• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Fallacies in Christianity

Status
Not open for further replies.

arrowhead

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
723
Location
under a rock
so you think your religion is the only one with the whole truth? people who practice hinduism and islam are more ignorant than those who are mormon?

if you want to know the truthfulness of the book then you must pray and you will receive an answer.
so if the answer tells you that the book is all true, how do you know you can trust the book in the first place? the book is the one that tells you the answer you get will be the correct answer.
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
so if the answer tells you that the book is all true, how do you know you can trust the book in the first place? the book is the one that tells you the answer you get will be the correct answer.
You're assuming he should be skeptic about it, when all he needs is faith.

The problem with religion is that you can't question the word of God, and only through faith(which conveniently requires no proof in return) will you find truth and "that feeling."

Neat trick:p. And thank you Erich, but I've already wasted 4 years of my life studying religion only to reject it completely afterwards. But thanks.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
1,715
Location
Rexburg, Idaho
Hmmm...you raise an interesting question Arrowhead. Is that what you were trying to ask earlier? You know you can trust the book in the first place because that is what you are asking for. You are asking if it is true or not. The book really only asks you to pray and find out for yourself if it is something true or not. The answer that it is true is something I can't explain to you. The best way to explain it is the feeling you get. It has no explanation, you just know. I can't explain it, and I will say that as many times as I feel is necessary. There is no logical explanation behind the powerful emotion that tell you it is true, but you can't deny it. As to the first part of your post...I do think that my religion is the only one with all the truth. When I say that though, people usually take it the wrong way and think we're all a bunch of proud jerks. People who practice Hinduism and Islam, more than likely, have not received the gospel yet. That's why we send missionaries out, so that we can tell others who do not yet know all the truth about the parts they are missing. Some reject us, others don't. Some parts of the world have not yet let us in. But always remember that we do not judge others and we do not condemn anyone.

So can you explain why the Book of Mormon is for some reason the only other truth besides the Bible, and how it can be so when it was purported be "found" by one man with no other witnesses?
I won't tell you the whole thing because it's VERY long, but if you want to read Joseph's Smith's own account, you can find it here:

http://scriptures.lds.org/js_h/1

The parts pertaining to what you are referring to are the first 26 verses. The rest isn't as important to what you're asking. Anyways, the whole story is very long, but basicaly the Book of Mormon were plates that various prophets wrote on, and they were handed down from generation to generation until they reached Moroni. At this point in time, everyone was very wicked, and he was the only Nephite left alive. The Lamanites were currently in the act of completely annihilating all of the Nephites, and so he hid the Gold Plates in the hill where Joseph Smith "found them," until such time that someone with a righteous heart could find them again. If they had been given to the Lamanites at that time, they would have been destroyed and the church would not exist. They were made out of pure gold, so the right person had to be chosen carefully. And then Joseph Smith was confused in religion and decided to pray after months of scripture study, including reading James 1: 5-6. The First Vision then happened, which you can read about in the link I posted if you wish. Jesus and God did not appear to him right away because his faith needed to be tested, and they needed to know if they could trust this great work to him, and he needed to be ready for seeing something ordinary humans cannot. Anyways...the Gold Plates were found by only Joseph Smith, yes, but he did not translate them by himself. If you read the Book of Mormon, in the front there is the section called the Three witnesses and then the Eight Witnesses, all of which saw the Gold Plates and their testimonies were written down. The Three Witnesses are Joseph Smith and two others who helped him to translate, and so theirs is more pertinent to your question than the others. They are the ones that were writing down what Joseph Smith translated.

And did God mess up or something when he wrote the first book, so much so that he miraculously wrote another one and left it for Joseph Smith to find?[/COLOR]
No. The Bible is written by those not in America, while the Book of Mormon is a record of those who made it to America. One book was not found until after the other because we did not discover America for a long time, and then even longer before the right person to take the plates was born. They complete each other. Some things in the Book of Mormon are better explained in the Bible. There are other books which are not yet revealed to us even now. Another book added to ours was the Pearl of Great Price, which contains actual writings from Moses. The scroll was found in an Egyptian sarcophagus, and was written in Hebrew. We bought it.

