People deny God right up until they die - thier punishment is not delayed at all.
Your argument works just as well the other way - people who do what God wants have to wait until they die to be fully rewarded, just like people who are not have to wait until they die to be fully punished.
(notice I said fully - when Adam and Eve first sinned, God didnt say, "OK, i will wait until you die before i punish you" he started right there and then. He gave the woman pain during childbirth, he made the man have to work for his food with the sweat of his brow. He cursed the earth - the whole of nature is suffering because of man's sin
All the earthquakes and floods and typhoons are all man's punishment for sinning.
[edit] I see this thread has turned into an identical twin of the "argument from evil" thread. You asked a very similar question in that thread, and i have posted this reply there to. Please respond in that thread, not this one[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Sep 30 2003, 03:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Sep 30 2003, 03:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> People deny God right up until they die - thier punishment is not delayed at all.
Your argument works just as well the other way - people who do what God wants have to wait until they die to be fully rewarded, just like people who are not have to wait until they die to be fully punished.
(notice I said fully - when Adam and Eve first sinned, God didnt say, "OK, i will wait until you die before i punish you" he started right there and then. He gave the woman pain during childbirth, he made the man have to work for his food with the sweat of his brow. He cursed the earth - the whole of nature is suffering because of man's sin
All the earthquakes and floods and typhoons are all man's punishment for sinning.
[edit] I see this thread has turned into an identical twin of the "argument from evil" thread. You asked a very similar question in that thread, and i have posted this reply there to. Please respond in that thread, not this one[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point is, however, that the concept of punishing someone for eternity makes absolutely no sense. Punishment is typically done to stop bad behavior, but if your being punished for eternity, you don't have the chance to stop any behavior. Therefor God is punishing you for basically no reason, because it will accomplish nothing.
I wont post this same thing in the other thread because marine came back and is making a decent argument again.
Its not exactly off topic, its just a valid point that honestly deserves a thread of its own, lest we lose sight of what this is really all about.
That said, you guys are in serious trouble with Bible verse inconsistencies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> "Biblical Inconsistencies" 380 pages of pure gold, highly technical with large support from ancient Hebrew and Greek is winging its way south towards me as we speak!
Hawkeye, I too am kinda of the "God could make it happen" persuasion myself, because if he exists, then its entirely possible. However, we would all have to agree with the premise that God exists, and anyone who didnt agree would be excluded from the discussion. This discussion would be over very quickly, so quickly that I wouldnt even call it a discussion. Thats why I said I am trying to argue from a rational and logical position rather then one of faith. I want to see if there are any serious flaws in my argument (and I just loooveee pointing out other peoples <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
Something that my father said to me when I asked for the "Biblical Inconsistencies" book struck me as important, so I'll quote him here. It actually helps me to understand why the other Christian forumites like Twex arent throwing themselves right into this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have all these books on Christian apologetics because when I was a younger Christian, I felt that if I could prove to people that the Bible was true, then they would have no option but to believe. But it just doesn't work like that. People are more interested in if it actually works, if it applies to them, if it can help them in their struggles. You can argue Christian apologetics until the cows come home and you wont have helped that person one bit. I am now of the idea that human relationships and suffering are the main issue. Address those and you can help that person, address Christian apologetics and you have achieved nothing. Proving the truth of the Bible can be helpful, but dont get hung up on it, dont focus on that to the detriment of the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still going to continue because as I said, I am really interested in this area, but that helps me to understand maybe why Twex isnt so worked up about it. Its not the be all and end all of the Christian religion. People and God are.
Larry, head back over to the Arguement from evil thread, the Hell and punishment issue is being hashed out there a lot more thoroughly.
Through all of this, the irony of things to me is that a) people will acknowledge that Jesus walked this earth as an historical figure if nothing else; b) there is more written documentation concerning the life of Jesus than there is concerning the vast majority of "accepted" historical figures (ie, George Washington, Henry VIII, and others); c) people think the majority of Christian inaccuracies are based on translation from ancient hebrew and greek.
