Who is going to hell? An argument for the Bible, Religion and God.

[Repugnant Abomination]

I like how active ignores the majority of my post and only responded to what he thought he could worm his way out of by once again talking a whole lot without saying much of anything.

[Beebs]

Originally posted by jbonham:
But you can't prove the lineage of a man by modern DNA tests because whose 2000 year old hair do we have.

You can argue that given the age of the earth, according to a strict interpretation of the Bible, meaning 1 god day = 1 human day, that given 2 people to start with, a typical birth rate, and the age of the the human race it would be impossible to create 6.2 billion people in such a short time. But I agree that there are ways of interpreting how old the Bible tells us the earth and the human race is.

You could also argue that man and dinosaurs would have had to inhabit the earth at the same time, this presents huge problems, and you simply cannot ignore them.

Originally posted by jbonham:
Yeah, when God appears then one will be able to prove by the scientific method all of what I said. Don't pick one sentence to isolate. That is how we got Schizms in the church

What I was saying is that based on the current evidence we have, it appears more likely that the bible is not divine, and that science will likely continue to prove this point. You can say that someday god will appear and prove me wrong, and thats fine, but all I am saying is there is no scientific evidence to suggest that, only faith.

[Ironic Mustache]

By that token, you could say that basically any ridiculous random thing could happen and disprove every theory mankind has ever thought up. Hence, theory. Theo... Theology...

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Beebs:
So I'm honestly curious, do you actually feel that wrong and right are the same thing? Or do you just chose to ignore logical impossibilities?

i believe "human nature" or whatever you want to call it--or sinful nature that caused us to know "good" from "evil" is only reason "right" and "wrong" are not the same thing.

Originally posted by jbonham:
For Active, I hope you mean personally right. I agree one cannot be right logically and wrong logically. So extrapolate a little, please?

yes, personally right

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Repugnant Abomination:
I like how active ignores the majority of my post and only responded to what he thought he could worm his way out of by once again talking a whole lot without saying much of anything.

number 4 is only thing that there is an argument with. if you have made up your opinion about the others--thats the way it is. to say "i have no idea what I'm talking about", discounts any further posts that I try to make--so there is no reason to make any.

[Beebs]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
i believe "human nature" or whatever you want to call it--or sinful nature that caused us to know "good" from "evil" is only reason "right" and "wrong" are not the same thing.

Well do you believe that we got it right? Or do you think there is no distinction, amongst rational beings, between what is right and what is wrong? Obviously in the animal kingdom there is no right and wrong as there is no ability to think rationally.

Edit: Also, since you mention it at the end of your post, what is the difference between the personal right and the universal right?

[ September 22, 2005, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Beebs ]

[Beebs]

Originally posted by Ironic Mustache:
By that token, you could say that basically any ridiculous random thing could happen and disprove every theory mankind has ever thought up. Hence, theory. Theo... Theology...

Basically if the argument is some supernatural force that defies logical laws is in command, theres no way to argue against it other than time.

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Beebs:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by AcTivE:
i believe "human nature" or whatever you want to call it--or sinful nature that caused us to know "good" from "evil" is only reason "right" and "wrong" are not the same thing.

Well do you believe that we got it right? Or do you think there is no distinction, amongst rational beings, between what is right and what is wrong? Obviously in the animal kingdom there is no right and wrong as there is no ability to think rationally.</font>[/quote]
Don't know what you mean. The fact that we feel that we know someting is "right" or "wrong" is proof that "rational beings" make a distinction.

[Beebs]

I'm asking if you think that distinction is credible. First you say right and wrong are the same thing, then you say we made right and wrong different, so I am asking about the true status of right and wrong. Is right truely different from wrong?

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Beebs:
I'm asking if you think that distinction is credible. First you say right and wrong are the same thing, then you say we made right and wrong different, so I am asking about the true status of right and wrong. Is right truely different from wrong?

truley? as in ultimate comes down to it--God is looking at it and could tell you? My opinion on that is--that no, right is not different from wrong. If there were niether--there would be no pain/suffering. It would be bliss.

But as a "rational being", yes, right is different from wrong. It is a value instilled in me--but I can also still rationally say that if I saw no distinction between the two--I'd always be in a content state.

[Beebs]

Ok, if there is no right or wrong, the happiness can only happen if everybody just so happens not to do anything we mistakingly consider wrong...which appears to be quite the coincidince, maybe it means right and wrong are actually different?

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Beebs:
Ok, if there is no right or wrong, the happiness can only happen if everybody just so happens not to do anything we mistakingly consider wrong...

Read this sentence. "If there is not right or wrong.." "..we mistakenly consider wrong."

Not logically possible..correct?

[Beebs]

No, it is not. I said if there is no right and wrong yet people act in a way in which we would consider wrong (although we would be mistaken, because their is no wrong) life would not be content.

[AcTivE]

That is true...really don't think there should be a hang up on th

Originally posted by Beebs:
I said if there is no right and wrong yet people act in a way in which we would consider wrong (although we would be mistaken, because their is no wrong) life would not be content.

If there is no wrong, people can not act in a way which we consider wrong--because it doesn't exist.

Not trying to be tricky w/that at all...I mean--if something doesn't exist, there is no knowledge of it, no comprehention.

I'm not following your logic at all. Maybe I'm not seeing something.

[ September 22, 2005, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: AcTivE ]

[Beebs]

People acting in a way which an outside observer who thinks that there is a distinction between right and wrong would consider wrong.

