Posts: 43
Threads: 1
Joined: January 22, 2011
Reputation:
3
RE: Hell
February 13, 2011 at 3:15 pm
(This post was last modified: February 13, 2011 at 3:25 pm by Matthew.)
(February 12, 2011 at 6:05 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Matthew, define god please.
There are so many different versions, a lot of them based on scripture, that I have no idea what you are typing about. There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture, the same as with any text. The word 'God' refers to God as described by Scripture. I cannot define God any more than a bacterium can define a human being.
(February 12, 2011 at 6:07 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: As a xtian theist, your claim is not that there is this anonymous god but the xtian god. I cannot see how it is a basic belief given that many different gods have apprently revealed themselves. Is belief in Ganesh also properly basic, he is well known to the personal experiences and lives and hindus? My claim here is that if God exists, then belief in God is basic, and therefore rational. Very obviously, if God does not exist, then belief in Him cannot be basic. It may well be the case that if Ganesh exists, then belief in Ganesh is basic. The question is, which of these beliefs can actually provide the foundation for a worldview that accurately describes the world.
Matthew
---------
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." C.S. Lewis
Posts: 12513
Threads: 202
Joined: January 3, 2010
Reputation:
107
RE: Hell
February 13, 2011 at 10:38 pm
(February 13, 2011 at 12:47 pm)OnlyNatural Wrote: (February 13, 2011 at 4:41 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: (February 12, 2011 at 10:43 pm)OnlyNatural Wrote: [quote='Matthew' pid='117220' dateline='1297436905']Quote:The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.
Not necessary for what?
Mathew...are you stating here that you do not believe in a god??
Hey Kichi, just to clarify:
I said: 'The point is that the basic belief of 'there is a God' is not necessary.'
Matthew said: 'Not necessary for what?'
Carry on. 
Thanks...got a bit confused there...
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Posts: 765
Threads: 40
Joined: August 8, 2010
Reputation:
21
RE: Hell
February 13, 2011 at 11:57 pm
(February 13, 2011 at 3:15 pm)Matthew Wrote: (February 12, 2011 at 6:07 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote: As a xtian theist, your claim is not that there is this anonymous god but the xtian god. I cannot see how it is a basic belief given that many different gods have apprently revealed themselves. Is belief in Ganesh also properly basic, he is well known to the personal experiences and lives and hindus? My claim here is that if God exists, then belief in God is basic, and therefore rational. Very obviously, if God does not exist, then belief in Him cannot be basic. It may well be the case that if Ganesh exists, then belief in Ganesh is basic. The question is, which of these beliefs can actually provide the foundation for a worldview that accurately describes the world. Apols I f I misunderstood. But why is that an improtant claim?
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
Posts: 4535
Threads: 175
Joined: August 10, 2009
Reputation:
43
RE: Hell
February 14, 2011 at 12:09 am
(February 13, 2011 at 3:15 pm)Matthew Wrote: My claim here is that if God exists, then belief in God is basic, and therefore rational.
What a pathetic way to make yourself not feel like an idiot for believing in something that you know is not rational. It's no better than saying "If the non-physical comedian exists then my belief that he is causing me to laugh is rational and if he doesn't exist then my belief is not rational" It's not an argument for ANYTHING and thus not a reason to believe ANYTHING - It's simply "What is the status of a belief that P considering x or y is true?" - Completely pathetic.
.
Posts: 7388
Threads: 168
Joined: February 25, 2009
Reputation:
45
RE: Hell
February 14, 2011 at 12:37 am
(This post was last modified: February 14, 2011 at 12:39 am by Oldandeasilyconfused.)
Quote:There is only one correct interpretation of Scripture, the same as with any text.
Factually untrue,as a decent lawyer will explain to you; most texts can have many interpretations,something which has always frustrated scholars. .
To make such a claim about sacred text reveals the typical apologist bloody mindedness and ignorance about problems of translation and transcription errors over 1000 years.(forgetting the whole worm can of actual authorship and authenticity)
Christians killed each other for centuries over different interpretations of the Bible,each side claiming theirs was the only correct one.Today Christian churches not only still strongly disagree about scripture,but do not even all agree on the canon.
The standard apologist response is the no true Scotsman logical fallacy, claiming anyone who disagree with their interpretation is not a true Christian.
One of the major causes of the Reformation was over interpretation of ONE LINE of scripture : Viz Jesus said at the last supper "Do this in memory of me" That became the basis of the Catholic mass,as it remains today. It also led to the schism with Martin Luther,over the doctrine of transubstantiation.That difference in interpretation remains to this day between Catholics and protestants.
|