Let's put this in very very simple terms: Your ability to accept on body of writing as "historically accurate" is based on (gasp!) <b>faith</b>--that at some point, whoever was writing it was recording it accurately and honestly. What makes you think the bible is any <b>less accurate</b> than any other historical work? It's had far more research and effort put into its consistency than any other work in history.
Addressing the earlier question of races, this is something we addressed just this past Tuesday in my Anthropology class. It has been proven that there is more genetic deviance <b>within</b> racial categories than there is <b>between</b> them. In fact, race is nothing more than a social convention (generally along the lines of color or physical features such as eye shape) that was perpetuated as a form of social imperialism to legitimize the suffering of "substandard" humans under the yoke of empires and whites in nations like pre-1960s America. In fact, there is so much scientific evidence that proves that race is illusory that it's amazing. If you're looking for a biological presentation on the "Evolution of Race," you'd be looking for something that physically can't exist.
Alot of people are going off-course here and are trying to redefine the Bible, and disenfranchise that it's authority. It's not just a social historical piece, nor is it just history. It's based on direct supernatural events (For those who want to get technical, IE Burning Bush, Great Flood Etc.). Christ's healing of others, and his resurrection in addition to many many other things.
Things to keep in mind when the bible gets involved in a debate:
Christians make a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, when pointing to the bible and saying "it says so, so this justifies or proves what we've said"
Therefore, to make a valid argument that defends their viewpoints, they need to take a more logical approach to the debate.
One example: One believes homosexuality is evil. Pointing out a passage from the book doesn't prove such a person's case. In fact, outside illogical appeals to authority, there is no reason to regard homosexual acts as evil in any form. No moral arguments against homosexual marriage either. Nevermind the fact that two other people who have nothing to do with you want to get married, it destroys the family because a book says so =/
Christians believe the bible is the word of God, God is the supreme being the the whole universe. If the bible says something is wrong, a Christian is perfectly within his rights to use it to say it is wrong. Its not illogical at all
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Oct 8 2003, 08:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 8 2003, 08:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Things to keep in mind when the bible gets involved in a debate:
Christians make a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, when pointing to the bible and saying "it says so, so this justifies or proves what we've said"
Therefore, to make a valid argument that defends their viewpoints, they need to take a more logical approach to the debate.
One example: One believes homosexuality is evil. Pointing out a passage from the book doesn't prove such a person's case. In fact, outside illogical appeals to authority, there is no reason to regard homosexual acts as evil in any form. No moral arguments against homosexual marriage either. Nevermind the fact that two other people who have nothing to do with you want to get married, it destroys the family because a book says so =/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sizer, there is no logical fallacy there at all.
As Z.Y said, if that book is indeed the direct communication of a Supreme being that gets to make the rules, then they are perfectly justified in making that claim.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As Z.Y said, if that book is indeed the direct communication of a Supreme being that gets to make the rules, then they are perfectly justified in making that claim. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is you're working to assumptions that aren't being made by the other people in the debate, which basically screws over the whole discussion. You're working with the assumption that the book is the direct communication of a supreme being. While everyone else in the debate is presumably working to as few assumptions as possible, or only to assumptions given at the start of the debate.
This assumption would not be appropriate. If you make an assumption such as this that no one else involved in the discussion is using, there can be no discussion between you and the rest of the group. They would either have to accept your assumption, or ignore you. We both know it's more likely to be the latter, since your assumption cannot be shown to be accurate or even probable.
In the case of homosexual marrige, if you hinge your case against homosexual marrige on the assumption that the bible is the accurate communication of a supreme being, that assumption would have to be accepted by everyone else involved in order for your case to hold any weight. You obviously invoke the debate "Is the bible the accurate communication of a supreme being" every time you make that assumption. So far, that debate has yet to go anywhere.
While it may not be a logical fallacy, it is certainly inappropriate to make that assumption. Any attempt to validate the assumption hits a dead end, so i would conclude that making such an assumption in a debate on homosexual marrige would be pointless. I could just as easily invoke any other unprovable assumption into the debate, and my position would be no more or less solid than yours.
