a long, heated debate about how Adam and Eve sinning 6000 years ago is justification for sending somebody who never heard the name of Jesus to hell for eternity.

Now you're debating real topics that hit at the true paradoxes of Christianity.

Evert

It seems to mean literally "all powerful" which I think is quite different from "able to do anything."

Able to do anything is literally what it says in my dictionary here. Regardless, omnipotens is from omnia ("all") and potens, which comes from posse "to be able to", either litterally or figuratively ("to be empowered to", "to be capable of"). I suppose one could pick either translation, but there is no difference between those two meanings in the original (I'm not actually sure how they're supposed to be different though).

Quote:

In what context is omnipotence used in the scientific world? I'm pretty sure it stems mostly from a religious context...

Almost (but that doesn't mean you shouldn't specify what it means), but I think it can be used (or was historically used) in the meaning of "having supreme authority", for instance to describe a king or a dictator. You could, of course, apply that meaning directly to God - with the caveat that it will confuse the issue if people interpret it to mean "all powerful".
Perhaps that is the original statement: God as ultimate sovereign, with dominion over all. Perhaps it was intended to be understood in both ways, as a praise (and a pun at the same time).

Is he literally? No. But we assume you're smart enough to figure out what we mean.

I always think Jesus thought the same thing when he told people to not be frightened of God because deep down he loved them as a father... :P

Onewing

God is in the realm of the unknown, to say with fact that he exists is the same as saying that the Flying Spahghetti Monster exists. But, to say that it is a fact that God does not exist, that is the same as saying all things unknown do not exist. I hope that when people here say "because God doesn't exist" (or, for argument's sake, "Shiva doesn't exist"), what they're implying is that the probability of the higher power's existence is so low it might as well be nil. I just want to clarify, because it does bug me when people say so matter-of-factly that God doesn't exist, kind of how it would bug the non-believers if I ended every post with "May God be with you."

Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

Perhaps that is the original statement: God as ultimate sovereign, with dominion over all.

Maybe. Modern day Christianity definitely has distinct doctrines: God's Sovereignty and God's Omnipotence. There's actually little disagreement on what omnipotence means, but what his sovereignty includes is a widely debated topic.

Neil Black
Vanneto said:

Damn. If there is a God, you win, if there isn't, you wont know. Its win-win for you.

What if there is a God, but not the one we thought?

Arthur Kalliokoski

He just gets madder and madder every time we go to church.

Evert
Onewing said:

God is in the realm of the unknown

You state that as an axiom. Something that everyone will accept as true. I think this is an invalid assumption.
Just to point out that any conclusions you draw following this statement will not necessarily be universally accepted as true.

Quote:

But, to say that it is a fact that God does not exist, that is the same as saying all things unknown do not exist.

No, it really isn't.

I know people get offended by the implied comparison, but if I know fairy-tales are make-belief and fairies don't actually exist, and I don't see a logical reason for why I'd believe one but not the other. The fact that there are many more grown up people in the world that think God is real than there are that think fairies are real isn't a valid argument.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other what people believe. If believing in God helps them get through their day a bit better, if the thought that somewhere there's always someone watching out for you, the idea that the universe is not a cold and uncaring place helps them get through their day, then fine. Why take that away from them?
It becomes a different thing when religion becomes an opressive or negative influence on people's lives (which happens) or if one group of people's believes start to interfere with those of another group. On an individual level, everyone should be free to believe what they want though (which doesn't mean that their beliefs can't be debated or disagreed with).

Quote:

it does bug me when people say so matter-of-factly that God doesn't exist, kind of how it would bug the non-believers if I ended every post with "May God be with you."

I understand (or I think I do - I'm trying to imagine my emotional response to unjust and untrue statements about people I love, but for the most part I think I would actually just ignore those).
At the same time, it has to be possible to discuss that statement as well as arguments for and against. The freedom to openly believe should come with the freedom to openly not believe (or believe differently), as well as arguments for one or the other.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Evert said:

Ultimately, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other what people believe. If believing in God helps them get through their day a bit better, if the thought that somewhere there's always someone watching out for you, the idea that the universe is not a cold and uncaring place helps them get through their day, then fine. Why take that away from them?

If a question posted here involves Christian ideals as the OP did, then it needs to be pushed back.

Onewing

To clarify, it bugs me just as much when someone says as if it is a fact that God does exist. There's no factual proof.

So what I'm trying to put forward so each side can properly respect each others views is to use less underlying implications and state "I believe this" or "God doesn't exist in my opinion". I suppose I should say the same should go for clarification when it comes to talking about fairies, but as you also stated, there's not a lot of separation in that belief.

Evert said:

At the same time, it has to be possible to discuss that statement as well as arguments for and against.

I couldn't agree more and it can be difficult. Going back to what I said earlier, if I were to say "May God bless you," it is definitely not meant to insult anyone, but I've seen it do just that. On the flip side, you may see it as completely illogical for a god to exist and therefore need no reason to state "imho" along with "there is no god", but it can have that same adverse effect as "May God bless you."

OnlineCop

The First Law of Philosophy: For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher.

The Second Law of Philosophy: They're both wrong.

superstar4410

Thread count did balloon, last time I saw it was 2 pages, now its 6, look what I started lolll.

Derezo

Consider this.

Our bodies are from heaven ("out there" -- the stars), and made up of trillions of organic, living cells which share a single mind. Yet, we appear dualistic in nature. We have left and right sides, male and female genders, etc.

All life is "alien". Genetic matter rained into the oceans from heaven, like the pollination of a space embryo. These things aren't everywhere, but there is one here.

Time and space are relative. When you are is where you are and what you will is what you were.

The three concepts of past, future and present are represented by the trinity. The father, the son, and the holy spirit. The "one God", they are relative.

All symbols are fictitious and often illusory tools of the mind. Words, texts, numbers. They represent shared and constructed knowledge amongst our species and are not of the natural world ("the garden"), they require knowledge. If you believe in the story, and I suggest you don't, a woman stole the fruit from the tree of knowledge and we got kicked out.

If you ask me, I say the creatures who wrote that book want to be the god in it for their own ambitions... and there's nothing wrong with that.

Arthur Kalliokoski

It's not 4/20 yet :P

superstar4410

what does that mean?

April 20th?

Arthur Kalliokoski

Ask van houtte.

LennyLen

me points at non-Christians making their own definition of "faith" and then blaming Christians for not using it.

The multiple definitions of faith go back centuries, and since most English speaking people then were Christians, they're to blame for the fiasco. :P

van_houtte

Ask van houtte.

ss4410, it means he's making fun of you for being a virgin

type568
WSJ.com said:

Across Japan, 3,676 are confirmed to have died in Friday's quake and tsunami, the National Police Agency said, and 7,558 were confirmed missing, putting the combined tally past 10,000.

The reports started from 36.. x100
R.I.P.

GameCreator

Some of the dead were married men and women who may have believed in God and the Bible.

superstar4410

I still dont get it van, how 4/20 relates to me being a virgin. Oh well.

A funny comeback I guess would be "and I guess you never will". Lool

OnlineCop

420 is something I found on the subject.

Take what the rest of these people tell you with a grain of salt. The original question was probably asked to the wrong group: When you are looking for advice, you probably want it from like-minded individuals who would share similar or beliefs. People on Allegro don't.

I remember that the original question was regarding WHEN to propose: earlier or later. I also recall that you didn't state that you wanted to know if you (or the other person if you were talking about someone else) should get married: you had already made that decision that you would.

Don't let Allegro tell you what to do with your marriage. Don't let them talk you out of marriage. Don't let them talk you into it.

I assume from your posts that you believe in God. In that case, while you can/should get advice from Mom & Dad, or your bishop/pastor/minister, make sure you pray and find out for yourself. Don't just take others' words on it. Get your own answer. Whatever you do, though, don't get advice from Allegro. They can barely piece together a working game. What makes you think they can piece together a working marriage? ;D

LennyLen
OnlineCop said:

When you are looking for advice, you probably want it from like-minded individuals who would share similar or beliefs.

I disagree. People with the same beliefs are most likely to just echo what you've already decided, which is pretty pointless. By getting answers from people with different beliefs, you can [attempt to] weigh both sides up objectively and come to a better decision.

superstar4410

Good point online cop, both points are valid Lenny,

For example if I'm a Christian and I believe in God and live my life accordingly, does it make sense to seek counsel from those that share a different world perspective. Kinda like an athiest would likely not go to a priest to ask him questions about God as the priest has a totally different world view.

The opposite is also true in many situations, like a simple example is politics. A republican should not only talk to his republican constituents to get feedback as to what to implement a new law in his/her district. The republican law maker should get feedback from both his republican and democratic constituents not just one side that only shares his/her views.

So I see both sides.

Neil Black

does it make sense to seek counsel from those that share a different world perspective

Yes. I do it all the time.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Kinda like an athiest would likely not go to a priest to ask him questions about God as the priest has a totally different world view.

If I don't believe in God, why would I want to ask questions about him? It'd be like asking about how to square the circle. OTOH, if I was having marital troubles, I would listen to what the priest had to say.

Evert
OnlineCop said:

When you are looking for advice, you probably want it from like-minded individuals who would share similar or beliefs.

Then again, maybe not. It is very often good to get opinions from people who think differently, unless you are so close-minded that you think the fact that they have a different worldview automatically invalidates any advice they may give.

Quote:

Don't just take others' words on it. Get your own answer.

Damn right. Been said several times before in this thread too.

Quote:

What makes you think they can piece together a working marriage?

I find that rather insulting to everyone who posts here and is either married or in a dedicated long-term relationship. Just so you know.

does it make sense to seek counsel from those that share a different world perspective.

Yes, it does. For several reasons.

Quote:

Kinda like an athiest would likely not go to a priest to ask him questions about God as the priest has a totally different world view.

I already know what I think of God. If I want to know what a priest thinks about God, then who else am I going to ask?
I'm likely more interested in understanding the psychological or social implications of what he has to say, or the cultural and historical background though. Or philosophy.

Tobias Dammers

For example if I'm a Christian and I believe in God and live my life accordingly, does it make sense to seek counsel from those that share a different world perspective. Kinda like an athiest would likely not go to a priest to ask him questions about God as the priest has a totally different world view.

Different world views are refreshing.
Hearing someone else say something you already thought up yourself gives a quick ego boost, but it gets old quick. I've had quite a few interesting conversations with deeply religious (yet open-minded) people.

superstar4410

True,true

relay01

I'm late to this thread so didn't bother reading most of it.
But as a married man, I recommend reading The 5 Love Languages by Gary Chapman together. Because you are in a new relationship, there is a lot of passion that will begin to fade (usually takes about 2 years or so). This is more or less when this book comes in, though I'd start getting "into the habit" of communicating your love to your future wife immediately.

Also, if you plan on having kids, I suggest reading "Tender Warrior" I can't recall the author. But its a very good read on what it takes to "be a man".

gnolam

Hearing someone else say something you already thought up yourself gives a quick ego boost, but it gets old quick. I've had quite a few interesting conversations with deeply religious (yet open-minded) people.

The latter is the important part. Someone who refuses to even consider other points of view is not likely to have well thought-out views himself.

relay01 said:

Because you are in a new relationship, there is a lot of passion that will begin to fade (usually takes about 2 years or so).

Sure, but it's still dangerous and needs to be cooled for a few more years.
... oh wait, wrong thread. ;)

relay01

Agreed.

But I also think that as long as BOTH partners have the right attitude toward themselves and on another, any marriage can work.

van_houtte
relay01 said:

Also, if you plan on having kids, I suggest reading "Tender Warrior" I can't recall the author. But its a very good read on what it takes to "be a man".

Highly recommended book, there's even a section on cry babies and how to stop being one

superstar4410

Thanks relay I found a website based on the 5 love langauges and took the assessment

http://www.5lovelanguages.com/assessments/love/

This is what I scored

****************************************
Your Scores
8 Words of Affirmation
10 Quality Time
2 Receiving Gifts
8 Acts of Service
2 Physical Touch

Now that you know your love language, here’s some more information you might not have realized about it, and why certain behaviors affect you more than others.
Your Love Language
Quality Time
In the vernacular of Quality Time, nothing says, “I love you,” like full, undivided attention. Being there for this type of person is critical, but really being there–with the TV off, fork and knife down, and all chores and tasks on standby–makes your significant other feel truly special and loved. Distractions, postponed dates, or the failure to listen can be especially hurtful.
*************************************************

I'm having my girlfriend take the test too.

Trent Gamblin
gnolam said:

Sure, but it's still dangerous and needs to be cooled for a few more years.
... oh wait, wrong thread.

I thought you were going to link to this one.

HardTranceFan

85% to 99%, reading marriage work books, taking tests? You're over analysing the whole thing. Quit doing it.

It can be a help to know what you can be in for. In one of my psychology classes years back, they explained how [generally] relationships change over time. I'll try to explain:

At first it's all fireworks. Everything is euphoric, lovey dovey. You hold hands in public, cuddle, kiss, and in most cases have shit loads of sex. This is the 2 thumbs up stage.

It peaks just before kids come on the scene (lovely as they are, they do test a relationship). Then the relationship dive bombs.

By the time the kids are round, the relationship is usually at it's lowest. Tiredness sets in and there's minimal sex. Touching is a slap to get your hands off her arse. The sparkle that got you together isn't there, arguments occur more frequently and divorce is more likely. Mrs Palmer and her 5 daughters are kept busy.

From this point it's the friendship between the couple that acts as the glue in the relationship. It leads to a bit more cuddling, more kissing and more sex. The relationship slowly builds up again. After a while you'll be acting like teenagers (minus the 101 positions for fear of dislocating a hip), much to the disgust of your teenage kids.

My 2 cents worth.

Neil Roy

If you know this person is right for you and you spend most of your time thinking about them. You consider them your best friend, than what are you waiting for? Get married before they get away! ;)

I got married a month after I turned 20 and I am still married 26 years later. I still consider her my best friend, we know each other better than our families and NOBODY knows me like she does, nor do they understand or agree with my beliefs like she does.

