horrorkid64

Date: 12/31/2005 8:05:37 AM Author: ephorex_77 horrorkid: I won't say sola scriptura demands you study the original texts even though that would cut this massive debate short. It is a logical deduction. Sola scriptura says you have to do a personal interpretation of the Bible. Prudence (and any protestant) will tell you that this means in-depth study, which means original texts. If you can see how I got to the conclusion that sola scriptura requires original texts, then you agree that indeed makes no sense, and therefore, you too, disagree with sola scriptura which is the major slogan of the Reformation. A logical deduction then tells you that if their major doctrine has been proved false, then so too must their entire faith. Therefore, it can be shown that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Jesus founded. Btw, Happy New Year!!quote> Not necessarily. Statement A being wrong, that doesn't automatically make statement B right. The stance many Protestants I know have is not, that it's required that one must have a personal relationship with the Bible, but merely that it's the only recorded word of God there is. As said above, that does not exclude teaching about it in translations or spoken word or learning about God through prayer. Further, Romans 1:20----Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. seems to support that you don't even need a Bible to perceive God. It is insofar not a 'sola scriptura' stance as you described above, even if it bears some similarities. Besides, even a 'sola scriptura' stance like you described could be defended by simply using the mysterious ways argument: 'I know it does not make much sense, but who am I to undestand God's ways?'. EDIT: Yeah, Happy New Year!

Date: 12/30/2005 7:18:40 PM Author: ephorex_77 horrorkid: I think I get what you're trying to say: The Islamic teaching can be done in the vernacular while the Arabic one can't. I hope that's what you're trying to say. But again, what I'm trying to say is that sola scriptura as expoused by Luther and Calvin demands that people make a detailed study of the Bible, which must mean studying Bible passages in their original languages (hence the comparison brought up by you), having a personal Bible etc. All of the conditions I have mentioned (and have yet to mention) were, and still are, false. ski understood those arguments and thought them rather logical. I hope you do too. quote> Now I get it. If the Sola Scriptura stance DEMANDS that one has to study the original texts, then it makes indeed no sense.

Date: 12/30/2005 5:39:16 PM Author: frndofyaweh This means I can legitimately open a thread titled, Satanists support thread, as well. quote> Why not? Satanism is mostly a philosophical/spiritual movement and not necessarily a religious one. It has little to nothing to do with worshipping Satan.

Date: 12/30/2005 9:44:37 AM Author: ephorex_77 Thank you for for compliment. A compliment from a persistent and articulate forumer is very welcome indeed (no sarcasm at all intended). I failed however, to see how the Koran, the Muslim faith and their non-contradiction has anything to do with sola scriptura and the disproving thereof. I don't know how it is relevant, but perhaps you can explain it better next time. Also, can you refute my arguments above regarding sola scriptura?? You merely stated that you didn't, not whether or not you could. Perhaps in your next post you could make that clear too. If you can, then please do so in the next post. If not, then please say so as well. It's good to receive feedback from comments one makes. And I'm sorry (and perhaps you're thankful ) for the short post. I actually woke up specially to view your reply. I look forward to seeing your refutations, or lack thereof, in your next post regarding my argument against sola scriptura. quote> My point was that two kinds of reasoning can be logical within themselves, without refuting each other but contradicting with each other. Like Idealism vs. Pragmatism. The Islamic teaching of the Koran is basically done with scripture (or at least that's my knowledge about it). The Arabic version of the Koran is the word of Allah and only by studying the Arabic version you study his words. This does not exclude teaching about it in words or reading translations - that can be helpful guidelines, but they are not the word of Allah. So it's not basically necessary to be able to read to be of Islamic faith, but you will only be able to read Allah's words if you're capable of reading the Arabic language. If suddenly all people would lose their Arabic language skills, Allah would certainly think of something. Or God, for that matter. I think I've previously forgotten about an important point about Christianity: prayer. God can communicate with people through prayer. So you don't even need a Bible, to establish a personal relationship with God - though it might help. EDIT: I'm not sure if that was a rebuttal. Decide for yourself. I guess I have to stop here for today, but I will leave with a quote: Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. -- John 14:6 (NKJV)quote> Seems like the only way is through Jesus. Not having heard of him doesn't count, at least according to Jesus.

Date: 12/30/2005 8:46:14 AM Author: ephorex_77 *snip* quote> You can back up your statements, that's for sure and that is more than I can say about many Christians I meet. To clarify some points: I'm not a Christian and I'm surely not one of the fundementalists. But argueing about belief systems is best done within the system - that's why I have to assume things like the Bible being the word of God and thus infallible within a debate. I did in fact not refute your statements about the 'sola scriptura', I simply gave another reasoning something more along the lines of the Muslimic faith and the Koran being the word from Allah. Both are in themselves logical, but no one refutes the other. I guess Protestants on this boards will have their say about this too. I guess I'll look into your Matthew quote and see what others have to say about it. It was nice, especially since most discussions I have are with Protestants, so it was interesting to see some of the Catholic perspective.

