Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 106
  1. #41
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Wrong - so stop right there.

    I claim that the Biblical account of the resurrection is also evidenced by my own experience which is that Jesus said He would send a Comforter - the Holy Spirit - so we would not be left alone. And I have experienced that.

    My evidence is Biblical revelation IN PRACTICE.

    If someone were, for instance, to tell you that physical exercise will lead to a greater appreciation of yourself within space/time, and on that basis you run a marathon and discover that in so doing you better appreciate your occupation of space/time, then wouldn't you accept that your experience is evidence of the claim of the one who told you that exercise will lead to a better appreciation of yourself?
    That's not evidence of resurrection. It's not even evidence of the existence of any supernatural. It doesn't need to be tested because there's no controversy about your claim that you feel comforted by a comforter. This type of phenomenon is well documented and applies equally to many diverse religions.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  2. #42
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dallas, The Buckle of the Bible Belt, Texas
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    And people of other religions experience their gods revelations as well, so we should accept their evidence as well???? Your argument fails.

    Damn, Allo beat me to it.... never mind


    Opposing theory to the creation of the "known universe". Read it carefully, it's not a difficult read on physics and quantum mechanics.

  3. #43
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    That's not evidence of resurrection. It's not even evidence of the existence of any supernatural. It doesn't need to be tested because there's no controversy about your claim that you feel comforted by a comforter. This type of phenomenon is well documented and applies equally to many diverse religions.
    Okay, so let those who claim to have experienced The Comforter (or a similar phenomenon) come forward. (Btw, the Holy Spirit IS the Comforter but He is also the Spirit of Truth.)

    Let us then decide the truth of any particular/especial "phenomenon" as you put it.

    What are its fruits/effects?

    I'm not so sure that I want to embrace the fruits of Islamic martyrdom leading to such events as 9/11 - are you?

    The fruits of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, are love, joy, peace...against which there is no law. (Galations 5).

    Which would you prefer?
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  4. #44
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Okay, so let those who claim to have experienced The Comforter (or a similar phenomenon) come forward. (Btw, the Holy Spirit IS the Comforter but He is also the Spirit of Truth.)

    Let us then decide the truth of any particular/especial "phenomenon" as you put it.

    What are its fruits/effects?

    I'm not so sure that I want to embrace the fruits of Islamic martyrdom leading to such events as 9/11 - are you?

    The fruits of the Holy Spirit, on the other hand, are love, joy, peace...against which there is no law. (Galations 5).

    Which would you prefer?
    They don't need to come forward. We know they exist. It's documented. We also know that many had such strong conviction in their revelations that they were prepared to die for them.

    What I would prefer doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't choose the biblical god as an ideal option. He lacks tolerance for those unable to believe. He's obsessively jealous and defies my sense of justice. No, if I were to concoct a god it would be nothing like Yahweh. Stoning kids to death wouldn't be in his holy book. Or discrimination against gays. My god would let everyone into heaven without having to get himself nailed to a cross.

    But guess what. That's just wishful thinking. It doesn't make such a god true. And the same applies to you.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  5. #45
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    HI, I'm quoting myself from another post because I think it's fairly relevant to the challenges set in previous threads...


    In science, one process for experimentation to further knowledge (though not exclusively), is to posit a hypothesis then try to disprove it, if it cannot disproved it is accepted until it can be disproved, or ammended to be a better explanation. When theists claim the existence of God, any questioning of the aspects of God (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience etc...), and the pointing out of apparent self-contradictions with these aspects (examples available on request), are made unfalsifiable. I refer to a paper by Anthony Flew entitled Theology an falsification; Once upon a time two explorers came upon a clearing in the jungle. In the clearing were growing many flowers and many weeds. One explorer says, "Some gardener must tend this plot." The other disagrees, "There is no gardener." So they pitch their tents and set a watch. No gardener is ever seen. "But perhaps he is an invisible gardener." So they set up a barbed-wire fence. They electrify it. They patrol with bloodhounds. (For they remember how H. G. Well's The Invisible Man could be both smelt and touched though he could not be seen.) But no shrieks ever suggest that some intruder has received a shock. No movements of the wire ever betray an invisible climber. The bloodhounds never give cry. Yet still the Believer is not convinced. "But there is a gardener, invisible, intangible, insensible, to electric shocks, a gardener who has no scent and makes no sound, a gardener who comes secretly to look after the garden which he loves." At last the Sceptic despairs, "But what remains of your original assertion? Just how does what you call an invisible, intangible, eternally elusive gardener differ from an imaginary gardener or even from no gardener at all?"