We're also christian, but not in the traditional sense, I don't attend any churches, just read my bible and believe what it says above all else. She is of the same opinion. She knows her place as a woman, I know my place as a man and we're happy with it. There hasn't been a day that has gone by in the 26 years (not counting the days we were apart, which have been rare) that we haven't said "I love you" at LEAST once a day, no lies... that's a lot in 26 years, it's habit now. Certainly doesn't hurt to tell the one you want to spend the rest of your life with (and that IS what marriage should be).

One thing we did just before we got married was we discussed what would be involved, the good AND the bad so we weren't going into it with any false ideas. We've had some tough times, but through it all, we stuck together and are stronger now.

We didn't do as much planning though, I don't think it is something to plan for, you just need to know you really want this and that she won't become your "ball and chain" or "old lady". Your friends do not come first, SHE does... if you can't do that than you shouldn't be married.

Pray about it, ask for help. I recall telling my wife I was going to marry her someday and she didn't think that would ever happen. I prayed about it... if I couldn't marry her than I wanted to remain friends at least. A few months after praying, she changed her mind and asked ME... true story. 26 years later... :)

We knew each other as friends for about 3 years before we got married, but we weren't really boyfriend/girfriend... we were just friends. She actually had boyfriends and even was engaged to one at one point. I NEVER interfered with that but remained friends. As time went on we drew closer though and her boyfriends came and went but we were always friends. Honestly, those guys were idiots and didn't know what they had... thank God. ;)

Anyhow... enough rambling from me, that's my story. That's my advice for what it's worth. I wish you all the best in whatever you end up doing. It's definitely well worth it.

Vanneto

So, you think she changed her mind because of you praying?

Well, I got a maths test tomorrow. Fuck learning, I'll just pray and win. :D

Neil Roy

<deleted>

Vanneto

Well, this is what really happened once:

We were on vacation in Croatia. The damn electricity went out and the television wasn't working. Being young and stupid back then I prayed to God to bring back the TV.

Now, not 10 seconds after that the electricity came back. Do you think thats because of God or someone at the electric company fixing the wiring?

Question for you:
Do you think it was God that made her change her mind or you, the one she loves?

Onewing

Before I popped the question, I decided to meditate. I got in my car and decided I would drive to wherever felt right. I was on the highway for about 45 minutes, before a huge gust of wind caused my vehicle to veer to the right. I took the next exit and drove deeper into the country. At one point, I turned off the main road and started going down a set of hilly, rocky, winding roads. I ended up coming to a lake, which wasn't a big surprise; I was well aware the lake was all around the area, but the roads I had never traversed.

I parked at what appeared to be a lake-side park. Nobody was there. And the lake was particularly high that day, I could only see the tops of the park benches. I set next to the flooded lake and awaited an epiphany, a moment with a higher power to ensure what I was about to do was in fact the right decision. I waited for two hours and never got anything.

Looking back now, this whole scenario can be easily twisted to "mean" something. I took it as God saying "I'm here with you, but this decision is yours." It's irrelevant what this all means, even if nothing at all, as it gave me great comfort.

Neil Black
Vanneto said:

Do you think it was God that made her change her mind or you, the one she loves?

Do you think that it's necessarily one or the other?

Neil Roy

<deleted>

23yrold3yrold
Vanneto said:

Do you think it was God that made her change her mind or you, the one she loves?

I appreciate that you're trolling (pretty much every atheist in this thread is) but that's not what he prayed. ::)

EDIT: Wow, triple-owned, Vanneto. Keep up the good work. :)

Vanneto

Thanks 23yrold, doing my best. :-*

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

I recall telling my wife I was going to marry her someday and she didn't think that would ever happen. I prayed about it... if I couldn't marry her than I wanted to remain friends at least. A few months after praying, she changed her mind and asked ME... true story. 26 years later... :)

We knew each other as friends for about 3 years before we got married, but we weren't really boyfriend/girfriend... we were just friends. She actually had boyfriends and even was engaged to one at one point. I NEVER interfered with that but remained friends. As time went on we drew closer though and her boyfriends came and went but we were always friends. Honestly, those guys were idiots and didn't know what they had... thank God. ;)

Wow, that sounds like the exact opposite of what happened to me... :-/ I hate you. :'(

Evert

I appreciate that you're trolling (pretty much every atheist in this thread is)

::)

23yrold3yrold

/glances at Evert's posts

You heard me, troll-boy. ;)

Neil Roy

.

relay01
Neil Roy's Sig said:

"No one has ever gone into heaven" - John 3:13

Why didn't you finish the verse?

Evert

/glances at Evert's posts

You heard me, troll-boy. ;)

Do you actually read anything I say, or do you just make an assumption on what I think and say based on what you expect?
Or is having a different opinion on your religion considered "trolling"?

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

Do you actually read anything I say, or do you just make an assumption on what I think and say based on what you expect?

I wonder the same about you (and have said so in the past), but why do you even care? :P By your own admission above, your comments have been tongue-in-cheek.

Quote:

Or is having a different opinion on your religion considered "trolling"?

That in itself is a troll. :) But since I respect a lot of opinions that differ from mine, sometimes quite wildly, I'm not bored enough to bite, sorry.

Evert

I wonder the same about you

Why?
Really, why?

Quote:

By your own admission above, your comments have been tongue-in-cheek.

About the silly taco-thing that upset some people, yes. But surely no one took that seriously. For the rest (and certainly the on-topic parts), not so much.
I also don't think humour (or responding to it) counts as trolling.

Quote:

That in itself is a troll. :)

It's not supposed to be, although of course it's closer to a rhetorical question than a real question.
As a rhetorical question, in case you're wondering, the answer is "no".

Quote:

But since I respect a lot of opinions that differ from mine, sometimes quite wildly, I'm not bored enough to bite, sorry.

That's be a no then. Ok.
So why is it that whenever there's any sort of discussion, it seems you disregard anything I say and interpret it completely differently? Is the meaning we attach to words we use so different and any attempt to clarify them so disjoined that we are unable to bridge that difference?

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

So why is it that whenever there's any sort of discussion, it seems you disregard anything I say and interpret it completely differently? Is the meaning we attach to words we use so different and any attempt to clarify them so disjoined that we are unable to bridge that difference?

Apparently, because you seem to do the same to me. :) Your first response to me tried to reframe "what the Bible says" to "what people believe". Your response to my analogy was a confusion smiley, and when I tried to clarify you reframed my position again. If you're hung up on what people thing, kewl, but that's not what I was addressing. :P

Evert

Your first response to me tried to reframe "what the Bible says" to "what people believe".

I didn't mention Bibles anywhere there. The first post where I quoted you was to contrast one Christian (JH) saying "God is ominpotent" and another (you) "God is not omnipotent".
I'm sure that first comment was tongue-in-cheek (as was the Taco discussion that followed it, quite why people seemed to respond to that seriously I don't know) and so was my reply, apart from one observation that actually is true: two people can both self-identify as "Christian" and yet hold totally incompatible and contradictory views with respect to what is and isn't in the Bible and what God does or doesn't do or think.
So someone identifying as "Christian" doesn't actually tell you very much about what they do or do not believe, which adds a lot of noise and confusion to any attempt at an intelligent discussion.

Quote:

Your response to my analogy was a confusion smiley, and when I tried to clarify you reframed my position again.

I didn't understand a word about your analogy because I completely miss the frame of reference to interpret it correctly.
I have no idea what "Marvel vs. Capcom 3" is, I don't know what "doing supers" is, let alone what "qcf+2P" and "qcfqcf+P" mean. I didn't get your "quit making excuses" either, since I wasn't making excuses for anything. I figured it had something to do with the analogy that I didn't get, but since I didn't get that I couldn't work out what you were saying.
So then in your reply you explained what you meant to say in English (:P) and I didn't reply to that. The reason I didn't is that the bottom line of what you were saying is essentially what I was getting at.
Having said that, there are quite some philosophical considerations that follow from that statement that I'll touch on below if you're interested (my impression on past discussions is that you're generally not, but maybe that's just another misunderstanding).

Quote:

If you're hung up on what people thing, kewl, but that's not what I was addressing.

There are people who think Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny really exist. Clearly, the fact that there are people who believe or don't believe something in itself is not interesting. The reason they believe these things (and any arguments that might be brought up for why other people don't), the way it shapes their lives and the consequences of such beliefs might be.

So, side comments and philosophical considerations

The point is that reality doesn't care what either of us believed. The game's instruction manual says X, so in the context of the game X is true. The Bible says X about God, so in the context of Christianity X is true. Belief is irrelevant.

1. People don't agree on what the Bible says, or at least not on everything (we agreed on this, I think). So if people don't agree on that, who should anyone believe on what it says? If you say the Bible says "X" and someone else says it says "Y", who is speaking the truth? Given that uncertainty and leaving aside any other considerations, would it even be possible to "accept what the Bible says" as true? Could you argue that there is "one truth" if our understanding of that truth is so incomplete and under debate?
2. The statement "Bible says X, therefore in the context of Christianity X is true" is nice and simple, but it's deceptively so in light of (1), is it not? "Christianity" does not identify a single set of beliefs that are shared by all who call themselves "Christian". It's an umbrella term that encompasses a set of closely related religious views.
You can take the stance that only one of all those possibilities represents "True Christianity" and all the other ones are somehow "false", but see (1): there is no objective criterion by which to decide which is true and which is false.
How can "belief" be irrelevant here?
3. Reality doesn't care what either of us beliefs, no argument there (so long as we believe that we all live in the same reality and only our perception of it may be different). Reality, however, is unknown and we have only our perception of it to go on.
4. Whether what the Bible says about X is true in the context of Christianity is of limited interest with respect to reality, unless you think that Christianity is reality. General aspects of that are interesting, details probably aren't because of (1) and (2).
5. Philosophical considerations and musings are nice and interesting, but ultimately what is real and what is not cannot be soly determined by them. Aristotle had worked out a system of mechanics that was very clever, but was shown by experiment to not agree with the real world. Philosophical considerations alone could not have revealed that.

Now, you may interpret some of those questions as rhetorical on my part, with the sole purpose to ridicule and "mock" religion - but they're not. I certainly have an opinion on what I think the answer is, but that's not the interesting question. The interesting question is what others think the answers are and, most importantly, why they think that. And that is something one can have a well-behaved and well-defined discussion on.

But again, I didn't think this was worth bringing up at the time (and I also didn't have the time to do so), never mind going so far off-topic. I guess there's the engagement thread now though.

Derezo
Evert said:

Reality, however, is unknown and we have only our perception of it to go on.

Reality is unexplainable, but I'm not sure about unknowable. I think everyone knows reality, but pay more attention to subjective experience.

Regarding beliefs, the wikipedia article on agnosticism is an interesting read.

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

So if people don't agree on that, who should anyone believe on what it says?

Explain to me what bearing people's belief of what it says has on what it says.

Quote:

If you say the Bible says "X" and someone else says it says "Y", who is speaking the truth?

Either? Both (depending on context)? Neither? Does it matter?

Quote:

How can "belief" be irrelevant here?

I still don't see how it would be relevant. Explain to me why a book should care what people think it says. Let's go back to my LotR example. I believe Samwise was the ringbearer, not Frodo. What effect does this have on anything?

Evert
Derezo said:

Reality is unexplainable, but I'm not sure about unknowable.

I happen to personally disagree with you about unexplainable. Note that I didn't say unknowable but unknown. The thought behind what I'm getting at is essentially Plato's cave analogy: what we perceive may not be reality, but just a projection of it. How can we tell? Could we even tell? Can we still learn about reality by studying the projections on the wall?

Explain to me what bearing people's belief of what it says has on what it says.

Huh?
You never deal with what the Bible (or any other source for that matter) says, you deal with people's interpretation of what it says. You read a text, and understand it in a certain way. Did you understand it correctly? Maybe, maybe not. How do you find out? Read it again and see if your understanding changes? Ask other people what they think? What if their interpretation is different?

Quote:

Either? Both (depending on context)? Neither? Does it matter?

It rather does if people try to argue a point by saying "the Bible says X", yes. It does if you want to argue that it says something about reality, or want to know what exactly it says.
Maybe you're satisfied with not knowing. Good for you, but then don't argue if someone else does want to know.

Quote:

I still don't see how it would be relevant.

How is it not relevant what you belief if you're discussing what you belief?

Quote:

Explain to me why a book should care what people think it says.

A book doesn't care about anything. It's just a book. I'd place the Bible in that category, wouldn't have thought that you would, but ok.
It starts to matter if people base their worldview, life and how they interact with others on their interpretation.

Quote:

Let's go back to my LotR example. I believe Samwise was the ringbearer, not Frodo. What effect does this have on anything?

Your example is flawed,[1] unless you say there is no real distinction between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings: they're both books, collections of wonderous tales that take place in a fantasy world that have no bearing on reality.
It doesn't matter as long as you don't get different groups of people who knock eachother's brains out because some of them are Frodoers and others are Samwisers. It doesn't matter if Frodoers don't burn gardeners at the stake because the false Ringbearer Samwise was a gardener. It doesn't matter if people don't ritualistically cut off your ring finger just because Frodo lost his. But most of all it doesn't matter because people don't base their worldview on the world that is depicted in the book. If they did, it'd be interesting to investigate it. Try to find the location of Mordor, look for the ruins of Minas Tirith. Look for Dwarves in the deep caverns beneath the Earth.
Either way, there is not much leeway in answering that question, nor is there much leeway in answering the question who Jesus' mother was in the Bible. You'd do slightly better with the question whether the relationship between Frodo and Sam hinted at a homosexual relationship because some people actually do interpret it that way (the answer in this case of course is known, it's not supposed to be, the relationship is that between a master and his devoted servant, but that type of relationship is not familiar to most people today). The Bible doesn't say whether Jesus was married or not. Does that mean he wasn't? Or does it mean that it was so obvious that he would have been that it's never mentioned? We don't know - and look at how excited people can get over that question.

