I'll ask again: Since the topic is the Bible, why don't you quote Bible scriptures? The Hindu scriptures you quoted don't agree with the Bible - which suggests that one or the other or both is not reality.
The Bible. Myth or Reality?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Jan Ardena:
As for complaining how horrible he is, I think you need to look carefully at what these complaining people are talking about. You may find that they are not secretly assuming that God exists and making judgments about his nature. Instead, you may find that they are referring to the mythology of God as outlined in your favorite scriptures. If the bible, for example, portrays the biblical God as horrible, then asserting that does not amount to tacitly admitting that God exists.
Suppose I were to analyse the character of the Great Gatsby, while at the same time asserting that he is a fictional character. Would you find that equally fun, that somebody would deny that Gatsby is real while complaining about how horrible (or whatever) a character he is portrayed as?
Can you distinguish between myth and fact? Can you distinguish a discussion of myth from a discussion of fact? I think you can, even if you pretend you can't.
Ok.
If God doesn't exist, then not believing in him is not denial. You can't be in denial about the existence of something that doesn't exist.
As for complaining how horrible he is, I think you need to look carefully at what these complaining people are talking about. You may find that they are not secretly assuming that God exists and making judgments about his nature. Instead, you may find that they are referring to the mythology of God as outlined in your favorite scriptures. If the bible, for example, portrays the biblical God as horrible, then asserting that does not amount to tacitly admitting that God exists.
Suppose I were to analyse the character of the Great Gatsby, while at the same time asserting that he is a fictional character. Would you find that equally fun, that somebody would deny that Gatsby is real while complaining about how horrible (or whatever) a character he is portrayed as?
Can you distinguish between myth and fact? Can you distinguish a discussion of myth from a discussion of fact? I think you can, even if you pretend you can't.
The thing is you don't know that God doesn't exist, so to think it there is a possibility of God not existing, means you have to deny Him.
You are forced to deny every single scripture. You can hide behind ''no evidence'', but it is meaningless.
It helps with the denial.
I doubt you would be bothered by it. But you're bothered by the existence of God. It is important to you. You choose to deny Him.
You always have to go there. Don't you?
jan.
And the usual Jan round-about continues.
Time for you to step up and clearly tell us what you believe.
You obviously believe in some deity. Which one(s)?
How does asking for clarification about god equal denying?
Why should anyone give just one flying fuck about your view when you won't tell us what it is?
Time for you to step up and clearly tell us what you believe.
You obviously believe in some deity. Which one(s)?
How does asking for clarification about god equal denying?
Why should anyone give just one flying fuck about your view when you won't tell us what it is?
Where did asking for clarifications fit into the the discussion with James?
Then why are you asking me what I believe?
jan.
Which one? There are hundreds to choose from.
Jan Ardena:
And round we go again.
If so, then by your own argument you're denying God.
Which means, of course, that if you don't want to admit that you deny God you have to tell us all here that you are 100% sure that God exists. In which case, either (a) you're lying, or (b) you're truthful but deluded, because there's no way that anybody can be 100% sure about that.
What "bothers" me, by the way, is not that people believe in stuff that isn't true, or have opinions that differ from mine. Those things don't particularly bother me. What bothers me is the flow-on negative effects that such false beliefs have on the believers themselves and on others over whom they have power or influence.
To take an extreme example, look at Islamic State. If all those IS guys did was to sit quietly in a cave somewhere reading the Qur'an, I'd say good luck to them. But instead they go out and kill and maim and rape, and justify it all with reference to their belief in God and in the inerrancy of their interpretation of their "scripture". That's what bothers me.
And round we go again.
So let me ask you: Do you admit that there is a possibility of God not existing?
If so, then by your own argument you're denying God.
Which means, of course, that if you don't want to admit that you deny God you have to tell us all here that you are 100% sure that God exists. In which case, either (a) you're lying, or (b) you're truthful but deluded, because there's no way that anybody can be 100% sure about that.
Scriptures are just somebody's say-so that God exists. People make mistakes all the time.
How many times do you need this explained? You can't deny something that doesn't exist. I don't deny God. I don't believe in God. See the difference yet?
What "bothers" me, by the way, is not that people believe in stuff that isn't true, or have opinions that differ from mine. Those things don't particularly bother me. What bothers me is the flow-on negative effects that such false beliefs have on the believers themselves and on others over whom they have power or influence.
To take an extreme example, look at Islamic State. If all those IS guys did was to sit quietly in a cave somewhere reading the Qur'an, I'd say good luck to them. But instead they go out and kill and maim and rape, and justify it all with reference to their belief in God and in the inerrancy of their interpretation of their "scripture". That's what bothers me.
Of which religion?
Because both are made up by men.
Because they don't agree with each other. If they were "God-given", they ought to be consistent.
So you follow "any" religion?
If religion was made up by man, how do you explain its unique longevity and persistence? Most things made up by man, don't last very long, nor do they motivate people beyond a generation or two. If you look at all the excitement connected to the election of President Obama, what happened in seven years? What makes the religious versions of "man made up", different, allowing the excitement to last thousands of years?
For example, go back into history, such as 0AD, when a major religion appears; Christianity. Next, look at all the man made things of that time/era. Why is Christianity one of the last things still standing? Why didn't the laws, rules, traditions, styles, philosophies, governments, sciences, etc., all of which are manmade, also stand the test of time? What is different between religion and all the rest, if all are manmade? Does it have to do with higher level genius? The writings of Aristotle persisted?
If you look at science, since 1600's, very little of the first three centuries of science persisted. There are a few things that lasted, unchanged, until today. What persisted, were those things that were true, then and now. Truth transcends time.
In music there are fad songs each year, that define a generation, but only a few songs will remain after 100 years, and still be listened to or sung. These are called classics.
Why do religions persist, like a classic, that can transcend time? If religion is man made, it defines a very unique version of man made, that stands outside of time.
For example, go back into history, such as 0AD, when a major religion appears; Christianity. Next, look at all the man made things of that time/era. Why is Christianity one of the last things still standing? Why didn't the laws, rules, traditions, styles, philosophies, governments, sciences, etc., all of which are manmade, also stand the test of time? What is different between religion and all the rest, if all are manmade? Does it have to do with higher level genius? The writings of Aristotle persisted?
If you look at science, since 1600's, very little of the first three centuries of science persisted. There are a few things that lasted, unchanged, until today. What persisted, were those things that were true, then and now. Truth transcends time.
In music there are fad songs each year, that define a generation, but only a few songs will remain after 100 years, and still be listened to or sung. These are called classics.
Why do religions persist, like a classic, that can transcend time? If religion is man made, it defines a very unique version of man made, that stands outside of time.
A rigorous mathematical proof that God exists would have to run parallel to the CTMU (even in language) and posit such concepts as unbound telesis and SCSPL.
[url='Here is one'[http://thegproof.org/[/url]
[url='Here is one'[http://thegproof.org/[/url]