StarGateWars Forums

constantino wrote:ill gladly debate you my first ? to you is were you a member of the holy roman catholic church before you lost your faith in it .

I've moved this here to because it is a different debate and unfair to hijack the other topic.

I started out as a catholic indeed. I grew up thinking that God watched over me with everything I did (not that it stopped me disobeying my parents). I cant put a date or a real time on when I realised my faith was gone. I stopped going to mass because the priest who told the best homilies(think that's the plural for homily) departed for another parish and the one who remained was an alcoholic who gave mass drunk a few times(even falling on a few occasions because he couldn't handle 3 steps to the altar.) You could say I was about 16-17 when I really started to question things I was raised with. Evolution for a start, we have pretty much conclusively proven that we evolved, not just put onto the earth by God moulded from the earth, yes someone could say that if you go far enough back that we did indeed start as the earth on the long trek to here but that is in my view not what the bible meant so those words are being twisted to suit. My girlfriend has put to me that God isn't an entity but in fact the spark of life itself...the chance that something happened to kick-start evolution. I hate that so much was lost back in medieval times because of sheer ignorance on the side of the church who suppressed everything that was not doctrine.

I was raised that God forgives everyone no matter what. This seems like a clean slate regardless of what you do in life, mother Theresa and Gandhi are due the same consideration in God's eyes as Adolf Hitler and Stalin? Don't think there are many people too impressed with that idea.

Throughout history, religion has been used as another excuse for war. I really don't want like the association that gives me and using religion as a tool for drumming up support is still finding its way into war. You hear of the terrorists in the Middle-east using jihad's to increase support for their campaign and in turn, the US using Christian values to defeat the Islamic extremists that are generated. This is in response to the religious overtones to the attacks made on the US. Religion can bond people together greater than nationhood. How long before the age-old policy of plantations come back. Subdue completely and put in large numbers of friendly people to control the area, it was how the English pretty successfully quietened down Ireland during the various uprisings.

Thats long enough for now.

you didn't lose your faith. you never really had it in the first place due to the lack of understanding. don't worry, it's not your fault. hard to find a good priest who could really explain what those things are all about.

now in more details:

nomadicstruggler wrote: I stopped going to mass because the priest who told the best homilies(think that's the plural for homily) departed for another parish and the one who remained was an alcoholic who gave mass drunk a few times(even falling on a few occasions because he couldn't handle 3 steps to the altar.)

priests are only humans. there's bollixes among them too. shame.

nomadicstruggler wrote: You could say I was about 16-17 when I really started to question things I was raised with.

most 16-17 yrs old questions everything around them. this has nothing to do with religions but psychology. if you'd been raised as atheist it's very probably you'd have converted yourself to some religion.

nomadicstruggler wrote: Evolution for a start, we have pretty much conclusively proven that we evolved, not just put onto the earth by God moulded from the earth,

this story is just a way to explain certain things to ppl living 4 thousands yrs ago. they had no idea about LHCs. i could say einstein theory is crap cos on that pic universe and earth look like a sheet with some ball on it and everybody knows it doesn't look like this.

nomadicstruggler wrote:I hate that so much was lost back in medieval times because of sheer ignorance on the side of the church who suppressed everything that was not doctrine.

right. but this is a topic for debate on doctrines.. any doctrines.

nomadicstruggler wrote:I was raised that God forgives everyone no matter what. This seems like a clean slate regardless of what you do in life, mother Theresa and Gandhi are due the same consideration in God's eyes as Adolf Hitler and Stalin? Don't think there are many people too impressed with that idea.

there's forgivness. but there's also penance. penance comes first.

nomadicstruggler wrote:Throughout history, religion has been used as another excuse for war.

as has other things. mainly ideologies. even peace has been used as excuse for war. so this doesn't say anything about religion, but more about ppl.

nomadicstruggler wrote:

constantino wrote:ill gladly debate you my first ? to you is were you a member of the holy roman catholic church before you lost your faith in it .

I've moved this here to because it is a different debate and unfair to hijack the other topic.

I started out as a catholic indeed. I grew up thinking that God watched over me with everything I did (not that it stopped me disobeying my parents). I cant put a date or a real time on when I realised my faith was gone. I stopped going to mass because the priest who told the best homilies(think that's the plural for homily) departed for another parish and the one who remained was an alcoholic who gave mass drunk a few times(even falling on a few occasions because he couldn't handle 3 steps to the altar.) You could say I was about 16-17 when I really started to question things I was raised with. Evolution for a start, we have pretty much conclusively proven that we evolved, not just put onto the earth by God moulded from the earth, yes someone could say that if you go far enough back that we did indeed start as the earth on the long trek to here but that is in my view not what the bible meant so those words are being twisted to suit. My girlfriend has put to me that God isn't an entity but in fact the spark of life itself...the chance that something happened to kick-start evolution. I hate that so much was lost back in medieval times because of sheer ignorance on the side of the church who suppressed everything that was not doctrine.

I was raised that God forgives everyone no matter what. This seems like a clean slate regardless of what you do in life, mother Theresa and Gandhi are due the same consideration in God's eyes as Adolf Hitler and Stalin? Don't think there are many people too impressed with that idea.

Throughout history, religion has been used as another excuse for war. I really don't want like the association that gives me and using religion as a tool for drumming up support is still finding its way into war. You hear of the terrorists in the Middle-east using jihad's to increase support for their campaign and in turn, the US using Christian values to defeat the Islamic extremists that are generated. This is in response to the religious overtones to the attacks made on the US. Religion can bond people together greater than nationhood. How long before the age-old policy of plantations come back. Subdue completely and put in large numbers of friendly people to control the area, it was how the English pretty successfully quietened down Ireland during the various uprisings.

Thats long enough for now.

okay ill start my argument agianst eveloution . eveloution is pretty much the same as the theory of spontanious generation . but the ironic thing is that it was disproven im not sure on the scientist i think it was either louis pasture or boyle . also if eveloution was real in my opion it should still be going on today . They has never been any fossil or proof of a missing link .
and most of thier bones they use have been proven to be something else not what they say it was . and also alot of the pictures you see were put togather from a small piece of bone or teeth or something like that . so scientist are basically coming up with what they think the skull looks like based on that little piece of bone or tooth . also we must rember eveloution is a theory not a fact as it made out to be nobody has proved eveloution and according to the scientifoc method it has to be able to be proved and proved agian through experiminatation and so it can not be a fact until someone proves it through experimintation

Why do you revert to a discussion about evolution instead of actually debating Christianity, constantino? Evolution, Creationism, they're all irrelevant in light of the higher debate going on.


A proper student of science knows that religion says nothing about science, and science nothing about religion. Too bad for all those trying to argue faith with reason.
Greek mentality going down.


Anyway, I like what you write, Corran. Can find a lot of what I feel in your words.

Lois Lane wrote:Why do you revert to a discussion about evolution instead of actually debating Christianity, constantino? Evolution, Creationism, they're all irrelevant in light of the higher debate going on.


A proper student of science knows that religion says nothing about science, and science nothing about religion. Too bad for all those trying to argue faith with reason.
Greek mentality going down.


Anyway, I like what you write, Corran. Can find a lot of what I feel in your words.

okay then explain this how come that jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies that were told about the messiah i mean there is over a thousand prophecies and he fulfilled every single one and also the prophet Isaih even wrote that the earth was round and we know he was wright but at the time the common school of thought was the earth was flat and this was written in the B.C. era

constantino wrote:okay then explain this how come that jesus fulfilled all of the prophecies that were told about the messiah i mean there is over a thousand prophecies and he fulfilled every single one

Duh! Because the bible said so. Everyone knows that.

Constantino: You fail to define 'Christianity', no serious debate can be had until you do.

Are you talking about the basic ideas of Christianity (core beliefs, if yes, do specify), the doctrine and dogmas surrounding it (if yes, do specify), the religion (historically and present day, the 'people', not the beliefs).. ??


Spouting random facts about what certain Christian people did, or prophets in the Old Days said, is not a debate about Christianity, but an information-contest without end.

Don't get me wrong.. I am in favour, but please, debate. Don't spout facts and fiction as if you have the absolute historical view.
Thank you. I will leave the dissemination of your words to others with more patience and less debating skills.

Kieltyka: That would be the line of reasoning that constantino appears to stick to. I do hope the debate can evolve beyond that.

@ constantino:

1. read some scientific book. i mean a book about science, that explains what science is and what is not. you clearly don't understand the word "theory" here.

2. if a "missing link" (hardly any scientist uses this term) is found, for creationist it creates two other "missing links"

3. evolution is happening today. it's bloody slow (due to relatively stable climate) so difficult to notice.

4. during and immediately after climatic uphevals evolution speeds up dramaticaly (in geological scale) so not everything has a chance to fosilize.

5. granted. no one has any idea how life came to be. (we can imagine and even create so-called "RNA worlds", we understand how living cells evolve, but the gap between self-replicating RNA and even the simpliest cell still puzzles everybody)

6. regarding Jesus. there's not enough of historical proof for all that, so someone who doesn't believe can pull out many things to counter your point. ergo: discussion pointless (btw: God usually emphasises the need to BELIEVE, so obviously there'll be no proof. if there's proof, it's no longer belief, it's KNOWLEDGE)

7. isaiah was not the only one to say that. ancient greeks knew that as well. eratosthenes even managed to estimate earth's circumference. that was about 3 centuries after isaiah, but it might be that the idea originated in india about 900 B.C. - 100 years before isaiah.
btw: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/



@ lois/auriel/whatever name ya have at the mo:

you post basically sums everything up. mods can lock it now?


@ everybody who may think i'm some sorta anti-religion or something:

read my sig carefully.

Lois Lane wrote:Constantino: You fail to define 'Christianity', no serious debate can be had until you do.

Are you talking about the basic ideas of Christianity (core beliefs, if yes, do specify), the doctrine and dogmas surrounding it (if yes, do specify), the religion (historically and present day, the 'people', not the beliefs).. ??


Spouting random facts about what certain Christian people did, or prophets in the Old Days said, is not a debate about Christianity, but an information-contest without end.

Don't get me wrong.. I am in favour, but please, debate. Don't spout facts and fiction as if you have the absolute historical view.
Thank you. I will leave the dissemination of your words to others with more patience and less debating skills.

Kieltyka: That would be the line of reasoning that constantino appears to stick to. I do hope the debate can evolve beyond that.

all right tell me which part that you have a problem with you have about christainity and ill see if i can counter your point

constantino wrote:all right tell me which part that you have a problem with you have about christainity and ill see if i can counter your point

Let's start with God and our free will. God is omniscient, yes? So, if there is a God and he really is omniscient. Then is our lives even worth living if the outcome is already known?

Kieltyka wrote:Let's start with God and our free will. God is omniscient, yes? So, if there is a God and he really is omniscient. Then is our lives even worth living if the outcome is already known?

omg.. another one...
the problem is sooooo simple and i've explained it sooo many times that i'm sick of doing it all over again... use your brains for 5 minutes in your lifes and think for urself. 5 mins in the entire life is not much. i think even youse could do it...

Kieltyka wrote:

constantino wrote:all right tell me which part that you have a problem with you have about christainity and ill see if i can counter your point

Let's start with God and our free will. God is omniscient, yes? So, if there is a God and he really is omniscient. Then is our lives even worth living if the outcome is already known?

That would be a pretty bad place to start if you ask me.

God as an absolute omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being is a human construct. To a christian, God should be 'powerful enough', 'know enough', and 'be enough' instead. Never is it said in the Bible that God can do everything, and given the Bible is a christian's basic doctrinal base, God cannot be expected to be absolute in any way.


What I dislike about the arguments as far as God is concerned, is that humans first created a definition of God as absolutely omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and then start complaining because those elements contradict things like free will, the value of human life and the predetermination of fate.

I trust you see where I am going with this? One of the core beliefs of christianity is that God promises complete restoration (even re-creation) of all of creation and the unconditional love of God for his creation. Technically speaking, an absolutely omnipotent God would have no need of promises, he could just do. But a God who promises to completely restore creation, nééds to be powerful enough to fulfill that promise. *There* is your faith. Basically, christianity asks the question whether you believe God is powerful enough to do what he promises.

*That* is something I can stand behind, understand, and accept. An absolute God with his attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, I cannot accept. Funny thing is that no one in their right mind could accept such a God.
I stand behind the God who is powerful enough to do what he promises, knows enough to do what he promises, and who is around enough to do what he promises. I also accept his promises as being complete restoration of creation (when? I do not know, nor do I care), and his unconditional love for creation, and for me as an individual.


As always, children, science and faith cannot say anything about the other. They are seperate, and a logic of absolutes 'kills' God. Nietzsche got that right.

Lois Lane wrote: humans first created a definition of God as absolutely omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, and then start complaining because those elements contradict things like free will, the value of human life and the predetermination of fate.

assume God is absolutely omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. in one word God's absolutely unlimited, ergo is not limited by the laws of logic (well, if He was omnipotence would contradict itself), so from God's point of view there's no contradiction.
this is my point of view.

An absolute God with his attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, I cannot accept. Funny thing is that no one in their right mind could accept such a God.

well.. i could... as stated above...

As always, children, science and faith cannot say anything about the other. They are seperate, and a logic of absolutes 'kills' God. Nietzsche got that right.

well.. science has to follow laws of logic.

The words 'omnipotent', 'omniscient' and 'omnipresent' are logical terms indicating unlimited power, knowledge and presence. The terms are bound by logic. Anything you summarily describe using the above terms is thus bound by logic.

You cannot invent a superlative form of logic which God adheres to, since logic requires knowledge. A God who goes above and beyond the call of logic is unimaginable (although describable since there is a discrepancy between language and reality), and as a result, nothing of value can be deduced from the statements regarding said superlogical God.



I still think 'powerful enough', 'knowing enough' and 'present enough' is sufficient to adequately describe God without it resulting in innumerable differences between the logical truth and the actual reality.

Corran Horn wrote:

Lois Lane wrote:An absolute God with his attributes of omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, I cannot accept. Funny thing is that no one in their right mind could accept such a God.

well.. i could... as stated above...

Not really.. you have created your own definition of God, the traditional (logical) definition of God is something you reject as well. That is what your first paragraph said.. Or at least, it is what I interpreted it to say.

Science has to follow logic, naturally. Since God cannot adequately be described in logical absolutes, God cannot be a part of science. As a result, all statements regarding faith cannot be of scientific value save in psychological research. Or do I step wrong here? Please do correct me where I made errors. I am here to learn.