Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/2/09 10:04 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 2/2/09 10:00 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/2/09 09:57 PM, aninjaman wrote: But if God creates morals and also creates us, why aren't we infused with these set morals?
Why aren't they in my genes?

Are you really refuting a clearly logical flaw with a presumption of God's will?

I don't know why God does things or doesn't do things.
I was just asking why doesn't God if God could.
If God wants us to follow a set of morals why doesn't God make it so we have to follow said morals?
Why does God give us the option to sin?

Why are we spending our valuable and all to short time on here talking about things we will never resolve?

Some people believe one thing, some people believe the other, accept that everyone will think differently, and have the grace to move on....

too simple?

At 2/4/09 03:25 PM, Jonowales wrote: Why are we spending our valuable and all to short time on here talking about things we will never resolve?

Some people believe one thing, some people believe the other, accept that everyone will think differently, and have the grace to move on....

too simple?

Why do dumbasses like you always appear and tell people to stop arguing? I mean, come on, this is a forum ment for arguing, and this is a topic meant for arguing about atheism. Can't you just accept that and get out? Why do you have to come and tell us to stop having fun?

Why do dumb asses like you always appear and tell people to stop arguing? I mean, come on, this is a forum meant for arguing, and this is a topic meant for arguing about atheism. Can't you just accept that and get out? Why do you have to come and tell us to stop having fun?

fair point, i just get tired because it seems like the same old topics and debates and points keep coming up.

At 2/4/09 03:39 PM, Jonowales wrote:

Why do dumb asses like you always appear and tell people to stop arguing? I mean, come on, this is a forum meant for arguing, and this is a topic meant for arguing about atheism. Can't you just accept that and get out? Why do you have to come and tell us to stop having fun?

fair point, i just get tired because it seems like the same old topics and debates and points keep coming up.

If you are so tired of the same old topics, then don't click on them, read them, and then reply saying that people should stop arguing. Instead, avoid clicking the topic, and go about with whatever you were doing.

At 2/4/09 01:41 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:
Better yet. Why does everyone here keep flying right by any argument I make, to make the point that believing in God to begin with is frivolous? Honestly. What the hell guys.

becuase the people here love to argue, including me.

Atheism is a mental illness and they must be locked up.

At 2/4/09 07:07 PM, thedo12 wrote: becuase the people here love to argue, including me.

Whats there to love... or really whats there to argue if you keep taking any argument related to God and yank it/mold it/warp it into the same old argument you've been over a million times before?

For 6 pages now...

Me: If you believe in God, then this.
Others: But believing in God is stupid.
Me: Ok... that's nice, but given the belief in God...
Others: Believing in God makes no sense.
Me: I get that... but if one bel-
Othes: But God is imaginary!

Yes. Your love of debate shines ever so brightly through your insistence on asking questions you've already baited the answer to - questions that seem to at all costs avoid any new arguments.

At 2/4/09 07:33 PM, Mugabe wrote: Atheism is a mental illness and they must be locked up.

How intolerant and stereotypical for you to say that. Religious veiws are a small factor of live that are in the grand skeem of things small. Everyone has their own veiw and are entitled to them. I personally am an Atheist and feel no need for religious ties or the need to follow a set deity. But I do respect others beliefs enough to see some benifits having religion in peoples lives can have, And I would not do anything to compromise that. My point in all of this is this , Religion is a matter of opinon and their are a maltatude of different belief systems making it impossible to say that one is correct and the other is not, What we can do though is to grant the person religious freedom and humbly respect others ideals.

At 2/4/09 07:33 PM, Mugabe wrote: Atheism is a mental illness and they must be locked up.

i wonder if religiosity works in any way like sexual orientation. it does seem like it does in the sense that there generally is no clear line between the religious and irreligious but more of placement on a spectrum in the same manner that there is no clear split between hetero and homosexuality.

At 2/3/09 05:40 PM, aninjaman wrote: I get. So God its either God makes it so we can't sin or we get to have free will.

I've been wondering about this.
To what extent do you believe God gives us free will where that stops and God starts controlling us again. Also if God gives us free will and some control of our actions does that mean he isn't omnipotent?

At 2/5/09 05:28 PM, aninjaman wrote: To what extent do you believe God gives us free will where that stops and God starts controlling us again. Also if God gives us free will and some control of our actions does that mean he isn't omnipotent?

As far as I know... the devil is generally the only supernatural character that 'influences' our decisions as direct as 'whispering in our ears'. God controls us to the extent that nature controls us, barring the rare "miracle".

If God provides free will by design, then he his still omnipotent. Free will is not the same thing as the rock paradox, unless free will makes it impossible for God to control you.

At 2/5/09 08:12 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: As far as I know... the devil is generally the only supernatural character that 'influences' our decisions as direct as 'whispering in our ears'. God controls us to the extent that nature controls us, barring the rare "miracle".

Haven't most Christians discarded the notion of a "devil", at least as some kind of active power? Many denominations of Christianity believe that evil is a product of freewill, but everyone was given the potential to be good. Without the option, there would be no "good" by comparison. No devil fits into the equasion, Christianity is not a bidietic religion.

At 2/5/09 08:16 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Haven't most Christians discarded the notion of a "devil", at least as some kind of active power?

Really?

Many denominations of Christianity believe that evil is a product of freewill, but everyone was given the potential to be good.

That is either badly put or wrong. Good and evil are the product of free will. Good is the product of following God. Evil is the product of following temptation ~ generally understood to be inspired by satan or attributed to satan's presence.

No devil fits into the equasion, Christianity is not a bidietic religion.

Satan is not a diety. He's a fallen angel. Angels are supernatural too.

At 2/5/09 08:32 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: That is either badly put or wrong. Good and evil are the product of free will. Good is the product of following God. Evil is the product of following temptation ~ generally understood to be inspired by satan or attributed to satan's presence.

Wasn't evil created in humans after eternal sin? (and no the bible doesn't say the snake was the devil like most claim)

So you're good if you follow God? Right, if a man who works and donates money to charity isn't good unless he follows God?

Cool.

At 2/5/09 09:09 PM, Brick-top wrote: Wasn't evil created in humans after eternal sin? (and no the bible doesn't say the snake was the devil like most claim)

The bible doesn't say alot of things people think it does.

It's canon that the serpent was either the devil or an agent of the devil.

And I think you mean original sin.

So you're good if you follow God? Right, if a man who works and donates money to charity isn't good unless he follows God?

He follows God's rules. He does not follow God. He's good, but he's still a sinner.

At 2/5/09 09:28 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/5/09 09:09 PM, Brick-top wrote: Wasn't evil created in humans after eternal sin? (and no the bible doesn't say the snake was the devil like most claim)

The bible doesn't say alot of things people think it does.

That's called assumptions ;)

It's canon that the serpent was either the devil or an agent of the devil.

It's also canon that the serpent was an aliens that left planet zule and invaded earth and spend the remainder of it's days up the anus of a lawyer.

Making claims that can't be backed up even with scripture is fun isn't it?

And I think you mean original sin.

Whatever.

So you're good if you follow God? Right, if a man who works and donates money to charity isn't good unless he follows God?

He follows God's rules. He does not follow God. He's good, but he's still a sinner.

How could he follow gods rules if he is unaware of them?

He's still a sinner? So a loving Jew with a children and a wife is going to hell. But someone who constantly breaks the law and then repents to god and begs for forgiveness can get off scot free?

Great, I'm going to murder someone and then accept the bible. Wooo heaven for mee!

At 2/5/09 09:36 PM, Brick-top wrote: It's also canon that the serpent was [etc.]

No that's not canon.

How could he follow gods rules if he is unaware of them?

Because there's alot of crossover between secular and religious morality.

He's still a sinner? So a loving Jew with a children and a wife is going to hell. But someone who constantly breaks the law and then repents to god and begs for forgiveness can get off scot free?

Y-

Great, I'm going to murder someone and then accept the bible. Wooo heaven for mee!

That's nice.

At 2/5/09 09:36 PM, Brick-top wrote: It's also canon that the serpent was an aliens that left planet zule and invaded earth and spend the remainder of it's days up the anus of a lawyer.

Making claims that can't be backed up even with scripture is fun isn't it?

?

At 2/5/09 10:18 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/5/09 09:36 PM, Brick-top wrote: It's also canon that the serpent was [etc.]

No that's not canon.

Quick question, what the hell does canon mean and why is the serpant the devil?

At 2/5/09 10:54 PM, Brick-top wrote: Quick question, what the hell does canon mean and

Are you asking because you think I'm misusing the word or are you asking because you really don't know? If the case is the former, how about you just get to the point.

why is the serpant the devil?

Clarify your use of the word "why" please. Are you asking for purpose or mechanism? What level of abstraction are you asking on: one believed the serpent is the devil; canon says the serpent is the devil; the serpent is the devil?

At 2/5/09 11:06 PM, Bacchanalian wrote:

At 2/5/09 10:54 PM, Brick-top wrote: Quick question, what the hell does canon mean and

Are you asking because you think I'm misusing the word or are you asking because you really don't know? If the case is the former, how about you just get to the point.

I'm asking to clarify the meaning and useage of the word. I've posted dictionary definitions on this site more than once however all I get back is "it's the internet so it's unreliable" so I decided to ask you directly instead of checking myself.

why is the serpant the devil?

Clarify your use of the word "why" please. Are you asking for purpose or mechanism? What level of abstraction are you asking on: one believed the serpent is the devil; canon says the serpent is the devil; the serpent is the devil?

I would basically like to know how people came to the conclusion the serpant was the devil. Are there any biblical texts saying it's the devil or are people just assuming it's the devil?

So I was wondering, how does a lamb become Jesus?

I've checked all the dictionaries, even the religious ones, and there is no explanation why or how Jesus turned into a sheep. We all know religious people are really sheeple in disguise, but that doesn't prove Jesus was a sheep, otherwise we'd all be worshipping cattle and birds.

At 2/6/09 10:11 AM, Brick-top wrote: I'm asking to clarify the meaning and useage of the word. I've posted dictionary definitions on this site more than once however all I get back is "it's the internet so it's unreliable" so I decided to ask you directly instead of checking myself.

The definition I'm using would be this one...
"the body of rules, principles, or standards accepted as axiomatic and universally binding in a field of study or art"

... and looking at the others on dictionary.com I can understand the need to clarify.

I would basically like to know how people came to the conclusion the serpant was the devil. Are there any biblical texts saying it's the devil or are people just assuming it's the devil?

Do you mean the initial founder(s) of this particular belief, the individual(s) in the midst of the modern continuum, or the 'expert(s)' in the midst of the modern contiuum?

At 2/6/09 05:33 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: Do you mean the initial founder(s) of this particular belief, the individual(s) in the midst of the modern continuum, or the 'expert(s)' in the midst of the modern contiuum?

Basically I'd like to see a quote from any Bible specifically saying the serpant was the devil. Otherwise it's an assumption.

At 2/6/09 05:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Basically I'd like to see a quote from any Bible specifically saying the serpant was the devil. Otherwise it's an assumption.

it is the accepted interpretation of the Church.

At 2/6/09 05:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/6/09 05:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Basically I'd like to see a quote from any Bible specifically saying the serpant was the devil. Otherwise it's an assumption.

it is the accepted interpretation of the Church.

maybe not the devil per-say, but something evil that is identified as the devil given his (devil, not the snake) habit of trying to tempt humans and fuck with God.

At 2/6/09 05:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/6/09 05:47 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/6/09 05:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Basically I'd like to see a quote from any Bible specifically saying the serpant was the devil. Otherwise it's an assumption.

it is the accepted interpretation of the Church.

maybe not the devil per-say, but something evil that is identified as the devil given his (devil, not the snake) habit of trying to tempt humans and fuck with God.

But that's not evidence. If that was the case I could say the snake was a giant marshmellow in disguise and it would have the same merit as saying the devil or a associate did it.

At 2/6/09 05:39 PM, Brick-top wrote: Basically I'd like to see a quote from any Bible specifically saying the serpant was the devil. Otherwise it's an assumption.

No it's not, or have you conviniently forgotten now, in the midst of making a scientific document of the Bible, that religion is faith based? Faith in the Bible, and faith in your superiors to accurately interpret the Bible. And as for the clergymen who make the "assumption," they're interpretation of the Bible is approved by God.

At 2/6/09 05:59 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: No it's not, or have you conviniently forgotten now, in the midst of making a scientific document of the Bible, that religion is faith based? Faith in the Bible, and faith in your superiors to accurately interpret the Bible. And as for the clergymen who make the "assumption," they're interpretation of the Bible is approved by God.

Does the bible say the serpant is the devil?

No.

Is there anything to claim the serpant is the devil?

No.

Is it therefor an assumption based on no texts to prove otherwise?

Yes.

Nuff said. The 'interpretation' and this serpant example is evident the bible is too vague to make any solid conclusions on the events specified in the Bible.

At 2/6/09 06:20 PM, Brick-top wrote: Does the bible say the serpant is the devil?

No.

It doesn't have to.

Is there anything to claim the serpant is the devil?

No.

It doesn't have to.

Is it therefor an assumption based on no texts to prove otherwise?

Yes.

Only if there's a Bible, but no God - and therefore no clergymen in communication with God.

Nuff said. The 'interpretation' and this serpant example is evident the bible is too vague to make any solid conclusions on the events specified in the Bible.

Honestly? You realized how half assed this is... sitting comfortably on a fence between science and religion? You presume the Bible to present this facade of "I'm looking it at from the religious perspective" and then completely refuse or ignore any other source or derivative of faith. And then... make the argument that the Bible is not concrete enough to support the canon... when you could just as easily say the Bible is lacking empirical proof... or that religion is lacking empirical proof... and atleast then you'd be right.