Did someone mention a religious debate?

[Theodoric]

Preliminary note: I'm sure that this should be in some other forum but, for the life of me, I can't think where.

Posted by Towny in the 'Which is more depressing' thread. (My underlinings.)

"Believe it or not, us religious types are happy to debate with people who think we are 'wrong' ... one of the things I have been arguing is that I think absolute truth is a valid concept, in which case we need to grapple with the various ways people suggest we might 'discover' it. Maybe if more folks would wade in to those threads they would be less prone to going round in circles? I have to agree, at the moment there is a high probability that any 'religious' thread will revolve around just one or two themes for 20 pages before dying off."

OK, a question for the Calvinists and related believers out there, of which I suspect there may be a few. Would you care to attempt to justify the doctrine of double predestination? As to the meaning of double predestination, I cannot do better than to quote from Calvin's Institutes:

"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction."

Now, in my view, if interpreting the Bible leads, logically and irrefutably, to the conclusion that God has created a certain group of people whom he intends to send automatically to hell (something which Catholics and many other Christian denominations would disagree with), I would argue that the premises must be wrong, that is the Bible is incorrect.

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by Theodoric

Preliminary note: I'm sure that this should be in some other forum but, for the life of me, I can't think where.

Posted by Towny in the 'Which is more depressing' thread. (My underlinings.)

"Believe it or not, us religious types are happy to debate with people who think we are 'wrong' ... one of the things I have been arguing is that I think absolute truth is a valid concept, in which case we need to grapple with the various ways people suggest we might 'discover' it. Maybe if more folks would wade in to those threads they would be less prone to going round in circles? I have to agree, at the moment there is a high probability that any 'religious' thread will revolve around just one or two themes for 20 pages before dying off."

OK, a question for the Calvinists and related believers out there, of which I suspect there may be a few. Would you care to attempt to justify the doctrine of double predestination? As to the meaning of double predestination, I cannot do better than to quote from Calvin's Institutes:

"In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction."

Now, in my view, if interpreting the Bible leads, logically and irrefutably, to the conclusion that God has created a certain group of people whom he intends to send automatically to hell (something which Catholics and many other Christian denominations would disagree with), I would argue that the premises must be wrong, that is the Bible is incorrect.

Not really wanting to start the debate off but how do you know the bible is correct it has been translated so many times from its original langauge. As opposed to the Koran that is in its same langauge without transilation.

[downquark1]

There are several flaws in relgious arguement like:

If God is all knowing, he knows what we will do in life so therefore why put us through it.

If religion is about faith proving miracles occured will destroy religion

[peachey]

Originally Posted by th'engineer

Not really wanting to start the debate off but how do you know the bible is correct it has been translated so many times from its original langauge. As opposed to the Koran that is in its same langauge without transilation.

ok everybody, buckle up


here we go!

[darant]

Originally Posted by peachey

ok everybody, buckle up


here we go!

RELIGION DISCUSION IS A BIG NO NO!

LEAVE IT THERE!!!!!

Although people may think Im being a bit forceful........ Weve been here many times before!

[th'engineer]

Originally Posted by darant

RELIGION IS A BIG NO NO!

LEAVE IT THERE!!!!!

Although people may think Im being a bit forceful........ Weve been here many times before!

We can of course suggest that it is a way of controlling the populus, created by the Timelords of Galifry

[Bex]

Originally Posted by downquark1

There are several flaws in relgious arguement like:

If God is all knowing, he knows what we will do in life so therefore why put us through it.

If religion is about faith proving miracles occured will destroy religion

the concept of God being "all knowing" and the incoherencies depend on the view you have of God,,,,,,if God is a timeless being (and therefore lives outside of time) then one could say that for God to be all knowing means that he is somehow not a "good" god, because he knows the evil which is going to happen.....this is not necessarily the case though

secondly if God is a being whom lives within time then he sees what happens as it happens.....but this then limits God

what is your point about miracles?

[Bex]

wouldn't this thread be better in another one of the sections?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by bexy

the concept of God being "all knowing" and the incoherencies depend on the view you have of God,,,,,,if God is a timeless being (and therefore lives outside of time) then one could say that for God to be all knowing means that he is somehow not a "good" god, because he knows the evil which is going to happen.....this is not necessarily the case though

secondly if God is a being whom lives within time then he sees what happens as it happens.....but this then limits God

what is your point about miracles?

I would have thought most religions go for the limitless God.

My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.

[Bex]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I would have thought most religions go for the limitless God.

My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.

i don't think that miracles do undermine one's belief...i think seeing miracles and erxperiencing the power of God actually strengthens one's belief and thus their faith

[Maggy J]

humphf.i think my question about pick and mix religoins was a betterone.humphf.


incog.

Originally Posted by downquark1

My second point was simular to something Russ came up with once. That relgion requires faith and therefore proving something destroys the need for faith (because it is now a certainty) so if we proved Jesus has existed as the son of god we destroy faith and religion. It's a circular argument with no real solution.

Ah, the babelfish

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by bexy

i don't think that miracles do undermine one's belief...i think seeing miracles and erxperiencing the power of God actually strengthens one's belief and thus their faith

Ahh, but if God appeared tomorrow and answered all the questions about life we wouldn't need to 'believe' he exists because we would 'know' he exists. So religion defined as

peopleââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

would no longer be necessary.

This is not so much a serious point but one of those silly arguments wannabe philosophers put foward to look clever.

Sorry if my sentances are badly written - I need to go to bed

Originally Posted by bexy

wouldn't this thread be better in another one of the sections?

dunno - I'm gonna wade in.

there is anecdotal evidence that re-cycling of all the atoms in all the stars in the whole universe, since time began, means we were literally "born in the stars" - and there is ,also, the philosophy that no-one saw it - so it may not be true - presumably, somewhere in the middle is the truth. For us to perceive "god" - we first have to perceive ourselves - I think life, the universe and everything is so easy to explain - big bang etc - but I am cynical enough to want to know why? - what is the point? ( persons named oblio are not elegible to reply, btw) (dogs named Arrow may, if they have learned to talk?)

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by homealone

but I am cynical enough to want to know why? - what is the point? ( persons named oblio are not elegible to reply, btw) (dogs named Arrow may, if they have learned to talk?)

The point of explaining things like the big bang, or the point of why we are here?

I would like to believe that there is no point that we choose what we do with the time we have [comes out of Gandalf mode], it would be pretty sad if we had a purpose to do but didn't have a clue what it was. A bit like novelty hats (I may come up with a better metaphor in the morning).