It is ABSOLUTELY an appeal to authority fallacy. Look up appeal to authority if you continue to deny it. Christians are not exempt from using logic while debating.
<!--QuoteBegin--Sizer+Oct 9 2003, 09:53 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Oct 9 2003, 09:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It is ABSOLUTELY an appeal to authority fallacy. Look up appeal to authority if you continue to deny it. Christians are not exempt from using logic while debating. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <a href='http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html</a>
In order for it to be an appeal to authority fallacy, you have to show that the bible is not an 'expert' source on the morality of homosexual marrige. If the bible was an expert source on the morality of homosexual marrige (For example, if it was the word of a god who defines right and wrong) then it would not be a fallacy use it in the argument.
The problem is, since it is impossible to determine wether the bible is direct communication from god, and since nobody can agree on its validity, referencing it as a source is pointless. I could stand up, close my eyes and claim to have been given a vision from god that homosexual marrige is completely OK, and my 'vision' would be no more or less valid a source than the bible reference in question. Since neither of these sources can be challenged or validated in any way, you cant really jusitfy using them, both would be discarded.
<!--QuoteBegin--TeoH+Oct 9 2003, 04:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TeoH @ Oct 9 2003, 04:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The problem is, since it is impossible to determine wether the bible is direct communication from god, and since nobody can agree on its validity, referencing it as a source is pointless. I could stand up, close my eyes and claim to have been given a vision from god that homosexual marrige is completely OK, and my 'vision' would be no more or less valid a source than the bible reference in question. Since neither of these sources can be challenged or validated in any way, you cant really jusitfy using them, both would be discarded. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> yes, you could do that, but you wouldnt be believed. God doesnt contradict himself, so either you are wrong or the bible is wrong. I would be more inclined to go with you being wrong, but i am sure there are some people who would believe you.
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 16 2003, 07:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 16 2003, 07:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> either you are wrong or the bible is wrong. I would be more inclined to go with you being wrong, but i am sure there are some people who would believe you. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> My point exactly, see how this perfectly mirrors the situation we have now with attempting to bring the bible into a serious discussion.
There are some people who would believe me, just as there are some people who seem willing to believe in the validity of the bible. You can make any unverifiable faith-based statement you like, and you can probably even get some people to believe in it. But to suggest my vision from god, or your book from god, which have nothing but blind faith to validate them, should be used in discussions, or even in the formulation of law, is ridiculous.
Give me 2000 years and enough gullable people (Lord knows there are enough of them), and i'll give you a religion based around a giant, inter-dimensional toaster god. Who upon your death, will toast you for 3 minutes and then eject you into the afterlife.
There appears to be only one way to resolve this. I will kill you, and then bring you back to life, and you can see for yourself if there is an afterlife. That is whats called a Near Death Experience. most people who have one report the same kind of thing, the tunnel with a light at the end. Then most people report being met by someone, and angel perhaps, and being told that it is not thier time. the strange thing is, some people who have these are devout believers and it strengthens thier faith. however, some of the people are peple who were strong athiests, and they came back with their life changed. <b>something</b> must have happened to them when they had the experience.
There appears to be only one way to resolve this. I will kill you, and then bring you back to life, and you can see for yourself if there is an afterlife. That is whats called a Near Death Experience. most people who have one report the same kind of thing, the tunnel with a light at the end. Then most people report being met by someone, and angel perhaps, and being told that it is not thier time. the strange thing is, some people who have these are devout believers and it strengthens thier faith. however, some of the people are peple who were strong athiests, and they came back with their life changed. <b>something</b> must have happened to them when they had the experience. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This has already been debunked as your mind simply going into shock. In a panic it shoots off random electrical signals that get interpreted as visions (see hallucinations) and tunnel vision is a very common experience when the brain is under a great deal of stress. For instance Katamine users experience something called a "K-hole" when they induce a large amount of this drug, which has been described as having tunnel vision, seeing flashing lights, out of body experiences, and a general sense that you are about to die. I doubt something chemically induced by a drug has much relegious merit.
fine, so thier brain goes into shock. Is that the reason why some people change the way they live after one of these NDEs? or is there something i am missing?
