Still ignored... But, After MJ's reply I couldn't help but peek. Correct.... For the most part. Buddhism goes beyond religion and is more of a philosophy or 'way of life'. It is a philosophy because philosophy 'means love of wisdom'. BUT you forgot about Brahman. Incorrect. If God created the universe he is also able to create multiple images of himself to represent different categories of the morality of life... AKA "teachings". Native American religion also falls into this category. So much for "grade school". No need to reply, I won't read it anyway. Edit to add: In fact does not Christianity teach of the "Holy Trinity" ? ( The Father, the son, and the holy ghost ) Well, the last time I looked "Trinity" did not mean "one".
No. Your interpretation is off. I said: Focus -> (or actually believe they are facts) Merriam-Webster's first definition of sane being "proceeding from a sound mind : rational" (As I've said several times before.) Anyone that believes the Bible is factual history lacks the ability of rational thought. Questioning their sanity is justified. Now should some individual (or group/institution) come along as say the Bible is mixed collection of fact and fiction created to teach people about right/wrong, good/evil, how to interact and so on. IOW, "These are made-up stories used to teach various principals". - Similar to Aesop's fables. That is not irrational. And, I believe that was the actual original intent of the scrolls the Bible came from. How did you come to the idea that I don't expect an argumentative retort? Is that not how point counterpoint works? Hopefully here. It doesn't seem to be working in the vegetable garden.
Frankly, I knew that would happen eventually. I actually find being on ignore entertaining. I can slam what you say and you'll never know it. It does not hurt my feelings at all. If you weren't being so CHILDISH. - I acknowledged I made an error and apologized many posts ago. I see needing an ignore button in order to not read something as very similar to needing an institution to tell you what right and wrong is. Additionally, if you don't care what I think then you wouldn't be repeatedly bringing up that you have me on ignore. .
@PCBONEZ: If you care to look back at what I posted, I quoted you verbatim. And who said anything about the Bible? Did I mention it at all? Was it mentioned -ANYWHERE- in my post? So who is misinterpreting who?
Wasn't this over with like over a month ago ? Spoiler What I mean is, what is someone who does not believe in God doing posting in a thread about God if he isn't one ? Obviously he ISN'T here to learn. Edit to add: After all he learned everything there is to know about religion in grade school by his own admission.
Yes and then you offered an invalid interpretation. - Which I quoted along with what I originally said. Sad to have to explain it but, the reason to do that is so readers don't have to bounce back and forth between posts. Your post was in response to my post where the subject was religious fantasy-fiction stories. OBVIOUSLY that includes the Bible. Were you responding with zero comprehension of what you were commenting on? Certainly seems like it's so. That is also obvious.
@PCBONEZ: Even though Christ said "Cast not thy pearls before swine, lest they be trampled under them", I will attempt to educate you. The phenomena that you refer to is called "Orthodox" religion. They follow the Talmud / Bible / Koran to the -exact- letter of the word written. I am -NOT- an orthodox Christian; I am too liberal in my beliefs, simply because I would take the time to talk to a person like you. They would not. They would simply call you a Goy, a heathen or an Infidel and walk away from you. If you don't know what a Goy is, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goy Christ was a philosopher who, in his time, said things that simply made sense. One of the greatest one-liners said by Christ was "The Devil loves to play in the Temples". What does this mean? It means that the Devil has his hand in -everything- religion. That should lend credence to your mistrust and disdain of religions in general. Many of us feel that same way. And I also mentioned that to you in my first response to your statements. In my younger days, I felt -EXACTLY- as you (and many other 'Theists') do. As I got older (and hopefully wiser) I realized that I have no right to judge them for their beliefs. ("Judge not, lest ye be judged.") Not one of us knows what happens after we die, any more than we know what goes on in the deepest realm of the atom or at the first second of the big bang. Anybody who claims that they do know is delusional, as has been pointed out by quantum physicists and astrophysicists. Even string theory is considered to be a philosophy, simply because it can't be proven by experiment. If you're going to criticize something, at least take the time to understand what your criticizing. This statement holds true for pretty much anything in this world. I await your reply.
As an interlude from the deep discussion, here's a riddle to ponder over. Can god create an event such that He doesn't know its outcome? If He can't create such an event, He's not omnipotent. If He can, then He's not omniscient, as He doesn't know the outcome of the event.
The one which gets me is how we have perverted Matthew 5:38 by completely leaving out 5:39 in the modern world. On a quick google search this has become more prevalent than ever... It didn't use to be that way. The CIA did similar things when they printed up copies of the Koran in the 1970's. From the 1611 KJV :
@Katzenfreund: As I have said. We do not know. Nor do we have any way to prove it true or false. We are not omniscient, so how can we even attempt to prove that GOD exists, let alone that GOD is omniscient. Can we prove that String Theory exists? We can hypothesize, but is that proof? Most Quantum Physicists will argue that it's philosophical, because there are no experiments that can prove its existence.
LOL, In my OPINION he can create such an event, but one of the parameters of creating that event is not knowing the outcome therefore by hypothetically creating that event he has overridden his omniscience in that instance only. Therefore your second statement is incorrect. Now tell me why my mind is drifting towards the theories of multiverses.
So much insight. Why can't you apply it to belief in fairy tales? It's such a small step but believers can't do it. Just apply it to the people who wrote the bible. Done. You can finally grow up.
A good analysis, I can’t think of a better one. I could, however, suggest that this argument could equally apply to the first statement, namely that he can’t create such an event, overriding His omnipotence in this particular instance, because he’d always know its outcome. Therefore the first statement is incorrect. Returning to your analysis, I point out a possible flaw, in that the prefix “omni” includes absolutely all cases, leaving no instances out. And repeat that I can’t think of a better analysis. P.S. I adapted the riddle from this one I had heard: “Can God make a stone so hard that he cannot break it?” And whichever answer you give, it follows that He is not omnipotent.
No. You may have a somewhat valid point if you apply those thoughts towards the "publisher" of the bible. For example why did they leave out ( as much as I hate to reference it ) wikipedia from the 1611 KJV Bible ?
The only reply I have to that and the myriad of similar arguments MJ has already stated probably better that I could have. Take that for whatever it is worth to you.
˄˄ There’s also the standard subterfuge of declaring that omnipotence – omniscience – omnipresence – all “omnis” – even time, are human concepts, and god lies above and beyond them, the human brain not being able to understand Him. This solves all apparent contradictions, but leaves the obvious question: If we cannot understand the concept of god, then why are we discussing Him? I mean, you wouldn’t enter a discussion on Wave Mechanics hoping to get anywhere, if you are or have the brain of a 5 year old child. And god is far more complex and incomprehensible than Wave Mechanics. Note: Despite my above positions, I am not an atheist, but like to know where human logic can take us. So far, only to contradictions.