(February 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: People like to interpet it and think they know all the answers and are experts on it. It is there for us to interpet.

Why would this method be more effective then spelling everything out in a clear precise way so everyone can understand the same facts equally? Darwins Origin of Species isn't open to interpretation, neither is Newtons theory of gravity.

I am beginning to think you should change your screen name to TheLameMayTalk

If only I didn't have a final exam in an hour, I'd debate this thread into oblivion...

(February 13, 2013 at 6:24 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote:

(February 13, 2013 at 6:20 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: People like to interpet it and think they know all the answers and are experts on it. It is there for us to interpet.

If it is the word of god, shouldn't it be clear enough that no interpretation is needed?

By the same token, if it is the word of god, why has it been edited so many time BY MAN for political reasons?

No. This is exactly what happens when humans are left to read the Word of God.

And your latter point does not affect mine. That is humans being ignorant towards God (but smart towards their respective kingdoms, countries, etc.)

Yeah, well, he would pretty much have to be. There's no other conceivable way to make sense of his behavior.


Here's the thing, friend. If God is inscrutable to us, that means he's inscrutable to you, too. That means absolutely none of your shit holds any water. The bible (maybe that's God's idea of a funny story, or a Zen koan? You don't know, because you can't know the mind of God, you can't even make sense of him), Jesus Christ (perhaps God just came down to put his paw prints on Mary Magdalene's hot bawdy, and this was the way he thought of accomplishing that goal; it worked for Zeus, why not for Yahweh?), and the traditions of the Holy Roman Catholic church (do they have reasoning above that of other men? No, they do not). You've just exercised the nuclear option, babe, and blown up your own God in the process.


Interestingly enough, many traditions of Buddhism have a similar idea, stemming from the writings of the Madhyamakan sage, Nagarjuna. It's called the two truths doctrine. According to the doctrine, there is ordinary, conventional truth, the kind you can acquire through conversation and study, and 'absolute truth', for which you must first drink the kool-aid before you can get any (and I mean a lot of kool-aid, if Buddhists I've talked to are any indication). So who is to say that you are right, and the Buddhists are wrong? By your own admission, even if God exists, you likely understand as much about him as an ant understands my shoe. Maybe the Buddhists are right, and your Catholicism and biblical truth and traditions are all just ordinary, conventional, fallible human wisdom; if you want a true glimpse of reality, according to them, you have to follow the path of the Buddha's teaching (Dharma). You don't know. You can't know (because you stipulated to this already), because you are not God.


Seeing that we're outside the intro thread, I guess I can make my little joke now. "TheLameMayWalk" eh? I guess the lame can post to the forum, too.

(February 13, 2013 at 6:31 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: No. This is exactly what happens when humans are left to read the Word of God.

And your latter point does not affect mine. That is humans being ignorant towards God (but smart towards their respective kingdoms, countries, etc.)

But this means that the bible you read is a human edited version of the word of god. Are you implying that you actually know the REAL meaning of what god intended to say?

BTW, you are contradicting yourself badly here. You say that the bible is gods way of showing us who he is because it is at our level yet you say that we cannot know who god is through the bible because it has been interpreted by man. Which is it?

This isn't the kind of debate anyone on either side would be able to "win". But the real question is why is the Bible the Word of God and not the Quran? How do you tell the difference? What about the Book of Mormon?

(February 13, 2013 at 6:32 pm)apophenia Wrote: That means absolutely none of your shit holds any water. The bible (maybe that's God's idea of a funny story, or a Zen koan? You don't know, because you can't know the mind of God, you can't even make sense of him), Jesus Christ (perhaps God just came down to put his paw prints on Mary Magdalene's hot bawdy, and this was the way he thought of accomplishing that goal; it worked for Zeus, why not for Yahweh?), and the traditions of the Holy Roman Catholic church (do they have reasoning above that of other men? No, they do not). You've just exercised the nuclear option, babe, and blown up your own God in the process.

How do you reach this conclusion? We can interpet the Bible, we can understand that there is a God. But when we try to put man-made techniques to try to proof the existence of God is when he is above our reasoning.

I think I'm being misunderstood. This reasoning mostly applies in the "proof/evidence" area.

---

(February 13, 2013 at 6:35 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: BTW, you are contradicting yourself badly here. You say that the bible is gods way of showing us who he is because it is at our level yet you say that we cannot know who god is through the bible because it has been interpreted by man. Which is it?

It's both. Why couldn't it be both? The Bible, has we both have mentioned, has been heavily revised over the years. Is it not possible that this was the Word of God, until it was revised as man?

I acknowledge that the Bible today is not the Bible from thousands of years ago, but I also acknowledge the main points made by the Bible are still the same. But you are right, but are wrong about me having to choose between those two options.

---

(February 13, 2013 at 6:35 pm)Zone Wrote: This isn't the kind of debate anyone on either side would be able to "win". But the real question is why is the Bible the Word of God and not the Quran? How do you tell the difference? What about the Book of Mormon?

That is a good point, and I am unable to answer that question right now.

(February 13, 2013 at 6:36 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: It's both. Why couldn't it be both? The Bible, has we both have mentioned, has been heavily revised over the years. Is it not possible that this was the Word of God, until it was revised as man?

I acknowledge that the Bible today is not the Bible from thousands of years ago, but I also acknowledge the main points made by the Bible are still the same. But you are right, but are wrong about me having to choose between those two options.

Then you are saying that the original bible was NOT the word of god. It didn't become the word of god until man edited it for his own interests and political gain.

You are engaging in theistic weaselosity and religional fuckery. In other words, you are making shit up as you go to try to justify your wholly unjustifiable position.

(February 13, 2013 at 6:36 pm)TheLameMayWalk Wrote: How do you reach this conclusion? We can interpet the Bible, we can understand that there is a God. But when we try to put man-made techniques to try to proof the existence of God is when he is above our reasoning.

So what is this God and what do we gain by believing in it as opposed to living a purely secular life? Atheists won't react well to threats of being tortured forever after they die seeing as they don't believe in this God to begin with and Pascals Wager won't work. A description of what God is and what he does, how he would relevant to life would be better than just saying he's beyond everything. Even if you can build a compelling argument in favour of belief in God atheists are evidence orientated, they want something they can see.