<!--QuoteBegin--Z.X. Bogglesteinsky+Oct 16 2003, 01:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Z.X. Bogglesteinsky @ Oct 16 2003, 01:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> fine, so thier brain goes into shock. Is that the reason why some people change the way they live after one of these NDEs? or is there something i am missing? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Because they misinterprit them to be something of religious merit?
I skipped through all the 12 pages,no time to read them all lol.
Just wanted to point out that bad people have used the bible as an excuse to grab more power/money/land/whatever.Throughout the ages.
Remember the inquisition and all that witch crap?All because a certain king(i read it on www.witchvox.com,not sure exactly where now)wanted more power or something,and had that all witches must die line put in.
Something tells me the churches doesnt tell you this.
And all that crusade crap in the middle ages.Whatever happened to the no killing rule in the bible?It went out of the window because someone decided that they were "infidels" or some-such and thus should be killed and that was god's instruction.So we have the crusades.
You may notcie that one of the discusion forum rules is to read the whole topic before posting a reply. Your question has been answered on another topic. Doing things in Gods name and doing God's bidding are two very different things
Sorry to drag up an old topic, but it seems to me (and others) that the accuracy of the bible is being brought up again (particularly in the Homosexual marriages thread) so, to save dragging that thread off topic, use this one. I think you will find that we answered all the questions already, so, to save us repeating ourselves, please read the thread before posting (discussion forum rule).
Comments
Your argument works just as well the other way - people who do what God wants have to wait until they die to be fully rewarded, just like people who are not have to wait until they die to be fully punished.
(notice I said fully - when Adam and Eve first sinned, God didnt say, "OK, i will wait until you die before i punish you" he started right there and then. He gave the woman pain during childbirth, he made the man have to work for his food with the sweat of his brow. He cursed the earth - the whole of nature is suffering because of man's sin
All the earthquakes and floods and typhoons are all man's punishment for sinning.
[edit] I see this thread has turned into an identical twin of the "argument from evil" thread. You asked a very similar question in that thread, and i have posted this reply there to. Please respond in that thread, not this one[/edit]
Your argument works just as well the other way - people who do what God wants have to wait until they die to be fully rewarded, just like people who are not have to wait until they die to be fully punished.
(notice I said fully - when Adam and Eve first sinned, God didnt say, "OK, i will wait until you die before i punish you" he started right there and then. He gave the woman pain during childbirth, he made the man have to work for his food with the sweat of his brow. He cursed the earth - the whole of nature is suffering because of man's sin
All the earthquakes and floods and typhoons are all man's punishment for sinning.
[edit] I see this thread has turned into an identical twin of the "argument from evil" thread. You asked a very similar question in that thread, and i have posted this reply there to. Please respond in that thread, not this one[/edit] <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
My point is, however, that the concept of punishing someone for eternity makes absolutely no sense. Punishment is typically done to stop bad behavior, but if your being punished for eternity, you don't have the chance to stop any behavior. Therefor God is punishing you for basically no reason, because it will accomplish nothing.
I wont post this same thing in the other thread because marine came back and is making a decent argument again.
That said, you guys are in serious trouble with Bible verse inconsistencies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> "Biblical Inconsistencies" 380 pages of pure gold, highly technical with large support from ancient Hebrew and Greek is winging its way south towards me as we speak!
Hawkeye, I too am kinda of the "God could make it happen" persuasion myself, because if he exists, then its entirely possible. However, we would all have to agree with the premise that God exists, and anyone who didnt agree would be excluded from the discussion. This discussion would be over very quickly, so quickly that I wouldnt even call it a discussion. Thats why I said I am trying to argue from a rational and logical position rather then one of faith. I want to see if there are any serious flaws in my argument (and I just loooveee pointing out other peoples <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->).
Something that my father said to me when I asked for the "Biblical Inconsistencies" book struck me as important, so I'll quote him here. It actually helps me to understand why the other Christian forumites like Twex arent throwing themselves right into this discussion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have all these books on Christian apologetics because when I was a younger Christian, I felt that if I could prove to people that the Bible was true, then they would have no option but to believe. But it just doesn't work like that. People are more interested in if it actually works, if it applies to them, if it can help them in their struggles. You can argue Christian apologetics until the cows come home and you wont have helped that person one bit. I am now of the idea that human relationships and suffering are the main issue. Address those and you can help that person, address Christian apologetics and you have achieved nothing. Proving the truth of the Bible can be helpful, but dont get hung up on it, dont focus on that to the detriment of the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm still going to continue because as I said, I am really interested in this area, but that helps me to understand maybe why Twex isnt so worked up about it. Its not the be all and end all of the Christian religion. People and God are.
Larry, head back over to the Arguement from evil thread, the Hell and punishment issue is being hashed out there a lot more thoroughly.
Let's put this in very very simple terms: Your ability to accept on body of writing as "historically accurate" is based on (gasp!) <b>faith</b>--that at some point, whoever was writing it was recording it accurately and honestly. What makes you think the bible is any <b>less accurate</b> than any other historical work? It's had far more research and effort put into its consistency than any other work in history.
Addressing the earlier question of races, this is something we addressed just this past Tuesday in my Anthropology class. It has been proven that there is more genetic deviance <b>within</b> racial categories than there is <b>between</b> them. In fact, race is nothing more than a social convention (generally along the lines of color or physical features such as eye shape) that was perpetuated as a form of social imperialism to legitimize the suffering of "substandard" humans under the yoke of empires and whites in nations like pre-1960s America. In fact, there is so much scientific evidence that proves that race is illusory that it's amazing. If you're looking for a biological presentation on the "Evolution of Race," you'd be looking for something that physically can't exist.
Christians make a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, when pointing to the bible and saying "it says so, so this justifies or proves what we've said"
Therefore, to make a valid argument that defends their viewpoints, they need to take a more logical approach to the debate.
One example: One believes homosexuality is evil. Pointing out a passage from the book doesn't prove such a person's case. In fact, outside illogical appeals to authority, there is no reason to regard homosexual acts as evil in any form. No moral arguments against homosexual marriage either. Nevermind the fact that two other people who have nothing to do with you want to get married, it destroys the family because a book says so =/
Christians make a logical fallacy, appeal to authority, when pointing to the bible and saying "it says so, so this justifies or proves what we've said"
Therefore, to make a valid argument that defends their viewpoints, they need to take a more logical approach to the debate.
One example: One believes homosexuality is evil. Pointing out a passage from the book doesn't prove such a person's case. In fact, outside illogical appeals to authority, there is no reason to regard homosexual acts as evil in any form. No moral arguments against homosexual marriage either. Nevermind the fact that two other people who have nothing to do with you want to get married, it destroys the family because a book says so =/ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sizer, there is no logical fallacy there at all.
As Z.Y said, if that book is indeed the direct communication of a Supreme being that gets to make the rules, then they are perfectly justified in making that claim.
As Z.Y said, if that book is indeed the direct communication of a Supreme being that gets to make the rules, then they are perfectly justified in making that claim.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The problem is you're working to assumptions that aren't being made by the other people in the debate, which basically screws over the whole discussion. You're working with the assumption that the book is the direct communication of a supreme being. While everyone else in the debate is presumably working to as few assumptions as possible, or only to assumptions given at the start of the debate.
This assumption would not be appropriate. If you make an assumption such as this that no one else involved in the discussion is using, there can be no discussion between you and the rest of the group. They would either have to accept your assumption, or ignore you. We both know it's more likely to be the latter, since your assumption cannot be shown to be accurate or even probable.
In the case of homosexual marrige, if you hinge your case against homosexual marrige on the assumption that the bible is the accurate communication of a supreme being, that assumption would have to be accepted by everyone else involved in order for your case to hold any weight. You obviously invoke the debate "Is the bible the accurate communication of a supreme being" every time you make that assumption. So far, that debate has yet to go anywhere.