    My point is this - I'd rather believe in a system of science that makes mistakes and learns from these mistakes and gets closer to explaining the nature of our reality instead of a faith system based on logically unfounded claims from thousands of years ago that cling desperately to the gaps that science hasn't got to yet in order to justify its preservation.
    ok I see the point you are making with this kind of silly example. Only it really doesn't hold water. See, science uses historical evidence and extrapolation and assumptions as well. You find some bones and then you say, these bones are this old, because we found them here at this layer and they ate this besed upon their teeth and size they must have done this and this and looked just like this, and are related to these. Millions of years ago.

    Then you completely fail to accept any or all of the clear evidence of a God man walking the Earth 2000 yrs ago that had many volumes of information written about him and of his deeds who is the most known historical figure today. I think you shut off your science when it crosses over into the realm of God. There is much archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, and historical evidence for Christ. In fact, there is no doubt that Christ existed at all. Then comes the proving who he was. Was he God incarnate? He certainly claimed he was. If he claimed he was, then how do you prove he was or wasn't? This is where you need tofocus science on. Not on some random garden in the remote jungle. Let me knbow what you find out.

  6. #46
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Dallas, The Buckle of the Bible Belt, Texas
    Posts
    1,160
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    ok I see the point you are making with this kind of silly example. Only it really doesn't hold water. See, science uses historical evidence and extrapolation and assumptions as well. You find some bones and then you say, these bones are this old, because we found them here at this layer and they ate this besed upon their teeth and size they must have done this and this and looked just like this, and are related to these. Millions of years ago.
    You forgot something, the extrapolations support the evidence, the evidence supports the assumptions and combine them all and you have fact. Facts "could" change with new evidence, until then, the science is accepted, not written in stone.

    Then you completely fail to accept any or all of the clear evidence of a God man walking the Earth 2000 yrs ago that had many volumes of information written about him and of his deeds who is the most known historical figure today.
    Where is the evidence of the original volumes? a couple scraps here and there? At best we have copies of copies of copies of copies. Each copy has some discrepancy whether it be a word or spelling or additions and subtractions. For such a "historical figure" why is there very little 3rd party evidence of this rock star? Hardly evidence.
    I think you shut off your science when it crosses over into the realm of God. There is much archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, and historical evidence for Christ.
    Support or retract. Please provide archeological evidence for Christ. Provide detailed 3rd party historical evidence from Jesus' time, not 20 years later and I don't mean a mention or two of someone writing about a group of Christians who worshiped a guy named the Christos.
    In fact, there is no doubt that Christ existed at all.
    There is plenty of doubt.
    Then comes the proving who he was. Was he God incarnate? He certainly claimed he was. If he claimed he was, then how do you prove he was or wasn't? This is where you need tofocus science on. Not on some random garden in the remote jungle. Let me knbow what you find out.
    Since the evidence for Jesus is nothing but hearsay, thats all we can say about the evidence for Jesus.


    Opposing theory to the creation of the "known universe". Read it carefully, it's not a difficult read on physics and quantum mechanics.

  7. #47
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    I don't mean to be a party pooper, but are these questions directly related to the debate at hand about whether the ten commandments are still relevant and applicable?
    Yes they are... let me explain how.

    If God has free will then God is capable of having a choice; a choice that includes doing the right thing and the wrong thing, but God is supposedly infallible and so is constrained to acts which are by definition of infallible always the right choice, then God doesn't have free will... The first question i guess was to lead to a definition of free will that I have assumed here... but heres where it goes and why I think it's relevant.

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    Those who rely on Jesus' imputed righteouness are not judged by the law as they have been made 100% righteous in Christ. Christ has had heaped on Him the sin of the whole world and has been judged and borne the penalty for sin - death - in their place.

    Those who do not accept Jesus' imputed righteousness (salvation) must necessarily be judged by the law since God has made no other remission of sin available. And if the law is broken in part it is broken in whole.
    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    The law is still in effect but it is not of effect in terms of judgment as far as Christians are concerned since Christ has borne the punishment for breaking the law and Christians rely on Jesus' imputed righteousness for salvation, not on their own righteousness through the keeping of the law.
    This is arguing that even if you are a convicted murderer, you go to heaven / judged as righteous if you are Christian. If you are a (non-Christian) selfless good person and (just to make the point) saved thousands of lives, then you go to hell. Essentially your actions are irrelevant to post death judgement, only your belief in Jesus is. Note the first line 'are not judged by the law', so the ten commandments... or any law for that matter are not applicable if you believe in Jesus as Son of God.

    Now to tie in the first part... With the whole, 'are not judged by the law', comes (implicitly) that any law laid down by God is breakable without punitive repercussions.
    Bricky roads they trappers grass, stoney walls they trappers wind, iron stove it trappers fire.