[ September 22, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Beebs ]

[ninjaface]

Originally posted by jbonham:
And by the way if one is to believe any history one bases this belief on a lot of old books. The bible is a lot of old books. So pay better attention in history and learn the source of the shiny new book in front of oneself before insinuating that old books must be false.

History is not just based on old books. There is archaeological evidence, forensic evidence, photographic evidence, etc. etc. etc. So pay better attention in history. Also, I never insinuated that old books must be wrong, you're just jumping to conclusions. What I was saying is that religion relies on an old book, while many other events in history not only have some old book as evidence, but has many other pieces of evidence supporting it.

Originally posted by jbonham:
As of Right now, I can not show any of you cold hard proof of the divinity of the bible other than what it says in the Bible and the Tanak (Jewish old Testament)

Then stop talking. I'm not interested in your faith/belief/trust/confidence in an old book.

[AcTivE]

Originally posted by Beebs:
People acting in a way which an outside observer who thinks that there is a distinction between right and wrong would consider wrong.

Alright, I've been thinking about this--and I still think your logic is flawed. I'm going to tell you only "being" I think could be in that position would be "God".

And, I'm being serious..consider this situation.

Say there is an outside observer that can see a species--and determine that something it is doing is right/wrong. However, the species itself can not differiniate between right and wrong--so no decisions are ever made based upon those "values".

The outsider sees this--and thinks "that is not right, they should be doing "this" and "this" and "this' because that is the right thing to do. why are they not doing this?"

and God says to himself "hmm, because they are ignorant--let me show them what is right and wrong". (say this was really played out..i think this is situation where God all of a sudden realizes 'man' should be given choice of "knowing" or not "knowing" ...so whole eat an apple "story" or "event" happens)

so he does..then all of a sudden there is a huge amount of suffering in the world that was not present before.

then he thinks..why do these people suffer so, and how can i bring them out of it?

...basically thats somewhat how I think events played out--but it also somewhat fits w/your argument. It doesn't matter whether something is right/wrong from the outside viewer--unless they can or are going to, make a change within the system. nothing is right, nothing is wrong, happy, or sad---if nothing ever takes a side.

[jbonham]

there has been archeological evidence of the history of the new testament and of the old testament. However, photographic? Do you know that the camera was not around to prove of Julius Caesar?

This thread was here for Active's sake of seeing others opinions in this discussion so if you don't like something I am saying....Bite me.

As long as I can read the points people state then I will express my opinion as you do yours.

As for the topic of Right and Wrong...It just depends on your perspective. You can classically condition someone to do what is considered wrong without any moral qualms. Right is the opposite of wrong. Developed or given allow for the best possible development of mankind. Wrong is wrong because it is not good for the group and right is good for the group.

And one more thing: Faith is trusting in something to be true when you don't have all the evidence...I trust my Fiancee to be loyal to me...I trust my parents to defend me...I trust in God to Guide me to the "RIGHT" decisions...SO everyone who is in disagreement with God, I am okay with that. So be okay with the fact that I don't have all the evidence. So post in a way to learn more instead of trying to prove oneself right.

[Mr. Blonde]

Originally posted by jbonham:
there has been archeological evidence of the history of the new testament and of the old testament.

...i'm waiting...

Originally posted by Mr. Blonde:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jbonham:
there has been archeological evidence of the history of the new testament and of the old testament.

...i'm waiting...</font>[/quote]
Haha, what do you want? Do you want proof that Rome was and is a real city? The bible talks about lots of historical things that can be backed up, it's not these things we should even be interested in arguing.

[ September 23, 2005, 11:15 AM: Message edited by: DJ FC ]

[Ironic Mustache]

I want proof that moses parted the red sea.

[Mr. Blonde]

Yes, i was referring to the more mystical things, FC. I already stated we know there are historical facts in the bible that can be proven, but nothing divine, as of yet. All I want these guys to do is say:

"Hey. You're right. We can't prove anything supernatural about the bible, therefore it is no more valid than any other religion or mythology, no matter how bizzare. I've been arguing for Christianity though, although so far basic science has proved us wrong more than we have proved to be right."

[Ironic Mustache]

Is that too much to ask????

[Repugnant Abomination]

Yes.

[Beebs]

Originally posted by AcTivE:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Beebs:
People acting in a way which an outside observer who thinks that there is a distinction between right and wrong would consider wrong.

Alright, I've been thinking about this--and I still think your logic is flawed. I'm going to tell you only "being" I think could be in that position would be "God".

And, I'm being serious..consider this situation.

Say there is an outside observer that can see a species--and determine that something it is doing is right/wrong. However, the species itself can not differiniate between right and wrong--so no decisions are ever made based upon those "values".

The outsider sees this--and thinks "that is not right, they should be doing "this" and "this" and "this' because that is the right thing to do. why are they not doing this?"

and God says to himself "hmm, because they are ignorant--let me show them what is right and wrong". (say this was really played out..i think this is situation where God all of a sudden realizes 'man' should be given choice of "knowing" or not "knowing" ...so whole eat an apple "story" or "event" happens)

so he does..then all of a sudden there is a huge amount of suffering in the world that was not present before.

then he thinks..why do these people suffer so, and how can i bring them out of it?

...basically thats somewhat how I think events played out--but it also somewhat fits w/your argument. It doesn't matter whether something is right/wrong from the outside viewer--unless they can or are going to, make a change within the system. nothing is right, nothing is wrong, happy, or sad---if nothing ever takes a side.</font>[/quote]
Ok, I think I can make this easier by just saying the specific things these people would be doing.

If there was a world were there was no wrong or right, and there were people raping and murdering, I just don't feel this world would be blissfull.