While it may not be a logical fallacy, it is certainly inappropriate to make that assumption. Any attempt to validate the assumption hits a dead end, so i would conclude that making such an assumption in a debate on homosexual marrige would be pointless. I could just as easily invoke any other unprovable assumption into the debate, and my position would be no more or less solid than yours.
<a href='http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html' target='_blank'>http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html</a>
In order for it to be an appeal to authority fallacy, you have to show that the bible is not an 'expert' source on the morality of homosexual marrige. If the bible was an expert source on the morality of homosexual marrige (For example, if it was the word of a god who defines right and wrong) then it would not be a fallacy use it in the argument.
The problem is, since it is impossible to determine wether the bible is direct communication from god, and since nobody can agree on its validity, referencing it as a source is pointless. I could stand up, close my eyes and claim to have been given a vision from god that homosexual marrige is completely OK, and my 'vision' would be no more or less valid a source than the bible reference in question. Since neither of these sources can be challenged or validated in any way, you cant really jusitfy using them, both would be discarded.
yes, you could do that, but you wouldnt be believed. God doesnt contradict himself, so either you are wrong or the bible is wrong. I would be more inclined to go with you being wrong, but i am sure there are some people who would believe you.
My point exactly, see how this perfectly mirrors the situation we have now with attempting to bring the bible into a serious discussion.
There are some people who would believe me, just as there are some people who seem willing to believe in the validity of the bible. You can make any unverifiable faith-based statement you like, and you can probably even get some people to believe in it. But to suggest my vision from god, or your book from god, which have nothing but blind faith to validate them, should be used in discussions, or even in the formulation of law, is ridiculous.
Give me 2000 years and enough gullable people (Lord knows there are enough of them), and i'll give you a religion based around a giant, inter-dimensional toaster god. Who upon your death, will toast you for 3 minutes and then eject you into the afterlife.
There appears to be only one way to resolve this. I will kill you, and then bring you back to life, and you can see for yourself if there is an afterlife. That is whats called a Near Death Experience. most people who have one report the same kind of thing, the tunnel with a light at the end. Then most people report being met by someone, and angel perhaps, and being told that it is not thier time. the strange thing is, some people who have these are devout believers and it strengthens thier faith. however, some of the people are peple who were strong athiests, and they came back with their life changed. <b>something</b> must have happened to them when they had the experience.
There appears to be only one way to resolve this. I will kill you, and then bring you back to life, and you can see for yourself if there is an afterlife. That is whats called a Near Death Experience. most people who have one report the same kind of thing, the tunnel with a light at the end. Then most people report being met by someone, and angel perhaps, and being told that it is not thier time. the strange thing is, some people who have these are devout believers and it strengthens thier faith. however, some of the people are peple who were strong athiests, and they came back with their life changed. <b>something</b> must have happened to them when they had the experience. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has already been debunked as your mind simply going into shock. In a panic it shoots off random electrical signals that get interpreted as visions (see hallucinations) and tunnel vision is a very common experience when the brain is under a great deal of stress. For instance Katamine users experience something called a "K-hole" when they induce a large amount of this drug, which has been described as having tunnel vision, seeing flashing lights, out of body experiences, and a general sense that you are about to die. I doubt something chemically induced by a drug has much relegious merit.
Because they misinterprit them to be something of religious merit?
Just wanted to point out that bad people have used the bible as an excuse to grab more power/money/land/whatever.Throughout the ages.
Remember the inquisition and all that witch crap?All because a certain king(i read it on www.witchvox.com,not sure exactly where now)wanted more power or something,and had that all witches must die line put in.
Something tells me the churches doesnt tell you this.
And all that crusade crap in the middle ages.Whatever happened to the no killing rule in the bible?It went out of the window because someone decided that they were "infidels" or some-such and thus should be killed and that was god's instruction.So we have the crusades.
it was legionnaired actually
cheers