| Welcome to Godlimations. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| An interesting paradox | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: 18 Sep 2009, 01:21 PM (5,795 Views) | |
| Junior | 11 Nov 2009, 04:49 PM Post #211 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Conrad, I assume you live in a country with laws... let me ask. there are laws saying not to steal, or kill, etc... do you obey these laws? |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 12 Nov 2009, 04:57 AM Post #212 |
|
Deleted User
|
i think his part of the commonwealth
|
|
|
| conradw | 12 Nov 2009, 07:00 AM Post #213 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Although in the UK there is no specific statute against murder, it is against the law. And I do follow those laws. Not only that, but the other night I saw a man drop about £30, and I returned it to him. I'm not so good about the one about not cycling at night without lights (although I know I should, I just haven't got around to it yet after my old lights were stolen). Also, I can think of more than one occasion where I played a game of cards (for money) in a pub. And a few Sundays when I didn't practice my archery (although, I do when I get the chance). I think I've also broken the law about blasphemy a few times (depending on what you call blasphemous) I've watched tv shows and listened to music online, In short: I follow the law, I go further than the law demands, and I break the law. As well as that, I will challenge an immoral law. I will challenge a law that says anyone claiming to the be Son of God should be put to death. I will challenge a law that says only abstinence can be taught in sexual education. Whether or not I would break the law depends on the consequences. The law often is (but should be moreso, in my opinion) about reconciling people rather than simply punishing the guilty. What do you think? @arazec: No, I don't. That's why I can follow Jesus. But if you want to tell me that no Christian thinks so I will respectfully ask you reconsider. @Concolor: I guess I meant I was sick of playing devil's advocate. I realise I've put my cards on the table, but I'd like to ask press you a bit further - demanding to see God's boss isn't going to get you out of it. You believe the system of morality presented to you is absolutely right(eous), but you aren't able to understand it (maybe because it is wholly good that you do not - similar to the tree of knowledge I suppose) Edited by conradw, 12 Nov 2009, 07:25 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 12 Nov 2009, 11:11 AM Post #214 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: You can have identical morals as a Christian without being one. Being a Christian is about believing in Jesus as the son of God. Naturally this will have implications for your morality, but that does not mean one cannot have similar morals while still have different beliefs. @conradw: I've had noticeable problems following you in this discussion, which is regretful as it really felt like we were probing interesting areas and I'd like to understand more of it than I do right now. Your cards may be on the table, but I can't see what they are. If I am to believe something without understanding it then I cannot see this happening without my sense of rational scrutiny being shut down or bypassed somehow (i.e. I would consider myself to be brainwashed). That would mean that in this particular case I would act without rationality and I would probably do what I was told to do (accept the moral system) no matter if it was rational or irrational, unless I got some weird feeling that told me not to (which I would consider random). |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 12 Nov 2009, 11:52 AM Post #215 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Concolor: I think we both gave the same answer, but because we approached it from a slightly different angle we gave different conclusions. You, I think, looked at it in the sense of "What would have to be the case for this situation to be true and how would I respond?" which is a commendable way of looking at it, but I would say it "over-thinks" the question (especially in the realm of hypotheticals), and might make it harder for other people (read: me) to see where you're coming from. I've tried to keep all else constant if I can, which can be quite a lot harder to do. I've got another question for you, and this is a question I've wrestled with a number of times in both directions: What would it take to make you believe in God? (for the purposes of this question, define God in any way you like, only make it clear how you are defining God) |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 12 Nov 2009, 01:47 PM Post #216 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw: Personally I think there would be a slight contradiction between the "situation to be true"-part, and "everything else constant"-part, at least in my own case. I just can't get those two situations to meet without heavily altering one of them. I'd like to answer your question by lazily pointing to other people's YouTube-videos. The following is an atheist who puts forward several things which would convince him that a particular religion might be true (and I think these things would be convincing for me as well). The reasons he lists in Part 1 are of course dependent on where you draw the limits to what counts as a miracle etc. Part 2 list what he calls circumstantial evidence, which I don't see as that important even though I would appreciate if religions would actually follow these. More important is the end where he specifies what he would not count as evidence. I agree with his views on that, and could probably add a lot more to that list (even if that would make for a pretty long list) In short, it's pretty easy to convince me of stuff. Luemas just convinced me that soft tissue from dinosaurs can survive for millions of years. A fact that only days ago I would have laughed at if someone just jumped up and told me. All you need is empirical, verifiable evidence and I'm down with you in a heartbeat. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| Junior | 12 Nov 2009, 02:56 PM Post #217 |