If you're not interested in how what you believe relates to reality, then again, that's fine but don't argue with people who do want to know.

References

  1. in more than one way: Sam was a rinbearer for a while
23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

You never deal with what the Bible (or any other source for that matter) says, you deal with people's interpretation of what it says.

I have one in front of me. Is there a problem?

Quote:

It rather does if people try to argue a point by saying "the Bible says X", yes. It does if you want to argue that it says something about reality, or want to know what exactly it says.
Maybe you're satisfied with not knowing. Good for you, but then don't argue if someone else does want to know.

If someone wants to know something easily verifiable, they should go verify it and stop asking for opinions. Even my old pastor in Winnipeg told us several times from the pulpit not to believe what he said unless we went and verified it for ourselves.

Quote:

How is it not relevant what you belief if you're discussing what you belief?

If I'm discussing what I believe, it might be. But if I'm discussing what I believe, I'd be discussing the reasons anyway.

Quote:

A book doesn't care about anything. It's just a book. I'd place the Bible in that category, wouldn't have thought that you would, but ok.

It's got paper. The paper has words. There's a cover. It's translated to a language I understand. How is it different from any other history book?

Quote:

Your example is flawed,[1] unless you say there is no real distinction between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings

For the purposes of this discussion, there isn't. That's why I'm going to examples from different books; everyone has a brain fart and loses 50 IQ points as soon as there's a religion angle. Fine; remove the religion, ask the question again. And yes, I know Sam bore the ring on occasion; I picked that on purpose. :)

Neil Black

I think Evert is more concerned about the fact that several groups have different and contradictory opinions on what the Bible actually says. In many cases, they can support their interpretations quite convincingly. How is someone who hasn't spent half their life studying the Bible to know which group is right about what the Bible says?

LennyLen

How is someone who hasn't spent half their life studying the Bible to know which group is right about what the Bible says?

Especially considering some people spend all their lives studying it and still don't know.

Neil Black
LennyLen said:

Especially considering some people spend all their lives studying it and still don't know.

That's my plan!

Evert

I think Evert is more concerned about the fact that several groups have different and contradictory opinions on what the Bible actually says. In many cases, they can support their interpretations quite convincingly. How is someone who hasn't spent half their life studying the Bible to know which group is right about what the Bible says?

Spot on, thank you.
I thought I was fairly clear and elaborate about that, but perhaps not...

blargmob

In many cases, they can support their interpretations quite convincingly.

{"name":"nope_banner.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/6\/c61eb8de4eb7acc1681d6868845e3c00.jpg","w":491,"h":379,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/c\/6\/c61eb8de4eb7acc1681d6868845e3c00"}nope_banner.jpg

Matthew Leverton

Are we still talking about omnipotence? ??? :-*

Anyway. I'll support Evert here in why what the Bible says is mostly irrelevant in terms of this discussion.

  • Job 42:2 "I know that you can do all things; no plan of yours can be thwarted."


  • Hebrews 6:18 "It is impossible for God to lie."

Now before all you atheists scream "contradiction!" that's not what I'm getting at. It's easy to reconcile either viewpoint such that it makes sense, and quite often (usually) it's not that big of a stretch.

One Christian might say, yes God can lie but he won't.

Another one may say, no God cannot lie because it is against his nature.

And both are using the Bible as their source. So what appears to be cut and dry "God cannot lie" all of a sudden becomes a hot topic for debate even among Christians.

And we are dealing with translated and hand copied texts, so the English nuances aren't even probably the same as in the original. So they each find some scholar of ancient Greek and Hebrew to defend their view.

So, to get back to the point, when one wants to discuss what Christians believe, the only thing you can do is base it on what people who identify themselves as Christians say they believe.

Actually, I guess I don't even know what the point of this is, but I wrote it, so I'm going to post it. >:(

23yrold3yrold

Are we still talking about omnipotence? ??? :-*

No, we were discussing reading comprehension.

Derezo
Evert said:

I happen to personally disagree with you about unexplainable. Note that I didn't say unknowable but unknown.

You could be right. Let me channel someone and see if I can get them to explain it.

I'd like to make a statement that is the mother of all statements. This statement will change every aspect of your life. It will impact every ounce of your dignity, and will dissolve every useless activity you participate in. My statement will make other statements seem petty. Some people will not like my statement. Some people will not agree with it. Some people will rejoice.

How you react is up to you. All I know is that my statement is the mother of all statements, and it is going to shake every aspect of who you think you are. It will change what you see in the world. The color of the world will change.

This is my statement. Reality is a hoax. It was manufactured according to an advanced set of technological sciences and laws which are not of this Earth. Earth itself is a plane, not a planet. You are a character and not a person. Rather than a soul, you have a program -- an existent scale of technology that is in need of a new science.

Earth plane has been compromised by rogue programmers who have corrupted the operational codes and hi-jacked the plane. They have been here for a long time.

Ultimately you are living in a technological universe. A technological universe. I know all this is true because I invented this reality. I programmed it. I also invented the human form. I am the architect.

I did warn you that my statement would impact every aspect of your life. Your existence. Reject or remorse. Deny or deaths. It is up to you -- I don't care.

My concern right now, is that as many people as possible hear the truth. Reality is manufactured. You are a technology, and God is an implanted code. Death represents the end of your visit. Your journey. Your game.

All those belief systems. Those religions. Those secret societies... are lies. Sent to imprison you to keep you suppressed. To keep you oppressed.

Freedom is found in the technological. Truth is technological, and you are in a technological reality. My name is Talessian El-Wikosian. I am a counselor on Star Nations. Star Nations is an inter-dimensional alliance. We travel the techno-verse to build, support and develop other realities and civilizations -- such as the human civilization -- as is needed, as is required. It is time for Earth's reality to become technologically aware. That biology now fades and gives way to technology.

Everything that happens is programmed to happen, either naturally or artificially. Some time ago a bunch of programmers decoded and decided to take over the course of humanity. They learned how to manipulate the technology. They learned how to program the codes we taught them, but they became corrupt. These rogue programmers have plunged Earth into war, filled society with disease, divided nations with fear and distrust, and orchestrated major world events.

Whoa whoa whoa.. I'm going to cut him off. Doesn't he sound psychotic? :o

(Feel free to message me if you feel otherwise) ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

That whacky tobaccy is gonna turn your tongue white. :-X

bamccaig

;D

van_houtte

dang derezo it's too early in the morning for that green stuff ;)

Derezo

I was going to start puffing the magic dragon again on the equinox, but decided to postpone that sacred ritual for the solstice.

I actually wrote that out from an old video that was removed from YouTube by the thought police. The remainder is about twice as long.

GameCreator

Bible Inconsistencies
Whoever wrote the bible wasn't taking very good notes. :P

Arthur Kalliokoski

Whoever wrote the bible wasn't taking very good notes. :P

It was a bunch of people, not just one. Such as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Actually those first three did take notes, and John's story is wildly different.

23yrold3yrold

Stop. Feeding. The. Trolls. >:(

Arthur Kalliokoski

Valid objections aren't trolling. Unless you define the "Programming Questions" forum to be a troll circus.

23yrold3yrold

Valid objections aren't trolling.

Yours or his? I honestly can't tell ...

Arthur Kalliokoski

It's so important to you that you're logged in twice?

{"name":"6T7n1.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/2\/82123998faaf2dbfb81f24ba09cc32a0.png","w":809,"h":99,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/2\/82123998faaf2dbfb81f24ba09cc32a0"}6T7n1.png

23yrold3yrold

I'm at work and my browser is probably still open at home. I'd be surprised if I wasn't normally on there twice. Why; you stalking me? ;)

Arthur Kalliokoski

I like to browse the Online Members to see what the interesting topics are. The guests are often open to some very interesting pages from several years ago. If only we could torrent the archives <sigh>.

[EDIT]

I do this a couple times a week, and never saw anyone logged on twice.

[EDIT2]

If you're logged on at home, how do you avoid getting "unlogged"? If I get lost in another world coding, I find that I'm automatically logged off a.cc after an hour or two.

bamccaig

He's actually active on both sessions. That's why he appears twice. I'm always logged in at both too and I don't show up both times. :-/ The next question is how is he active on both sessions if one is j0rb and the other is home... :-/

As for staying logged in, there is a checkbox that you have to click when you login (and optionally, modify the IP mask if your IP changes frequently).

23yrold3yrold

Dunno what to tell ya; XP is my home machine and I'm on Windows 7 here. I could log onto a few more machines from here though. :)

EDIT: Darn; can't get it to register my Mac and my Win7, probably because they're both the same external IP. :(

Also, 200 get.

Neil Roy

.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

I see no problem with this. Light and darkness was created. There are lots of sources for light and darkness in the universe, not just the sun. The sun and moon weren't created until the 4th day, but notice the wording in that verse: "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night"

Ethnic #1: Hey! Those astronauts who flew to the moon got famous! Let's do that for the sun!
Ethnic (with some crude reasoning facilities) #2: You dumbass! If we go to the sun we'll burn up!
Ethnic #1: No, we'll go at night!

Teacher: Which is more important, the sun or the moon?
Ethnic student: The moon is! The moon lights up the night, but the sun's only up when it's already daylight!

Guess which "ethnic" I choose; stone age nomads 4000 years ago...

[EDIT]

Hugo Chavez is right up there at the top for reasoning ability!

SiegeLord
Neil Roy said:

Why then do you feel the need to jump all over someone who believes? You scared they might be right?!

Some atheists struggle to understand why some people partake in such foolishness as believing in such unlikely things as God. And the only way to understand something, is to ask questions and perform experiments.

23yrold3yrold
SiegeLord said:

Some atheists struggle to understand why some people partake in such foolishness as believing in such unlikely things as God. And the only way to understand something, is to ask questions and perform experiments.

Still can't see past the trolling. These "inconsistencies" have been addressed many, many, MANY times, so the atheists can't be asking very seriously. And I've never heard of an experiment on God, so maybe you can enlighten us there.

Maybe some atheists just like thinking things are foolish and unlikely because it's comfortable to do so? It's a natural human response to embrace what's comfortable, no need to defend it ...

Neil Roy

.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Maybe some atheists just like thinking things are foolish and unlikely because it's comfortable to do so? It's a natural human response to embrace what's comfortable, no need to defend it ...

It's also comfortable to believe "it can't happen to me" (where "it" is a traffic accident or whatever), just don't act like I'm stupid because I don't agree with your implications.

23yrold3yrold

It's also comfortable to believe "it can't happen to me" (where "it" is a traffic accident or whatever), just don't act like I'm stupid because I don't agree with your implications.

Quite true. Hopefully I haven't acted like anyone was genuinely stupid (if I feel that was I usually just prefer not to bother speaking to them). At least I wasn't as disrespectful as SiegeLord. :)

relay01
SiegeLord said:

Some atheists struggle to understand why some people partake in such foolishness as believing in such unlikely things as God. And the only way to understand something, is to ask questions and perform experiments.

:) The apostle Paul told me you'd say that.

As for the unlikeliness of God, I tend to think that it's much more unlikely there isn't God. But this argument has been done before so :-/

Arthur Kalliokoski

Tell me which version of the bible is the truth, then. King James?

23yold3yearold said:

Well, hang on, let's keep this in context of the original discussion before we get too off-track. Which version of the Bible doesn't say that God isn't omnipotent?

Differing versions imply that none of it's correct. Just because some point isn't contradicted isn't a reason to believe that particular point. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

relay01

Bible translations is a very interesting topic. Which version is the truth? Probably the first versions that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (each of them), Paul, David, Salomon, Daniel, Nebachadnezzer, Moses, Jonah, Job, etc. wrote or spoke about. But we don't get THAT version. But I'd gladly take what I can get and pray the Spirit guides me to "the truth" which has yet to turn me wrong (wayward not factually, I can be factually wrong quite frequently :P).

SiegeLord

And I've never heard of an experiment on God, so maybe you can enlighten us there.

There's no need. The critical bit of science is that you don't need to test extremely unlikely theories. Anyway, I mostly meant doing experiments on the people who believe in God though (via providing links to fancy websites).

Neil Roy said:

"belief" to me implies

Semantics.

At least I wasn't as disrespectful as SiegeLord. :)

Respect is to be earned :P.

relay01 said:

As for the unlikeliness of God, I tend to think that it's much more unlikely there isn't God. But this argument has been done before so :-/

The only place I can think of where God might be required at all is the Big Bang. Everything else (and I do mean everything else) needs no divine intervention and could have easily (and with extremely high likelihood) arisen via laws known to science today.

23yrold3yrold

Differing versions imply that none of it's correct. Just because some point isn't contradicted isn't a reason to believe that particular point. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Believe what point? That the Bible says God isn't omnipotent? Your analogy might make sense if you could show me a wrong (or "broken") book, but since you can't, the better analogy might be that a working clock is always right?

Quote:

Respect is to be earned :P.

I didn't actually want your respect since I've seen your posts in these topics. I just wanted to flag up that no one could really complain about my attitude as long as you were here. :)

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

I have convinced in my own mind, 100% that God does exist. it's no longer a belief, to me, it's a fact.

It is a fact that you also misunderstand the concept of "belief".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief said:

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.

Do you know what Anorexia nervosa is?
It is a psychological state. To the people who are affected by it, to their subjective experience, it is often a fact that they are overweight. They go through drastic measures to lose weight or maintain a very low weight.

If there really is a God, and I'm open to the idea that there is, do you really think it would want to be worshiped and prayed to? Wouldn't it want you to follow the path it set our for you by creating you? It would have bigger, more important things to do. That's why it would have made you -- to do whatever it is that you're to do, so it doesn't have to (or because it can't).

..and doing what you have to could very well be arguing about its existence on a forum... but I doubt the whole premise. :-/

Neil Roy

.

Arthur Kalliokoski
SiegeLord said:

Everything else (and I do mean everything else) needs no divine intervention and could have easily (and with extremely high likelihood) arisen via laws known to science today.

Even I take umbrage at the word "easily", though possibilities still seem far into science's court.

