God is not Dead

[DMC]

Avante and his family seem so ing corny and boring(along with fat and ugly, of course), tbh..

Imagine how many times they've had to listen to him regale them about the long list of black athletes he wished he could be.

[xmas1997]

so you take some parts of the bible literally, but other parts figuratively.

of course. again, that's why this is a discussion of your beliefs. i've never asked you to tell me exactly what happened. i've always just asked for your beliefs. it seems you have moved on from those nonsensical arguments and are being a bit clearer about your belief system

I never meant to come off as being vague, it is just that the subject matter is vague, except to those who either must view it as all being literal, or none of it as being real.
Nothing in life is black or white, and so it is with books of this nature.
And it is even more probable IMHO that these sorts of books are jam packed with very mystical truths that are not easy to glean at first, second, or even fiftieth scan.
There are those who spend their whole lives studying books like these and just get a cursory naive knowledge of it and never the true deeper significance IMHO.
And then there are many theologians who have theories and hypotheses of the allegorical literary style that was used back then.

[Franklin]

Avante and his family seem so ing corny and boring(along with fat and ugly, of course), tbh..

Just because his family don't practice sodomy or fellatio like yours do?

[DMC]

I never meant to come off as being vague, it is just that the subject matter is vague, except to those who either must view it as all being literal, or none of it as being real.
Nothing in life is black or white, and so it is with books of this nature.
And it is even more probable IMHO that these sorts of books are jam packed with very mystical truths that are not easy to glean at first, second, or even fiftieth scan.
There are those who spend their whole lives studying books like these and just get a cursory naive knowledge of it and never the true deeper significance IMHO.
And then there are many theologians who have theories and hypotheses of the allegorical literary style that was used back then.

For sake of integrity, if the Bible isn't the infallible word of God, it's just a series of books loosely based on some vague historical events, entrenched in mythology and magic. Calling it allegory doesn't relieve if of that burden. If it's not a true depiction of historical events, it's no better than any other allegory written by mortals. I mean, unless you think you can both call the book not true and true at the same time, as if it's an encyclopedia where things can be wrong without everything being wrong.

It's not like the book being infallible is concept that was invented recently. Why the new twist on a 2000 year old set of books? Did the last 2000 years not leave a nice lasting imprint of the facts of the book?

[xmas1997]

For sake of integrity, if the Bible isn't the infallible word of God, it's just a series of books loosely based on some vague historical events, entrenched in mythology and magic. Calling it allegory doesn't relieve if of that burden. If it's not a true depiction of historical events, it's no better than any other allegory written by mortals. I mean, unless you think you can both call the book not true and true at the same time, as if it's an encyclopedia where things can be wrong without everything being wrong.

It's not like the book being infallible is concept that was invented recently. Why the new twist on a 2000 year old set of books? Did the last 2000 years not leave a nice lasting imprint of the facts of the book?

I would question who first postulated it was infallible, and then why.
Calling it allegory is too simple for modern day classifications.
Back then it was a literary style of writing much different than today's allegorical writings from what most theologians tell us and the symbolisms contained in it were much more obscured and harder to decipher now than it was back then to the common religious scholar back then as well.
Now we have educated guesses at best what they were intending. As I said, such as two brothers being code for two mountain peaks, or two rivers, or two cities. The symbolism makes little sense to us now, where when it was written it may have made perfect sense to them.
Plus the book itself is a compilation of many books and gospels and epistles, and as we have since discovered, many were left out.
Why is that?

[it's me]

There is a certain amount of truth to that statement IMHO.
Times change, and so does the morals evolve with the times.

What's your definition of truth?

[it's me]

I never meant to come off as being vague, it is just that the subject matter is vague, except to those who either must view it as all being literal, or none of it as being real.
Nothing in life is black or white, and so it is with books of this nature.
And it is even more probable IMHO that these sorts of books are jam packed with very mystical truths that are not easy to glean at first, second, or even fiftieth scan.
There are those who spend their whole lives studying books like these and just get a cursory naive knowledge of it and never the true deeper significance IMHO.
And then there are many theologians who have theories and hypotheses of the allegorical literary style that was used back then.

Define truth please.

[pgardn]

its impossible to sway somebody's beliefs about God, since it's ultimately based on faith anyway, as opposed to hard evidence. it can boil down to people trying to prove/disprove god's existence, but its up to the individuals if they choose to make the leap of faith or not

the main thing that gets on my nerves is when people argue certain scientific points when they have zero grasp of the concept at hand

^

Totally agree except it no longer bothers me really.

The total misrepresentation having read absolutely nothing. And then using science and reasoning for other claims, especially human health. This insert animal of your choice -----> man is tiresome and ridiculous.

Anyway, subjects degrade rather quickly in this forum I see. And the personal wars are so repe ive and monotonous.
Flee.

[Blake]

I would question who first postulated it was infallible, and then why.

The Bible did.

2 Timothy 3:16-17New International Version (NIV)

16*All Scripture is God-breathed*and is useful for teaching,rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness

Proverbs 30:5New International Version (NIV)

5*“Every word of God is flawless;****he is a shield*to those who take refuge in him.

[xmas1997]

its impossible to sway somebody's beliefs about God, since it's ultimately based on faith anyway, as opposed to hard evidence. it can boil down to people trying to prove/disprove god's existence, but its up to the individuals if they choose to make the leap of faith or not

the main thing that gets on my nerves is when people argue certain scientific points when they have zero grasp of the concept at hand

This goes both ways by the way, and you can include philosophy and logic in the mix with scientific and religious subjects.