Sorry that was so long.

You didn't try my religion Zero. ;) Haha, no but seriously don't worry. I'm not here to make you uncomfortable. I only extended an invitation to you. I'm not forcing you.
 

arrowhead

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
723
Location
under a rock
you are asking if the book is true or not, but the book is the one that tells you it's true if you feel that powerful emotion. you can't verify the book's validity by following the book! what if the feeling you got was actually confirmation from the "real" god that the book is incorrect? since the book says otherwise, you would be following the incorrect path.

and i don't judge people by their religious beliefs, so you can stop being worried about that.
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
Very well Erich, I will take your entire quote, and rebut it. Some of the stuff may not apply to you, but towards christians who've been debating in this topic. I'll be trying to generalize while also addressing your issue on "feelings."

Hmmm...you raise an interesting question Arrowhead. Is that what you were trying to ask earlier? You know you can trust the book in the first place because that is what you are asking for. You are asking if it is true or not. The book really only asks you to pray and find out for yourself if it is something true or not. The answer that it is true is something I can't explain to you. The best way to explain it is the feeling you get. It has no explanation, you just know. I can't explain it, and I will say that as many times as I feel is necessary. There is no logical explanation behind the powerful emotion that tell you it is true, but you can't deny it. As to the first part of your post...I do think that my religion is the only one with all the truth. When I say that though, people usually take it the wrong way and think we're all a bunch of proud jerks. People who practice Hinduism and Islam, more than likely, have not received the gospel yet. That's why we send missionaries out, so that we can tell others who do not yet know all the truth about the parts they are missing. Some reject us, others don't. Some parts of the world have not yet let us in. But always remember that we do not judge others and we do not condemn anyone.
For starters, you can't trust the Bible any more than you can trust Dan Brown's fiction. The Bible doesn't suggest anything in the way of real inquiry. The behavior of most Christians suggests precisely the opposite, that inquiry is bad, that it is something Satan tempts people into, abusing their curiosity. The mode of inquiry suggested is intrinsically worthless, to go by feelings and their normal fluctuations to determine the truth value of something is misunderstanding what truth even is. There is nothing inexplicable or unexplainable. There is the unknown, but there is no such thing as the unknowable. Nor is there real knowledge without inquiry.

Also, feelings are feelings, they are sources of information, but not sources of knowledge. Only reasoning can bring knowledge, and truth can only exist in the context of knowledge, feelings are not a method to determine truth.

An individual can only gain knowledge by thinking for themselves. Taking the claims of any group with any kind of monolithic "movement" nature is taking the claims of people who demonstrate by being in such a group that they don't think for themselves. The way in which Christianity spreads is not one of enlightenment, but one of emotional blackmail. Telling people that they are sinners for doing something which couldn't have been any of God's business in the first place, but that he offers them forgiveness for things they never did wrong, is dumping a truckload of undeserved guilt onto people, and telling them you'll forgive them is like accusing someone you've never met of spitting on you and threatening to sue them unless they give you $200. It is logically the same process.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Ah, mormonism. One of the modern examples of a cult becoming a "mainstream" religion. Scientology seems to try to be following a similar path.

