Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

This is why I think God exists.

13567…14

Comments

  • #62
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    actually, as an aside (in relation to other universes), i wonder how christians square away the notion of extra terrestrial life (i knew a priest once who believed in it, but i never got to talk to him seriously about it); would it imply that there are other civilisations out there which christ visited?

    I asked this before on T.O.F if you are interested in the responses.

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055878319&highlight=bible+planet+earth


  • #63
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    PDN wrote: »
    Dear me, the paintballers are rusty today, aren't they?

    We were out last night. Dades and Mrs. Dades had a re-committment ceremony and then we went carousing after the Black Mass, drunk on schnapps and the blood of the innocent.


  • #64
    L31mr0d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭L31mr0d


    strobe wrote: »
    I asked this before on T.O.F if you are interested in the responses.

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055878319&highlight=bible+planet+earth

    jesus.aliens.gif


  • #65
    your desired user name
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 115 ✭✭your desired user name


    It could be some bedtime story that took on a life of its own

    good vs evil

    take away an o and add a d

    god vs devil


  • #66
    eblistic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 162 ✭✭eblistic


    PDN wrote: »
    ensure that I understand others' beliefs before criticising them.

    Actually there are quite a few of us who admit to once believing in (if not quite understanding) something vaguely resembling Christian doctrine.

    On the "begotten not made" can someone help me with how begetting something is so wildly different to making it? Isn't beget a synonym for "produce", usually? Or, literally, some kind of procreation procedure?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    bnt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,168 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I have this vision in my head of the OP, A Christian thrown in to the Roman arena, expecting to be eaten ... but all the lions want is a good old scratch behind the ears. Squee! :pac:

    You are the type of what the age is searching for, and what it is afraid it has found. I am so glad that you have never done anything, never carved a statue, or painted a picture, or produced anything outside of yourself! Life has been your art. You have set yourself to music. Your days are your sonnets.

    ―Oscar Wilde predicting Social Media, in The Picture of Dorian Gray



  • #68
    Martha Unimportant Lemon
    Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭ Martha Unimportant Lemon


    PDN wrote: »
    Only in the sense of being wrong. The Nicene Creed states that Jesus was 'begotten not made' - so no creation there.

    Still, never mind, it appears to be a matter of pride among many atheists to make inaccurate statements about what Christians believe and, when corrected, to say, "Well, it's all a load of codswallop anyway!"
    You were quoting me weren't you :(


  • #69
    L31mr0d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,067 ✭✭✭L31mr0d


    eblistic wrote: »
    Actually there are quite a few of us who admit to once believing in (if not quite understanding) something vaguely resembling Christian doctrine.

    "If you ever properly understood Christianity then you'd still be a Christian. The fact you no longer believe it is proof that you never fully understood it."

    I positively love this argument :mad:


  • #70
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    eblistic wrote: »
    Actually there are quite a few of us who admit to once believing in (if not quite understanding) something vaguely resembling Christian doctrine.

    On the "begotten not made" can someone help me with how begetting something is so wildly different to making it? Isn't beget a synonym for "produce", usually? Or, literally, some kind of procreation procedure?

    Actually the word translated 'begotten' can mean 'unique' or 'one and only' in Greek. However, somewhere in the switch between Greek and Latin that apparently got lost along the way. Therefore the RC Church came up with a doctrine whereby the Son is being eternally begotten by the Father - but never had a beginning since the 'begetting' is eternal. The Nicene Creed, which Robin referred to, included the phrase "begotten not created" (as does the Christmas Carol 'O Come All Ye Faithful), in order to combat the false teaching of the Arian heresy which denied the eternal nature and deity of Christ.

    Well, you did ask! ;)


  • #71
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Actually the word translated 'begotten' can mean 'unique' or 'one and only' in Greek. However, somewhere in the switch between Greek and Latin that apparently got lost along the way.

    I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek. If something has been mistranslated and if the people doing the translating know this then why don't they fix it, especially if the current translation gives atheists the fodder they so desperately want to beat the bible with?

    Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek. If something has been mistranslated and if the people doing the translating know this then why don't they fix it, especially if the current translation gives atheists the fodder they so desperately want to beat the bible with?

    Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god
    They'd love to but apparently God means ''homosexuals rock my world'' in greek or something, and they'd rather just not highlight that fact.


  • #73
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world. Every time there's something less than perfect we're told how it means something totally different in the Greek. If something has been mistranslated and if the people doing the translating know this then why don't they fix it, especially if the current translation gives atheists the fodder they so desperately want to beat the bible with?

    Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god

    Thats the beauty of that troublesome little book, the varying religions can interpret and reinterpret everything in it to suit themselves.

    "no no, 7 days doesnt actually mean 7 days, day is taken from the greek to hebrew translation of a roman word based on a chinese symbol that was written on a cookie, so when we say god made the world in 7 days? we actually mean 14 billion years" :pac:


  • #74
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I swear to the FSM, that must be the most mistranslated book in the history of the world.
    Not at all. The same is true of any book that has been translated into many languages over a long period of time. Of course it seems more so with the Bible due to it being more popular, and more widely translated, than any other book in human history.
    Or maybe even just add footnotes to each mistranslated word noting that it doesn't mean exactly what it meant in the Greek. It might not end up very pretty but you'd think accuracy would be key when dealing with the perfect word of god
    Er, you evidently haven't looked at a modern translation of the Bible recently, have you? That's exactly what they do.

    exodus3141953s.gif


  • #75
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    PDN wrote: »
    Not at all. The same is true of any book that has been translated into many languages over a long period of time. Of course it seems more so with the Bible due to it being more popular, and more widely translated, than any other book in human history.


    Er, you evidently haven't looked at a modern translation of the Bible recently, have you? That's exactly what they do.

    exodus3141953s.gif

    God damn it PDN! We all got ourselves riled up and came here to tear down some theist arguments. Stop being right about things. Spoil sport.


  • #76
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    PDN wrote: »
    Er, you evidently haven't looked at a modern translation of the Bible recently, have you? That's exactly what they do.

    Oh right :P

    I do like to read fantasy books but my preference is for the likes of Terry Pratchett


  • #77
    silent sage
    Closed Accounts Posts: 230 ✭✭silent sage


    I think it's worth posting this video again. Check it out OP, interesting stuff.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo


  • #78
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,606 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Lads, can we leave the exegesis or whatever it is for someone who gives a crap. Let's face it do we might as well argue what Melville meant in Moby Dick.

    The OP has enough to respond to without the clutter.


  • #79
    eblistic
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 162 ✭✭eblistic


    Dades wrote: »
    Lads, can we leave the exegesis or whatever it is for someone who gives a crap. Let's face it do we might as well argue what Melville meant in Moby Dick.

    The OP has enough to respond to without the clutter.

    Sorry. I had to ask.


  • #80
    sink
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,314 ✭✭✭sink


    silent sage wrote: »
    I think it's worth posting this video again. Check it out OP, interesting stuff.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

    "Forget Jesus, stars died so that you could be here today." - Lawrence Krauss

    I love this quote.


  • #81
    pH
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭pH


    use logic please wrote: »
    <snip>

    I like your argument, let me see if I got things right.

    A) Everything must have a cause,
    B) Nothing can be eternal

    THEREFORE:

    God exists and is both without cause and eternal because nothing can be.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Nemi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 334 ✭✭Nemi


    bnt wrote: »
    The short answer to that: even if you assume some first cause, there's no reason to assume that it would have any of the qualities you associate with "God".
    I think you put your finger on it here. David Hume made a similar point - and I've no doubt other people before and since. All philosophy can state about a first cause is that it was capable of creating what followed. It offers no proof of any god with a special interest or grá for humans, or even of a first cause capable of being aware that it had just created something.

    Now, obviously lots of people claim knowledge of a god. But, wherever that knowledge comes from, its not philosophy.


  • #83
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    pH wrote: »
    I like your argument, let me see if I got things right.

    A) Everything must have a cause,
    B) Nothing can be eternal

    THEREFORE:

    God exists and is both without cause and eternal because nothing can be.

    Because he is not a thing, in the sense that things are things.


  • #84
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    silent sage wrote: »
    I think it's worth posting this video again. Check it out OP, interesting stuff.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

    Thanks for posting that man. Could listen to the guy talk all day.


  • #85
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    raah! wrote: »
    Because he is not a thing, in the sense that things are things.

    All must have a cause.
    None can be eternal.

    Same (non)thing.


  • #86
    Paparazzo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,395 ✭✭✭Paparazzo


    PDN wrote: »
    And why would an Eternal Being be in a hurry to do anything? Then again, you don't have a clue what He was doing before He created the universe - or even whether He created an infinite number of universes - do you?

    Whatever he's doing, do you reckon he's interested in us rattling off Our Fathers and not coveting our neighbours goods?


  • #87
    Liamario
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,096 ✭✭✭Liamario


    If God exists, it clearly has better things to be doing than keeping an eye on planet earth.


  • #88
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    strobe wrote: »
    All must have a cause.
    None can be eternal.

    Same (non)thing.

    It's not quite the same. It's much easier to accept that "all things have causes" than "all have causes", so the argument is easier to accept. The latter sentence makes slightly less sense (or even no sense). Anyway, I'm only clearing up misinterpretations of the fellows argument If I were to respond as a materialist, I would say "non-things don't exist".


  • #89
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    raah! wrote: »
    It's not quite the same. It's much easier to accept that "all things have causes" than "all have causes", so the argument is easier to accept. The latter sentence makes slightly less sense (or even no sense). Anyway, I'm only clearing up misinterpretations of the fellows argument If I were to respond as a materialist, I would say "non-things don't exist".

    If I was to respond to that or your previous post or the post you responded to I would have an interest in word games. I don't, or do I, or do I not, but I did, or did I? Depends on what the meaning of "I" or "did" is? What is "is"? Far enough away from the topic for you? By "you", I mean raah! By "I", I mean me.


  • #90
    raah!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,629 ✭✭✭raah!


    Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

    A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    raah! wrote: »
    Well it's very relevant to the topic really. His argument was about 'God' not being a regular thing, being outside of space time. The crux argument was about how "God is not a regular thing", to reduce it to a contradiction on the grounds that God is the same as other things is just ignoring one of his most important points.

    A proper understanding of words is essential to proper argumentation and use of logic. I'm sorry if you were offended.

    I wasn't "offended" by your understanding of the word.



    Really I was just being facetious rahh!. Far too often one side seeks to drag the conversation away from it's intent for it's own reasons. I prefer to keep things relative and approximate to the actual discussion taking place. It's just a pet peeve of mine. I see it happen far too often to work on the presumption that it is constructive in nature. I think it is better when people focus on the ideas and points being discussed disregarding whether the language being used was intentional or not, or if it was relevant to the crux of the discussion. No offense meant.

    If you really want to p1ss me off correct my spelling and grammar in this post and say Jimi Hendrix was over rated.

    As an aside, the point you were attempting to make was addressed in the thread already several times.


Advertisement