![]()
Brother-in-law of Soul
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@conradw, you would obey the laws of your country with no problem at all but if you have to do it in the name of god it's a burden? it sounds like you're making excuses. |
| Call it what you want | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | 13 Nov 2009, 04:33 AM Post #218 |
|
Deleted User
|
yeah but the morals originated from Gods word the bible dont delude yourselves God wont be mockedthose links are about as usefull as an ashtray on a motorbike Sounds like they hit the turps a little too often |
|
|
| Concolor | 13 Nov 2009, 05:12 AM Post #219 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
@ARAZEC: Well I guess that's the whole point, that we have different opinions on that one ![]() This is a very good example of things you write that makes it difficult for me to follow your train of thought. First of all, I don't quite understand the metaphor so I'm left with a vague idea that you don't like the videos. But that information is not very useful for me in this discussion as I was not saying that "This is a video that is very convincingly demonstrating my point and you should all watch it". conradw asked me of what it would take for me to believe in a certain religious dogma, and the video points out certain things that I agree would be convincing evidence. I think I get the "ashtray" metaphor as saying that the video is not useful. But I can't imagine that you think the video is not useful at being my answer to conradw's question? I don't get the "hit the turps a little too often". I know that it probably is bad in some way, but I don't know how. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
13 Nov 2009, 05:36 PM Post #220 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Actually, since we're on that point, What would it take for you to be convinced evolution was false? |
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
| Concolor | 13 Nov 2009, 08:53 PM Post #221 |
|
Barabbas
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Evolution: Every observation that we've ever made of change in genetic material must be shown to have been flawed, and caused by something else in every single case. The theory of evolution by natural selection: Finding a 60 million year old fossil of an animal that lives today, but could not have existed back then according to the theory of evolution by natural selection. Dogs would pretty much seal the deal for me, but not some species of fish that have gone through small or no change in their morphology the past hundreds of million years. |
|
Life is beautiful, love heals, people come through. Reason, compassion and love comes first. Everything else is secondary. Except for Skittles. - And emperor Cheezy!
| |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 13 Nov 2009, 10:49 PM Post #222 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
a rabbit in the cambrian era would just about do it for me. @Junior: I think you completely ignored what I said. I EXPLICITLY said I don't follow the laws of my country with no problem. Try reading my post again. |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
13 Nov 2009, 11:21 PM Post #223 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So finding a fossil of an animal that couldn't have existed ay? Mental Check for later research when I'm not so lazy. |
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
| conradw | 14 Nov 2009, 10:01 AM Post #224 |
|
Goliath
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
"Couldn't have existed" is a little bit of an understatement - this isn't like fossilised footprints of what looks like humans and dinosaurs together, or a man from what we thought was the bronze age using iron tools. This is at a time when life on earth was taking its first tentative steps onto land - a time when all life looked alien and bizarre to us. To find a fossil of a modern organism (and not just an arthropod descendent) from that period would force me to change how I look at the diversity of life on earth. You still have all your work cut out for you if you think you can get from that to God did it - the hypothesis of panspermia at least has the fact that organic molecules have been observed in space. However, even saying all of that, it would only show evolution as we know it to be wrong: rabbits may have arrived from outer-space or time travel, it would have to be adapted and refined to take into account the discovery. If you want to completely banish evolution from my understanding of biology, you'd need something on a similar scale to what it would take to banish gravity from yours. |
![]() |
|
Luemas
|
14 Nov 2009, 11:56 AM Post #225 |
![]()
DELICIOUS!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Ban gravity? Simple, everybody go subatomic
|
|
I think I'm Crazzzy. I think your crazy. I think your crazzzy... probably. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)




.gif)
6:46 PM Jul 10