Author:
Rufus
[ Edit | View ]
|
Date Posted: 13:43:37 04/07/02 Sun
.....would you say the ones who crashed planes
>into the WTC where right,or the christians who
>murderedmillions in the crusades? Obviously not!
Paul, I thought what we were talking about was the idea that people do this.....and perhaps explore "why" they do this. Where is "religion's" role in all of this? What if Muslim's interpret their canon to include ideas and concepts that, in their 'belief', make these actions 'right'? (p.s. this is what these people have done).
The issue becomes: why is your belief any more correct than their's? This is what I believe we were talking about. If you thought otherwise, can we talk about this?
>Numbers in a religion dont make it right,truth in a
>religion does.
Yes, see here: you state that truth in religion matters. How does anyone know what this "truth" is, Paul? It astounds me that you go on to post (below) that man created religion and determining truth is "harder". Then you state the above comment and think your belief to be logical?
>As for Quittner having a christian
>source which says otherwise,So what,the only christian
>source iminterested in is the bible.
But it took "man" over 1000 years to write this resource you refer to. It has many authors; it has been translated from different langauges; it is "passed" and "published" by theists with an obvioius bias: not to mention the evolution of this bias over the years and subsequent publications. And even you state that interpreting it is difficult. But it is the "ONE" resource you use to determine what is right and wrong? This clearly defies all logic and reason.
>I am quite aware of the implications of Jesus'
>words but if you have a problem with that take it out
>with him.
Would you be so kind as to direct me to Him? You're the one whom states you know His words are "truth": this imples that you can answer questions pertaining to Him: does it not? If yu know His words are the true one's, why are you directing me to Him?
Use His words and answer the question. My point: there are various interpretations to any comination of words. There are even more possibilities when words are translated from one language to another....over 1000 years, by various people. This concept is what I was referring to.
>So your opinionated and blunt,good so am I,
>only when I show that you call me ignorant,funny that
>isnt it.
No, it is not funny. Ignorance is stating an opinion and failing to back it up with evidence. Need an analogy?.......I will now make up a God and ask you to believe in Her. This God will speak to me and ask me to write a new canon to be used in order to benefit all of mankind.....a Utopia will follow. All who do not follow Her words will cease to exist.
Do you believe in my God, Paul? Or do you require some proof? You cannot use your bible and declare Her a false prophet; this will cause you to cease to exist. She is that powerful, by the way. Is it logical to assume that you would just believe my words without proof?
Yet you believe in the words of a book which origins' you are not aware of and cannot prove.
What I am saying is that YOU, Paul, do not have any more proof of Jehovah, then I do of my God. (though mine is better looking)! Thus, it is ignorant to believe in either, unless there is proof. You believe in something you cannot prove: this is an ignorant stand: a nicer word for it is called: Faith. And by the way, I've never stated whether I believe in God or not: I just don't believe in religion.
=====Your ideas about the Koran and Islam
>definately show you up for ignorant.You say the Koran
>is Gods word to Muslims,"well thats me convinced!"
>Muslims 'claim' God spoke to Mohammed after he spoke
>to Moses,this would makes the Koran the bible of
>choice 'if' it was true and theres no evidence to
>support this story.
I'm ignorant??? Perhaps, and certainly on many things. However, your logic here is slightly flawed. I actually chuckled here, Paul. You use the idea that Muslims "claim" certain things and you therefore state they are not necessarily correct.
This is interesting, Paul. And exactly how are Christians and Jehovah's any different in this respect? All of the above have their respective "canons".....but your canon is the correct one because of some "claim" that you make???? Boy, Paul, you are going to have to do better than this: you're embarrassing your faith with this logic.
>One of the reasons you mention
>yourself,you asked "Why did God speak to Mohammed
>after speaking to Moses without telling the
>christians about it?" He wouldnt so its unlikely the
>meeting happened.
Ummmmm.....Paul?......perhaps neither meeting happened? Muslim's believe their meeting did: you believe Moses' meeting did.....but you're meeting is the one that actually did take place, not their's....according to respective canons? What if we vote on which canon should be accepted? If there are more Muslim's, you may not like the result, Paul.
Please explain this logic, Paul.
Have I posted the circular argument to you, yet? The one that goes:
1. God exists
2. God wrote the bible
3. the bible is proof that God exists.
I'm even starting to wonder if some people do not understand the problem that the above statements create.
>And no this conflict doesnt disprove
>any query about the existence of God,why do you say
>that? The bible even says,"Many false prophets will
>arise and mislead MANY."MAT24*11.
I made this very clear, Paul. A large number of people are Muslim's and a comparable large number of people are Christian: who is the false prophet?.....there is no evidence of either being a false prophet and we have not discussed Buddha yet; thus how does one, without a question of a doubt, prove whom is whom?
You have no opinion, Paul: why? Because you only read one source: the bible....worse.....the bible written by JW's: in 1914?....is this when the "JW" faith began? Impressive history!! I've been reading some tidbits about your faith. One man started this faith, by the way: what proof do you have that he was not a false prophet?
>I KNOW its not true.In the end I only care
>what God thinks.
"Know" is a powerful word, Paul. If you have proven the existence of God or have a direct connection with Him, I really think some people want to talk with you. Although some may show up with a padded truck.