    Trappers is we by the works of hands, and forget us we were ever free...

  8. #48
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsdarts View Post
    You forgot something, the extrapolations support the evidence, the evidence supports the assumptions and combine them all and you have fact. Facts "could" change with new evidence, until then, the science is accepted, not written in stone.
    this is just the problem. The ten commandments are written in stone. The base for the Christian faith, the voundation or establishment that men need a savior.

    Where is the evidence of the original volumes? a couple scraps here and there? At best we have copies of copies of copies of copies. Each copy has some discrepancy whether it be a word or spelling or additions and subtractions. For such a "historical figure" why is there very little 3rd party evidence of this rock star? Hardly evidence. Support or retract. Please provide archeological evidence for Christ. Provide detailed 3rd party historical evidence from Jesus' time, not 20 years later and I don't mean a mention or two of someone writing about a group of Christians who worshiped a guy named the Christos. There is plenty of doubt. Since the evidence for Jesus is nothing but hearsay, thats all we can say about the evidence for Jesus.
    5000 plus hand written copies of the book of john isn't really considered scraps. But I see nothing you read or anyone tells you is going to sway you. And 20 yrs? Are you serious? Okay then. I will concede and declare you the winner. Yay, you win. You have proved to yourself that God doesn't exist and there was no Christ. Good job! Now maybe you can work your magic on those people that actually believe the earth is a sphere and not flat. This was a discussion about the commandments being relative not about the existence of God.

    ---------- Post added at 08:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    Yes they are... let me explain how.

    If God has free will then God is capable of having a choice; a choice that includes doing the right thing and the wrong thing, but God is supposedly infallible and so is constrained to acts which are by definition of infallible always the right choice, then God doesn't have free will... The first question i guess was to lead to a definition of free will that I have assumed here... but heres where it goes and why I think it's relevant.





    This is arguing that even if you are a convicted murderer, you go to heaven / judged as righteous if you are Christian. If you are a (non-Christian) selfless good person and (just to make the point) saved thousands of lives, then you go to hell. Essentially your actions are irrelevant to post death judgement, only your belief in Jesus is. Note the first line 'are not judged by the law', so the ten commandments... or any law for that matter are not applicable if you believe in Jesus as Son of God.

    Now to tie in the first part... With the whole, 'are not judged by the law', comes (implicitly) that any law laid down by God is breakable without punitive repercussions.
    No, the law is fulfilled by Jesus death upon the cross. We accept Christ to go before us and take our sin debt on his shoulders. That is all.

  9. #49
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Itsdarts View Post
    Where is the evidence of the original volumes? a couple scraps here and there? At best we have copies of copies of copies of copies. Each copy has some discrepancy whether it be a word or spelling or additions and subtractions. For such a "historical figure" why is there very little 3rd party evidence of this rock star? Hardly evidence. Support or retract. Please provide archeological evidence for Christ. Provide detailed 3rd party historical evidence from Jesus' time, not 20 years later and I don't mean a mention or two of someone writing about a group of Christians who worshiped a guy named the Christos. There is plenty of doubt. Since the evidence for Jesus is nothing but hearsay, thats all we can say about the evidence for Jesus.
    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    5000 plus hand written copies of the book of john isn't really considered scraps. But I see nothing you read or anyone tells you is going to sway you. And 20 yrs? Are you serious? Okay then. I will concede and declare you the winner. Yay, you win. You have proved to yourself that God doesn't exist and there was no Christ. Good job! Now maybe you can work your magic on those people that actually believe the earth is a sphere and not flat. This was a discussion about the commandments being relative not about the existence of God.
    This is not a debate about whether Jesus existed. Please refrain from engaging in off-topic debates. If you want to debate whether Jesus is real, please do it in another thread. This thread is specifically about the 10 commandments and whether or not they are still relevant and applicable to Christians. It is the fact that nearly every debate about Christianity degenerates into a diatribe against God and Jesus' existence that puts a lot of people off of debating religion here. If you don't want to accept that God exists, then obviously this debate is irrelevant to you anyway. Please leave the debate to people who do care about this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    Yes they are... let me explain how.