Many have a cursory knowledge of these subjects but from what I have read very few on here have extensive knowledge, no offense intended to anyone, even the trolls.

What we do have and know can certainly be shared without the hostility and ridicule, which is all one can hope for under the cir stances.

Like most, I do not claim to know more than what I have been taught and experienced.

[Blake]

What we do have and know can certainly be shared without the hostility and ridicule, which is all one can hope for under the cir stances.

[xmas1997]

I believe this.
Do you?
If so, we can start from there.

[Blake]

I believe this.
Do you?
If so, we can start from there.

I'm not ridiculing you for being stupid. I'm simply pointing it out.

[xmas1997]

I'm not ridiculing you for being stupid. I'm simply pointing it out.

More trolling, and more lying.

That is what I thought.

It is astounding how ignorant, destructive, and negative some people can show themselves to be when their true colors shine forth, and you take the cake when it comes to that.

I try to be nice to them, and they mistake the kindness for vulnerability and then proceed to kick sand in my face.

This is all you ever do, and then others wonder why I am always bashing you for being a liar and a troll.

That is all you are, and all you will ever be, plus all you will ever achieve and aspire to.

[Blake]

[it's me]

I believe this.
Do you?
If so, we can start from there.

Would you please define truth? It seem like you use the word quite often, you should have a definite meaning for it right?

[xmas1997]

Would you please define truth? It seem like you use the word quite often, you should have a definite meaning for it right?

Here is a definition from the internet: "In philosophy, the property of statements, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case."

[xmas1997]

.

[it's me]

Here is a definition from the internet: "In philosophy, the property of statements, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to agree with the facts or to state what is the case."

That's one "philosophical" definition of truth. Do you agree 100 % with this "definition"? or.... are you capable of laying out your own definition of truth?

[xmas1997]

An idea, tenet, or statement that is accepted as being true.
But IMHO truth changes, or evolves, as new knowledge is brought forth to bear.
We are not talking about "absolute truth" here, rather just truth in general.

[it's me]

An idea, tenet, or statement that is accepted as being true.
But IMHO truth changes, or evolves, as new knowledge is brought forth to bear.
We are not talking about "absolute truth" here, rather just truth in general.

Ok.... lets see here.... so you use the "if an idea is accepted to be true, then it must be true" logic. For example.... the ganges river is a god for most Hindus, since it is an idea accepted as true for many.... therefore is it actually true? is the ganges a real god? what do you think?

So you say "truth changes, or evolves".... disagree. If something changed it wasn't true, it was believed to be true. Big difference.

What is absolute truth?

[xmas1997]

Ok.... lets see here.... so you use the "if an idea is accepted to be true, then it must be true" logic. For example.... the ganges river is a god for most Hindus, since it is an idea accepted as true for many.... therefore is it actually true? is the ganges a real god? what do you think?

So you say "truth changes, or evolves".... disagree. If something changed it wasn't true, it was believed to be true. Big difference.

What is absolute truth?

Hold on. I don't mean to get technical with semantics, but you used the "if" word. Where did that come from?

I said IMHO truth evolves with the times as more knowledge is brought to bear on it.
Just because the Ganges is considered a god to a certain section of people does not necessarily make it truth to us, even though it is a truth to them.

I agree with you.
And "if" (that transitional word again) something (a truth in this case) changes and evolves due to further and heretofore unknown knowledge and evidence, then it is no longer truth, and as you say "wasn't true", thus the newer conception may become the accepted truth.
And yet still further knowledge may replace that newer conception of "accepted" truth to become an even newer version of truth.
Again, I am not referring to "absolute truth" here, but the majority of what is accepted to be the truth.
Once upon a time the earth was thought to be flat.
That was the "accepted truth" of the times, but it was replaced with an absolute truth that the earth is more or less round.
I would say that absolute truth is truth that is beyond dispute and always valid regardless of context or parameters.

[it's me]

Hold on. I don't mean to get technical with semantics, but you used the "if" word. Where did that come from?

I said IMHO truth evolves with the times as more knowledge is brought to bear on it.
Just because the Ganges is considered a god to a certain section of people does not necessarily make it truth to us, even though it is a truth to them.

I agree with you.
And "if" (that transitional word again) something (a truth in this case) changes and evolves due to further and heretofore unknown knowledge and evidence, then it is no longer truth, and as you say "wasn't true", thus the newer conception may become the accepted truth.
And yet still further knowledge may replace that newer conception of "accepted" truth to become an even newer version of truth.
Again, I am not referring to "absolute truth" here, but the majority of what is accepted to be the truth.
Once upon a time the earth was thought to be flat.
That was the "accepted truth" of the times, but it was replaced with an absolute truth that the earth is more or less round.
I would say that absolute truth is truth that is beyond dispute and always valid regardless of context or parameters.

Ok... so you believe jesus in fact died and resurrected. Is this an absolute truth for you? Or is it simply your truth? or what you believe to be true?

[xmas1997]

Ok... so you believe jesus in fact died and resurrected. Is this an absolute truth for you? Or is it simply your truth? or what you believe to be true?

It is an absolute truth to me.
I could find out later that I am wrong.
But at this time I see no evidence to the contrary.

[it's me]

It is an absolute truth to me.
I could find out later that I am wrong.
But at this time I see no evidence to the contrary.

Fair enough.