Date: 12/30/2005 7:17:04 AM Author: ephorex_77 *snip* quote> The thing is that people claim, that the words written in the Bible are directly inspired by God and/or are accurate recordings of the teachings of Christ. Therefore it is the only thing we can use to base our beliefs on - even if that means that we must be able to read Greek and Hebrew to fully understand it. No one ever claimed that it would be easy. Take the Islamic faith for example. The Koran is only considered to be the word of Allah if read in Arabic, because Arabic is the only language that's capable of fully communicating the words of Allah. That does not mean, that you can't use a translation as a guideline or that you can't teach Allah's words with spoken language. Equally, having the Bible as God's own words does not mean, that you can't use translations or teach about God with spoken word - but it will only get you so far. It can further be assumed that all important points would be covered in God's own book, that includes how you can reach heaven. That this point would be left out by God and instead be taught by hear-say seems rather unlikely to me. The Bible itself is hard enough to read and interpret, further confusing it with words passed along by fallible men (not God) would not be very helpful. Jesus told us how to reach heaven and we can find his words about how to do so in the Bible - do you have knowledge about words of Jesus or God that are not covered there? On a sidenote: you accuse others of subscribing to a false doctrine. Is this not considered to be a sin? I'll have to look that up.

Date: 12/30/2005 5:58:52 AM Author: ephorex_77 horrorkid: It is not mentioned in the Bible, but has been a teaching handed down to us through the Magisterium of the Catholic Chuch. The Bible is one of three pillars of the Church authority. Tradition and the Bible make up the other two pillars. There are many important points that are not addressed in the Bible by name. For instance, there is no word 'Trinity' in the Bible, yet it is one of the most fundamental things Catholics (and most Christians) believe in. The Bible isn't a step by step, word perfect guide on how to address world issues. The Bible is static; the world is changing. It's as simple as that. That is partly why we need the other two pillars of the Church to help guide us. I won't even try to refute your sidenote as I'm sure the absurdity thereof is evident. If you truly believe you have a point and did not merely bring that sidenote up in sarcasm, then please mention it again, and I'm sure I'll address that. quote> It may be a Catholic belief, but the majority of Christians I know (mostly Protestants from the US) do not share this belief. In fact they believe, that if you do not actively accept Jesus as your saviour, you will go to hell. This will include people like Ghandi. There are other versions as well. Some believe that everyone is going to heaven, some believe that only a selected few go to heaven (like the Jehova's witnesses), some say you only have to accept Jesus, some say you have to accept him and repent for your sins. Some say that even if you repent for your sins and accept Jesus, you won't go to heaven if you break the first commandment. As you see, this is obviously a important point and there seems to be quite a confusion about it among Christians. But the Bible only mentions that by accepting Jesus you will we granted the entrance to heaven (as far as I know at least). There are different teachings passed along, but they are the words of men, not the words of God or Jesus. EDIT: I might add that there is a growing sentiment that the Catholic Church is not to be considered Christian - because many of their teachings are not based on the Bible and others are based on very far-fetching interpretations. EDIT II: Yes, my sidenote was being sarcastic, but it would be a valid interpretation of the Bible and it's consistant with what many Protestants the Catholic Church teaches.

Date: 12/29/2005 9:09:52 PM Author: the_new_simman Date: 12/29/2005 8:49:25 PM Author: louisville327 Unfortunately for millions of people on Earth, they have the misfortune of not being born in a region where Christianity is the dominant religion. Sucks for them, because unless they accept Jesus as their savior---even if they've never been exposed to Christian teachings---they're going to hell. quote> And once again, you are wrong. Please don't speak unless you know for sure what you are saying is a fact. If someone is never introduced to the one true religion, 'Christianity' and has never in their life heard about God they will not go to hell, as they have never been taught the right religion. At least that is what I believe. People will go to hell by outright shoving God out of their lives when they get the chance to feel his glory. quote> This might be a comfortable thought, but is anything like that mentioned in the Bible? An important point like that would surely be mentioned. On a sidenote: So if we stopped teaching about christianity until it's completely forgotten, we could make sure that everyone is saved from hell - because no one will have heard about it and thus it eliminates the chance of anyone rejecting it.

