The fallacy of Jesus dying for our sins (By Shabir Ally)

[Saint Frankenstein]

Rude troll? I guess your counterarguments were that bad that you're reverting to claiming that i'm allegedly rude and a troll. You're just another extremely oversensitive religious person.

Why in the world should I bother talking to you when you're just down-talking to me and insulting me before you even know my opinion on the matter? You obviously don't even know the basics of Catholic theology since you're so far off the mark in your assumptions. Buzz off and go troll someone else with your ignorance.

 

[nash8]

Creating the bomb is like creating the universe, and letting it go off is like waiting for humans to sin knowing that they were going to sin.

The key things here are intention and knowledge, of which God had both and the bomber also had.

Do you have kids? Have you ever let your kid do something dumb, knowing what the outcome would be, just because you know that's the only way he/she would learn. Or even better, warned your kid not to do something, but not tried to stop him, because you know that no matter what you say he/she is going to do it anyway?

The above statements you made are contradictory. Creating the universe, and specifically humans, and giving them free will is not intent, it is ability. The two are not mutually exclusive. Just as in the example I presented above, the child has the choice not to do something that will cause it harm, even though it has been warned not to do said thing. Do you blame the child or the parent for committing the action.

"I disagree. "

I suppose you disagree with gravity, computers, medicine, astronomy, physics, and every other scientific field as well right?

Umm, that's a pretty ignorant statement if I do say so myself. Generalizing an opinion about another person concerning multiple fields of science, based on one statement concerning one theory does not a good argument make.

And to the original statement, it is actually physically impossible for one pair of "humans" to have existed first. There had to have been an exact moment when the first male and female humans were birthed. Now whether are not these were the only two humans that gave birth to other humans is debatable, but considering how evolution works, I would find it highly plausible that these "humans" passed on traits to other species that they were compatible to breed with, but not neccesarily the same as we would classify them today. Then you have the question of what was qualified as "human" concerning Adam and Eve?

According to anthropological evidence we all came from a small area in Ethiopia so there couldn't have been a very large population of the first humans anyway.

 

[serp777]

Why in the world should I bother talking to you when you're just down-talking to me and insulting me before you even know my opinion on the matter? You obviously don't even know the basics of Catholic theology since you're so far off the mark in your assumptions. Buzz off and go troll someone else with your ignorance.

Now look who is being the rude troll. And a hypocrite. You make all these claims that you have special knowledge of God; when i am skeptical of those claims you are insulted so easily. Then you disagree with evolution and say "illogical", without any explanation like a a chat bot. And then you butchered the analogy. If you can't take an skepticism and criticism leave the forum.

 

[serp777]

Do you have kids? Have you ever let your kid do something dumb, knowing what the outcome would be, just because you know that's the only way he/she would learn. Or even better, warned your kid not to do something, but not tried to stop him, because you know that no matter what you say he/she is going to do it anyway?

The above statements you made are contradictory. Creating the universe, and specifically humans, and giving them free will is not intent, it is ability. The two are not mutually exclusive. Just as in the example I presented above, the child has the choice not to do something that will cause it harm, even though it has been warned not to do said thing. Do you blame the child or the parent for committing the action.



Umm, that's a pretty ignorant statement if I do say so myself. Generalizing an opinion about another person concerning multiple fields of science, based on one statement concerning one theory does not a good argument make.

And to the original statement, it is actually physically impossible for one pair of "humans" to have existed first. There had to have been an exact moment when the first male and female humans were birthed. Now whether are not these were the only two humans that gave birth to other humans is debatable, but considering how evolution works, I would find it highly plausible that these "humans" passed on traits to other species that they were compatible to breed with, but not neccesarily the same as we would classify them today. Then you have the question of what was qualified as "human" concerning Adam and Eve?

According to anthropological evidence we all came from a small area in Ethiopia so there couldn't have been a very large population of the first humans anyway.

"Generalizing an opinion about another person concerning multiple fields of science"

it's called the scientific method :thud:

Opinions are irrelevant when science with thousands of different pieces of peer reviewed evidence, from numerous fields, exist. One does not simply "disagree" with evolution without any rationale or justification; it would be just like disagreeing with medicine or physics. In fact, a significant amount of medicine is based on evolution, which makes it particularly relevant. The scientific method is what generated all of those fields, so it is not irrelevant. If you disagree with evolution, then why do you agree with any other section of science? It's a foolish double standard.

"Do you blame the child or the parent for committing the action."
You are not being consistent with the analogy. It would be like a parent putting a child in a room with unshielded electrical outlets, sharp knives, toxic candies, and firearms. Well what on earth do you think is going to happen?

"Have you ever let your kid do something dumb, knowing what the outcome would be, just because you know that's the only way he/she would learn."

That's a terrible way of teaching. Preventative learning > learning the hard way. Surely God is able to think of a better way.

"According to anthropological evidence we all came from a small area in Ethiopia so there couldn't have been a very large population of the first humans anyway"

It certainly wasn't two humans though, it was probably a group of several thousand in order to keep the gene pool diverse enough. Humans didn't just pop into existence: it was a gradual transition with no defining moment of transformation, Furthermore humans interbred with neanderthals and probably other primate species along the way, making things more complicated. Adam and eve is incredibly naive and false.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Now look who is being the rude troll. And a hypocrite. You make all these claims that you have special knowledge of God; when i am skeptical of those claims you are insulted so easily. Then you disagree with evolution and say "illogical", without any explanation like a a chat bot. And then you butchered the analogy. If you can't take an skepticism and criticism leave the forum.

It's not your criticism, it's the way you go about it. I've been here longer than you and have almost 10,000 posts so my ability to take criticism is not in question here.

Nowhere did I deny evolutionary theory. I'm just skeptical of polygenism (which, by the way, is actually a form of racism). Big whoop. The Catholic Church supports monogenism, which has not been scientifically disproven. What this means is that there was an original pair of what we would call humans that all humans inherited a human nature from: RENEGADE TRADS: On Monogenism

And your earlier statement was illogical because you said that God did not give us free will because we had no choice but to have free will? So you would prefer not to have free will?

 

[serp777]

It's not your criticism, it's the way you go about it. I've been here longer than you and have almost 10,000 posts so my ability to take criticism is not in question here.

Nowhere did I deny evolutionary theory. I'm just skeptical of polygenism (which, by the way, is actually a form of racism). Big whoop. The Catholic Church supports monogenism, which has not been scientifically disproven. What this means is that there was an original pair of what we would call humans that all humans inherited a human nature from: RENEGADE TRADS: On Monogenism

And your earlier statement was illogical because you said that God did not give us free will because we had no choice but to have free will? So you would prefer not to have free will?

"I'm just skeptical of polygenism"
But I was talking about evolution and how there was no two first humans, so when you said you disagree it was reasonable to think that's what you were referring to. In evolution, species come about gradually through a progressive series of small genetic mutations, although some can be big mutations. Since you claim there were two humans first, which mutations constituted the first humans? I'm saying that's impossible to determine. Also, a blog is not the most reliable evidence.

And, Well my preference doesn't have anything to do with it being illogical. If I had no free will then I would have no preference either way though. Nothing about the statement is illogical though; it just reflects a contradiction with religious granted free will. Maybe we don't really have free will as it is now, or only partial free will. After all, our free will is constrained by our impulses, laws, morals, genetics, environmental variables, and of course culture.Free will is not a false dillemma--it's not just as simple as you have it or you don't. Dolphins also probably have some free will as you would define it, as well as other great apes, and maybe even birds such as ravens.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"I'm just skeptical of polygenism"
But I was talking about evolution and how there was no two first humans, so when you said you disagree it was reasonable to think that's what you were referring to. In evolution, species come about gradually through a progressive series of small genetic mutations, although some can be big mutations. Since you claim there were two humans first, which mutations constituted the first humans? I'm saying that's impossible to determine. Also, a blog is not the most reliable evidence.

I wasn't posting the blog as evidence. It explains the position and how it is not in conflict with science.

And, Well my preference doesn't have anything to do with it being illogical. If I had no free will then I would have no preference either way though. Nothing about the statement is illogical though; it just reflects a contradiction with religious granted free will. Maybe we don't really have free will as it is now, or only partial free will. After all, our free will is constrained by our impulses, laws, morals, genetics, environmental variables, and of course culture.Free will is not a false dillemma--it's not just as simple as you have it or you don't. Dolphins also probably have some free will as you would define it, as well as other great apes, and maybe even birds such as ravens.

Free will is just the capability of rational thought and decision-making. It is the ability to make choices and decide your own destiny.

 

[serp777]

I wasn't posting the blog as evidence. It explains the position and how it is not in conflict with science.



Free will is just the capability of rational thought and decision-making. It is the ability to make choices and decide your own destiny.

Ok well the blog doesn't answer which mutations would define the first humans. Again, it is an unanswerable question. The blog simply says that it can be imagined that because of ancestors, there would be an initial pair. You can imagine all you want, but that doesn't make it true.

And that still doesn't show how my statement was illogical.

 

[Britedream]

God is Spirit. God has no mouth. There is no historical evidence for Moses. We anthropomorphize God, and we have these very mythic stories in which a Moses character is sort of larger than life. But none of that means that it actually, really happened in history. The myth helps facilitate theological understanding, but does not inform our physical history.

You say we have a problem? I said that a while back, and it upset you. Yes. We have a problem, because you don't understand that our religion is not based in physical cosmology. God is not an old man with a white beard in the sky that physically speaks to people. God, as presented in the bible and in the Tradition, is an anthropomorphic construction that helps to describe God -- not define God.

Sorry, you are missing the point, it is not about the attribute of God; whether he has a mouth or not. it is about God delivering a message to the Jews, through Moses in a literal sense, which you deny. how God did that is not the issue here.

By looking at John 1:21, we see the Jews were asking Elijah three questions, one of them is, are you the prophet. in the cross-reference , it shows that they were asking about the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18, so That shows that they Got the message from God, and they have been expecting him to show up.

am I upset?, not the least, in fact, it is a pleasure to discuss with you the matter.

 

[sojourner]

Cognitive dissonance in action lol. But I totally agree with you. I am even guilty of doing it myself on occasion.

Anthropomorphism is one of the few ways we have of relating to God. It's far easier to say, "I want to do God's will for me," than it is to say, "I want my energies to align with those of the universe that will create harmonious outcomes."

On some level, God must be immanent and personal, and it's just easier to accomplish that with anthropomorphic language.

 

[sojourner]

Sorry, you are missing the point, it is not about the attribute of God; whether he has a mouth or not. it is about God delivering a message to the Jews, through Moses in a literal sense, which you deny. how God did that is not the issue here.

By looking at John 1:21, we see the Jews were asking Elijah three questions, one of them is, are you the prophet. in the cross-reference , it shows that they were asking about the prophet mentioned in Deuteronomy 18:18, so That shows that they Got the message from God, and they have been expecting him to show up.

am I upset?, not the least, in fact, it is a pleasure to discuss with you the matter.

Here's what I don't think you get yet: by your post here, it's obvious that you think this exchange literally, historically happened, because it's in the bible. But that's most likely not the case! The John story is most likely not literally real -- it's most likely "made up." But for us, the veracity of the story lies not in it's historical accuracy, but in it's portrayal of a truth.

(BTW: read the text again. They weren't asking Elijah. They were asking John.)

 

[Britedream]

Here's what I don't think you get yet: by your post here, it's obvious that you think this exchange literally, historically happened, because it's in the bible. But that's most likely not the case! The John story is most likely not literally real -- it's most likely "made up." But for us, the veracity of the story lies not in it's historical accuracy, but in it's portrayal of a truth.

(BTW: read the text again. They weren't asking Elijah. They were asking John.)

Thank you for the correction, but Christian religion is base on the Bible, if you can't accept the Bible as the word of God then there is no point of debating.

 

[sojourner]

Thank you for the correction, but Christian religion is base on the Bible, if you can't accept the Bible as the word of God then there is no point of debating.

No. The Christian religion is not "based on the bible." The heretical concept of "sola scriptura" came about 1500 years after the founding of the church. Most of the early Christians were illiterate, and there simply was not a "bible" for the first 450 years of the church. Therefore, the church cannot be "based on the bible."

The assertion that the bible "is the word of God" is part of the sola scriptura heresy. The bible was written by people, under inspiration (we believe) of the Holy Spirit.

The Christian religion is based upon relationship -- not the bible. It's as I told you at the outset: Until you understand where we're coming from, you have no business telling us what we "should" believe.

Will you find many Christians who do accept sola scriptura, believe their faith is founded solely on the scriptures that were "written by God?" Of course! But, by and large, their theological arguments take a wide departure from the Tradition of the church across two millennia and are hard to reconcile with reason.

 

[Britedream]

No. The Christian religion is not "based on the bible." The heretical concept of "sola scriptura" came about 1500 years after the founding of the church. Most of the early Christians were illiterate, and there simply was not a "bible" for the first 450 years of the church. Therefore, the church cannot be "based on the bible."

The assertion that the bible "is the word of God" is part of the sola scriptura heresy. The bible was written by people, under inspiration (we believe) of the Holy Spirit.

The Christian religion is based upon relationship -- not the bible. It's as I told you at the outset: Until you understand where we're coming from, you have no business telling us what we "should" believe.

Will you find many Christians who do accept sola scriptura, believe their faith is founded solely on the scriptures that were "written by God?" Of course! But, by and large, their theological arguments take a wide departure from the Tradition of the church across two millennia and are hard to reconcile with reason.

if you say your religion is only for you, then that is fine, but if you say your religion is for everyone, yet you have to believe in my religion, before you can raise a question regarding my religion, that makes no sense. Our debate is about what prove either one of us has, in regard to God and his relation with his creation. claiming something doesn't make it true, nor the practice of others makes it viable. only facts and proves.

 

[sojourner]

if you say your religion is only for you, then that is fine, but if you say your religion is for everyone, yet you have to believe in my religion, before you can raise a question regarding my religion, that makes no sense. Our debate is about what prove either one of us has, in regard to God and his relation with his creation. claiming something doesn't make it true, nor the practice of others makes it viable. only facts and proves.

1) I didn't say you couldn't raise a question. I said you had no business correcting our theology.

2) No. The debate isn't about proof. It's about the process of theological construction. No one can "prove" anything about God.

3) A theological construction is valid if it serves to improve our life and how we relate in the real world.

 

[Sleeppy]

Just wait , and you will see what i am refering to is entirely different,some of it you can Actually test your self

I watched the part about the chapters and verses.. These types of "coincidences" are not unique to the Quran. Type "Bible Codes" into your Google search.

Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker ... - Jonathan C. Smith - Google Books

 

[Britedream]

I watched the part about the chapters and verses.. These types of "coincidences" are not unique to the Quran. Type "Bible Codes" into your Google search.

Pseudoscience and Extraordinary Claims of the Paranormal: A Critical Thinker ... - Jonathan C. Smith - Google Books

coincidences do Happens, but to say it is possible to produce a book, that compose of 6236 verse randomly put over period of 23 years, with too many numbers tallying, to me this is unlikely, now leave the summation alone, and just take a pen and a paper and write 10 phrases each in separate paper, put them all in a jar, mix it, and take one at a time and write it, see if they make sense for the first time, now imagine, 6236 verses put at Random over 23 years, produce a book that no one was able to match it, in its beauty , accuracy with Science, and future prophecy, if you think all that is contributed to coincidence, I have nothing to say. please watch the whole lecture to appreciate it.

 

[Britedream]

1) I didn't say you couldn't raise a question. I said you had no business correcting our theology.

2) No. The debate isn't about proof. It's about the process of theological construction. No one can "prove" anything about God.

3) A theological construction is valid if it serves to improve our life and how we relate in the real world.

1-I am not correcting your theology, nor I care to do so, I am just showing you, that it doesn't make sense to me.
2- you are wrong on this one

3- do whatever pleases you, but please, don't contribute it to God unless you have a proof.

 

[Sleeppy]

coincidences do Happens, but to say it is possible to produce a book, that compose of 6236 verse randomly put over period of 23 years, with too many numbers tallying, to me this is unlikely, now leave the summation alone, and just take a pen and a paper and write 10 phrases each in separate paper, put them all in a jar, mix it, and take one at a time and write it, see if they make sense for the first time, now imagine, 6236 verses put at Random over 23 years, produce a book that no one was able to match it, in its beauty , accuracy with Science, and future prophecy, if you think all that is contributed to coincidence, I have nothing to say. please watch the whole lecture to appreciate it.

These types of 'coincidences' are a lot more common than you realize. I took the time to look at the video; you take the time to research Bible code probabilities, and to read that link I provided. Even greater coincidences occur outside of the Quran. Quran is not perfect in regards to science or prophecy. You're being misled. The importance of Quran is not in coincidence or science; you should test the actual teachings for effectiveness in bringing peaceful relations between God's creation.

 

[Britedream]

These types of 'coincidences' are a lot more common than you realize. I took the time to look at the video; you take the time to research Bible code probabilities, and to read that link I provided. Even greater coincidences occur outside of the Quran. Quran is not perfect in regards to science or prophecy. You're being misled. The importance of Quran is not in coincidence or science; you should test the actual teachings for effectiveness in bringing peaceful relations between God's creation.

Quran is not perfect..., please prove it to me.