    If God has free will then God is capable of having a choice; a choice that includes doing the right thing and the wrong thing, but God is supposedly infallible and so is constrained to acts which are by definition of infallible always the right choice, then God doesn't have free will...
    I take issue with this progression of logic on the grounds that the quality of being perfectly right does not imply a lack of choice or free will. It merely implies that any choice God makes will, by definition, be perfect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    This is arguing that even if you are a convicted murderer, you go to heaven / judged as righteous if you are Christian. If you are a (non-Christian) selfless good person and (just to make the point) saved thousands of lives, then you go to hell. Essentially your actions are irrelevant to post death judgement, only your belief in Jesus is. Note the first line 'are not judged by the law', so the ten commandments... or any law for that matter are not applicable if you believe in Jesus as Son of God.
    This is actually only partially correct, and whether this is true depends on which Christians you talk to. I happen to have a very Apostolic/Catholic view of the concepts of sin and penitence and Salvation, so I don't agree with the suppositions you make. A person that does not believe in God or has never heard of Christ but has done his or her best to live a righteous life as best they knew how and would have followed the teachings of the Church and called upon Jesus' mercy if they had known it was necessary to do so is "saved" whether or not they were baptized. Conversely, a person who has been baptized and professes the Christian faith and yet goes out and murders five people unrepentantly will not gain entry into Heaven if they do not have a change of heart that forces them to acknowledge and truly repent of what they have done, such that they would do anything in their power to undo what they have done, or to make restitution. Grace is given to all who receive it, but people that have shown themselves willing to commit mortal sins of that type have demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to accept God's grace because of their state of mind.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Now to tie in the first part... With the whole, 'are not judged by the law', comes (implicitly) that any law laid down by God is breakable without punitive repercussions.
    Not necessarily. The laws laid down by God were a means of giving guidance to His people on how to live a holy and righteous life. When His people demonstrated that they were more willing to follow the letter of the law than the spirit of it, thus circumventing the inner processes of change that the Law was meant to foster, God chose a different approach and sent His Son to demonstrate the "right way" to live and to personally guide His people in a "living embodiment" of the Law. Jesus was at once the fulfillment of and the replacement of the Laws that went before. He left us with two Great Commandments, which essentially amount to the simple statement that we must love everyone all the time, no matter what. If we do this, we will not materially err and break commandments willfully. If the loving thing requires breaking a commandment, then Jesus demonstrated that it is better to love than to follow the letter of the law. In essence, the Law by which we are judged is our ability to love everyone with the same selfless, sacrificial love that Jesus has for each of us. If we are not able to carry out this command, then we must throw ourselves on God's mercy and ask His forgiveness for failing to live up to the standard He has set for us.

  10. #50
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    :I take issue with this progression of logic on the grounds that the quality of being perfectly right does not imply a lack of choice or free will. It merely implies that any choice God makes will, by definition, be perfect.
    So if God chooses to kill a few thousand innocents... God is right to do so? If God is infallible, then it is right to do so... Who in their right mind would believe in a God that kills innocents and is right to do so? Some God you got there...

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    A person that does not believe in God or has never heard of Christ but has done his or her best to live a righteous life as best they knew how and would have followed the teachings of the Church and called upon Jesus' mercy if they had known it was necessary to do so is "saved" whether or not they were baptized.
    Obvious problem here... If humans have free will how can you (or even God for that matter) speculate on what people would have freely done with knowledge that they didn't have? Harkens back to the age old debate of determinism and free will, but from a speculative standpoint... Your point here does make me think though... what is the point of having a world in which (if it is true as is claimed that Jesus is the only path to salvation), there are people unnaware of the criteria for salvation? and what about all the people who went before? were they all doomed from the start? kinda unfair if they were... Nah, not buying the whole 'they're saved if they would have' thing, not a sound argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    The laws laid down by God were a means of giving guidance to His people on how to live a holy and righteous life.
    So Gods laws aren't laws, just guidance... hmm...

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    When His people demonstrated that they were more willing to follow the letter of the law than the spirit of it thus circumventing the inner processes of change that the Law was meant to foster, God chose a different approach and sent His Son to demonstrate the "right way" to live and to personally guide His people in a "living embodiment" of the Law.
    I've never once heard of a law designed to be taken in spirit but not in letter... lemme see, so if theres a law that says 'Thou shall not steal', then what your really saying is 'Private property while being overtly repected is not an exclusive property in its own right, ownership may change through covert appropriation upon condition that no-one is caught in the process.' Essentially you could be justifying 'Thou shall not get caught'.

    Now what is this about the inner processes of change that the law was meant to foster... what qualifies you to speculate on 1: 'the inner processes of change the law was meant to foster' (God's intentions) 2: Gods actions by his choosing a different approach and 3:The Jews (His people at the time, Christianity didn't exist at that point).

    Quote Originally Posted by Talthas View Post
    Jesus was at once the fulfillment of and the replacement of the Laws that went before.
    Doesn't make much sense this claim - So Jesus lived his entire life according to the laws that we should all live by (being the 'living embodiment' and Jewish), and his death signifies to you that you don't need to follow those same laws he spent his entire life adhering to... hmm... and if the laws he laeft were all about love, why did Jesus kill a tree because it didn't have any fruit? Seems a bit juvenile, I mean really, who in their right mind would take their frustration out on a tree that didn't have any fruit...
    Bricky roads they trappers grass, stoney walls they trappers wind, iron stove it trappers fire.