Date: 12/29/2005 9:11:36 AM Author: ephorex_77 It seems that you're judging God now. He doesn't have to justify His taking away of lives. Why do people die?? Doesn't God care about the heartbreak it causes?? Does He have to justify that too?? God can take away life as He sees fit as He is the God of all. And indeed, the Old Testament is replete with references to war and killing. As I've already posted, the harshness of Mosaic laws must be looked at in circumspect. Also, the Amaleks violated the law of hospitality and attacked the Israelites. In doing so, they incurred wrath of God. I've already answered the queries in question but still I have to repeat myself. If there's something unsatisfactory about that, please let me know. quote> OK, the Amaleks had sinned, therefore the whole tribe had to be slaughtered (including children, sucklings and animals). I did never question that they have sinned - I question the course of action a supposedly all-loving, benevolent and omnipotent being took. If that's judging to you, then so be it, but genocide and benevolence don't go very well together, at least not in my book - especially if said being has countless alternatives. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. God can do whatever He likes, it's as simple as that. Having said that, can't God not reveal laws completely to Moses?? I've already used the puzzle analogy, but it seems that it's been ignored without a reason. Let me reiterate: just because something is imperfect doesn't mean it's wrong. God did have alternate solutions to the problem. Omnipotence also dictates that He can choose whichever ones He wanted; after all, that is omnipotence. quote> I didn't say, that Mosaic Laws were wrong - I critized their imperfection. Why does an omnipotent being have to use something imperfect? It should very well be within the powers of an omnipotent being to completely reveal his wishes in a non-ambiguous way, wouldn't it? We then come back to the element of circumspection and circumstance. The Amaleks angered God greatly and He declared that the Amaleks be slain. It's not like God wakes up everyday and randomly picks a tribe from a list to be exterminated. The Amaleks attacked the Israelites and in doing so, broke the law of hospitality (I'm repeating meself here...). As punishment (which surely must come after you sin), they were attacked by the Israelites and destroyed. As I've said before, misdeeds have consequences. In those days, the consequence was death. God was kind in His mercy (He performed countless wonders) but His anger was terrible. Would you rather have a flappy-dappy god who goes around forgiving everyone their sins and saying 'Hey Jimmy, if you kill a cop again tomorrow, ring me up and I'll come over here in my white robes and cool sunbeams and forgive you!!'?? Would you rather have that?? quote> What kind of misdeeds do you think the children and sucklings of the Amalek tribe were guilty of? Apart from the original sin of course.

Date: 12/29/2005 7:45:34 AM Author: ephorex_77 God is a loving and forgiving God who also demands obedience and submission. He created us, not the other way around. Who are we, mere men to dictate what God can or cannot do?? Just because we landed on the moon, we think we can dictate what God wants of us?? God is a wonderful God, full of love, mercy and compassion, but at the same time, He also expects our obedience and is sad when we do not obey Him. Punishment is what sin entails. quote> God is only loving and forgiving when he choses to. He has quite a record of slaughter and destruction, sometimes he does not even try to justify his deeds with people's sins. The harshness of Mosaic laws must be taken looked at in circumspect. The Israelites wandered the desert and were struggling to survive as a people. The laws were meant to bring about holiness in rough and rude people. It also says that slaves who desire to be with their master for life must have their ears bored with an awl. This sounds barbaric!! A throwback to slavery of times gone by!! This practice, however, was widespread during that time. It was probably a commonplace thing in those days. As I said earlier, the Amaleks violated the law of hospitality and attacked the Israelites. In doing so, they incurred wrath of God. The 'genocide' has to be seen in perspective. Also, God gives life to all. God does nothing wrong in taking back what He gives out. The just and the innocent will surely not be punished by God after death. Mosaic Law was imperfect; Christ came to fulfil and perfect it. The Old Testament and its laws were inspired by God, therefore there is nothing wrong with them. However, imperfection is not the same as being wrong. Just because there are pieces missing from the puzzle doesn't mean that the puzzle is bad, or that the pieces that you have are bad. When Jesus came to fulfil and complete the law, it was perfect. quote> Isn't god supposed to be all-benevolent and omnipotent? How then could the Mosaic laws be imperfect? How come that god could not think of another solution of the Amalek problem and had to order the slaughter of a whole tribe of people (including children and sucklings)? Surely, an omnipotent being has about an infinite number of alternatives to genocide?