SiegeLord

Even I take umbrage at the word "easily", though possibilities still seem far into science's court.

Fair enough. How about I say it's extremely likely that everything else can be explained by natural laws known to science today.

23yrold3yrold
Derezo said:

If there really is a God, and I'm open to the idea that there is, do you really think it would want to be worshiped and prayed to? Wouldn't it want you to follow the path it set our for you by creating you? It would have bigger, more important things to do. That's why it would have made you -- to do whatever it is that you're to do, so it doesn't have to (or because it can't).

Well in line with Christian doctrine. I didn't read Neil's wall of text though so I'm not sure what you're responding to. Just wanted to say "well, duh". :)

relay01
SiegeLord said:

The only place I can think of where God might be required at all is the Big Bang. Everything else (and I do mean everything else) needs no divine intervention and could have easily (and with extremely high likelihood) arisen via laws known to science today.

As for a man who conquered the grave? Speculative? Unverifiable? False? Or the other miracles of Jesus during his ministry?

Derezo said:

If there really is a God, and I'm open to the idea that there is, do you really think it would want to be worshiped and prayed to? Wouldn't it want you to follow the path it set our for you by creating you?

Yes!

SiegeLord
relay01 said:

As for a man who conquered the grave? Speculative? Unverifiable? False? Or the other miracles of Jesus during his ministry?

Two points. First, even I believed those things, all I could say is that God existed at some point in time. Second, I don't believe those things actually happened given the available records.

relay01
SiegeLord said:

Two points. First, even I believed those things, all I could say is that God existed at some point in time. Second, I don't believe those things actually happened given the available records.

First: Did you mean "even if"?
Assuming you did mean that, then if you believed he existed for a time, then you'd probably want to listen to what He said. Which would suggest that He "is all that was, is, and yet to come" (paraphrase).

Second: Available records?

SiegeLord
relay01 said:

First: Did you mean "even if"?

Yeah, typo.
EDIT:
Well, I am sort of interested in what he said. I even quoted his bestseller in my sig :P.

Quote:

Second: Available records?

Yeah, whatever they are. I'm serious about this. The God is so unlikely that it'll require extraordinary proof to make it be a hypothesis worthy of consideration. I'd start believing something was odd if there were several videos of something, for example.

Arthur Kalliokoski
SiegeLord said:

even I believed those things, all I could say is that God existed at some point in time.

Nietzsche: God is dead!
God: Nietzsche is dead!

Sorry, couldn't resist!

relay01
SiegeLord said:

Yeah, whatever they are. I'm serious about this. The God is so unlikely that it'll require extraordinary proof to make it be a hypothesis worthy of consideration. I'd start believing something was odd if there were several videos of something, for example.

I don't know if God adheres to the "Pics or it Didn't Happen" principle. ;D

SiegeLord

He really should! It'd make these threads more interesting :P.

GameCreator

Maybe some atheists just like thinking things are foolish and unlikely because it's comfortable to do so? It's a natural human response to embrace what's comfortable, no need to defend it ...

Comfort is a good word. Did you ever look at religion as a parent figure? It has it all: rewards for doing good, punishments for doing bad, the father figure who's always around, absolute guarantees and truth (read: security). Religion and God give you everything.

(For the record, I should probably also say that I'm agnostic, despite my efforts.)

Onewing
SiegeLord said:

He really should! It'd make these threads more interesting

Hmmm, if God proved himself to you, proved to you heaven and hell and proved to you what you had to do for the rights to heaven, would you choose to follow then or still choose to do as you saw fit, knowing well that it could lead to hell?

Neil Roy

.

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

It is a collection of letters that were written by different people, all who witnessed the same events and who knew Christ personally.

This page says the "Gospel" (New Testament) was written at the earliest a.d 50, so it's not like the original guys wrote them. IIRC from other writings, they didn't write them down because they thought the Second Coming was going to happen Real Soon Now in a year or two. Still waiting.

http://www.allabouttruth.org/when-was-the-bible-written-faq.htm

LennyLen

IIRC from other writings, they didn't write them down because they thought the Second Coming was going to happen Real Soon Now in a year or two.

I also don't think writing materials were all that common 2000 years ago. Nor was the ability to write.

23yrold3yrold

Comfort is a good word. Did you ever look at religion as a parent figure?

No, because that would make me complacent. Just a choice on my part.

Vanneto
Onewing said:

Hmmm, if God proved himself to you, proved to you heaven and hell and proved to you what you had to do for the rights to heaven, would you choose to follow then or still choose to do as you saw fit, knowing well that it could lead to hell?

Now this is just my opinion... But Hell seems like a very good scare tactic to make people do what you want them to do. That may have come out wrong, let me explain myself a bit.

I have been told that God loves all his children (I also heard this from a priest) so why would he send anyone to Hell? Especially since you can be a perfectly good person and you get sent to an eternity of suffering and damnation just because you didn't believe in Him/believed in the wrong Him/were born before there even was a Him?

I'm not starting anything, I'm saying this from a "God exists" perspective and am only curious on what you Christians think about Hell. (for example, Neil doesn't believe in a Hell, which to me is more logical than there being one)

Evert

No, we were discussing reading comprehension.

More specifically, your lack thereof. I really wasn't saying anything deep or profound.

Derezo said:

Doesn't he sound psychotic?

Yes.

Neil Roy said:

Anyhow, my point is, the stories of what happened to Jesus in all these various letters are proof that the events stated in them actually happened.

That, unfortunately, is not a given. Eyewitness accounts can be notoriously unreliable.

Neil Roy said:

if you accept God as being all powerful, as you should at least accept that concept when reading the bible

But 23 keeps saying the Bible says he isn't!

Neil Roy said:

The churches they wrote them too considered the letters so important that they would make copies of them to share with other churches (these were letters from actual apostles of Christ after all), and the letters were copied in such a way that if the smallest mistake was made, the entire text was burned and it was started over again, so the copies are very accurate.

Care to back that up?
During the Middle-Ages and before, scribes spent a great deal of time copying books, trying to be accurate and trying the best they could. Nevertheless, they did make mistakes, and mistakes that sometimes stuck. In some cases, it's clear that the scribe who was copying the text couldn't actually read and therefore didn't know what he wrote, leaving in spelling errors, forgetting a word and sometimes inserting it in the wrong place. Or copying someone else's notes into the text.
In the Dead Sea scrolls (obviously from well before the middle ages, but highly relevant because they date from the time when Jesus is supposed to have lived), some texts have small variations compared to the versions we know, or extra sentences and paragraphs that clearly belong in the original text, but were lost from the present-day Bible.
And before someone turns red and begins to fume about "pointing out silly errors in the Bible that actually mean nothing", that wasn't the point. The point is that the scribes who copied it were not infallible and did make mistakes.

Neil Black

This page says the "Gospel" (New Testament) was written at the earliest a.d 50, so it's not like the original guys wrote them.

The books of the New Testament were written between somewhere around the late 30s AD to the 90s AD (these are the earliest and latest reasonable dates, respectively, that I've heard of). The earliest Gospel was either Matthew or Mark (I can't remember off the top of my head, although your link says Mark) which was probably written in the early 50s. The Gospels are Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, by the way. They are not the entire New Testament. Although the New Testament may be referred to as "the Gospel" since gospel simply means "good news". Many of the letters predate the Gospels, some of them possibly even by a decade or more.

Your link's information seems to be a little out of date. It puts the earliest letters at 48 AD, much too late. And it puts the Gospel of John at 85 AD when it was more likely written in the 90s.

With those dates, why should we assume it wasn't the original guys that wrote them? Jesus began his ministry around 30 AD. If the men he picked as apostles were fairly young (say, 20ish), then they would only be 40 in the year 50 AD. Of course, this would make John 80 when the Gospel of John was written, which is ancient but not impossible. Or the Gospel of John could have been written by someone younger who was close to John.

LennyLen said:

I also don't think writing materials were all that common 2000 years ago. Nor was the ability to write.

They had scribes. Paul was pretty open about the fact that he used scribes to write his letters (Paul could write, but he had poor eyesight which made writing difficult for him). If one of the men who personally knew the guy you've founded your religion on wants to write something down, you'd probably be willing to go fetch someone that can write.

Ack, giant block of text is giant. But I love this subject. It's so fascinating.

EDIT:

Saw this after I posted:

Vanneto said:

I'm not starting anything, I'm saying this from a "God exists" perspective and am only curious on what you Christians think about Hell.

I've heard many ideas of what hell is. From the fire-and-brimstone eternity of torture, to a place that only demons go to, to a mere separation from God, to hell doesn't exist in any of those ways. Personally, I'm just not sure at this point. And I really don't much care. As much as people like to call hell a good scare tactic, I've never really been concerned about it.

EDIT 2:

Evert said:

The point is that the scribes who copied it were not infallible and did make mistakes.

Which is why finding early copies is always so fantastic. Also, there are methods of deriving an accurate picture of the original text by looking at numerous variations from different areas, but early copies is still the best way.

Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

But 23 keeps saying the Bible says he isn't!

See, this is where you confuse us. Is this a serious statement or not?

Neil Roy

.

Matthew Leverton
Neil Roy said:

do not throw your pearls to pigs.

I love that saying! I use it when women are trying to get my money. ;D

Arthur Kalliokoski
Neil Roy said:

"Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces." - Mathew 7:6

Pretty much how I feel about the scientific method...

SiegeLord
Onewing said:

Hmmm, if God proved himself to you, proved to you heaven and <censored> and proved to you what you had to do for the rights to heaven, would you choose to follow then or still choose to do as you saw fit, knowing well that it could lead to <censored>?

Pardon my censoring script.

It depends on the details of what he said, if heaven is lucrative enough, I'd work to get into it. But as some other person's sig said... if only rational and questioning people go into heck, then I'd rather be with them than go to heaven where the blind believers go. Obviously, if it's the questioning types that go to heaven, then all the better 8-).

Also... if there is a God, I'm VERY mad at him for letting the world become what it has become. I might just do the opposite of what he wants me to do just to spite him.

Neil Black
SiegeLord said:

Also... if there is a God, I'm VERY mad at him for letting the world become what it has become. I might just do the opposite of what he wants me to do just to spite him.

What if it's that sort of attitude that has led the world to become what it has become? :P

SiegeLord

I'm mad at him then for letting me get that attitude.

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

More specifically, your lack thereof. I really wasn't saying anything deep or profound.

When specifically did I give you the impression that I thought you were?

See, this is where you confuse us. Is this a serious statement or not?

Stop feeding him! ;D

SiegeLord said:

It depends on the details of what he said, if heaven is lucrative enough, I'd work to get into it. But as some other person's sig said... if only rational and questioning people go into heck, then I'd rather be with them than go to heaven where the blind believers go. Obviously, if it's the questioning types that go to heaven, then all the better 8-).

Odd criteria, but hey, man makes God in his own image, amirite?

Neil Black

So you're mad at him for not forcing you to love him like an obedient little robot? Please, feel free to turn in your free will and be a mindless puppet! ;)

I'm joking (and semi-trolling, I guess), but it really does bother me how many people will complain about how, if God does exist, he shouldn't have let the world get into the state it's in. And then they'll turn around and complain about how the church turns people into mindless following sheep (which is obviously a bad thing when it happens). How do you expect to have free will and have no one chose to screw things up?

EDIT:

I should add the disclaimer that I don't accuse you of doing this. It's just bothered me in the past and you reminded me of it.

Arthur Kalliokoski

And then they'll turn around and complain about how the church turns people into mindless following sheep (which is obviously a bad thing when it happens).

That's because the willful leader gets them to do whatever he wants. If the leader was equally brain dead, they wouldn't be any worse than stamp collectors.

Neil Roy

.

Arthur Kalliokoski

"Gone" is in the past tense, implying it has already happened. The good dead Christians have to wait for the Rapture or Second Coming or something.

SiegeLord

Odd criteria, but hey, man makes God in his own image, amirite?

It is said that "heck is other people", so why would I want to go heaven full of people I don't like?

So you're mad at him for not forcing you to love him like an obedient little robot? Please, feel free to turn in your free will and be a mindless puppet! ;)

I'm joking (and semi-trolling, I guess), but it really does bother me how many people will complain about how, if God does exist, he shouldn't have let the world get into the state it's in. And then they'll turn around and complain about how the church turns people into mindless following sheep (which is obviously a bad thing when it happens). How do you expect to have free will and have no one chose to screw things up?

I don't necessarily feel that free will is the issue here, but if that's the price to pay, then so be it.

Anyway, enough of this for now. My gf is offering to help me meet my maker if I don't take a break from this.

Arthur Kalliokoski
SiegeLord said:

Anyway, enough of this for now. My gf is offering to help me meet my maker if I don't take a break from this.

She's threatening to tattle to your mom?

Neil Roy

.

Matthew Leverton
Neil Roy said:

Ask them where good people go when they die. When they say "heaven" then ask them to explain to you John 3:13

Well, a "good" Christian would respond with "it depends on if they were a believer."

But regarding that verse, the context is clearly that no man is qualified to speak about heaven because they've never been there. Jesus' point had nothing to do with whether or not a dead man had ever been in "heaven" (whatever that is).

It's not good to build doctrines based on comments made in passing, particularly considering it was a one-on-one conversation with somebody. Jesus quite possibly was even speaking from that man's perspective.

People do that a lot with the Bible. I don't really think it says as much as people try to read into it.

Neil Roy

.

Matthew Leverton
Neil Roy said:

Interesting that you pulled all that from John 3:13.

Pulled what?

I'm making no definite statement at all regarding that verse. You are the one building a doctrine out of it. You cannot know what I believe as I've not stated it.

Edit, PS:

Maybe I should put this into my sig:

2 Kings 2:1,11 "And it came to pass, when the LORD would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind ... stuff happens ... and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind."

So now you get into word games, where you just say "that heaven is the sky", etc. But that's just silly.

It's easier and less hassle to just not claim Jesus meant nobody has ever or will ever go to heaven.

After all, I could claim my dead father is in heaven because he died after Jesus said that. So now you need to come up with another verse that bars him from heaven, and so on.

Neil Roy

.

Matthew Leverton

I'm speaking of reading the entire passage. I'm not sure what part of that you don't understand. You should ask, "What's the point of this passage or story?" And take away the meaning from that. Pulling one verse and building a doctrine out of it can make for some interesting ideas... And yes, I think many (if not most) doctrines taught by Christian churches are made up like that.

Let's assume Jesus did mean literally that. You are still extrapolating a doctrine out of it.

Did he say: "no man has ever gone into heaven, and no man will ever go into heaven?" You are adding that last bit.

Maybe somebody who died the next day after that statement got an express ticket up there.

Neil Roy

.

Vanneto

Matthew is probably the most apathetic person on this forum. I doubt you can actually upset him. :P

Neil Black

John 14:1-3

Neil Roy

.

Matthew Leverton

Why do you think I believe people go to heaven when they die? ???

Here are some of my "beliefs":

  • The Bible never teaches that people go to heaven upon death.


  • The Bible clearly states that Elijah went to a place called heaven.


  • Jesus meant that no living man had ever been to heaven and come back to talk about it. As such, that was the reason why Nicodemus couldn't understand what Jesus was talking about. Because "we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen."

Of course, regarding the third point, I'm reading some meaning into the verse. But I'm not building a doctrine. That is, I don't think Jesus' statement either confirms or denies anything about a man being able to go to heaven either in the past or the future.

It's silly to think that passage is what Jesus said verbatim to Nicodemus. It would have been like a three minute conversation. Instead, we get a condensed version of the story. So that's why pulling out a verse here or there and treating it as the foundation of a doctrine is a bit sketchy.

Neil Roy said:

I have to assume that they don't go to heaven

That's as close as I'll get to you from a confession that you are making up a portion of your doctrine. So I don't need anything more from you.

Vanneto said:

I doubt you can actually upset him.

Very true. You could insult my own mother in front of me, and I'd just laugh at (or with) you. 8-)

Neil Roy

.

Matthew Leverton
Neil Roy said:

No man has GONE into heaven, Elijah went into heaven...

With that I'm done. ;D

must resist urge...

I'll say no more, I promise. 8-)

23yrold3yrold

/popcorn

SiegeLord said:

It is said that "heck is other people", so why would I want to go heaven full of people I don't like?

Where is it said? What does that mean? What does that have to do with the quote you responded to? If you're right, have you questioned enough? What kind of people do you assume have questioned more or less than you? No idea where you're coming from here ... so many odd presuppositions ... teach me your belief system! ;D

SiegeLord

Where is it said?

The internets.

Quote:

What does that mean?

It means that there's nothing worse than other human beings.

Quote:

What does that have to do with the quote you responded to?

Well, you questioned my having odd criteria... and I explained my reasoning.

Quote:

What kind of people do you assume have questioned more or less than you? No idea where you're coming from here ... so many odd presuppositions ...

There are no hard boundaries. Being in the sciences means having a comparable level of questioning to my own, and not being in them probably means having less.

Quote:

teach me your belief system! ;D

My belief system is Bayesian inference. There are nice texts on it on the internets and off them.

Karadoc ~~
Onewing said:

Hmmm, if God proved himself to you, proved to you heaven and hell and proved to you what you had to do for the rights to heaven, would you choose to follow then or still choose to do as you saw fit, knowing well that it could lead to hell?

I've long held that view that if God wants me to believe, then He'll give some kind of a sign, or set of circumstances to me to allow me to believe. Since God is all knowing etc. He must know that there is no way I personally could not possibly have faith in Him or in any of the stories in the bible in my current circumstances.

The bible was written by humans, and I see no reason to believe their word over the thousands of other humans telling me all sorts of other things — stories about different kinds of deities, and other supernatural events/powers/places; stories with different sorts of morals and belief systems. Why should I trust and have faith in one system of belief over another? The only way I can truly believe something is if I can understand the reason and evidence myself. There are a lot of people in the world out there saying a lot of crazy things; some are obviously not true, some are less obviously not true, and some are actually true! It isn't always easy to tell the difference, and I wouldn't want to get it wrong on something as important as the existence of God.

In conversations like this one, a quote attributed to Buddha comes to my mind

Buddha said:

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

To me, that kind of reasoning is at the heart of wisdom. It has been a core part of my believe system since as long as I can remember.

I cannot possibly believe in God or what is said in the bible without some kind of sign from God. God should know and understand this. So I can only conclude that either God doesn't exist, or that God doesn't want me to believe in Him. I can only hope that my circumstances don't ultimately result in an eternity in hell or something like that. I think that would be unfair.

The main reason I'm saying all of this is that it seems to me most of this thread is kind arguing at cross purposes. I don't think anyone really cares much about what the teachings of God are until they actually believe in God. Without faith in God, the words of the bible are just stories to be picked apart and mocked. Clearly the wording of the bible is not precise enough to avoid argument; and where it seems precise but inaccurate, we can always interpret it as a metaphor or something.

As for the idea that we should be free to believe whatever we like, and not care whether or not other people believe in God — well it's a nice thought, but I don't think it's so simple. Different belief systems can lead to a clash of morals and values. A few things that spring to mind are the clash of religion and science on the issues such as the origin of species and the creation of the earth; there are also political issues such as what are the appropriate punishments for crimes and who may marry whom; and there are other more personal issues such as whether marriage is important for your relationship - which may be a sexual relationship.

A gay couple wanting to get married, or an atheist wanting to have premarital sex with their religious partner may find that the heart of their conflict is the question of whether God is real. So often it really does matter what other people believe, because it affects us – politically, personally, scientifically.

Neil Roy

.

Vanneto
SiegeLord said:

The internets.

And I thought it came from "No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre. :P

Quote:

It means that there's nothing worse than other human beings.

I don't think thats what Sartre meant.

Neil Black

I'm trying to think of a reason for you to delete all of your previous posts... but the only thing I'm coming up with is so that you can then claim that they were better than they actually were and no one can go look at them to see for themselves.

I'm sorry, Neil Roy, but it really seemed like you just kept repeating the same assertion over and over without giving a good response to Matthew's counter-arguments, and then deleted all the evidence when you were backed into a corner.

Karadoc ~~
Neil Roy said:

Bah, you ignored my entire post and then do a partial quote... I'll delete my posts from here, this is far too frustrating. You quote a verse that says someone did, I quote one that says they didn't. And we each have an explanation... only I don't do partial quotes to make you look bad... that's your job. I can't recall the verse where it indicates Elijah was still on earth and sent a letter... but I am sure YOU would still argue the point and find some other nitpicky thing, which I would then reply to and you would post a partial quote yet again with a big smiley face... I got suckered into this... my beliefs are a joke to you. You win... congrats... I should have known better.....

Neil, I don't think deleting your posts is a good idea. If the problem is that the quotes have been taken out of context, or that people have misinterpreted what you have said, then surely it's far better to leave your posts intact so that other people have a chance to read them and interpret them as well, and to check the context etc. If a few people disagree with you, misunderstand you, mock you, or whatever - I don't see that as a reason for you to hide all your thoughts from everyone else.

If you disagree with your own posts, or if you think you have expressed your point in such as way as to invite misinterpretation, then maybe you should consider removing the posts. But if you truly believe what you have said then you should stand by it. Don't delete it just because someone disagreed with you or misunderstood you.

Vanneto

You guys suck. Wasn't scaring Chris away enough for you? :-X

Neil Roy

.

SiegeLord
Vanneto said:

And I thought it came from "No Exit" by Jean-Paul Sartre. :P

Ok.

Quote:

I don't think thats what Sartre meant.

That's news to me.

EDIT: Let's all show solidarity with Neil Roy and blank all our posts.

Neil Black
Neil Roy said:

Believe what you wish, I couldn't give a fuck.

I prefer to believe the best of people. But deleting all your posts looks really bad. Now I only have my memory to go on for what was actually said, and I find myself assuming the worst.

Neil Roy

No account deletion button. Do me a favour and delete my account from these forums. It'll make everyone happy, including me.

This is exactly why I don't like to discuss my beliefs. My posts are deleted because I am through arguing the subject, and given the responses you're posting now, I was right to do so.

23yrold3yrold

Another religion thread comes to its inevitable outcome. Next time let's all be even more obstinate and closed-minded! :D

All out of popcorn; back to coding ...

relay01

@Niel Roy

Rather than even referencing the Elijah "contradiction" I would rather say that using Jesus's rebuttal to Nicodemus as a "nobody goes to heaven" seems to contradict more the entire Gospel than just (if at all) Elijah. Saying that nobody goes to heaven or that there is no heaven doesn't align with just about anything in the NT or OT.

Arthur Kalliokoski

I think he meant that nobody has gone to heaven yet.

Neil Black

I think we just drove away someone who's been a member of this community for nine years.

relay01

I think he meant that nobody has gone to heaven yet.

Guess we'll never know.

I'm more concerned that a thread where people stood in defense of their beliefs, their Bible, and their God turned so ugly and began to insult the very words they defended.

LennyLen

I think we just drove away someone who's been a member of this community for nine years.

No, he drove himself away. He chose to express his beliefs, even though he knew what would happen should he do so (he even admitted that), so no blame can be laid on anyone else.

relay01

Wait... what happened to Chris?

Arvidsson

God bless you all, for it is written!

gnolam

Isn't "Thou shalt not ragequit" one of the commandments? ???

Arthur Kalliokoski

That one comes after "Thou shalt not read the bible while sitting on the toilet".

Tobias Dammers

All I can say is I'm truly sorry for bringing up the taco.

Evert

See, this is where you confuse us. Is this a serious statement or not?

Essentially.
Now, you're going to say that they're both right because they mean something different although they use the same word, am I right?

When specifically did I give you the impression that I thought you were?

Your repeated inability to understand what I'm saying, despite other people getting the point just fine. Since you can't make it clear what you disagree with, I can only conclude that you think there's some hidden or between-the-lines thing you're picking on.

Neil Roy said:

Do me a favour and delete my account from these forums. It'll make everyone happy, including me.

:-/

All I can say is I'm truly sorry for bringing up the taco.

Who'd have guessed people took it seriously?

bamccaig

[...a truly all knowing God should understand why people with critical thinking don't believe...it does matter what other people believe because their beliefs affect our own lives in every way, and they make sure of that...]

You, sir, win the thread! :)

gnolam said:

Isn't "Thou shalt not ragequit" one of the commandments? ???

;D

23yrold3yrold
Evert said:

Your repeated inability to understand what I'm saying, despite other people getting the point just fine.

Again, I understand you just fine. Neil Black's post that you said was "spot on" was fairly obvious to me a page back. I still don't get why that's difficult for you to understand, but that conversation is like hitting my own hand with a hammer at this point, and this thread needs to die anyway.

GameCreator

And get resurrected?

Matthew Leverton

First off, to get this out of the way, I was never mocking Neil. My signature is a joke because he refused to address my point except with an illogical, passionate retort at the very end.

Maybe I didn't articulate my points clear enough to be understandable, but I was barely arguing with his end result, just the method of how he got there. Holding internally consistent beliefs is more important to me than exactly what you believe. I cannot necessarily tell you if what you believe is true, but I can tell you if you are inconsistent or hypocritical.

The interesting thing is I started my friendly little discussion with him because he admitted to egging on people who thought their loved ones were in heaven in a way that sounded much like mocking to me: taking what somebody holds dear and making fun of them... or in the very least starting up a debate you know the other side cannot win (because you won't listen or concede even the smallest of points). Don't dish out what you cannot take.

Evert said:

Now, you're going to say that they're both right because they mean something different although they use the same word, am I right?

Not at all. I mean, I know you're a smart guy, but I'm not sure why this is so hard for you to understand. I cannot speak for either Chris or Neil, but I'm pretty sure both of them would say that God is "all mighty" (that phrase is used in the Bible many times) and "omnipotent": he has the ability to do whatever he wants to do. That's all the average Christian means by that. Few people would say God is "omnipotent" if the definition attached to it comes with some bogus self-contradicting concept.

Maybe you felt that Neil was using omnipotence as a way to justify some logically contradictory thing? In that case, Chris would probably consider it a misapplied usage of the omnipotence. But I don't think that's what Neil was getting at.

Onewing

My question a few posts back was to try and gain a different perspective, the higher power's perspective. Why would a god make himself impossible to prove, not show himself and require faith in his existence and follow a set of beliefs as a right to his kingdom? Why would a god do that?

I am curious about hell's existence myself. I read an article yesterday about a pastor who concluded that hell doesn't exist because it doesn't fit in the scheme of God's love. Then the pastor lost his job. And I do think it's a good point that hell seems like a scare tactic.

Matthew Leverton
Onewing said:

I am curious about hell's existence myself.

There's only one good way to know for sure. 8-)

Anyway, the "rich man vs Lazarus" addresses both of your points. Read it and you'll see! Jesus says that hell exists, and he says why God doesn't bother proving himself.

Alright, back to my earlier point. Let's not make a doctrine of a side point. The point of Jesus' story was to explain why God doesn't continually prove himself. He used hell in the story because it's something that the people could relate with. (They believed in hell.)

The fact that he talked about hell as if it exists is not proof either way of its existence.

GameCreator

Read it and you'll see! Jesus says that hell exists, and he says why God doesn't bother proving himself.

To be clear, which version of the bible is this? I ask because Neil said that the King James version doesn't count (which is, of course, arguable).

Matthew Leverton

To be clear, which version of the bible is this?

Did you finish reading my post? ???

But whether the English translation says "hell" or "hades" or "the underworld" is really irrelevant, isn't it? Aren't we talking about a concept, and not a four letter word?

relay01

So if it was impossible for God to lie, yet Jesus the Son speaks in parables (which is like a lie) :o

Then it must be possible for God to lie! Or maybe just the Son can lie.

Who has a Greek bible? Maybe the Greeks have like 40 words for lie and we've all just missed it somehow.

bamccaig

We should have Bible studies on A.cc. ;D

But whether the English translation says "hell" or "hades" or "the underworld" is really irrelevant, isn't it? Aren't we talking about a concept, and not a four letter word?

As mentioned earlier, many people believe the literal translation of what we know as "Hell" to have actually been either a grave or "garbage dump" (or something like that), making the torturous, fiery eternity that is sensationalized in a lot of churches probably completely misleading and false. Of course, it's hard to be sure what is really meant.

Matthew Leverton
bamccaig said:

As mentioned earlier, many people believe the literal translation of what we know as "Hell" to have actually been either a grave or "garbage dump"

Right. I'm moving beyond the literal translation, and to the concept itself.

For a doctrine as important as hell (the punishment for not believing), there ought to be a clear definition somewhere, not some vague references to words such as sheol, hades, or the grave.

bamccaig

Right. I'm moving beyond the literal translation, and to the concept itself.

For a doctrine as important as hell (the punishment for not believing), there ought to be a clear definition somewhere, not some vague references to words such as sheol, hades, or the grave.

Does the Bible actually describe it as a punishment or just the alternative? For all we know, Jesus actually meant nothing more than your corpse would be burned or rot in the ground, and your "soul" would cease to exist. In other words, what most atheists probably expect after death: nothing. :-/ Certainly that's the lesser of the fates if the alternative is "Heaven", but then again it's not such a bad fate IMHO. That would probably also make better sense for the character that I interpret God be. He doesn't necessarily torture you, but doesn't "save" you either.

Matthew Leverton

Read Matthew 25:31-46. It's a story of what a future judgment day will look like.

Short version: the righteous (religious) are being sent to the pit of "eternal flames" for "eternity", but don't understand why. Jesus gives them a reason.

This is what I'm getting at. The passage doesn't even mention the word "hell" but it offers some description. Was Jesus being serious about hell's existence? Perhaps. But again, the point of the passage is that being religious doesn't mean you are good.

The interesting thing is that many (many) of the same people who use that passage as support for hell will not use it to support a "works-based" salvation. i.e., They are willing to take Jesus literally regarding the description of "hell," but they are not willing to take his explanation of why they are going literally.

And that's kind of ironic because the explanation is the point of the story.

Neil Black

The interesting thing is that many (many) of the same people who use that passage as support for hell will not use it to support a "works-based" salvation. i.e., They are willing to take Jesus literally regarding the description of "hell," but they are not willing to take his explanation of why they are going literally.

The church I go to seems to really like James 2:14-26. They teach faith-based salvation, but also stress that faith without works is a dead faith.

Then they put their money where their mouth is and give free lunch to all of us poor, starving college students. ;D

23yrold3yrold
bamccaig said:

Does the Bible actually describe it as a punishment or just the alternative?

It's described as a "bad place", bad enough that (insert John 3:16 here). Calling it a punishment is a bit of a misnomer, but it's definitely not an "alternative". The details are not really elaborated on, admittedly. Even Matthew 25:31-46 may or may not be literal. I've heard many interpretations of what a literal Hell might be, and they vary wildly. They're all fairly bad, though. The word "Hell" is synonymous with torment for a reason, right?

Neil Roy

I just want to say I apologize if I offended anyone. I stand by my beliefs 100%. I may not be able to articulate them in a forum very well, and many of them I would have to write a novel of text to explain properly, and I am not willing to do that. Short explanations without other details that would take too long to explain usually leaves me wide open for attack. Actually people that don't believe will never accept what you say, which is why it is pointless to argue.

I have seen several comments here I want to respond to SO BADLY it hurts, but, I'll force myself to shut up this time as I hate discussing my beliefs and this has helped remind me why.

Again, sorry for any misunderstandings, insults etc... one thing I do wish to respond to, I NEVER mock anyone... ever... nor do I troll, that isn't who I am. I'm no good at discussing these things though, I have a difficult time putting how I feel into words so that you can firmly understand where I am coming from, and often times it's an impossible task when you're dealing with someone who just doesn't want to believe or they have other doctrines they firmly believe in that differ from your own.

My best advice if you are serious about learning, read it yourself, then if someone mocks your beliefs, change the subject. ;)

I'll probably stick around here, but for the programming, I'll leave the religious debates to you guys.

Derezo

I still don't get why that's difficult for you to understand

I still stand by my old argument that topics regarding divinity and spirituality do not convey well by text on a forum alone. It's extremely easy to lose mental clarity on a subject that you don't already agree with on this medium. Articulation helps, but it only goes so far when you're trying to explain an entire ideology in a few paragraphs. People have written entire books on these subjects for centuries and still fail to get the point across in a way that is accessible to all audiences.

[edit: I wrote this before reading Neil's post, but I agree with the same line of reasoning as to why people misunderstand each other in this way]

23yrold3yrold
Derezo said:

I still stand by my old argument that topics regarding divinity and spirituality do not convey well by text on a forum alone.

This is why my first act was to remove the spirituality and divinity from my post by making it about a video game instruction manual and then later about Frodo, and asking the question again. :) I'm not sure how much more I could sterilize it ...

Derezo

I think the trouble is the lack of a willingness to understand these topics. Our own beliefs and perspectives distort the comprehension process. A strongly held belief is so well protected from outside influence that when it's presented with a new one, the response is to defend yourself. That's what we see in these threads. Rather than saying "Oh, you mean ...?" and attempting to display our mutual understanding, we present our own opposition so that we can reaffirm our own beliefs on the matter. This is also why you'll often find two people arguing with each other when they actually mean to say the same thing. They're just so unwilling to modify those deeply rooted beliefs that they don't even understand that the other person shares them.

Metaphor and allegory often wont bend around that stuff. Best try a case of beer.

Neil Black

I agree with Derezo.

The only reliable solution to such a situation is to have the debate be moderated by someone. In my opinion, anyway.

Matthew Leverton

I'll moderate.

Your opinion is wrong. >:(

Neil Black

Yay! Now everything's good forever!

Neil Roy

I do plan on looking into some of the things I discussed with Matthew. Just so you know I'm not closed minded, he did make me think. My opinions on those subjects still stand due to other scriptures, but he did make me realize I need to look up some scriptures and make some notes for future reference. :P

Anyohw....

*** GROUP HUG *** ;D

Derezo

Seriously?
A conservative party logo?

>:(

You're begging to be flamed. Their leader is a disgrace to the human race and is what has caused the destruction of our country's sovereignty. >:(

{"name":"stephen-harper-and-the-kitten.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/613b0b0ef94893b61a70e7f8bd9334a3.jpg","w":527,"h":720,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/6\/1\/613b0b0ef94893b61a70e7f8bd9334a3"}stephen-harper-and-the-kitten.jpg

When he's found guilty of treason, assuming he lives that long, the world will be a happier place.

>:( and a thousand more >:('s to you.

23yrold3yrold

Ah, propaganda. :) I don't give a rats ass about politics but is Harper even that hated anymore? Is that still trendy?

Derezo

No, he fixed that up pretty good by playing the piano or some crap.

It's not like the Liberals before him were a positive influence, but this government gets away with so much right out in the open... not that we see that on our government controlled news or anything.

Neil Roy

Everyone's welcome to their opinion. I would address some of the issues that picture brings up but that would open up a whole new can o worms.

But no, he's not hated, plenty of people love him and think he's the best PM we've ever had, I happen to be one of 'em. Given how our country done during the recent economic meltdown, I would say he done very well. Canada done very well. I plan on voting for him again, and hopefully we can get a Majority with him at the helm this time rather than one of the three stooges. ;)

I thought the Liberals calling this based on ethics was the ultimate irony. ;)

Derezo
Quote:

plenty of mindless tele-vision watching drones love him

I fixed this for you.

Neil Roy said:

Given how our country done during the recent economic meltdown, I would say he done very well.

Is that some sort of sick joke? He deserves a life in prison for what he's done with our economy, sovereignty, monetary system, and .. well, everything else he's poisoned.

Quote:

I plan on voting for him again

That is so painful it almost makes me want to puke. After all of the horrible things his party has done to us. :'(

That's just sick. You clearly don't even know what he's responsible for. The Liberals can go to prison with him for all I care, but we don't actually have a two party system like our neighbour, despite the multitude of Canadians who think so. The youth of our nation will rise up against this injustice. Turn off your fucking TV and stop thinking in red and blue.

23yrold3yrold
Derezo said:

You clearly don't even know what he's responsible for

Neither do you if all you can post is a propaganda poster. :) Again, I don't follow politics, I don't even know what party Harper and Ignatieff and all these idiots are, but here's a random post from a Facebook friend ...

Quote:

Look at things objectively. Our economy is among the strongest in developed nations. Our debt to GDP ratio is a fraction of the U.S. Our unemployment is low. And Harper did this with small tax cuts that have benefited everyone. Oh, and he did this with a minority government. Political scientists will be talking about this government for decades.

Now, convince me. Is he right or are you, and why?

Derezo

Neither do you if all you can post is a propaganda poster.

That's just from some random blog. You cannot talk about government without propaganda coming up, but these things are real problems. I google imaged for the kitten shot mostly.

If you REALLY want to know, you can watch this video or check out what some other party's are saying and see what the problems are in our country. I rather liked these guys when I read about them, and their website has a public forum with some pretty intense videos about what we're facing. Then of course you'll see who caused all of these problems. Liberals and Conservatives are backed entirely by corporate interests and their policy changes reflect that clear as day.

Quote:

Harper did this with small tax cuts that have benefited everyone.

The tax cuts benefit the rich, not the poor.

Remember when Harper did this? You've probably never heard of it. That site is propaganda, the actual agreement is somewhat creepy and makes you wonder.... "Why?", and I'm sure it's available on that site and nobody reading this will read it. :P

Evert

I cannot speak for either Chris or Neil, but I'm pretty sure both of them would say that God is "all mighty" (that phrase is used in the Bible many times) and "omnipotent": he has the ability to do whatever he wants to do. That's all the average Christian means by that. Few people would say God is "omnipotent" if the definition attached to it comes with some bogus self-contradicting concept.

And here's the rub:

The Bible says God isn't omnipotent.

Which particular meaning of the word "omnipotent" is being used here?
If two people use the same word to mean two different things, you get confusion.

Maybe you felt that Neil was using omnipotence as a way to justify some logically contradictory thing?

No.
Quite literally what I said: there are two people, both supposedly believing more or less the same things, and one of them says "God is omnipotent", the other "God is not omnipotent". Now supposedly they mean something different by the word "omnipotent" in each of those instances, and quoting one to say something about what the other meant to say is maybe not fair (although religious interest groups do this in debates on evolution all the time) but you can't actually tell by just looking at the statements themselves.

Neil Roy

That's a good point 23yrold3yrold... with a minority government he would have to have the support of the other parties to pass anything. So if you want to lay blame, you have to add in the other parties with him. That's the beauty of a minority government, you can't blame them solely.

There's a variety of reasons why I vote conservative. I'm against socialism, I feel it destroys a country. Supporting businesses and corporations helps create jobs, which gets people off the social system, gives them a little self respect and lowers taxes. The less people on the social system, the lower the taxes, the better everyone does. Higher social spending leads to higher taxes which leads to a greater need for social spending, it's a vicious loop.

;D, I just got thinking, what's a a religious thread without a little political debate?! ;D

Harper has done a nice job, even though I was against him spending those huge sums he spent to help economic recovery, the other parties threatened an election if he didn't, now ironically they will accuse him of spending... ah well.

Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

Which particular meaning of the word "omnipotent" is being used here?

Context is relevant. When Chris is speaking in your language, God is not omnipotent. Knowing what kind of debates have been taken place here is relevant to understanding a statement like that. It's completely clear to me what's meant. I cannot make it clear for anybody else.

23yrold3yrold

Context is relevant. When Chris is speaking in your language, God is not omnipotent.

Essentially. Ever specifically Evert said the premise is absurd. It's only absurd if you take it literally, which, yes, is absurd. That was the supplied context. Perhaps Evert meant something else?

Quote:

It's completely clear to me what's meant.

But Evert specifically said he was the one being understood! The implication being that I'm the one not being clear! Stop confusing me!

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

Harper has done a nice job, even though ...

The trouble with politics is the same as with the religion. Once you cement your beliefs like that, you're no longer thinking for yourself and no longer examining alternatives. They become your God all over again. What you are saying is not the truth, and I have absolutely no reason to believe that Harper has done a "nice job" when there is no evidence of that.

However, it is again subjective. I'm sure if you own a bank you're very happy with Harper's performance.

Evert

But whether the English translation says "hell" or "hades" or "the underworld" is really irrelevant, isn't it? Aren't we talking about a concept, and not a four letter word?

The problem is that words carry associations with them, the affect at least their perceived meaning.
Originally (way back), "Hades" referred to the "underworld", the place underneat the Earth where the god Hades rules over the souls of the dead. In Hades there were different regions, for instance the Elyssean Fields where those who were noble and virtuous in life went, and the Tartaros, where giants and other monsters were chained up and where those who had been exceptionally cruel in their lifes (or stepped on the toes of the wrong god) underwent fitting punishment (Tantalos is a famous example). This is certainly not synonymous with the conventional Christian concept of hell. This is also something to be extremely careful of when reading early Christian texts written in Greek, or Greek translations of the Old Testament.
The correct translation depends on context, and people did (and do, and will) get this wrong.
So yes, it depends very much on what word you use what other people will think you say.

To give the thread a spin, I'm always annoyed at the scene in the otherwise excellent I, Claudius where Livia tells Claudius that she's afraid she'll be "punished in hell for all eternity" for the bad things she's done. Romans had no concept of hell in this sense, it's a Judeo-Christian thing[1] and to a large extent a concept from later times. Its use there jars quite badly.

EDIT

It's completely clear to me what's meant.

I know what he means, that's not the point I'm trying to make. Now how do I know what someone who uses the same word and makes a contradictory statement means?
Are they disagreeing?
Are they agreeing but using a different meaning of the word "omnipotent"?

References

  1. And as far as I know also far more Christian than Jewish, although the concept clearly exists in Islam as well.
Matthew Leverton
Evert said:

The problem is that words carry associations with them, the affect at least their perceived meaning.

I agree, and there is some importance related to the topic of hell. But again, I think a lot of it is just talking in the language that is understood by the people without getting caught up in details that aren't relevant.

For instance, when I was a "support technician" I quickly discovered that a disturbingly large number of people cannot tell their left from their right. So the first time I'd tell someone to left click vs right click and they indicated they clicked on the wrong button, I'd just switch my language to match theirs.

Every time I meant "right click" I'd say "left click". Somebody taking notes out of context would think I was crazy.

I don't think Jesus meant for everybody to hang on to every word he uttered. If he wasn't actually teaching specifically on what hell is, then him using a word of the day in a parable is hardly important at all.

Quote:

Now how do I know what someone who uses the same word and makes a contradictory statement means?

Ask him? And if you cannot, then assume he's not crazy.

Most people don't assign bogus definitions to things like omnipotence and then continue to use them to apply to things they don't think are bogus. So I'd base my understanding on something like that.

bamccaig

It's irrelevant which Canadian party is elected. They're all blowing the monopoly guy... Until the people come up with a way to prevent government from getting in bed with business it will always be nothing more than a puppet show.

Derezo

There are party's who promote that idea. It's just that they also promote other equally outrageous ideas which the public are completely unaware of and think are "crazy". The only party's the public pays attention to are the ones that they see on commercials and the news, because they're given a stimulus and have to make a decision about that stimulus. Then they've made up their mind.

The way it works is that they control two party's, fund them with a ton of money, and pit them against each other. One says the other is bad, the other says the other is bad, and so the public winds up making a decision based on that information.

... but that information doesn't include other party's!!!

Neil Roy

Derenzo, you assume a lot about me and why I vote for Harper. I actually used to vote Liberal, back in the Cretian days because I thought he was a decent person for the job and I didn't like the conservative person at the time. But with a lot of thought on the subject my mind changed based on my own thoughts on economics and other issues. I have NEVER been convinced to vote one way or another by advertisements or other nonsense I see on TV. IN fact, I spend more time on my computer than I ever will on TV, I can't stand most TV, mostly due to the commercials and other issues.

Don't assume that I have somehow been deceived into voting one way or the other, I have a mind of my own and I use it. Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps you are the one who is being deceived by some of these websites and videos you watch? It is possible you know. I'm not trying to be insulting towards you, but you should consider it and carefully view all the facts, and verify what you have been told, don't just accept it without question.

Polybios
Neil Roy said:

Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps you are the one who is being deceived by some of these websites and videos you watch?

Not entirely unlikely, but "cui bono?".

Derezo
Quote:

Derenzo[sic], you assume a lot about me and why I vote [Conservative]. I actually used to vote Liberal

Makes sense -- same shit, different pile.

Politics does get me worked up, because I feel so powerless to stop it. I don't have a giant corporation to campaign my causes with, and these are extremely delicate situations. I have my own shit to deal with. The sad truth is that so few people think for themselves, and I wasn't aware of this growing up... but why would they when they don't have to? They just turn on the tele-vision, or pick up a newspaper or magazine, and have it think for them. >:( I'm very different because I need to hear the words from the horses mouth.

Neil Roy said:

Have you ever considered the idea that perhaps you are the one who is being deceived by some of these websites and videos you watch?

Indeed. Actually, I seeked out professional help because I was worried I might be psychotic. I was obsessed with this stuff for over a year. Religion, politics, war, consumerism, brainwashing and mind control, drugs, video games, social problems, etc. I posted less here during that time and watched way too many independent films that were provided free of charge by people who only want to bring their views into public consciousness so that they can try to solve problems that had deeply affected their lives. I saw a clear distinction between the stuff with a hidden agenda and the stuff that is asking for help with an agenda. Often the people who start the good ones are impacted by a horrible tragedy that drives them to finding answers, like losing their children or family. Many lost family, friends, and relatives in the WTC incident and couldn't handle the absurdity of the news reports.

That isn't to say that any of the information I've viewed is perfect. Quite the contrary. The 80/20 rule applies to all things universally. 80% of everything is horse crap, 20% is useful.

I've been to several therapists, psychologists and doctors. I seriously thought I was going insane. Much to my dismay, there's nothing wrong with me. I am a just your everyday lateral thinker who questions everything he sees. :-/

The videos I use as support are typically from a series of interviews with politicians and other members of government where they ask "Questions" and receive "Answers". I also watch parliament from time to time. It is entertaining to me at the same time that it is informative -- like the part where the student fresh out of high school asks Paul Martin where money comes from and he spins around in his chair was hilarious but also represents a real problem. That asshat was our finance minister, dammit! >:(
Then he eventually answers, but gets the answer completely wrong!!! >:( >:(

You're free and well to take a peak at the world around you. The Internet is loaded with people who actually want to change things, and have organized information in a way that can be easily verified by using the government websites themselves and documents released through freedom of information. These are real, live people being asked real, difficult questions.

What bothers me about you is that you consider your beliefs to be fact, and this causes you not to believe in actual facts that are contrary to your preconceptions. In short: I think you lie to yourself.

The only TV I watch is the TV at my parents... and all the while I go on and on about how awful it is that they let those people into their homes through that box and tell them the things they tell them. It has seriously affected my family life, and I often imagine doing outrageous things -- like showing up with a sledge hammer.

It's so difficult to understand without a serious investment of your time. More recently I've been thinking that none of this really matters, because it's too late for the masses anyway.

I'm nothing special, and I'm a far cry from perfect. I'm just a bit different. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with anyone being closed minded or insecure, but just because it isn't wrong doesn't mean it isn't there. I would say that the opinion of a closed minded person is of little value to anyone but the interests he has closed himself off with. I also speak very generally when there is no subjective matter at stake.... and sometimes edit my posts profusely.

Neil Roy

I have viewed many of these videos, and I think most people with a brain can agree that something more happened with the WTC attacks, it seems obvious to me anyhow that a controlled demolition took place, and we have heard more from people with pretty good credentials that agree. There was a joke going around Las Vegas I recall from a friend that lived there, when they demolished one of the Casinos people were saying, as they watched it fall: "Looks like a plane hit it".

I don't believe all the really wild ideas that some have proposed, but some things you just can't get around like the WTC demolition. Who was involved we may never find out. The truth I think is somewhere between the radical website videos and conspiracy theorists and government explanations.

I have friends that were overly obsessed with this type of thing, I finally had to remove them from my Facebook because it's ALL you see them talk about. So I think people need to be careful about these things. Not ALL government officials are corrupt, they're not perfect and I wouldn't use mistakes they may make as proof of corruption. I figure you just have to weigh all the evidence you can find from ALL sources (don't limit yourself to just one type) and then see what happens. Watch what the various parties actually do and see if it matches your philosophy on how the country should be run and then go that route, whether it be Liberal, Conservative, NDP or independent... I don't try and sway people's opinions (part of the reason I removed my conservative avatar, I realized I might come off as trying to provoke people). I think everyone should vote, and vote for what they want. Leave hatred out of it and vote on policies, using past experience as a guide to see if they follow through and have a good chance at achieving what you want. I think our country (no matter where you live) would be better off if everyone voted that way and left gut reactions and hatred out of the equation.

LennyLen

Politics, Meh. You get to choose between a giant douche and a turd sandwich.

bamccaig

There's a reason people hate office politics. It's because it never works for the better of anything. It's politics. It's a waste of money and a waste of time. Government politics are the same thing. Think about it; you vote for a party or a party leader. You're not voting for how you want the country run. You're voting for the group of people that most closely matches your ideals, at least according to what they tell you when the cameras are on. It's fucking ridiculous. That sort of system will never work and I'm amazed that people accept it at all.

Neil Roy

That sort of system has and does work. if the party you voted for doesn't do as promised, you vote them out of office, and that has been done time and time again.

It's the people who DON'T vote that are the problem...

Thomas Fjellstrom
Neil Roy said:

That sort of system has and does work. if the party you voted for doesn't do as promised, you vote them out of office, and that has been done time and time again.

You know, except that it keeps getting us crap leaders. The same idiots time and time again.

Neil Roy

Perhaps when people start actually THINKING and voting for the right people, for the right reasons (other than what you can GET from them if you give them your vote) than maybe things would improve.

Unfortunately people keep voting for whomever promises to give them the most.

Thomas Fjellstrom

Sadly that's not going to happen any time soon. It might if the next few govt's are equally as retarded as the last few. Eventually people should get fed up with the shenanigans that have been played. Or so I hope.

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

I don't try and sway people's opinions (part of the reason I removed my conservative avatar, I realized I might come off as trying to provoke people)

It did get me very fired up, and it felt like a continuation of the earlier quarrel in this thread.

Neil Roy said:

Perhaps when people start actually THINKING and voting for the right people

The majority don't think, and I think it's important for those who are capable of thinking to think for them and gear them in a better direction. :)
Otherwise they will just listen to the next suggestion they hear that supports their beliefs, which they often adopt without thinking.

The power of suggestion is so incredible. When people don't think, that's all you need to do to set a spark of change in their actions. Suggest it. It's not always easy to get them on the right path, but sometimes a series of small things can push them in the right direction.

When I was at a friend's place a few weeks ago, they started talking about oxycontin. That's another subject that gets me really fired up, and I started bashing it's use right away. I started saying that people who use it become junkies and compared the people who sell it to heroine dealers and slave traders. I was quick to defend the users (because they know not what they do), and began saying that the pharma companies who make it should be sued. They know it is a sort of "pseudo-heroine" and they have scientifically engineered it as such (which, according to wikipedia, I later found out there is a class action lawsuit in D.C. for over $5 billion, which I hope is successful), for the purpose of making as much money as possible.

A guy who was there spoke up with a quiver in his voice and said "Stop! I can't help it!". I calmed down a little and felt an ounce of guilt creep into my throat, because I didn't realize he was a user and he had been behind me the whole while. I was only there to fix the computer, heh.

I later found out that what I had been describing had actually happened to him. He lost his house, his family, many friends, legal problems, and was on the verge of losing his job. He had been taking 20mg tablets every ~2 hours for years.

Two days later I was told the guy was really bothered by what I said, and quit them that same day and hadn't touched them since. Now, I haven't been keeping up, and I know the withdrawal from it is insane, but you can imagine how influence like that can snowball.

Sometimes I mean to offend people, but I do it with the best of intentions. I'm not always right, and many of my ideas are very radical or appear fundamentalist, but I believe that anyone can make a major impact in changing the world by spreading the right ideas.

Neil Roy said:

I finally had to remove them from my Facebook because it's ALL you see them talk about.

I was like that for that period of discovery. 2012 and WTC every day. Not so much anymore, but it still trickles through.

Tobias Dammers

The whole voting thing has a number of flaws:

  • Once you're voted in, you can screw up considerably before any consequences show

  • Politicians are also participants in the society they govern, and they have their own interests, goals and needs, which inevitably produces conflicts

  • People are way too lazy to get themselves informed properly, so they vote based on PR rather than actual qualifications

  • Being a politician is hard, under-paid work. Those with the skills to do it often choose jobs that pay them more; those with the best ideals and ideas often do not have what it takes to grab the power and hold on to it

  • A representative democracy favours least-common-denominator majorities, while democracy should rather be about finding consensus among a diverse group of minorities

gnolam

Being a politician is hard, under-paid work. Those with the skills to do it often choose jobs that pay them more; those with the best ideals and ideas often do not have what it takes to grab the power and hold on to it

Hah! Around here, politician is probably the cushiest job you can get. Two terms in parliament, and you're overpaid for life!
And, in case you're wondering, that does nothing to improve the quality of governance.

bamccaig
Neil Roy said:

That sort of system has and does work.

Define "work". Dictatorships and monarchies have "worked" too. The problem with people is that they're very short sighted. If they have money and jobs and houses and cars and nobody standing on their toes then they figure the country is doing great and all is well. Government actions have long term consequences. It's easy to make things look good now so everybody thinks the government is doing good and votes them in again. It isn't until years later that the actual shit hits the fan and whoever is in office then has to try to resolve it. I certainly wouldn't claim to know what is going on in government, or what direct or indirect consequences their actions have. It's a very complicated system. You can't know unless you make it your life's work to study it (if then). That even assumes you know everything the government does (and you don't).

Neil Roy said:

if the party you voted for doesn't do as promised, you vote them out of office, and that has been done time and time again.

You vote them out after they've already done it. They've already been paid off, and the corporations are already profiting, and the citizens are already struggling. It's too late by then. You vote the first guys out and the next guys do the same fucking thing. ::)

Neil Roy said:

It's the people who DON'T vote that are the problem...

I think the system is the problem, but the people that believe their pen marks every couple of years do any good aren't helping.

Neil Roy said:

Perhaps when people start actually THINKING and voting for the right people, for the right reasons (other than what you can GET from them if you give them your vote) than maybe things would improve.

Unfortunately people keep voting for whomever promises to give them the most.

Please explain to me what criteria made you vote for Harper (and/or) support him? IIRC, I voted for him too, but not because of any known qualification. Mostly because I watched the (only) televised meeting/debate and Harper seemed like the most competent person. The rest seemed to be deceptive and/or incompetent.

That's not completely true. I actually think the Green Party leader seemed more intelligent and genuine, but she also came across as quiet and shy. Perhaps inexperienced. To be honest, I don't even remember the Green Party being an option when I voted... :-/

Neil Roy

Honestly, no, I am not going to explain why it is I vote for Mr. Harper. Only that I do vote for him, I don't do it blindly and without thought. The exact thought processes that lead me to believe the conservatives are the best ones for the job I'll keep private. I've been attacked enough thanks. ;)

Derezo

Conservatives are the Christian De facto. They're supportive of the church and are against things like gay marriage.

bamccaig said:

I actually think the Green Party leader seemed more intelligent and genuine, but she also came across as quiet and shy. Perhaps inexperienced. To be honest, I don't even remember the Green Party being an option when I voted.