    Trappers is we by the works of hands, and forget us we were ever free...

  11. #51
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    ok I see the point you are making with this kind of silly example. Only it really doesn't hold water. See, science uses historical evidence and extrapolation and assumptions as well. You find some bones and then you say, these bones are this old, because we found them here at this layer and they ate this besed upon their teeth and size they must have done this and this and looked just like this, and are related to these. Millions of years ago.

    Then you completely fail to accept any or all of the clear evidence of a God man walking the Earth 2000 yrs ago that had many volumes of information written about him and of his deeds who is the most known historical figure today. I think you shut off your science when it crosses over into the realm of God. There is much archeological evidence, manuscript evidence, and historical evidence for Christ. In fact, there is no doubt that Christ existed at all. Then comes the proving who he was. Was he God incarnate? He certainly claimed he was. If he claimed he was, then how do you prove he was or wasn't? This is where you need tofocus science on. Not on some random garden in the remote jungle. Let me knbow what you find out.
    If your going to claim it's a silly example... show how instead of just making an unsubstantiated claim like religion frequently does, this is a debate site, so debate, unfounded claims will earn you nothing. Show how it doesn't hold water (tell me something that science assumes with out evidence). At least science doesn't try to posit claims about an entity that has properties making it impossible to know for certain of it's existence, convenient that eh. Interesting that you think its okay to make similar jibes at a system of knowledge gathering that has meant the development of society, communications, technology etc... hypocracy of the most evident nature. Scientific experimentation is there to avoid assumption...

    Tell me this, do you think you would even be able to be on this site if science focussed solely on trying to prove God's existence... I think not... Considering what religion has judged as heresy over the many generations of scientific development. You should consider yourself lucky that science has avoided religion, you wouldn't be who you are whith what you have now.

    I have no doubt that you call it a silly example simply because it highlights the colossaly fallacious reasoning that religious people employ to justify their claims.

    It's not difficult to look at history and take what we want from it, we can't do that with scientific theory; when Newton discovered gravity, do we have the option to look back and say no, the apple fell upwards? I can accept that were was a guy called Yoshua ben Yosef (since theres no J in Hebrew), and he was an apocalyptic Jew who preached to the Jews of the time about the laws as given to man in the Torah. Christianity didn't sprout up until a good couple of hundred years later, and decided to nopt follow the laws as given by 'God' based on a piece of nonsense logic of 'Jesus' embodying the laws and at his death fulfilling them and so there is no need to follow them.

    Skepticism is such a useful tool to preserve our curiosity for exploration and discovery, why do you need to have claims so fantastical to be unquestionable?
    Bricky roads they trappers grass, stoney walls they trappers wind, iron stove it trappers fire.

    Trappers is we by the works of hands, and forget us we were ever free...

  12. #52
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    If your going to claim it's a silly example... show how instead of just making an unsubstantiated claim like religion frequently does, this is a debate site, so debate, unfounded claims will earn you nothing. Show how it doesn't hold water (tell me something that science assumes with out evidence).
    sure. All the timeframes aren't observed facts. Anything beyond human history is assumed. There is no way to accurately prove the date of anything which wasn't observed. With that this isn't the correct topic to debate in here and perhaps a moderator could branch this into its own topic.

    At least science doesn't try to posit claims about an entity that has properties making it impossible to know for certain of it's existence, convenient that eh. Interesting that you think its okay to make similar jibes at a system of knowledge gathering that has meant the development of society, communications, technology etc... hypocracy of the most evident nature. Scientific experimentation is there to avoid assumption...
    ahh but science does spend a great deal attempting to prove God's existence. There is an amount of faith needed to trust in God, this is true. Which is the only way to make it possible to truly love God.

    Tell me this, do you think you would even be able to be on this site if science focussed solely on trying to prove God's existence... I think not... Considering what religion has judged as heresy over the many generations of scientific development. You should consider yourself lucky that science has avoided religion, you wouldn't be who you are whith what you have now.
    I wouldn't be who I am today without Christ. This is true.

    I have no doubt that you call it a silly example simply because it highlights the colossaly fallacious reasoning that religious people employ to justify their claims.
    Sounds harsh and a bit biased. Where does all this hostility towards the religious?
    It's not difficult to look at history and take what we want from it, we can't do that with scientific theory; when Newton discovered gravity, do we have the option to look back and say no, the apple fell upwards? I can accept that were was a guy called Yoshua ben Yosef (since theres no J in Hebrew), and he was an apocalyptic Jew who preached to the Jews of the time about the laws as given to man in the Torah. Christianity didn't sprout up until a good couple of hundred years later, and decided to nopt follow the laws as given by 'God' based on a piece of nonsense logic of 'Jesus' embodying the laws and at his death fulfilling them and so there is no need to follow them.
    this is your opinion because none of what you stated in in the Bible... so again, where are you getting these claims?