Date: 12/29/2005 6:56:28 AM Author: ephorex_77 My knowledge of the Old Testament isn't as good as my knowledge of the New Testament, so please forgive me if I don't seem as clear. The Amaleks were a Bedouin tribe that was the principal enemy of the Israelites. Just after the Israelites had come from Egypt into the desert, they were attacked by the Amaleks. Such was the ferocity of their attack that the Israelites harboured an intense hatred of them. The Amaleks lost the battle after Moses held up his staff throughout the battle. By attacking weary and hungry strangers to their lands, the Amaleks had broken the rules of hospitality, regarded as a serious affront to God Himself and man. Abraham himself offered food and rest to the travellers who later turned out to be angels bearing good news. God then declared He would blot out the memory of the Amaleks from under Heaven and that His hand would be against them forever.quote> A nice little genocide, just as you'd expect it from a loving and forgiving deity.

Date: 12/28/2005 6:46:58 PM Author: ephorex_77 The idea of being Christian is not 'to save your soul and mine'. God is Love. He loves us all and desires that we be brought back from our evil ways and into the fold. He will forgive you, but if you do not listen to His word, even when presented to you on a silver platter, what then shall He do?? He can't force you to follow Him because He gave us all freedom, and God respects the freedom He gave us. quote> Just like he loved and forgave the people from Amalek? 1 Samuel 15:1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The LORD sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the LORD. 15:2 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 15:3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.quote>

Date: 12/28/2005 11:37:20 PM Author: timotheus4 In general, I have found science to be correct. I differ with it mostly on evolution, and, as there is plenty of scientific evidence against it (not footprints in flour!) I think this matter might be wholly resolved if people would abandon their mindless predjudices against science conducted by creationists and actually looked at the data. Wishful thinking, I guess...quote> Scientific evidence against the theory of evolution? Like what? Creationist science? Since when does including a non-falsifiable unmeasurable supernatural being qualify as science? One of the most out-spoken proponents of ID Michael Behe admitted that for ID to be science, the definition of science would have to be changed.

Date: 12/27/2005 6:34:00 AM Author: Boggy1 Ok, now, the thing about the world being to ordered and natural is a very interesting question and sort of ties in with my Deist belief. Let’s go back a few billion years to the start of the Big Bang, the huge explosion in Space-Time that created the Universe, and eventually everything in it. Now, a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang, its fact that if the Universe then had been a few pico degrees hotter (pico being 0.000 000 000 001 or 10−12), then life AS WE KNOW IT would NOT exist. That’s right, there would be no Milky Way, no Sol, no Earth and no Humans. The same with, that if a Proton on a hydrogen Atom was a tiny tiny bit bigger or smaller, then atoms as we know it couldn't exist. (Which obviously means that life wouldn't exist either because no atoms=no baryonic matter) Now, to me, this seems like HUGE proof the Universe was created artificially. Nothing in nature is THAT precise. However, this is only the creation of the Universe, NOT the world or the starts or galaxies. Now, as stated in my previous post, I DON’T believe the world, stars of galaxies were created by the Being that created the Universe. Lets do a hypothetical situation: There was a powerful Being and he DID set in motion the Big Bang. He worked out all the equations so they would be optimal for Baryonic matter. He made sure that the temperature right after the Big Bang would be correct. He prepared Magnetism and Gravity and all the other forces. He told all the Universal constants to be constant. Then, he initiated the  ( being a Universe-Creating being technology that out tiny little brains haven't invented yet) and saw that the Universe was created. Now, because he worked out all the equations BEFOREHAND, it made sure that Stars could be created (albeit, once the Universe was a lot cooler) and that Gravity would be able to draw in debris and create them into planets. He didn’t do any of this, but only set the Big Bang into action. And because of that, it created a huge chain-reaction, where EVERY SINGLE equation about matter and space-time and forces count, that leaded to the Universe as we know it today. So, when you think of it that way, the world and everything around and in it, really don't seem that big a-deal. And of course, we come to the point where there are literally BILLIONS of worlds like and unlike Earth in the Galaxy, and TENS OF TRILLIONS in the Universe. And a third of them (probably even more) have life! (Be it Carbon-based, Silicon-based or -based) Now that really puts things into perspective. Oh, and I have a pretty irrelevant, yet interesting fact; did you know, that one of the places where there is the most telescopes in one area is the Vatican? SYM Productions: cool! Yeah, I tend to think that most scientific people believe in Deism, because if you take a close look into Quantum Mechanics and String Theory etc, it all seems to good to be true to have come about naturally. quote> As you say, life as we know it would not be possible if the universe was different. But maybe some other form of life would be possible? Here's a good rebuttal of the fine-tuned universe agument.

Date: 12/27/2005 12:15:00 PM Author: the_new_simman Okay, vid, what are you losing by being Christian? Nothing, you will get eternal glory in heaven AND prosper on Earth. If you are an aethist, you are risking not going to heaven, because what if there actually is a God and a Hell? What will you do then? You'll be screwed. quote> Good old Pascal's Wager . Too bad it's already been refuted to death.