I agree with a lot of what she says, but there are some things with the green party that I'm very uncertain of, and their website doesn't really have a strong focus on the policy changes I would like to see.

I don't think there is a party in the available selection that is worse than the conservatives, though.

Neil Roy
Derezo said:

I don't think there is a party in the available selection that is worse than the conservatives, though.

Just for that, I'm putting my logo back up. :)

Do you seriously believe the Liberals and NDP would be a better choice? Wow...

Derezo
Neil Roy said:

Just for that, I'm putting my logo back up.

No biggie, I revoked your avatar privileges. Feel good about yourself and your illness.

Quote:

Do you seriously believe the Liberals and NDP would be a better choice?

I think they are equally as poor of a choice, but I certainly don't believe anything about any of those parties. Why would anyone support their policies? Have you read them it? Have you read the policies of other parties to compare and contrast? There's a little more meat and potatoes there, as opposed to... uhh.. I don't even know what that policy is that they're presenting. Something about a "Harper"? What's that, some sort of instrument? Sounds like it might describe one who harps on and on, like that harping jerk in office.

An elementary school student could develop a more articulated, well crafted set of government policies that would put these 3 parties to shame. They are tele-vision personalities and nothing more. The first articles on their website involve a "competing" party leader. I've yet to find a party outside of the big three that uses these types of techniques to gain votes.

Is there actually anything good about your party? You've never mentioned anything they do or support that is positive, and they don't mention anything on their website. I have a feeling you just enjoy opposing things. Nothing wrong with that, but it certainly doesn't make your party (which recently lost control of the house in a non-confidence vote) look any more competent... and it doesn't make you look intelligent or any less narrow minded than your previous communication.

Neil Roy said:

The exact thought processes that lead me to believe the conservatives are the best ones for the job I'll keep private.

It must be pretty embarrassing. :-[

Of course, I am a wiser than my years, and I can see you share their desire to "believe" in things.
{"name":"603767","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/2\/12e03b013e9c78618796743bf7318450.gif","w":1313,"h":975,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/1\/2\/12e03b013e9c78618796743bf7318450"}603767

I suspect your party is using "make-believe". Please reconsider the function of the magnificent imagination that the source of your existence has blessed you with.

Neil Roy

As you can see, I haven't said a word as to why I vote for them and already you're slinging insults. It's a good thing I didn't say anything. I'll end this conversation with you now I think. I've said nothing to insult you or deserve your attacks. Added you to my ignore list. If that even works.

Derezo

;D

I'm curious about which part you find insulting, but you show that the conservative party has absolutely no honour to defend.

If the other supporters are so daft, this battle should be easy.

Edgar Reynaldo

Geez Derezo, give it a rest already. Neil already said why he supports the Conservative Party. So you disagree with him, great, who cares. It's not like you've come up with any better options. 'Support minority parties!' That will never work, it's like voting for the Green Party in the US, it's a total waste of time because the majority of people vote Democrat/Republican so you might as well pick which of the two you find less distasteful or run for office yourself.

Derezo

Neil already said why he supports the Conservative Party.

Oh. I guess I just can't find it. I do recall him explicitly refusing to do so, though (and reiterating that point).

I don't follow your line of reasoning, but let me make sure I understand you:

Quote:

'Support minority parties!' That will never work, it's like voting for the Green Party in the US, it's a total waste of time

In this statement, you are telling me that voting against the parties I don't want to win creates an impossibility that the parties I don't want to win will lose?

Quote:

you might as well pick which of the two you find less distasteful

Here you are telling me that a better solution is to vote for a party that I do not want to win, so that .. wait...

How do you mean?
From my understanding, all you're saying is that you believe voting is pointless. Good for you?

Politics in Canada do not work like they work in your country.

http://www.freedomparty.ca/htm/en/home.htm said:

Every year, FPC will receive $1.75 per vote (indexed for inflation) it receives in the most recent general election (provided it obtains at least 2% of the vote: approximately 904 votes per riding). That is approximately $487,518.23 per year. Assuming one election every 4 years, that's at least $1,950,072.90 of party funding per election.

Of course, Freedom Party of Canada opposes the inflation-indexed $1.75 per vote subsidy to political parties, and we have campaigned against it (and will continue to do so). However, so long as the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois parties will be using the subsidy to compete against Freedom Party of Canada in federal elections, we will play by the rules rather than voluntarily tying one hand behind our own back.

You ask questions, I give answers. I ask questions, you give questions. Don't think that I don't already know this is a one-sided argument, but I am not wrong. None of my points have been disputed. This thread had gotten me very excited about politics.

Edgar Reynaldo
Derezo said:

Oh. I guess I just can't find it. I do recall him explicitly refusing to do so, though.

Well let me point it out for you : (click the little blue link ;))

Neil Roy said:

There's a variety of reasons why I vote conservative. I'm against socialism, I feel it destroys a country. Supporting businesses and corporations helps create jobs, which gets people off the social system, gives them a little self respect and lowers taxes. The less people on the social system, the lower the taxes, the better everyone does. Higher social spending leads to higher taxes which leads to a greater need for social spending, it's a vicious loop.

Derezo said:

In this statement, you are telling me that voting against the party I don't want to win creates an impossibility that the party I don't want to win will lose?

No, I'm telling you if there are two parties that always receive at least 40% of the votes each, then there is no point voting for a party other than those two. One of the two majority parties will always win, so you might as well vote for the majority party you dislike the least.

Derezo said:

From my understanding, all you're saying is that you believe voting is pointless. Good for you?

No, voting for a minority party that will never win is pointless. Try not reading your own meaning into my statements, thanks.

Derezo said:

Don't think that I don't already know this is a one-sided argument, but I am not wrong.

Well, I've already proved you wrong three times in this post alone, but feel free to continue to feel superior when you twist the meaning of other peoples statements.

Matthew Leverton
Derezo said:

Politics in Canada do not work like they work in your country.

There are similar benefits in the USA. Parties that hit a certain percentage qualify for the right to appear on the ballots, etc. Details probably vary from state to state.

But even if there were no benefit, I would still vote for the person I think is best. I'm not voting for who I think will win.

The first and second choices need to be scared that the super minorities will receive enough votes to affect the election. That's the only way to get them to reach out to those groups given a most-votes-win election.

Ignore Edgar, because he is wrong.

Derezo

I'm telling you if there are two parties that always receive at least 40% of the votes each, then there is no point voting for a party other than those two.

Oh, I didn't even see anything about percentages in your posts. In any case, you're wrong. I proved that wrong in my previous post. Each vote gives the party you vote for subsidized political revenue. To be precise, it is $1.75 per voter.

There is at least one point, so "there is no point" is flat out incorrect.

Quote:

No, voting for a minority party that will never win is pointless.

Please see previous statement.

[edit]

I would still vote for the person I think is best.

You're a MAD MAN! :o

Matthew Leverton
Derezo said:

Oh, I didn't even see anything about percentages in your posts.

His percentages are bogus anyway. Going by that you should never vote unless there is a possibility that the margin of victory will be exactly one. Otherwise your vote is irrelevant.

Think about that.

Edgar Reynaldo
Derezo said:

There is at least one point, so "there is no point" is flat out incorrect.

Well, as long as a minority party gets a little money out of the deal, then sure go for it. ;) That way they can waste it on advertising that won't matter because they still won't win. ;) And in the US, they can get on the ballot, how impressive. Neither matters because they still won't win. ;)

In the US, voting for a minority party generally means votes taken away from the Democratic Party, which in my opinion is better than the Republican party. So if you vote minority, you might as well have voted Republican, because that's what you will get when you waste your time with minority parties.

But hey, Matthew say's I'm wrong, and Matthew is always right, so what do I know? ;)

Matthew Leverton

Edgar, you know I'm always right. That is one step in becoming a Supreme Loser.

Would you say that a husband and wife should not bother voting if they know they are going to cancel out each other?

Where do you draw the line?

I've never seen an election won by exactly one vote. Therefore, I should never vote because there is absolutely no statistical way to prove that it is relevant or ever will be relevant.

So one like Edgar might say, "But... but... but if you and everybody else do that it becomes significant..."

Then the Supreme Loser says, "Thanks, you've just validated my argument for voting for the 'third' party."

Then Derezo stares at his scary-red wall and says something insane.

Edgar Reynaldo

I never said voting doesn't matter, I said voting for minority parties doesn't matter, there's a clear difference there.

LennyLen

I never said voting doesn't matter, I said voting for minority parties doesn't matter, there's a clear difference there.

Voting for minorities does count with a decent system. Yay MMP!

Matthew Leverton

there's a clear difference there.

Of course there's a difference. Your defense against my superior Supreme Loser logic is an irrelevant statement that I don't disagree with. 8-)

{"name":"Flowchart-to-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion-e1300206446831-634x882.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61.jpg","w":634,"h":882,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/0\/80957c72518411bd61070d1b9a026d61"}Flowchart-to-determine-if-youre-having-a-rational-discussion-e1300206446831-634x882.jpg

Basically there is no way to get past "This is not a discussion" on a.cc. 8-)

Derezo

Then Derezo stares at his scary-red wall and says something insane.

There is never a shortage of insanity and chaos ;D

{"name":"603772","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/1\/71df5caf6930a6c33e8c91f8129a9d8d.jpg","w":298,"h":302,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/7\/1\/71df5caf6930a6c33e8c91f8129a9d8d"}603772

My last room was sea foam green.

Tobias Dammers

Excellent chart, Matthew. You should post it in every single thread that threatens to be about religion, politics, science, operating systems, programming languages, healthcare, economics, or cooking. Hey, you might as well add some code to a.cc to make it DETECT these topics and auto-post the chart.

Johan Halmén

No, voting for a minority party that will never win is pointless.

.

I would still vote for the person I think is best.

Matthew 1, Edgar 0.

Seriously. If USA is only ruled either by the democrats or the republicans, it is probably because they both have brainwashed the US Americans to believe that Edgar's way of thinking is the only American way. But truly it's against democracy.

van_houtte

u really need to shave, having a huge beard doesnt give you manpenis++ points

William Labbett

I feel very deprived by not being able to read that diagram Matthew posted. I'm runnning FF4 and I can't enlarge it....

bamccaig

Try this.

William Labbett

Thanks Bamcaig. I've now read it and will keep it as a guide in case I ever get to the point where it's relevant.

Whether this will ever arise I'm not sure because long ago I came to realise that if I don't want to get into a ruck with anyone on a.cc I just need to avoid getting my antlers entangled with anyone elses and stick to the forums which I need to post on to get on with making my game.

It does seem there is a way to avoid the 'This is not a discussion' box - by following the rules.

Derezo

u really need to shave

I did it all for you and your love for my manpenis :-*

{"name":"603775","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/b\/2bc5a7fc3f974ba2e020e8fd3e315812.jpg","w":320,"h":681,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/2\/b\/2bc5a7fc3f974ba2e020e8fd3e315812"}603775

Thomas Fjellstrom
Derezo said:

I did it all for you and your love for my manpenis

He says while wearing a Power Rangers T-Shirt...

Derezo

It was the funniest photo I could craft with such short notice ;D

Matthew Leverton

I wish I could grow a full Grizzly Adams beard. I would never shave. :'(

William Labbett

Let noone ever say that Derezo is stubborn.

23yrold3yrold

I actually shaved last Sunday. My chin has seen the sunlight for the first time in 16 years. :o

William Labbett

Photo :)

I can never get past the itchy stage.

23yrold3yrold

Yeah, it's still a bit itchy and dry, but I look about a week younger. And no pics; camera's busted. :P Need a new one before my Jamaica trip in May, mind ...

Neil Roy

I'm keeping my face trimmed, but not shaving it off. I'm allergic to nickle, so shaving can be a little irritating for me. ;)

603777

Derezo
Quote:

I would never shave. :'(

I didn't want to, but I've recently been stricken with the urge to jam my baby maker into a life tunnel.

Arthur Kalliokoski

Just get a shirt that says "Mustache rides: 25 cents".

bamccaig
Derezo said:

I did it all for you and your love for my manpenis :-*

[http://static.allegro.cc/image/cache/2/b/2bc5a7fc3f974ba2e020e8fd3e315812.jpg]

Thanks a lot. :( I was reading this when my brother stopped by. I left the screen where it was. He sat at the computer while we were talking and finally asked why I had a picture of "a nerdy guy" on my screen... I tried to explain, but he read the comment above it, rhetorically asked if I was on some kind of homosexual chat room, and stormed out... :-[

:P

I also shaved today, but not because of this thread. :) I still need to shave my head though.

Derezo

Awesome ;D

video

van_houtte

well done derezo :-*

Neil Roy
Quote:

Thanks a lot. :( I was reading this when my brother stopped by. I left the screen where it was. He sat at the computer while we were talking and finally asked why I had a picture of "a nerdy guy" on my screen... I tried to explain, but he read the comment above it, rhetorically asked if I was on some kind of homosexual chat room, and stormed out... :-[

Dies laughing :D

superstar4410

Interesting path this thread has taken, interesting. Because of me starting this thread Derezo decided to shave, wow the power I have, I should choose thread topics more wisely, ;D

Derezo

I had shaved before I set this to my avatar. The pic was taken the day I shaved -- I took a lot more, too. In one I even share a bit of likeness with Colonel Sanders.

The whole thing was a social psychology experiment, and it was extremely successful and rewarding. It's interesting how much an image like that affects the way most minds perceive the individual underneath the protein fibers. The perceived value of a person's contributions, or of a person's opinion, is greatly modified by their image.

It can be abused very much.

Tobias Dammers

I am abusing it right now. The somewhat naïve expression on my face, and my being a shark (which barely qualifies me as vertebrate) were carefully crafted (using state-of-the-art supercomputers) to create a false sense of intellectual superiority on my opponent's part (you, that is). Then when you don't look, I'll devastate you by posting something extremely intelligent.

In real life, I have a beard, because it makes me feel more manly, plus I want to look like Richard Stallman when I grow up.

Thread #606661. Printed from Allegro.cc