>I do research other beliefs
>as I try to understand other religions better
The above are just 'words' Paul. When you combine them with your thoughts, expressed through your many posts, the above words ring a little hollow......couple them with your words below, and I would say you pay 'lip service' to other religions: 'researching' them would be quite a stretch.
>but im
>not looking for truth......
Truer words perhaps you have not uttered!
>.....because ive found it in the
>bible and it as set me free.JOH8*32.
Who interprets this 'truth' for you, Paul? Groups of individuals during bible study courses? What makes you think "man's" interpretation is the correct one?
>Your right about
>religion being mans doing though thats why theres so
>many,which makes searching out the truth all the
>harder.
We have certainly covered the logical nature of this comment.
>So if you ever get hold of it,you dont let
>go.
Don't let go of what: religion? .....which is made by man? Or are you referring to truth?....which you are not looking for because you have found it?
I also thought God wasn't finished (Karen's idea).....and "man" isn't finished (Diane's idea)....which means there is more 'truth' out there to be learned: but you're not looking for anymore truth? Yes, I know: I will take this up with the respective persons.
=====On the resurrection you asked,"Why he came
>back to the apostle for onelast meeting,and where in
>the bible does itsay this event took place?"
>MAT28*2-20. And he appeared to his disciple one last
>time to prove he was the Son of God and not just
>another prophet or false prophet.
In someone else's body? What does this prove? Not to mention all the other difficulties in the 'bias' argument we already covered. Paul, they're just words many people wrote over a period of 1000 years. There is every reason to believe that the divinity and the resurrection served the purposes of certain people back then: conspiracy?..... maybe they believed too.......:
I'm dying to know what you would say to these 20 conflicts I have prepared: but I don't think anyone is really interested at this forum. Gosh, they're just ideas!!
=====On Gen2*3,yes we
>are in Gods rest period and whenit ends God will
>return this earth to the paradise it was meant to be
>without the c**p you mentioned.
And you believe this because it says so in the bible, correct? Evolution is a fairy tale in your mind, correct?
If I offer you proof that evolution is not really much of a theory, but is closer to proving man's past then creationism, then would you reconsider your words on evolution?
Just so you know, Paul: evolution would not disprove creationism; it would disprove religion and it would disprove Jesus being the son of God. Jesus would be relegated to the stature of Prophet. A man who wanted a better world.....just like you, Quittner and myself.
Maybe then man could concentrate on things that really matter.
=====The scripture I
>quoted was from 1 CORINTHIANS I think your in 2
>CORINTHIANS,Now whos showing their ignorance?
Me! I never claimed to be a scholar with respect to bible scripture, Paul. There are people here at this forum who seem to think that being ignorant is an insult, or at least a 'bad' thing. Ignorance means one simply does not have certain knowledge....stupidity would therefore be termed as not seeking out truth in the bold face of conflicting information.
If you made reference to Cor. 1 or Cor. 2, I missed it. Yes, Paul, you must be specific with your references to the bible in order to aid in my finding appropriate passages. Do you seek an apology for my ignorance?
>=====I didnt blame your posts on the devil,did
>I? You asked me a question about Revelation and the
>Devil and I answered,dont take things so personal.
I will certainly try, Paul. My point wasn't quite as simple as you make it out to be, however. I will explain myself in full detail from now on.
>Mind
>you the teaching of the 144.000 comes from the bible
>so if you say its absurd,why aim it at JWs?
I aimed it at you because JW's are the only faith I'm aware of that claim 144,000 people will be seated with God. The rest are here on earth, being governed over: kind of like it is now: Karen's idea. The point would be ground in the idea that "JW" interpretation differs from Christian...thus one religion is incorrect in their interpretation of the meaning of this number. Again, I thought this to be simple in nature: I will have to explain myself better.
I requested for you to explain this idea. BTW, where is this 144,000 in the bible? I tried a search, but #'s weren't accepted by the search engine (Karen provided me with a great web site re: bible scripture; so you just have to cut and paste: more importantly, you can search for specific words.
>And whats
>so wrong with living forever on the earth where we
>where always meant to be?
How much can I write before your server crashes? Living forever, Paul?.....what is the advantage in that? Why here on this earth?
Do you know anything about quantum mechanics, by the way?.....this could be relevant, if you do.
>Personally I dont think you
>can see past present world conditions,......
An arguable assertion. I feel that I can, and nothing you have posted has demonstrated otherwise. I would be bold enough to say that my posts here on this one forum would go a long way in proving your assertion invalid. But mine would be a 'biased' opinion, now, wouldn't it?
>.....this is a new
>PARADISE earth we are talking about,ruled over by a
>righteous goverment led by Gods son Jesus christ,Is it
>relegation? NO! Will there be animosity? NO!
Ummmmm....??? Are you talking about what us humans are going through now or what we might go through in the "end"? I think the latter, sooooo:
I don't want to be "ruled over" for an eternity, Paul: that sounds more like a 'hell'. Why would there be a need for government, righteous or not, in a perfect world, after this one?
Do I have to be a JW to get to be one of the 144,000? Do I have to be a JW to be one of these 'eternally-governed'?
I know you believe that being under God's rule would not be like it is here: what with free will and all: but God certainly hasn't proved to be a God who does not like rules, has HE?
And if HE is going to be governing through His son, Jesus, the concept of governing implies exactly what? Perhaps my decision to be excluded from this elitist club was too quick.
[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
|
Feedback: 