    Skepticism is such a useful tool to preserve our curiosity for exploration and discovery, why do you need to have claims so fantastical to be unquestionable?
    It would do you well to approach your views with the same discernment as you think you use towards religion.

  13. #53
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    sure. All the timeframes aren't observed facts. Anything beyond human history is assumed. There is no way to accurately prove the date of anything which wasn't observed. With that this isn't the correct topic to debate in here and perhaps a moderator could branch this into its own topic.
    I entirely agree that this should go to a different thread topic... You claim that there is no way to accurately prove the date of anything which wasn't observed... So how can you have even the tiniest shred of proof for an afterlife / God etc...

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    ahh but science does spend a great deal attempting to prove God's existence. There is an amount of faith needed to trust in God, this is true. Which is the only way to make it possible to truly love God.
    Justify these claims... that there is faith needed to trust God, why is this true? and secondly Why is this the only way? PLease back-up your claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    Sounds harsh and a bit biased. Where does all this hostility towards the religious?
    Well you have dismissed a very effective method of showing up the fallacious method of theological justification with a flippant remark of how it is 'silly' with no justification whatsoever, it's not hostility. Just a valid response to such a condescending reply.

    [QUOTE=xceptionalguy;411429]
    this is your opinion because none of what you stated in in the Bible... so again, where are you getting these claims?[?QUOTE]

    Just showing you how these debates go nowhere with unjustified claims, please justify yours.
    Bricky roads they trappers grass, stoney walls they trappers wind, iron stove it trappers fire.

    Trappers is we by the works of hands, and forget us we were ever free...

  14. #54
    Senior Mod

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,289
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    So if God chooses to kill a few thousand innocents... God is right to do so? If God is infallible, then it is right to do so... Who in their right mind would believe in a God that kills innocents and is right to do so? Some God you got there...
    Please explain how God defines someone as "innocent." Or are you simply superimposing your own personal tastes as to what you "like" and "don't like" people to do onto God and judging him by your own standards? If you're atheist, innocence is simply a certain state of mind you prefer to others, so this argument is valid only for you personally and doesn't really apply to anyone else who doesn't share you particular moral code.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Obvious problem here... If humans have free will how can you (or even God for that matter) speculate on what people would have freely done with knowledge that they didn't have?
    Who says I am speculating on anything at all? I'm not making the determination as to whether someone goes to Heaven or not. I can't read minds. That's up to God, who knows our deepest, inmost thoughts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Harkens back to the age old debate of determinism and free will, but from a speculative standpoint...
    That's because you don't understand what I'm talking about. If you did, you wouldn't have taken the angle you did. I think you're simply finding points to argue for its own sake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Your point here does make me think though... what is the point of having a world in which (if it is true as is claimed that Jesus is the only path to salvation), there are people unnaware of the criteria for salvation? and what about all the people who went before? were they all doomed from the start? kinda unfair if they were...
    From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

    This affirmation (that there is no Salvation outside the Church) is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

    848 "...in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Nah, not buying the whole 'they're saved if they would have' thing, not a sound argument.
    That's because you don't understand it because you are intentionally refusing to acknowledge it for the sake of an argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    So Gods laws aren't laws, just guidance... hmm...
    I'm not interested in getting into a nit-picky semantic debate with you. If you want to exchange ideas and have a genuine discourse, fine, but don't be petty. What exactly is your purpose in making this point?


    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    I've never once heard of a law designed to be taken in spirit but not in letter... lemme see, so if theres a law that says 'Thou shall not steal', then what your really saying is 'Private property while being overtly repected is not an exclusive property in its own right, ownership may change through covert appropriation upon condition that no-one is caught in the process.' Essentially you could be justifying 'Thou shall not get caught'.
    Straw man. This is *not* what I've said, nor does anything I've said imply it. This, like everything else you've said so far, is pure sophistry.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Now what is this about the inner processes of change that the law was meant to foster... what qualifies you to speculate on 1: 'the inner processes of change the law was meant to foster' (God's intentions) 2: Gods actions by his choosing a different approach and 3:The Jews (His people at the time, Christianity didn't exist at that point).
    Let's see: a lifetime of philosophical and religious inquiry that included at least a basic study of all the major world religions, two years of college-level philosophy, including a year specifically devoted to studying the Bible, and a pretty good understanding of history. Not to mention, I am not the first person to have thought of these ideas. These are relatively common themes in Christian theology, so I don't need to be specially "qualified" to discuss them.