Here's some overview information of mormonism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism

Criticisms leveled at mormonism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mormonism

Here's a short article that disproves the authenticity of Joseph Smith and his "Book of Mormon". http://secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=367

I'll quote a section of it.
Many of the historical claims made by religious books are of the supernatural variety. A classic example is the resurrection of Jesus. For events such as these, there is generally no empirical evidence to examine, and one must rely on written reports. The same is true of supernatural events in the BoM. Yet, the BoM makes many mundane claims as well, and these fall into spheres such as archaeology, anthropology, biology and linguistics, which are the province of empirical investigation The BoM is essentially a thousand year history of peoples on the American continent, and as such it was bound to include various details of their lives, culture and civilization. Naturally, a legitimate historical record would have gotten these details correct, whereas a fanciful tale spun by a relatively uneducated frontiersman would be prone to numerous errors. As it happens, the BoM bears almost no resemblance to the actual historical record from the Mesoamerican times it purports to describe (600 BC-400 AD). The number of errors in this regard are too plentiful to list in their entirety, so I will merely highlight some of the more egregious cases.

Archaeological Fallacies:
The BoM makes mention of various technological products which were unknown to Mesoamerica. These include chariots (Alma 18:9) when there were no wheeled vehicles of any kind, steel swords (Ether 7:9) when there was neither steel nor swords, bellows for blacksmithing (1 Nephi 17:11), and silk (Alma 1:29). The BoM describes a vast civilization of millions who inhabited cities for hundreds of years, yet no ruins from even a single BoM city have ever been identified. No BoM place-names were in use when Europeans arrived in the New World.

Anthropological Fallacies:
The culture described in the BoM conflicts radically with that of the actual inhabitants of Mesoamerica. The BoM peoples had a seven-day week (Mosiah 13:18), but no Mesoamerican calendar matches this. And Nephi, who came to the New World from Jerusalem, never bothers to contrast these strikingly different places. Most stunning of all, the BoM never once indicates that the American continent was anything but uninhabited when the refugees from Jerusalem arrived. Of course, there were actually millions of Native Americans occupying the land from one coast to the other.

Biological Fallacies:
The BoM refers to a host of animals that did not exist in the pre-Columbian Americas or had been extinct in that region for thousands of years preceding the period described in the book. These include the ***, bull, calf, cattle, cow, domestic goat, horse, ox, domestic sheep, sow, swine and elephants. Several common animals that actually existed in Mesoamerica (deer, jaguars, tapir, monkeys, sloths, turkeys, llamas, alpacas, guinea pigs) are never mentioned. Also described are crops that didn't exist, such as wheat (Mosiah 9:9) and barley (Alma 11:7) Indeed, the agricultural techniques required to produce those crops didn't exist either. Once again, crops that were commonly known to Mesoamerica (chocolate, lima beans, squash, potatoes, tomatoes, manioc) are not referenced. Perhaps the gravest blunder of all is the BoM's assertion of a Hebraic origin for the American Indians. In Joseph's Smith's day, the now firmly-established Asiatic origin for Native Americans was known only in some scholarly circles.

Linguistic Fallacies:
There are no examples of "reformed Egyptian" (the language Joseph claimed was written on the plates) in Mesoamerican history. And no Native American language is related to either ancient Egyptian or Hebrew, whereas a relationship does exist between Native American languages and Asian (Siberian) languages. Furthermore, no BoM proper names (Nephi, Laman, Zarahemla) appear in any of the many Mesoamerican writings that have been discovered. And speaking of proper names, Greek names such as Lachoneus, Timothy and Jonas appear in the BoM, but Nephi and his family left Jerusalem in 600 BC, long before Greek culture would have had any impact on the Hebrews.[5]
The Skeptic's Annotated Book of Mormon, which you guys can peruse at your leisure. Gives areas of contradiction, changes from the 1830's version of the Book of Mormon, and plagiarism. http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm

Cartoon outlining the beliefs of Mormons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy0d1HbItOo&feature=related

A short documentary on the Church of Mormon. Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhoBCUG8uJo
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3NYJzUn1AM&feature=related

A short video on Smith's fondness of the occult. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h93x48xbOg8&feature=related
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
1,715
Location
Rexburg, Idaho
Wow dude, you're intent on this. I really think you should get better stuff though. It's funny that you got all the stuff that everyone else has done on us, but you didn't bother to simply post the link to our website where we do, in fact, state the things we believe in. Imagine that. A lot of stuff that is documented on our religion is either very incorrect or very biased. How about I replace all of those websites you just listed with two that will answer ALL the questions you might have about Mormonism? Don't call it the Church of Mormon either, because that's not its name and we don't worship Mormon. It's the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints. And another thing is the Book of Mormon does not belong to Joseph Smith. He didn't write it. Do some research sir. Right here replaces all the nonsense in the media. It's not hard to do your own research right from the very source:

http://mormon.org/mormonorg/eng/
http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=e419fb40e21cef00VgnVCM1000001f5e340aRCRD

The first one will answer most questions, as the second is mainly for member use. If you do go to lds.org, then go to the section called about the church. That's actually probably got all the stuff you want too.

An individual can only gain knowledge by thinking for themselves. Taking the claims of any group with any kind of monolithic "movement" nature is taking the claims of people who demonstrate by being in such a group that they don't think for themselves. The way in which Christianity spreads is not one of enlightenment, but one of emotional blackmail. Telling people that they are sinners for doing something which couldn't have been any of God's business in the first place, but that he offers them forgiveness for things they never did wrong, is dumping a truckload of undeserved guilt onto people, and telling them you'll forgive them is like accusing someone you've never met of spitting on you and threatening to sue them unless they give you $200. It is logically the same process.
Whoa dude, Mormon's don't do that! Did I not just say that we do not condemn anyone? Telling people they are guilty of sins is stupid because EVERYONE is. Our missionaries quite literally ask if you would like to hear a message from God and if you do they deliver that message. There is no going around telling people that their souls are in peril and you're all going to hell, because you aren't. Why would God ever do that to people? Do you really think that's how he works? Isn't Jesus supposed to be the example of love and kindness? Last I checked, love and kindness does not include chastising people nonsensically.

And I really don't know how many times I've said this, but if you use science to analyze religion, then you are going to find faults. They don't connect like that. You have to view religion in a different light than the scientific light. And I really doubt that those fallacies will last the century. People will discover new things. You said yourself that we don't know everything.

@Arrowhead: What you're saying kind of contradicts the very nature of God. He is a God of truth, he cannot lie. So therefore if he says the book is true then it is true. What you're arguing here is a completely different god than mine, if such an one even exists.
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
Did you read what I said before I began to explain myself to you?......

Oh you mean, if we use "reality" and compare it to religion, it doesn't work? I know, thanks for verifying it for me:).
 

Smooth Criminal

Da Cheef
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,576
Location
Hinckley, Minnesota
NNID
boundless_light
Whoa dude, Mormon's don't do that! Did I not just say that we do not condemn anyone? Telling people they are guilty of sins is stupid because EVERYONE is. Our missionaries quite literally ask if you would like to hear a message from God and if you do they deliver that message. There is no going around telling people that their souls are in peril and you're all going to hell, because you aren't. Why would God ever do that to people? Do you really think that's how he works? Isn't Jesus supposed to be the example of love and kindness? Last I checked, love and kindness does not include chastising people nonsensically.
You say that. But what if I don't believe in your God in the same way that you do?

Smooth Criminal
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
1,715
Location
Rexburg, Idaho
Oh wow I'm a moron. Sorry. And no I don't mean use reality. There is more than one way to view the world. Scientifically is a way of thinking. It is the unrelenting, merciless, cold-as-ice, emotionless, way of thinking.

And no that is not condemnation dude. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean you're being sent to hell. There is only one way to get there, and I don't feel like mentioning it, because it won't happen to anyone you know or anyone I do. I do not condemn you for believing in a different God. HOLY CRAP, this is annoying. Do some research and then come talk to me, OK? Go read the ARTICLES OF FAITH, which basically sum up the basic beliefs we have in 13 articles. It says right there that we allow others to worship however they want to.
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
And no I don't mean use reality. There is more than one way to view the world. Scientifically is a way of thinking. It is the unrelenting, merciless, cold-as-ice, emotionless, way of thinking.
Well, science explains what's going on in the real world, so I went with that;).

Um, science just means "knowledge," and I simply explained how you arrive at knowledge. Those are some pretty mean phrases/words you're using to define science.
 

Smooth Criminal

Da Cheef
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,576
Location
Hinckley, Minnesota
NNID
boundless_light
Oh wow I'm a moron. Sorry. And no I don't mean use reality. There is more than one way to view the world. Scientifically is a way of thinking. It is the unrelenting, merciless, cold-as-ice, emotionless, way of thinking.
And God is sunshine and rainbows, right? Last time I checked Western religion breeds bigotry, misogyny, hatred, and contempt. What does science instill, aside from a savant-community and a analytical approach to the world?

Edit: So I get a free ticket into heaven, even though I live a semi-decent life and do not hold God in my heart? Awesome! A group of people that will finally accept me!

Oh, wait. There's a stipulation involved? ****. That sounds familiar.

*pulls out his King James Bible.*

Smooth Criminal
 

arrowhead

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
723
Location
under a rock
@Arrowhead: What you're saying kind of contradicts the very nature of God. He is a God of truth, he cannot lie. So therefore if he says the book is true then it is true. What you're arguing here is a completely different god than mine, if such an one even exists.
no it doesn't. there's no lie because the books were corrupted by man. and if you don't believe that, then you have to follow EVERYTHING that's said in the books.

not like god doesn't lie in the bible anyways. there are numerous situations where he lied.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Ok, sorry about incorrectly referencing your church. However, to be very honest, I wouldn't trust the Church of LDS to accurately, objectively, and honestly describe and appraise themselves. Same with any other religious, and even political, groups, they're biased to making themselves sound as appealing and truthful as possible, because, after all, they are in the business of recruiting people to their beliefs. That's why I always check around, purposefully, for outside opinions and sources that don't have a financial interest in making the group in question sound as favorable as possible.

Research does not comprise of getting all your information from one particular source or group. You have to get it from a variety of perspectives to make sure you aren't getting biased information.

However, I will admit that my post had a purpose, which was to point out some of the fallacies that I found with Mormonism. I believe that is in line with the topic of discussion, unless I am greatly mistaken.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
1,715
Location
Rexburg, Idaho
Nope you are not. I respect that. I know what you mean about not trusting the church itself. A lot of churches these days are set up only for personal gain, it's true. And sad. Mine is not, I can assure you. If you don't believe me, do the research. It's just my particular religion is widely criticized and therefore the media likes to lie about us.

I think that the best thing to do now is to agree to disagree? I really don't have time to be in here everyday anymore, what with finals and such. Besides, I need to practice my violin more. It's been fun gents, but I must leave now. Thanks for the intellectual food, it was pretty tasty. I learned a lot.

Erich out.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Ah, a violin player? That's awesome. I'm a cello player myself, though I can't say that I've been playing much since I got to college.

I'm sorry if I made it feel like I was exceptionally hard on your particular beliefs, but I hope you'll believe me when I say that I'm not testing or critiquing your beliefs any harder or easier than any other belief system that I've encountered, including mine, which I'm always working on updating pretty much on a daily basis, not the least because of this thread. Anyway, I do not doubt the sincerity of your belief or your intentions, but unfortunately, I find the founder and leaders of the Church of LDS a bit more dubious.

Anyway, yes, don't worry about being limited in time. Finals are hefty and time consuming things. The only reason I can afford to writing so much here is because I only have one actual final to study for, lol. Plus, it's for a class I never had much difficulty in either.
 
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Messages
1,715
Location
Rexburg, Idaho
But Abraham didn't actually have to kill him, so invalid point much?

Yea, I play the violin. I'm not gonna lie either: I'm really good. If you've ever heard the Sibelius Violin Concerto, that's what I'm working on currently, and I play the Back Sonatas for bow control; as I'm left handed my right hand is a bit weaker than my finger hand. I think it's cool that you play the cello, that's my second favorite string instrument. And don't worry about being too harsh on me: I'm not fragile. It's cool. Just know that if you use science you will ALWAYS find things "wrong" in religion. Always. Like I said, agree to disagree?

And yes Smooth Criminal, that is what I am telling you. You might not get as much as someone else in heaven, but you are judged according to what you know. You don't have to be Christian to go to heaven.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
The story of Abraham and Isaac always reminded me of the story of Jephthah. Jephthah makes the promise to god that if god lets him defeat the Ammonites, he will make a burnt offering of whatever is the first thing to come through his doors to greet him when he returns home (a very poor sort of promise, in my opinion. Why does it even need to be a burnt offering anyway?). They then defeat the Ammonites, in a "great slaughter" too (god never seems to have his fill of blood letting in the old testament, eh?), and Jephthah returns home in triumph. However, the first thing to greet him when he gets home is his daughter, who is his only child. Understandably, they are both very upset about what Jephthah promised to do, but instead of god stopping Jephthah like he did with Abraham, Jephthah goes ahead and burns his daughter. Delightful story, ain't it?

Anyway, unfortunately, I'm not that familiar with the repertoire for the violin, so I'm not familiar with Sibelius' violin concerto, but Bach's sonatas are wonderful. They're a great way to learn to be very exacting with your intonation. I loved playing his cello sonatas. My favorite piece that I ever played, though, would have to be Elgar's cello concerto. It's just plain amazing. Jacqueline Du Pre is absolutely fantastic to listen to for that.

Well, I'm glad that I'm not coming across as harsh, but I was mostly hoping that I wasn't being unfairly critical of your religion as relative to how critical I am of other religions/beliefs. I didn't mean to presume that you couldn't handle it.

As for science finding things wrong with religion, isn't that the least bit disquieting? If they're both ostensibly trying to present an accurate and truthful view and understanding of the universe, should they not support each other rather than contradict? Science is no trivial thing to just go like "well, it says something is wrong or incorrect, but whatever". It's not perfect, but it's possible explanations and answers are gleaned from mountains of data and from thousands, if not millions, of experiments. It's a method and process that has proven to be incalculably beneficial and helpful to improving human life, society, and understanding. I understand that it hasn't been always beneficial and helpful, but I think it's undeniably obvious that its net benefit outweighs the negative. But to toss it off so casually just because it contradicts some personal, and unprovable, belief seems to me, at the very least, somewhat irresponsible and ill-appreciative of the good its done.
 

marthanoob

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 23, 2007
Messages
272
Location
The House of Polemarchus
As for science finding things wrong with religion, isn't that the least bit disquieting? If they're both ostensibly trying to present an accurate and truthful view and understanding of the universe, should they not support each other rather than contradict? Science is no trivial thing to just go like "well, it says something is wrong or incorrect, but whatever". It's not perfect, but it's possible explanations and answers are gleaned from mountains of data and from thousands, if not millions, of experiments. It's a method and process that has proven to be incalculably beneficial and helpful to improving human life, society, and understanding. I understand that it hasn't been always beneficial and helpful, but I think it's undeniably obvious that its net benefit outweighs the negative. But to toss it off so casually just because it contradicts some personal, and unprovable, belief seems to me, at the very least, somewhat irresponsible and ill-appreciative of the good its done.
How are the positives/negatives science has caused relevant to its truth?
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Because, the benefits it provides wouldn't have been benefits if they weren't based upon an accurate and truthful understanding of the world. Take the field of medicine, for example. If the knowledge of medical practices was flawed or untrue, there would be little to no benefits to be had from it. You need to understand it as it truly is to the best of your ability in order to make the right choices and, in this case, prescribe the right treatments. Computers work because of an accurate understanding of physics and chemistry. Planes work because of an accurate understanding of physics and aerodynamics. Internal plumbing and sewage treatment are very important and very rarely thought of processes that would not work if the knowledge it was based on was faulty.

Essentially, if what science found and discovered was not true or an accurate depiction of the world/universe, its benefits would've been mixed at best and no where near as helpful as it would've been otherwise.
 

Smooth Criminal

Da Cheef
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
13,576
Location
Hinckley, Minnesota
NNID
boundless_light
And yes Smooth Criminal, that is what I am telling you. You might not get as much as someone else in heaven, but you are judged according to what you know. You don't have to be Christian to go to heaven.
Oh, we discriminate now? That's totally awesome and un-biased.

Smooth Criminal
 

Zero Beat

Cognitive Scientist
Joined
Apr 12, 2006
Messages
3,924
Location
MIT Observatory
NNID
BLUE
3DS FC
4141-3279-8878
Reaver, I hate the fact that people keep ignoring your posts(For the most part). <_< They always make sense and are hardly refutable.

Also, Erich, I thought that under god's eyes, we were all equal?

Anyway, what about the greeks? They stated that the Gods existed to serve them. Did they just happen to be unenlightened?
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
The story of Abraham and Isaac always reminded me of the story of Jephthah. Jephthah makes the promise to god that if god lets him defeat the Ammonites, he will make a burnt offering of whatever is the first thing to come through his doors to greet him when he returns home (a very poor sort of promise, in my opinion. Why does it even need to be a burnt offering anyway?). They then defeat the Ammonites, in a "great slaughter" too (god never seems to have his fill of blood letting in the old testament, eh?), and Jephthah returns home in triumph. However, the first thing to greet him when he gets home is his daughter, who is his only child. Understandably, they are both very upset about what Jephthah promised to do, but instead of god stopping Jephthah like he did with Abraham, Jephthah goes ahead and burns his daughter. Delightful story, ain't it?
Completely false. Read it again.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Completely false. Read it again.

Hmm, I have read it again, and I don't think my summary of it was too far off. Granted, I didn't include the bit about his daughter lamenting for 2 months, but I didn't think that detail was as pertinent as the rest of the story.

Maybe you can read it and then tell me how you interpreted it. It starts about from line 29, if you want to skip right to it.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/jg/11.html

@ Zero Beat: Thank you for the compliment. As for the ignoring, it comes with the territory, I guess. I do think most people do read them, however, but just choose not to respond for various reasons.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
Number one:
Human sacrifices were forbidden by the law, and as a judge Jepthah would have known this. He most likely had something else in mind.
Number two:
When his daughter went away dnt you think its weird she only mourned her virginity and not the fact that she was going to be burned alive?
Bible scholar JP lange says:At all events, it does not 'stand there in the text,' as Luther wrote, that she was offered in sacrifice." And the fact that the maidens mourned her virginity and not her death seems to prove that she did not die.
Number 3: the literal hebrew translation of vs 40 doesnt imply mourning as many bibles render but that they were actually visiting her.
Young's literal translation says: from time to time the daughters of Israel go to talk to the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite, four days in a year.
Darby's translation says they went to "celebrate" with jepthahs daughter.
A more plausible explanation is that Jepthath gave his daughter up to temple worship(a nun of sorts), where she could never get married(which is why they wept her virginity and not her death) and visited her so frequently and for so long.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Ah, where might I be linked to so that I might read further about this, and possibly learn more about possible mistranslations in the bible?

It would please me so much more if this horrid story turned out to be false. Unfortunately, it comes from a common English version of the bible, so I'd imagine many readers of it would have little reason to doubt what it seems to state.

I would also like to know where human sacrifices are specifically against the law, since the bible itself seems a bit iffy on the matter.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/human_sacrifice.html

I thank you for bringing these possible mistranslations and further inconsistencies within the bible before me.
 

Peeze

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2006
Messages
3,689
Location
Sunshine State of Mind
No problem. The problem with bible "versions" is that they're just that a "version" according to whoever wrote it. I'll get you specific sources in the morning or by PM but unfortunately, not now.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Yes, of course, please do it at a more convenient time. I don't want to hold anyone to my insomniac-esque hours of sleep, lol.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
But Abraham didn't actually have to kill him, so invalid point much?
Very valid, actually.

It doesn't matter what the end result was; God stooped to literally ordering Abraham to do something both he and God knew was wrong (I do believe there's a commandment about not killing, although if it's been updated a myriad of times since then like the rest of the book it's in, feel free to correct me). Are you saying that evil means justifies a good end?


Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
Food for thought: ever wonder why in the Lord's prayer it says "Lead us not into temptation?"

Odd.
 

LordoftheMorning

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
2,153
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
I would like to again emphasize that if you think about it, God can't be criticized for distributing death to anyone he wants to.

Providing that he exists, God understands the nature of death far better than we do. This can't be argued.

If God understands death better than we do, why is it that you think we can judge him poorly for causing the death of anything? Obviously, if an individual understands a topic better than anyone else, he should be made the master of it.
 

RDK

Smash Hero
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
6,390
I would like to again emphasize that if you think about it, God can't be criticized for distributing death to anyone he wants to.

Providing that he exists, God understands the nature of death far better than we do. This can't be argued.

If God understands death better than we do, why is it that you think we can judge him poorly for causing the death of anything? Obviously, if an individual understands a topic better than anyone else, he should be made the master of it.
Then God shouldn't expect anyone to take him seriously when he talks about morals. If he can't even come up with a clear-cut definition of what's right and wrong, and then act on it, does he really deserve the praise and worship you give him? His morality fails by his own standards.

Basically, what you're saying is to throw rationality and critical thinking out the window.
 

LordoftheMorning

Smash Champion
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
2,153
Location
Las Vegas, Nevada
Taking THIS line right here.

Isn't that what we call "hypocrisy?" Considering that, you know, he told us that we have no right to take the lives of others?

Smooth Criminal
wut? God's not a human last time I checked... Doesn't apply. I've never heard anyone call God a hypocrite before.
Then God shouldn't expect anyone to take him seriously when he talks about morals. If he can't even come up with a clear-cut definition of what's right and wrong, and then act on it, does he really deserve the praise and worship you give him? His morality fails by his own standards.
You have to understand that the reason he commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son was to test his faithfulness. He told him not to sacrifice his son as soon as he saw that he was going to. Thus, there's no way he would have ever been killed.... If Abraham obeys, God will tell him it's not unnecessary, if Abraham doesn't, then he wouldn't be killed anyways.

What I'm getting at is that there are always reasons for God's actions, and since God's intelligence is infinitely higher than yours or mine, we cannot always see them. I feel like I've said this many many times before, and I think it's because I have. If you don't find this satisfactory to explain the actions of God, there's not much I can say to you. Providing he exists, he can't be questioned. You should argue points that make cases for the nonexistence of God, instead of questioning the morality of God's actions.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
There isn't anything special or mystical to learn or "understand" about death. Death is a completely natural, and, to be honest, ordinary process and state of being. It's rather life that's the extraordinary aspect of our bodies' existence, the ability to move under its own power and discretion, to keep itself in a stasis that's independent of the environment that surrounds it, and to interact and manipulate the world in such a fashion that normal, inert matter could not. To make it seem like death is a difficult thing to grasp that implicates thing beyond our comprehension is not true in the slightest. It's just a matter of whether people are willing to accept it or not. No need to put death on some sort of pedestal.

Either way, god's actions hardly seem to grant him the characteristics of "benevolent" and "loving". Besides, in a way, wasn't god lying to Abraham about killing Isaac? Yet doesn't the bible also dictate that it's impossible for god to lie (which also goes against the notion of omnipotence)?

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/god_lie.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom