View Full Version : God plans all abortions - a proof
David
08-13-2007, 09:56 PM
YouTube - Proving that God's Plan is impossible
Christians who fight against abortions are AGAINST God!
God has simply given us free will to do as we choose. That doesn't mean God arranges anything - abortions or otherwise. It only means that God is watching us make all these bad choices. Just like our parents.
David
08-13-2007, 11:14 PM
You didn't watch the video. God chooses when we will die. So, if he knows when we'll die, and he's chosen to have us die before being born; how exactly did he intend for the baby to die? If not abortion, then how?
No, I didn't watch the movie, I read The Book. Genesis 1:17. "You must choose between good and evil." God told us to choose between good and evil. God is letting us choose how to live our life. We can choose to do bad things (like steal or abort babies) or good things. He wants us to choose good things, but like our parents, he's not going to stop us from making stupid mistakes. You need to read The Bible and get your facts straight.
David
08-13-2007, 11:32 PM
No, I didn't watch the movie, I read The Book. Genesis 1:17. "You must choose between good and evil."
Psalm 139:16:
your eyes saw my unformed body.
All the days ordained for me
were written in your book
before one of them came to be.
So, God knows when I am to die. But, if I die from because I was aborted, there is only two explanations:
1) God INTENDED the baby to die from an abortion
2) God doesn't exist and therefore could not intend anything.
Which is it?
formerfundie
08-13-2007, 11:46 PM
No, I didn't watch the movie, I read The Book. Genesis 1:17. "You must choose between good and evil."
I think it's more accurate to say that you read the sentence or 2 out of the book that supported your point of view. Psalm 139:16 is also in the book.
...You need to read The Bible and get your facts straight.
the bible is an ancient book written by ancient men with ancient minds. the only "proof" otherwise is the writers claiming otherwise (which is completely circular).... the fact that we can argue diametrically opposing views and support both with scripture only furthers my point.
So, God knows when I am to die. But, if I die from because I was aborted, there is only two explanations:
No. There are more than two. Here is one: God originally expected us to live forever... - - Gensis 3:22 "Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, ...*and live forever*” But we blew it... 23therefore the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden, to cultivate the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove the man out;..." Did God stop us from breaking his rule? Nope. He drew a line on the ground and told us to NOT cross it. But we did. And so he spanked us by sending us out of Eden and taking away immortality. Ask your parents: without limits and consequences, you would have run amok. Your parents will also say 'this is gonna hurt me more than it hurts you,' as they spank. This also hurt God. As you have alluded, God knows we will die, and the time of our death. But God does not pull the strings that make your neighbour shoot you or make the truck driver check out the chick in the passing car and swerve into your lane - that's free will. God _wanted_ us to have eternal life. Why would he abort a baby? I have a question for you: why do you quote the Bible that you try to tear down? If it's *so* riddled with inconsistency, how can it be a source of reliable "argument fodder?"
Yes, we are all seeming to use the same Book in our thread. Why is that? If you find it *so* irrelevant, dated, whatever, then how can you justify using it in the discussion? Really. If you do not find it contradictory, dated, etc., then it must follow you must believe it. But if you believe, why argue against it? You're making my heard hurt. As a matter of fact, if you do NOT believe the Bible, why *are* you even wasting your time on this, if not to slam believers? I'll tell ya what. You go right on believing what you want, and I'll do the same for you. And, I'll even promise not to slam your belief system...if you'll do the same for me.
formerfundie
08-14-2007, 01:16 AM
Sorry for the long post, but you asked several questions in your last post, so i'll take a stab at addressing them the best i can.
Yes, we are all seeming to use the same Book in our thread. Why is that? If you find it *so* irrelevant, dated, whatever, then how can you justify using it in the discussion?
this is a fair question. the answer is simply that if you can argue for a particular point of view and use the bible as the source of truth for said argument, then it's fair game for someone to use that same source to counter the argument, even if they don't believe it.
...Really. If you do not find it contradictory, dated, etc., then it must follow you must believe it. But if you believe, why argue against it? You're making my heard hurt.
see answer above.
...As a matter of fact, if you do NOT believe the Bible, why *are* you even wasting your time on this, if not to slam believers?
ok, that's fair. indeed, why are we wasting our time talking about this. i can't answer for others, but for me i guess it's because i just need to talk about it. i was indoctrinated into religious belief as a child and believed the bible most of my life. when i begin to study and start asking the hard questions, it all started unraveling. the deal breaker for me was that i never found a satisfactory answer for the assertion that the bible is the word of god. then when i started looking at other arguments for/against i was even more convinced that the bible is NOT the word of god, and as such, the concept of the biblical god is contradictory at best.... so, it's just therapeutic i guess to talk through all the issues. and as far as slamming believers, well that's certainly *not* the goal. as i said i was a believer for a long time, so i have a soft spot for the faithful :) It's just that claims are made that don't have a basis, so we talk about it....
I'll tell ya what. You go right on believing what you want,...
I don't really have to "believe" anything. I just "know" what's provable (the earth isn't flat, the universe is old, the moon only reflects light -- you go bill nye --, etc)... and don't really feel the need to assert anything else. if i don't know the answer to a question i don't feel the need to make up an answer. i'll just say i don't know. belief never enters into the equation.
and I'll do the same for you. And, I'll even promise not to slam your belief system...if you'll do the same for me.
i don't have a belief system, so i don't think there's anything to be slammed. I believe what can be proven, but that's not really belief
is it? That's just accepting reality for what it is. ...as far as your belief system being slammed, think of it this way. If someone makes a claim outside of the area of religion (e.g. astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc) then that claim is fair game to attack. Either the claim will stand because good argumentation/proofs can be made for it, or it will fall because it doesn't hold water. This is a cornerstone of the scientific method. So why is it that religion is out of bounds when it comes to questioning claims? Most of us feel that religion, god, the bible, etc are *NOT* out of bounds. You can have faith that something is true, but that's not a reason for you or me or anyone else to believe it. It's either demonstratably true, or not.
cheers.
one_lost_coin
08-14-2007, 06:33 AM
So, God knows when I am to die. But, if I die from because I was aborted, there is only two explanations:
1) God INTENDED the baby to die from an abortion
2) God doesn't exist and therefore could not intend anything.
Which is it?
I agree with anon those are not the only two explanations but only your personal interpretation. The Church teaches this about abortion:
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.
From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.71 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2C7)
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.72 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2C8)
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.73 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2C9)
2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion.
This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.
Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:
You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.74 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CA)
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves.
Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.75 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CB)
2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense.
The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
"A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"76 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CC) "by the very commission of the offense,"77 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CD) and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.78 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CE)
The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy.
Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:
"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority.
These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.
Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."79 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CF)
"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined....
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."80 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CG)
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.
Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual....
It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."81 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CH)
2275 "One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival."82 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CI)
"It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material."83 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CJ)
"Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities.
Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity"84 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM#$2CK) which are unique and unrepeatable.
This is the proper interpretation of Gods Word. This video contains some gross ignorance about the topic.
Kingreaper
08-14-2007, 08:58 AM
God has simply given us free will to do as we choose. That doesn't mean God arranges anything - abortions or otherwise. It only means that God is watching us make all these bad choices. Just like our parents.
Did God create the world? (Yes, no or "I don't know" should be included in your answer)
Did God know what would happen when he created the world? (Yes, no or "I don't know" should be included in your answer)
Did God have a choice in creating the world? (Yes, no or "I don't know" should be included in your answer)
BTW that video does make two big mistakes: It assumes that if God causes something, it must be good (the bible disagrees) and it assumes that if God causes something, anyone else who ALSO causes that thing is blameless. More than one person can be morally culpable for one event, more than one person can be 100% culpable in fact (which may seem odd, but culpability isn't like a pie to be split up)
Kumbafu
08-14-2007, 09:25 AM
No. There are more than two. Here is one: God originally expected us to live forever... - - Gensis 3:22
So what you're saying is god didn't know the answer.
Isn't god supposed to be omniscient? If so, why would he "expect" us to do anything? He would know every move we make from now until we die. "Expect" infers that there is some doubt of the outcome. Does god doubt himself?
I've also heard that god provides scenarios to us in order to test us. To see what path we will take. Why would an all powerful being [omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent] bore himself with a test that he already knows the outcome?
And if he already knows the outcome, then we really don't have free will, do we? It's fate. For no matter what we decide to do in our lives, god knows the outcome. Therefore, the outcome is fate... not free will.
Formerfundie: You say you don't have a belief system, and I can respect that. - You also say you only believe what can be proven. Does someone love you? Do you love someone? Prove it. There *are* things which cannot be proven with facts or science. Measuring behaviour is a sketchy proof at best. Love is a state of mind, if you will. Exhibiting behaviour that 'looks' like love is not proof of love. - Kingreaper: did God create the world? Yes. Did God know what would happen when he created the world? From my belief system the answer is 'yes,' but in reality I personally do not know. Did God have a choice...? Yes. You also said: '...that video does make two big mistakes..." Be *very* careful. If you noticed two mistakes you may be on your way to becoming a believer! ;) - Kumbafu: You said: 'So what you're saying is god didn't know the answer.' No, I did not. You jumped to that conclusion.
Howcum this forum will not include my formatting - carriage returns, and the like? Very frustrating.
David
08-14-2007, 01:02 PM
Howcum this forum will not include my formatting - carriage returns, and the like? Very frustrating.
I have no such problems... I'll check it out for you though.
Just checked; it is working perfectly for me... Can you PM me with the browser you're using, computer, etc..? i.e. Are you using Opera? Firefox? Netscape? AOL? Internet Explorer? What version? Windows? Mac? Linux? etc.. Thanks!
Kingreaper
08-14-2007, 01:11 PM
Kingreaper: did God create the world? Yes. Did God know what would happen when he created the world? From my belief system the answer is 'yes,' but in reality I personally do not know. Did God have a choice...? Yes.
The middle one must change to a no if you want to maintain that God didn't cause all abortions then. Because if God created the world of his own volition, and knew what the outcome of his creating the world was, then God deliberately caused all abortions.
Well, either that or there's some flex-room in how much of a choice God had, maybe he only had a certain supply of different worlds he could create, and so he couldn't have created one similar to this one without abortions.
You also said: '...that video does make two big mistakes..." Be *very* careful. If you noticed two mistakes you may be on your way to becoming a believer! ;)
Noticing mistakes is why I'm NOT a believer :p
The middle one must change to a no if ...
Wait a minute. You said I could use "I don't know. So I did.
Noticing mistakes is why I'm NOT a believer
So, you don't notice mistakes, then? I'm not sure if this is worthy of a brag *or* a taunt. I probably wouldn't have even admitted to this.
Kingreaper, you ask some very good questions. (But that does not mean I'm conceding anything.) Your questions are very much along the lines of, 'Could God make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?' That is, they are great puzzles, but what's your point, friend?
Legolas69: Firefox 2.0.0.4, Win2k sp4
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 01:44 PM
Formerfundie: You say you don't have a belief system, and I can respect that. - You also say you only believe what can be proven. Does someone love you? Do you love someone? Prove it. There *are* things which cannot be proven with facts or science. Measuring behaviour is a sketchy proof at best. Love is a state of mind, if you will. Exhibiting behaviour that 'looks' like love is not proof of love. - Kingreaper: did God create the world? Yes. Did God know what would happen when he created the world? From my belief system the answer is 'yes,' but in reality I personally do not know. Did God have a choice...? Yes. You also said: '...that video does make two big mistakes..." Be *very* careful. If you noticed two mistakes you may be on your way to becoming a believer! ;) - Kumbafu: You said: 'So what you're saying is god didn't know the answer.' No, I did not. You jumped to that conclusion.
Hi Anon,
I'm glad you're here.
This gets bandied about by believers a lot yet it seems to me to be comparing apples and bibles. Firstly, it's not provable that someone else ever loves me or that I love them so I tend not to announce it as dogma. Secondly, my love for someone requires no proof because it makes no claims about the nature of the world or how you should live in it. It's simply an emotion I feel.
Your belief in God has plenty of strings that frankly affect me as a non-believer. The Catechism, for instance, describes the sanctity of the human embryo so one of my family members is hindered from the benefits of embryonic stem cell research (we can start another thread on ESCR if anyone would like). Many believers feel that they have the right or even the responsibility to influence lawmakers in this regard. I have a right/responsibility to point out that scripture ought not be the basis for lawmaking BECAUSE of its inadequacies (i.e. in one area your God says the fetus is sacred, in another he's killing all the first-born males in Egypt--the fetus is sacred but kids aren't?). God is not the best we can do.
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 01:52 PM
BTW Anon, you've been responsible for sooo much great poetry over the years! :)
Thanks!
S2R
Kingreaper
08-14-2007, 02:09 PM
Wait a minute. You said I could use "I don't know. So I did. Yes.
However you answered a solid "Yes" to the other two questions, which makes answering "yes" to the middle one contradictory to the belief that god didn't deliberately cause abortions.
If you're certain that god didn't deliberately cause abortions, then you should be led to conclude that God DIDN'T know the full outcomes.
Maybe I misstated my case?
So, you don't notice mistakes, then? Notice that ":p" smiley, it implies that what I'm saying is not altogether serious.
But it's still true. I noticed mistakes in christian beliefs, and so I became a non-believer. Whether or not those mistakes are REAL is another matter, but my noticing them is still the cause of my lack of faith.
I don't see how what I said implies that I don't notice mistakes? Care to explain? Because I've been known to notice mistakes at times, even if I do miss some.
I'm not sure if this is worthy of a brag *or* a taunt. I probably wouldn't have even admitted to this.
It's a perfectly reasonable statement, I'm not sure where you're going with it.
Kingreaper, you ask some very good questions. (But that does not mean I'm conceding anything.) Your questions are very much along the lines of, 'Could God make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?' That is, they are great puzzles, but what's your point, friend?
"Could God make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it?" is a rubbish puzzle. If you're having trouble with it, perhaps you could use an explanation of why it's not a good argument against God?
My point is that your view of God should always be consistent. It's possible to maintain a lot of Christian beliefs while believing in a possible God, but not all of them (which is obvious enough, given as different christians have different beliefs).
If you're going to believe in a God, let's make it a possible one.
This gets bandied about by believers a lot yet it seems to me to be comparing apples and bibles. ... It's simply an emotion I feel.
Well said. The love I feel from (or for) my wife is also an emotion. But because I believe in it, it (the feeling) becomes, uh, 'elevated' from simply a fleeting emotion to a certainty in *my* life.
Your belief in God has plenty of strings that frankly affect me as a non-believer.
Oh, now, stan2reason, do you think I'm gonna believe that you let my beliefs affect you? Are you telling me you don't have ultimate control over what affects you?
Look what I've made you do! Bad anon!
I would also like to note that you are also a 'believer.' But you believe in a different set of certainties as me. Do your certainties require as much, more, or less faith than mine? ;)
We're not going to get into the stem cell thing, okay? My *personal* beliefs side more with science than against on this topic.
Okay. Let's get down to brass tacks. You see inconsistencies in the Bible. I did too until I studied it. My life had been based in the 'material;' if it could be seen, felt, smelt, tasted, I could believe it. But I was presented with what I felt was incontrovertible truth based in hard science, and because I have an open mind, that truth affected me deeply. That truth convinced me that the world is not all it appears. And frankly, the scariest thing about dealing with my beliefs is facing non-believers.
And that's NOT because I'm shaky in what I believe. It's because non-believers can be more vehement than believers
The Bible, I have come to learn, is one of the most historically accurate, continuously written documents humanity has created. You may think it is a fiction. Check your facts. More archaeological findings have vindicated the Bible than you can imagine.
Now I'm rambling. I should get back to work.
BTW, that wasn't me with all the poems. But thanks! :)
Stan2reason: I told you about an irrefutable truth that changed my thinking. It was a book a read, but I found info about the book here: http://www.halos.com/index.htm It's real science. You may find it interesting. Or not.
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 05:15 PM
Hi Anon,
Interesting response. I'll bite.:)
As long as your beliefs in God continue to attempt nothing more than the love you have for your wife we'll be in great shape. If, however, you were to feel that your love for your wife was so real, so special, and so amazing that we all ought to love your wife then I think we'd have a problem--especially if you tried to legislate it. BTW, I'm sure your wife, if she's like mine, is actually worthy of all that admiration.:)
Where we get into trouble is when your brethren decide that the beliefs are important enough to legislate them. I think I gave an example of how belief affects me and I'll stand by that but I did enjoy your tongue-in-cheek response. I'm extremely happy to hear that you tend to side with science on the issue of ESCR.
With respect to my "certainties" I'll probably need some clarification. To what "certainties" are you referring?
I actually don't dispute that the Bible provides some significant historical insight. I'm not one of the guys, for instance, that says Jesus never existed. There probably are plenty of archaeological discoveries that support stories from the Bible. I've just got a wee problem with the leap toward saying that it's the word of God and that we should spend any time living by it or worse, legislating it.
Excuse the seeming contradiction here but God bless ya if your belief gets you through the day. It does for my mom and her mom and my pastor-cousin and just about everybody else in the family. I simply want my kids to grow up in the best world possible and I don't think God or scriptures get us there.
I'm so bummed that you're not the famous Anon. A brother perhaps--long lost Aunt?
Best,
S2R
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 05:19 PM
Stan2reason: I told you about an irrefutable truth that changed my thinking. It was a book a read, but I found info about the book here: http://www.halos.com/index.htm It's real science. You may find it interesting. Or not.
I'll check it out. Thanks.
S2R
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 05:41 PM
I'll check it out. Thanks.
S2R
It's probably bad form to quote myself but hey, why not? Turns out this scientist is Robert Gentry. He's a prominent Seventh-day Adventist--the religion from which I've backslid(den?). He also trained at a rival SDA university from the one where I received my Biology degree. This should be fun!
It'll take awhile though--beefy stuff. :)
Addendum--I take it back. His degree from Columbia Union College was an honorary Doctor of Science (D.Sc.) His real degree is a masters in Physics from Florida I think.
SDA, you say. Hmmm, not only do we _both_ love our wives, but... Whaddya mean, you "take it back?" Take what back? Just because he has an 'honorary' Doctor of Science (D.Sc.)? I think this is further evidence ( - not 'proof!') that perhaps he's on the level. He came from an atheistic background, applied his 'hard' science, and went with Occam's razor. Then he got poo-pooed by the rest of the science community because he swapped 'sides.' He had an epiphany, and he went with it. The book is not a terribly heavy read. I'm no scientist and I made it thru. see ya. work calls.
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 08:36 PM
SDA, you say. Hmmm, not only do we _both_ love our wives, but... Whaddya mean, you "take it back?" Take what back? Just because he has an 'honorary' Doctor of Science (D.Sc.)? I think this is further evidence ( - not 'proof!') that perhaps he's on the level. He came from an atheistic background, applied his 'hard' science, and went with Occam's razor. Then he got poo-pooed by the rest of the science community because he swapped 'sides.' He had an epiphany, and he went with it. The book is not a terribly heavy read. I'm no scientist and I made it thru. see ya. work calls.
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I simply meant that he did not actually attend a rival SDA school as I originally thought. I was excited to introduce a collegiate rivalry. I've no quarrel with his credentials. SDA eh? Welcome aboard. It'll be nice to have someone around who gets my 1844 jokes. :-)
David
08-14-2007, 08:47 PM
Oh no, you misunderstand me. I simply meant that he did not actually attend a rival SDA school as I originally thought. I was excited to introduce a collegiate rivalry. I've no quarrel with his credentials.
Good.. Some of us work VERY hard for our Doctorates!
Kumbafu
08-14-2007, 08:51 PM
The Bible, I have come to learn, is one of the most historically accurate, continuously written documents humanity has created.
That was the belief of all mythology at one time or another.
stan2reason
08-14-2007, 09:46 PM
Good.. Some of us work VERY hard for our Doctorates!
I hear ya Brother David!:)
That was the belief of all mythology at one time or another.
Do I detect a hint o' sarcasm? Are you making the inference that the Bible is mythology? If so, please elicidate. I must tell you, kumbafu, that there are *many* examples that can be given attesting to the Bible's historical accuracy.
stan2reason: No, I am not going to cram my choices down your throat. There are them that do, and I'm not one of 'em.
You asked "With respect to my "certainties" I'll probably need some clarification. To what "certainties" are you referring?" and I just wanted to say you had gone right ahead in the following sentence and answered your own question.
And, I DO suppose it's possible that I am related to _the_ notorious Anon. I *do* have a bent for going on an' on. :p
David
08-15-2007, 12:46 AM
there are *many* examples that can be given attesting to the Bible's historical accuracy.
And just as many to show how INaccurate it is. If you'd like to discuss the merits of accuracy of the bible, please (I'm being serious here) start a new thread showing how, where and why it IS accurate. Personally, I agree with Kumbafu that it is a work of fiction and mythology. But, as always, I'd love to hear why you think I'm wrong :)
formerfundie
08-15-2007, 12:58 AM
Formerfundie: You say you don't have a belief system, and I can respect that. - You also say you only believe what can be proven. Does someone love you? Do you love someone? Prove it. There *are* things which cannot be proven with facts or science. Measuring behaviour is a sketchy proof at best. Love is a state of mind, if you will. Exhibiting behaviour that 'looks' like love is not proof of love.
i think what i said was, "I believe what can be proven, but that's not really belief is it?" in other words, i know the earth is sphericalish (scientifically provable). i believe my wife loves me (not necessarily "provable" but reasonably well founded based on the health of the relationship, our past experiences, and complex factors too numerous to mention). however, the real difference is, i don't feel compelled to convince anyone that my wife loves me. at any rate, it's really non-consequential to everyone but me.
However christian claims are different in a couple of key respects:
1 - they are spectacular
- claims that the bible has divine authorship (and that we
should live our lives as if this book was our instruction guide)
- ...of an all knowing, all powerful, omnipresent, deity
- jesus is god incarnate and was raised from the dead.
2 - the faithful assures us that our eternities depend on our belief
in these spectacular claims.
to the first point, spectacular claims (and these are really really spectacular claims) require spectacular proof. the claim that my wife loves me isn't quite that spectacular -- oh ok, some argue that it is.
to the second point, i think this is a big reason we're all discussing this. the christian claim is that all these spectacular things are true and the stakes are high -- our eternal souls are depending on this. however, the truth is 1) these claims have no basis, 2) there is a mountain of counter-evidence that demonstrates them to be false.
cheers.
one_lost_coin
08-15-2007, 06:34 AM
stan2reason wrote: This gets bandied about by believers a lot yet it seems to me to be comparing apples and bibles. Firstly, it's not provable that someone else ever loves me or that I love them so I tend not to announce it as dogma. Secondly, my love for someone requires no proof because it makes no claims about the nature of the world or how you should live in it. It's simply an emotion I feel.
Love is provable John 15:13 No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends. Jesus proves His love for us on the cross He is the love He offers, complete.
and love is so much more than a feeling you get, that is utter nonsense.
Love is so much more here are just some of what love demands.
Matthew 5:44 But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors 28 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVE.HTM#$2XI) do the same?
47 And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? 29 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVE.HTM#$2XJ)
48 So be perfect, 30 (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PVE.HTM#$2XK) just as your heavenly Father is perfect.
C.S. Lewis wrote a book called the "4 Loves" it is worth the time and money he reclaims the meaning of the word Love and explores it depths.
Kingreaper
08-15-2007, 09:00 AM
But love isn't the actions is it? Love is the emotion. You can PROVE that someone performs the actions, so if love is the actions it is provable (unlike God) but you can't prove they actually feel the emotion, at least, not yet.
And none of that is what love demands, that is what GOD demands according to the bible, not what love demands
one_lost_coin
08-15-2007, 09:23 AM
But love isn't the actions is it? Love is the emotion. You can PROVE that someone performs the actions, so if love is the actions it is provable (unlike God) but you can't prove they actually feel the emotion, at least, not yet.
And none of that is what love demands, that is what GOD demands according to the bible, not what love demands
Its an old saying but true God is love. Love is not the emotion but there are very deep emotions attached to it. Love is not the action but actions can be done out of love. So you are very correct when you say when someone performs an action they may not do so out of love. This is also spoken of by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 13
1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.
4 Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, (love) is not pompous, it is not inflated,
5 it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury,
6 it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth.
7 It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
8 Love never fails. If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing; if tongues, they will cease; if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially,
10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.
11 When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.
12 At present we see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. At present I know partially; then I shall know fully, as I am fully known.
13 So faith, hope, love remain, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
You keep very good company.
phrog
08-15-2007, 06:53 PM
Wow, this thread got derailed in the first few replies and never went back. I've read thru the lot in-between what I'm s'posed to be doing, working. The video was mostly trying to refute the claims in Rick Warren's book by hitting 'em back with logic. To those that feel the need to proselytize here you're not going to accomplish much by reciting the Bible. few here believe it to be much of a credible reference. And certainly more quotes from the same source that that source is in itself credible because the source itself says it is, well I'm getting dizzy just talking about it.
s2r, I loved your reply re:
As long as your beliefs in God continue to attempt nothing more than the love you have for your wife we'll be in great shape. If, however, you were to feel that your love for your wife was so real, so special, and so amazing that we all ought to love your wife then I think we'd have a problem--especially if you tried to legislate it. BTW, I'm sure your wife, if she's like mine, is actually worthy of all that admiration.:)
I'm going to have to remember that one. It's a common argument from the god botherers along with "You can't prove that god doesn't exist!" Both are lame claims and I like to have a nice retort. To the later I can always reply, "I've never felt the need to disprove anything that has yet to be proven."
I also adore your appreciation for the poetry from Anon. Priceless!
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