    While we're at it, let's turn the tables back on you. What qualifies you to dispute the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the mechanisms of Salvation when they have devoted 2,000 years and some of the finest minds our species has ever enjoyed to nothing but the study of Salvation? What unmitigated arrogance could possibly have allowed the likes of you to even dream that you're qualified to even bother forming an opinion about it? No, wait... don't answer that. I don't care at all. The question itself is meaningless, because even if I totally "win" the point, all I succeed in doing is shutting down the discussion by disqualifying you as a participant because you're not "qualified" to form an opinion of your own. Your pointless question about qualifications might as well have been exactly what I just asked you. I never claimed to be an expert or used any appeal to my own authority. Stop trying to be "clever" (and failing) and actually discuss ideas. You are trying to "win" an argument, not discuss an idea. I have absolutely no interest in "winning" or "losing" an argument with you. If you want to talk about the actual ideas, fine... let's discuss the ideas in an intellectually honest way without any of this sophistry. Otherwise, I'm done with debating you on this topic.


    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    Doesn't make much sense this claim - So Jesus lived his entire life according to the laws that we should all live by (being the 'living embodiment' and Jewish), and his death signifies to you that you don't need to follow those same laws he spent his entire life adhering to...
    Straw man. I never said this nor implied it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai
    and if the laws he laeft were all about love, why did Jesus kill a tree because it didn't have any fruit? Seems a bit juvenile, I mean really, who in their right mind would take their frustration out on a tree that didn't have any fruit...
    Again, you demonstrate your refusal to explore the ideas from the perspective of discussion instead of as a "talking point." If you had bothered to investigate the story, you would have learned that the fig tree Jesus cursed had "nothing but leaves." As the season when the story is to have occurred is close to spring (since the leaves were already on the tree), there should have at least been the precursors of figs, commonly called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic, and eaten by the peasants of the time when they were hungry. As Jesus saw that there were not even the taqsh on the tree, he knew the tree to be totally barren and hopeless of ever bearing fruit again. The people to whom this story was originally written would have known that without explanation because it was a part of their everyday culture. Since we don't have the same cultural context, we have to go back and explore what that context is so that we can have a better understanding of the story.

    Theologians speculate that he used the tree which might as well have been dead anyway to inspire his disciples to ask about the miracle he performed so that he could teach them about the power of faith. Still other theologians speculate that Jesus was using the fig tree as an "action parable" to represent those who appeared to be "fruitful" from a distance but are shown to be "nothing but leaves" on closer examination. An examination of the story in Mark's gospel shows that the incident of the fig tree provides "bookends" for the story of Jesus cleansing the temple of moneychangers and the like, thus providing an allegorical parallel for the exterior of the Temple, which appeared fine, yet was full of corruption and "nothing" spiritually.

    If you were interested in an actual discussion instead of "talking points" and sophistry, as your post demonstrates, you may have seen these things for yourself. I managed to find these ideas with about 5 seconds' effort on Google - first hit, by the way; not even hard - and a few recollections from my studies at college. You could have, too, instead of making a pointless statement about Jesus being childish.

    So... now all *that* crap is out of the way, are you going to continue with your Sophistic approach, or can we actually have a discussion now?

    ---------- Post added at 03:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    You should consider yourself lucky that science has avoided religion, you wouldn't be who you are whith what you have now.
    Just as a note, Gregor Mendel was a Christian monk. Copernicus was a Catholic priest. St. Albertus Magnus developed the precursors of modern scientific thought. In fact, here is a list of several notable figures that have helped "science avoid religion" for you. Let's see how lucky you'd feel without these guys and their desire to understand what they believe to be God's creation better.

    To these guys, we owe logarithms, the heliocentric theory, modern genetics and inheritance patterns, modern astronomy, and the foundation of much of our medical and botanical sciences, as well as many other innovations. And every single one of them was a steadfast Christian driven forward primarily by the Christian impetus to see God's handiwork in Nature.

  15. #55
    Banned Indefinitely
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    38
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rakkyosai View Post
    I entirely agree that this should go to a different thread topic... You claim that there is no way to accurately prove the date of anything which wasn't observed... So how can you have even the tiniest shred of proof for an afterlife / God etc...
    Agreed/ Also, the proof for an afterlife is in the proof for Christ and who He is. All His words were truth, therefore we must have faith that all his words on the afterlife and every other future event must also be true.


    Justify these claims... that there is faith needed to trust God, why is this true? and secondly Why is this the only way? PLease back-up your claims.
    You are missing a piece of the puzzle my friend. God is Love, Christ is Hope and.... Faith is the Holy Spirit. For if you do not have the Holy Spirit within you it is impossible to please God. This is where the faith becomes the evidence of things hoped for but not yet seen. And christ is the Hope. God is good all the time, But he isn't safe. He can strike you dead whenever he chooses. None are innocent before Him. But he is good all the time.
    Well you have dismissed a very effective method of showing up the fallacious method of theological justification with a flippant remark of how it is 'silly' with no justification whatsoever, it's not hostility. Just a valid response to such a condescending reply.
    so very true!

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    this is your opinion because none of what you stated in in the Bible... so again, where are you getting these claims?

    Just showing you how these debates go nowhere with unjustified claims, please justify yours.
    Agreed. From both sides of the fence.

  16. #56
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by xceptionalguy View Post
    Agreed/ Also, the proof for an afterlife is in the proof for Christ and who He is. All His words were truth, therefore we must have faith that all his words on the afterlife and every other future event must also be true.
    One problem here....There's no proof for Christ OR who He is.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  17. #57
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    They don't need to come forward. We know they exist. It's documented. We also know that many had such strong conviction in their revelations that they were prepared to die for them.

    What I would prefer doesn't matter. I certainly wouldn't choose the biblical god as an ideal option. He lacks tolerance for those unable to believe. He's obsessively jealous and defies my sense of justice. No, if I were to concoct a god it would be nothing like Yahweh. Stoning kids to death wouldn't be in his holy book. Or discrimination against gays. My god would let everyone into heaven without having to get himself nailed to a cross.
    But guess what. That's just wishful thinking. It doesn't make such a god true. And the same applies to you.
    If your preferred god let everyone into heaven, it wouldn't be heaven, would it? It would be a continuation of earthly existence where evil/harm was eternally perpetuated - and I bet you'd have something to say about that.

    As it is, Christians are made a "new creation" and are "made perfect in Jesus" otherwise we would contaminate heaven and it would cease to be a place where love/God reigns and there is no more sorrow and hatred etc..
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  18. #58
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    If your preferred god let everyone into heaven, it wouldn't be heaven, would it? It would be a continuation of earthly existence where evil/harm was eternally perpetuated - and I bet you'd have something to say about that.

    As it is, Christians are made a "new creation" and are "made perfect in Jesus" otherwise we would contaminate heaven and it would cease to be a place where love/God reigns and there is no more sorrow and hatred etc..
    I disagree.

    Christians do evil things too. A world full of Christians isn't a perfect world.

    But if Christians are made perfect in Jesus then my god would make everyone perfect even without Jesus. Everyone would go to heaven. No crosses, no worries.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

  19. #59
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,583
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by Allocutus View Post
    I disagree.

    Christians do evil things too. A world full of Christians isn't a perfect world.

    But if Christians are made perfect in Jesus then my god would make everyone perfect even without Jesus. Everyone would go to heaven. No crosses, no worries.
    And how do you propose that everyone is made perfect without prior recognition of imperfection and the consequent need that imperfection is addressed? Or are you advocating a robotic race to fill heaven?
    Love is: the highest good of an other at my expense.

  20. #60
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,716
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Are the Ten Commandments still applicable to Christians?

    Quote Originally Posted by disinterested View Post
    And how do you propose that everyone is made perfect without prior recognition of imperfection and the consequent need that imperfection is addressed? Or are you advocating a robotic race to fill heaven?
    I don't see the problem with recognitions of imperfection. You believe in a god that did create everything perfect. Mine would too. She just wouldn't take that inexplicable step of forbidding people from eating a fruit, then allowing everything to go down the drain when they did eat the fruit, holding entire generations responsible for it, demanding faith even from those who aren't capable of it, commanding people to stone other people to death, that sort of thing. Any of it. Unnecessary. My god wouldn't bother with all this petty nonsense. She would create perfect people and let them do whatever they like and be happy. No snakes tempting anyone. No need for that.
    "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world" - Richard Dawkins

    "If you could rationalize with Religious people there would be no more Religious people" -Gregory House

 

 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The 20 Commandments?!?!?!
    By Rogue Cardinal in forum Religion
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: March 10th, 2009, 03:42 PM
  2. Iraqi Christians in serious danger...
    By KingOfTheEast in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: November 29th, 2008, 10:09 PM
  3. Sharia law in Afghanistan
    By Meng Bomin in forum International Affairs
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2006, 11:34 PM
  4. Weak Christians
    By starcreator in forum Religion
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2005, 03:50 PM
  5. Conservatives and religion
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: August 30th, 2004, 01:04 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •