Thanks to Rug and SS. I usually already get flaming responses by now... I think I'm liking this place more and more.
If Matt doesn't mind my jumping in on his discussion with SS...
If you worship my finger, then you are worshipping my finger, not me.
Sure, my finger might be me, but if you're obsessing over only my finger then you're not directly worshipping me, and if you create a cult named after my finger, that makes it even more obvious that you'd prefer to cut my finger off and just worship it without me.
There's also the question of worshipping the cross as a symbol - that is not worshipping Jesus/God. At a stretch you could say it's worshipping his deeds/actions, but why then is the cross such a strong symbol, rather than specifically crucifixes?
And then you also get Mary. Jesus' mum. She's worshipped all the time. She aint part of the trinity, and she didn't actually do anything. Infact this wonderful free-will which Yahweh supposedly gives wasn't given to her, by Biblical accounts; the angel came down and said something along the lines of "You're having Gods baby. Call him Jesus. kthnxbye".
And, of course, there's still all the statues of saints and crap which Catholics idolise.
That's not just bending the first commandment, it's grabbing a sledgehammer and smashing it into tiny pieces, throwing them on a fire, and doing a dance around the flames!
Jesus claimed to be God and was worshipped as God. The reason Jesus is worshipped is because the Father sent him to be worshipped. I may be blind, but I don't see the problem.
The cross for some may represent the place where the crucifix took place. There's nothing wrong with having one of these and it definitely does not amount to worshipping the cross itself.
Was Mary worshipped in the NT? If not (trust me, she isn't), then people who worship her now are doing a blind act. The offical Catholic site, I believe, doesn't say anything about Mary being worshipped. I think people pray to her as they would a spiritual leader. I'm not sure... not a Catholic.
That specific quote is 4:16, but it's the whole section about Cain being cast out for killing his brother.
Thanks for looking that up for me.
I don't see any implications of people living there. All I see is a bunch of land called Nod; in which Cain was banished.
ah! I hate Occam's Razor. People always use it to 'prove' stuff, without any consideration for the fact that they don't actually know what it really is - that being a guideline. It states that the simplest explanation is often true. Not always, just often. So using it to prove anything is stupid.
Sorry for riling you... I'm a philosophy buff, so it's my next best friend. What it states is that
it's best and more logical to go with the simplest explanation rather than introducing unneeded complexities. That's what a multi-God does.
Might be interesting to hear.
As small as a summary as I can put forth:
Cosmological
– Key Question “Why is there something instead of nothing?”
this entire argument rests on the question of how anything can exist without God. Typically atheists have maintained that the universe existed eternally. But this has some problems. If the universe is eternal and never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the idea of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of this century, states, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."
Astrophysics has made some remarkable discoveries in the last 50 years. Cambridge astronomer Fred Hoyle points out, the Big Bang theory requires the creation of the universe from nothing. This is because, as you go back in time, you reach a point at which, in Hoyle's words, the universe was "shrunk down to nothing at all." Thus, what the Big Bang model requires is that the universe began to exist and was created out of nothing.
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. That cause must be beyond space, beyond time (since both began at the big bang) and powerful enough to have created this universe. The creator was God.
TEOLOGICAL
P1. If the universe displays design, then it is designed.
P2. The universe is designed.
C. Therefore, the universe is designed.
This one doesn't really need any type of elaboration. Note that I defend Swinburne's version, so it isn't as easily tossed aside as past "design" arguments.
This may get quite lengthy, so I understand if you want to pursue this at a later time. One thing I do want to get into is a new argument for God's existence a friend of mine came up with called "Impossible Faith". You can check it out
here. I'd like to see any responses to this.
If they are the same being, they should be worshipped as one. (If they are to be worshipped at all.)
If you're worshipping Jesus, you are worshipping God.
Rather than trying to force two people together, if they are all happy to be a trio then why not let them?
Not forcing at all. The point still stands that true love really comes down to one person... that one person may not love back the same, but it matters not.
Rug,I skimmed through the article (already read several like it). If you like, I welcome you to present any of the arguments from the link in a separate thread. Or, if you like, I can take the time to reply to the link point-by-point and post it? The flaws are plentiful, so it may be quite long, though.
Some of his points may already be refuted or false tactics shown
here by a good friend of mine.
I'm sure you're familiar with the most popular skeptic website online - infidels.org. I find it ironic that you present an article from Frank Zindler while
skeptics themselves recognize the beating Zindler got at the hands of William Craig (top-notch debater) in their debate (
source.
The irony is that Zindler never gave any of his arguments and never even refuted Craig's arguments (infidels and one of Zindler's biggest fans recognize this also). So I ask: for what reason should I takin in Zindler's arguments when they (a) can't even stand up under expert review and (b) aren't even put forth in live debates, which leads me to question the validity of the claims?
Why can they not both be bad? You generalise overly. If you say that someone who follows Gods commandments to the letter isn't good, you're contradicting your entire religion, and need a rethink.
You don't go in-depth as to how they are both bad. All you have to do is present the criterian you use to determine the difference. It would be of much help in moving forward.
Just obeying God's commandments doesn't make someone good. Son of Sam does this while in jail, so he claims, so is he all of a sudden good? That isn't at all what Christianity teaches (maybe, Islam).
No, free will would be limited. Which, to all intents and purposes, is a damned good thing. If free will was totally unlimited, we would have total chaos. That is, more or less, what you are suggesting through your constant championing of total free will.
Limited in the sense that
absolute God would control us (he will force us to do nothing but good). You say this is a good thing? If so, then I simply have to digress... I don't know about you, but I don't want to be a puppet.
The world isn't total chaos, because plenty of good exists in this world.
Yep, sorry, had a bad case of over generalisation there - the examples you cite contain nothing that was not consentual, and nothing that was lethal. We'll leave harm at non-consentual bodily damage and murder, for the moment.
Why? You don't like it that harm/pain exists in the world, so I'm playing God and am taking us to the logical conclusions. I'm taking it all away. I see no reason to stop at any particular level of harm besides subjectively based preferences, which really amounts to no reason at all.
I've got a hypothetical, though (dont'cha love these?). Suppose a guy gets intentionally run off the road by a drunk driver, gets paralyzed waist/down, ends up falling in love with a girl, and devoting his life to a new-found dream. Then, in the end, thanks the wreck for ever coming out, because it led to all that he accomplished. If you foreknew this would happen, would you wrip this guy of a great future just because it took a little harm to bring the good about?
As C.S. Lewis bluntly puts it,
"Haven't you been to a dentist?"
His point is simple. Harm brings about good in some situations. Some extreme; some not extreme.
