The Way of the LORD
- Thread starter battig1370
- Start date
I love how battig gets to choose which books of the bible are the "way of the lord", and which books are not, based on how anti-paul he is. Ha, ha. That is so freaking arrogant.
Also, I love how Leo bashes paul, but as far as I can gather, the catholic church (which Leo seems to think knows the"way of the lord") approved the canon and made Paul's writings part of their bible, let me count, ok, every time they translated, copied, or printed it. Maybe they were dumb-asses.
Maybe pretty much all of the church fathers were dumb-asses, and all of the councils that accepted paul's writings throughout history were as well, and people should just pick out the parts that "work" for them. And we can all pretend we are speaking with the authority of God based on what we think God wants to say.
I think God is speaking now, saying that the "way of the lord" is to always wash behind your ears, and eat oatmeal for breakfast every day.
Whatever.
Also, I love how Leo bashes paul, but as far as I can gather, the catholic church (which Leo seems to think knows the"way of the lord") approved the canon and made Paul's writings part of their bible, let me count, ok, every time they translated, copied, or printed it. Maybe they were dumb-asses.
Maybe pretty much all of the church fathers were dumb-asses, and all of the councils that accepted paul's writings throughout history were as well, and people should just pick out the parts that "work" for them. And we can all pretend we are speaking with the authority of God based on what we think God wants to say.
I think God is speaking now, saying that the "way of the lord" is to always wash behind your ears, and eat oatmeal for breakfast every day.
Whatever.
Oh, I forgot.
I also love how medicine woman likes to interject that there is no God, basically because there isn't any good reason (in her mind) to believe in one, but then she can say the universe is created and recreated in cycles - a belief which a person could not even find one tiny hint of support for. Oh, except that a lot of things in the universe are cyclical, so the universe itself must be too *bad argument*.
Sorry to be such a jerk about it MW, you are probably very nice, as you say you are a healer, so you obviously try to help humanity in some way, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
I also love how medicine woman likes to interject that there is no God, basically because there isn't any good reason (in her mind) to believe in one, but then she can say the universe is created and recreated in cycles - a belief which a person could not even find one tiny hint of support for. Oh, except that a lot of things in the universe are cyclical, so the universe itself must be too *bad argument*.
Sorry to be such a jerk about it MW, you are probably very nice, as you say you are a healer, so you obviously try to help humanity in some way, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.
welcome to the forum.cole grey said:
but could you please elaborate a little more, and indulge us, with some reference material, as to how M*W arguement is bad.
thank you.
Mis-t-,
I thought the reason the argument is weak was obvious, so my description of it must have been confusing.
While I admit extrapolating greater truths from small ones is a nice tool for thought experiments, the technique can't be used as evidence. Showing the possibility of a correlation doesn't show a correlation. There are a lot of small things in the universe we can't see the cycle of which a person could point to trying to show the exact opposite.
To be more specific, what I was saying was - there is no evidence for the idea that the universe is destroyed and created (whether by God or just all on it's own) over and over again. There is no way to reach back into the historical record to before that "happened" to our universe. So, the only possibilities are taking the word of people who wrote down the cyclical idea a long time ago, using ones' personal feelings on the matter, or the flimsy extrapolation thing. This is pretty much the same thing people who believe in God have to go on.
The point being - MW's opinion on the non-existence of God is only as supportable as her belief in a cyclical universe. By implying that another person's belief in God (which was ascertained through the exact same methods through which she acquired her own belief) is for dumb-asses, she also points out that her beliefs are basically opinions too, setting the stage for anyone who wants to say to her that her belief is for dumb-asses. Hence, the glass house reference.
I hope that clears it up a little.
I guess what I'm really saying is - hopefully people can be honest with themselves about why they believe the things they do, and then the discussion is more civilized, more like a game of chess and less like a bunch of confused fundamentalists calling each other cruel names like "sheeple", and "atheist".
I think some of these threads are interesting because you get some actual discussion from opposing viewpoints, and, every few posts or so, someone actually makes a valid point.
By the way, I wasn't saying the universe isn't cyclical. Who the hell knows?
God maybe, whatever that means.
I thought the reason the argument is weak was obvious, so my description of it must have been confusing.
While I admit extrapolating greater truths from small ones is a nice tool for thought experiments, the technique can't be used as evidence. Showing the possibility of a correlation doesn't show a correlation. There are a lot of small things in the universe we can't see the cycle of which a person could point to trying to show the exact opposite.
To be more specific, what I was saying was - there is no evidence for the idea that the universe is destroyed and created (whether by God or just all on it's own) over and over again. There is no way to reach back into the historical record to before that "happened" to our universe. So, the only possibilities are taking the word of people who wrote down the cyclical idea a long time ago, using ones' personal feelings on the matter, or the flimsy extrapolation thing. This is pretty much the same thing people who believe in God have to go on.
The point being - MW's opinion on the non-existence of God is only as supportable as her belief in a cyclical universe. By implying that another person's belief in God (which was ascertained through the exact same methods through which she acquired her own belief) is for dumb-asses, she also points out that her beliefs are basically opinions too, setting the stage for anyone who wants to say to her that her belief is for dumb-asses. Hence, the glass house reference.
I hope that clears it up a little.
I guess what I'm really saying is - hopefully people can be honest with themselves about why they believe the things they do, and then the discussion is more civilized, more like a game of chess and less like a bunch of confused fundamentalists calling each other cruel names like "sheeple", and "atheist".
I think some of these threads are interesting because you get some actual discussion from opposing viewpoints, and, every few posts or so, someone actually makes a valid point.
By the way, I wasn't saying the universe isn't cyclical. Who the hell knows?
God maybe, whatever that means.
Mis-t-,
"but it is still a collection, of badly written books." - mis-t-high on the subject of the bible
Ok, here is an example of a good argument. Although arguing literary value is, like any art criticism, obviously personal opinion (for example - someone I know recently told me 'the brothers karamozov' had no storyline), there are good points you could make to support your statement. There also happen to be good arguments against it, but that is not the point. Your statement isn't just a bald opinion shot out into the world with no legs to stand on and left to lie limp on the pole.
I read a few of your posts and, although you do attack christianity with an aggressiveness that suggests underlying personal issues/experiences with that religion, your posts are either arguments, comments on arguments, or just flat out snarls, all of which are, in my opinion, quite valid.
By the way, I was not trying to put down MW's words in general with my comment,
and I think everyone's opinions are valid, even when their arguments are not. I was just commenting on one post I read that is representative of other posts that were not written by her, that might as well be preceded by the words, "I think".
"but it is still a collection, of badly written books." - mis-t-high on the subject of the bible
Ok, here is an example of a good argument. Although arguing literary value is, like any art criticism, obviously personal opinion (for example - someone I know recently told me 'the brothers karamozov' had no storyline), there are good points you could make to support your statement. There also happen to be good arguments against it, but that is not the point. Your statement isn't just a bald opinion shot out into the world with no legs to stand on and left to lie limp on the pole.
I read a few of your posts and, although you do attack christianity with an aggressiveness that suggests underlying personal issues/experiences with that religion, your posts are either arguments, comments on arguments, or just flat out snarls, all of which are, in my opinion, quite valid.
By the way, I was not trying to put down MW's words in general with my comment,
and I think everyone's opinions are valid, even when their arguments are not. I was just commenting on one post I read that is representative of other posts that were not written by her, that might as well be preceded by the words, "I think".
thank you cole, and welcome again.
I like M*W she make's some very valid points. and like me and most people, she wanders off every so often.
sometimes you cant help but get irate, when you seem to be banging you head, against a wall.
misty
I like M*W she make's some very valid points. and like me and most people, she wanders off every so often.
sometimes you cant help but get irate, when you seem to be banging you head, against a wall.
misty
gort said:
Hi gort,
What would be the point of creating world peace in this temporary situation?
Death and destruction is the law of nature, they occour whether we are peaceful or not.
From our perspective (generally speaking), death is the be-all end-all of life. From God's perspective, it is a transitional process of the spiritual soul upon whom, the laws of nature are ineffectual.
The only chance of peace is through understanding what and who you are in relation to everything, and what and who God is in relation to you.
Jan Ardena.