State-Church Separation

[Gwazi Magnum]

ActRaiserTheReturned said
-My new favourite video which I take with pride-

Funny as hell! XD
However you're both resorting to not only insults, but video mockery's now. That's basically admitting defeat. :P

Also, you're confusing Brovo's points with my own, as if you paid attention I never even took part in the whole "Was Hitler a Christian" topic. I simply compared the rationale of defending the violent acts of Christianity to defending the violent acts of Nazis.

ActRaiserTheReturned said
What is your opinion on Hitler's explanation?

Well ignoring all the point's you confused between me and Brovo (which was basically the whole video), all I can say is ignoring the Nazi's hideous actions cause of one or two good things they may do or say is no different than ignoring all the violent acts of Christianity cause of one or two good things they may do or say.

So Boerd said
I did not say prove the Christian God, I said ANY God, even a non-descript one.Um, no it isn't. That's just flat wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science 101.

That still takes you back to the whole "Christianity is right" debate though we've been having after the fact though pre-warning.

But to answer this question specifically, any kind of way to proving the God's concrete existence.
How specifically? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. And scientists have a way of proving things through the very last method you'd expect them to.
But it would have be some kind of observable and show able proof and nothing something such as "Look at the world around us" or "My toast has a face on it".

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Well ignoring all the point's you confused between me and Brovo (which was basically the whole video), all I can say is ignoring the Nazi's hideous actions cause of one or two good things they may do or say is no different than ignoring all the violent acts of Christianity cause of one or two good things they may do or say.

The whole point of the video is that Hitler lied. Nazis were un-Christian, and even if you're saying that you don't believe they were Christian, you compared them to Nazis in the first place.

There is no coherent way to equate the two. Christianity does not produce mad men and lunatics. Lunatics and mad men produce corruptions of Christianity. Furthermore, the evil, despicable acts attributed to the Bible are either always because of some form of ignorance coming from the critic, or dishonesty. I like you enough to know that even though you are intelligent, you aren't dishonest either.

You have a form of ignorance that's not from a lack of brain power or dishonesty, but it's still ignorance. Buddhism, for example, has been pointed out to possess very brutal elements in Tibet before the equally, or perhaps far worse Communist bastards came along and crapped in the puke pie, but I don't believe that Buddhism is necessarily at fault, even if their society was theocratic at it's core.

I am quite tired of hypocritical critics (Not saying you are a hypocritical critic, Magic), stating some naive', foolish beyond words phrase like "Criticizing Islam is racist and bigoted" because many adherents of Islam are foreigners. It's hypocritical judgement calling Christians bigoted, when these critics don't listen to what Christians, or even secularists are even saying, and instead just gloss over what they say, censor them, if not in deed then at least in their attitudes. The definition of bigotry is refusing to learn when you are wrong, or at least refusing to accept you're wrong so that you can learn.

Yet Magic Magnum here, even though he is entitled to his views, and is respectable and smart without my own views, can go around arguing and debating with people like me (Not that's wrong to argue and debate with us), it casts suspicion on the sincerity of people who allow this from my view point.

I applaud Islam's few but notable virtues, such as hospitality, and mystical adaptation of an otherwise brutal Qurannic text. (I make no bones about it. I believe Islam is a cult, but I don't think it's people are all violent murderers or terrorists). There is supposedly even a text in the Quran about shielding infidels with Sanctuary when their lives are in danger, even though I have never read it. There's even charity in Islam, and I believe God smiles, at least in this life on the charitable, when their intentions are pure. ((Supposedly charity's flawed since it often goes to terrorist organizations, at least as much as I've heard))

Yet point out that murders are inherently not just done in the Quran, but very commanded in straightforward manner, even for the days we are living in, and you are branded some kind or racist hate monger. Now, in case I am wrong about the Quran just commanding the murders and horrible atrocities that have happened in the past to occur today, just consider this. . . Sufism, the third largest denomination in Islam, is in no position to overtake their faith and at least shed better light on what the Quran means, because as far as I'm concerned the Arabic of the Quran is just as brutal sounding as the English translations of it. Now listen because this is where I tie in Islam with this debate about Christianity, and thus Church and State.

The Bible, on the other hand, has ugly things about damnation, which I believe in, and condemnation of sins people think are not immoral. However, what is at issue here is the things which are carried out in this life, not the after life. The atrocities which were committed in the OT, and even the atrocities which are only claimed yet not present in the OT, are in the past, where they belong, and stay there. Not only that, but the Bible is written for whomever wants to read it, in Greek, Hebrew, and just plain English. It is very plain that the Bible wants us to live in moral ways that are very pleasant, produce good Samaritan neighbors, and peaceful men and women who are honorable and charitable, and seek the exhortation of others and not just themselves.

[The Nexerus]

Magic Magnum said The Bible talks about 4,000 or so years before Christ.And that was rules, times etc lead by the Christian God, Jesus's dad.Laws which were established as Christianity before Jesus came down, and according to the Bible (Which is also where Jesus's words come from), the OT was never ruled out/ignored.Unless if you mean to imply you worship Jesus, but not God.

Nothing that occurred before the birth of Christ could possibly be construed as the teachings of Christianity. Mosaic Law, or the "rules of the times" as you call it, is not a Christian principle. It has been universally agreed not to be since the Council of Jerusalem. You're confusing Christianity with Jewish Christianity, which is just ordinary orthodox Judaism but with the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Jewish Christians are Christians, but Christians do not have to be Jews (i.e. do not have to follow Mosaic Law). Councils and ecumenical conferences succeeding the Council of Jerusalem made this disparity even wider, further differentiating Christianity as a distinct faith rather than a branch of Judaism, and cementing the distinction between Christian Law and Jewish Law.

What you're arguing is about 1,960 years out of date. The Old Testament is context, not law. Christianity is about the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ ARE the teachings of God, as per the principle of hypostasis.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Magic Magnum said
Funny as hell! XDHowever you're both resorting to not only insults, but video mockery's now. That's basically admitting defeat. :PAlso, you're confusing Brovo's points with my own, as if you paid attention I never even took part in the whole "Was Hitler a Christian" topic. I simply compared the rationale of defending the violent acts of Christianity to defending the violent acts of Nazis.Well ignoring all the point's you confused between me and Brovo (which was basically the whole video), all I can say is ignoring the Nazi's hideous actions cause of one or two good things they may do or say is no different than ignoring all the violent acts of Christianity cause of one or two good things they may do or say.That still takes you back to the whole "Christianity is right" debate though we've been having after the fact though pre-warning. But to answer this question specifically, any kind of way to proving the God's concrete existence.How specifically? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. And scientists have a way of proving things through the very last method you'd expect them to.But it would have be some kind of observable and show able proof and nothing something such as "Look at the world around us" or "My toast has a face on it".

OH, and I wasn't insulting you, Magic Magnum. It's just a video.

[Gwazi Magnum]

ActRaiserTheReturned said The whole point of the video is that Hitler lied. Nazis were un-Christian, and even if you're saying that you don't believe they were Christian, you compared them to Nazis in the first place.There is no coherent way to equate the two.

Like I said, I never took part in the whole "was Hitler a Christian" part.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Christianity does not produce mad men and lunatics. Lunatics and mad men produce corruptions of Christianity.

People would be violent without Religion, this much is true. We are a naturally violent species.
But Religion is what people used to justify being violent, it was a tool, a weapon and excuse for such violent acts to take place.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Furthermore, the evil, despicable acts attributed to the Bible are either always because of some form of ignorance coming from the critic, or dishonesty.

Or maybe the book really does support these despicable acts... which we have referenced and shown you in the Bible many times now.

Like honestly, this isn't a debatable topic. The Bible is a violent book that allows/accepts violent acts.
It says this constantly.

ActRaiserTheReturned said I like you enough to know that even though you are intelligent, you aren't dishonest either. You have a form of ignorance that's not from a lack of brain power or dishonesty, but it's still ignorance.

No, it's just me understanding basic English and that "Stoning your child" or "Raping women" means "Stoning your child and raping women" and not something like "God was kind and only allows for good".

ActRaiserTheReturned said when these critics don't listen to what Christians, or even secularists are even saying, and instead just gloss over what they say, censor them, if not in deed then at least in their attitudes.

No, we're listening to you. We're just not agreeing with you, there's a difference.

If you want to say "God says X and does Y" but then we look at the Bible/Gods words and it in fact says "God says N and does M" we're going to by what your God is saying.

ActRaiserTheReturned said The definition of bigotry is refusing to learn when you are wrong, or at least refusing to accept you're wrong so that you can learn.

big·ot noun \ˈbi-gət\
: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)

It seems to mean someone who is hateful or un-accepting of others, not someone who doesn't to admit when they're wrong.
However, regardless of that me and Brovo had been the only one's referencing/quoting your God. You've been the ones to ignore your own God's words and substitute it for other things.

So obviously I'm not going to say I'm in the wrong if even your own God disagrees with you.

ActRaiserTheReturned said The atrocities which were committed in the OT, and even the atrocities which are only claimed yet not present in the OT, are in the past, where they belong, and stay there.

It's all still there though, in the Bible. As God's word, something which he at least at some point supported, allowed and accepted among his followers.
But then we still get to the fact that the Bible never dismissed these as simply OT, as far as God and the Bible is concerned the OT is still to be listened to.

ActRaiserTheReturned said Not only that, but the Bible is written for whomever wants to read it, in Greek, Hebrew, and just plain English.

Like all pieces of literature, they are made for a specific audience.
But that does not change the contents inside of it.

ActRaiserTheReturned said It is very plain that the Bible wants us to live in moral ways that are very pleasant, produce good Samaritan neighbors, and peaceful men and women who are honorable and charitable, and seek the exhortation of others and not just themselves.

Any single Bible quote referenced in this entire debate disagree's with this statement entirely.

The Nexerus said Nothing that occurred before the birth of Christ could possibly be construed as the teachings of Christianity. Mosaic Law, or the "rules of the times" as you call it, is not a Christian principle. It has been universally agreed not to be since the Council of Jerusalem. You're confusing Christianity with Jewish Christianity, which is just ordinary orthodox Judaism but with the acceptance of Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah. Jewish Christians are Christians, but Christians do not have to be Jews (i.e. do not have to follow Mosaic Law). Councils and ecumenical conferences succeeding the Council of Jerusalem made this disparity even wider, further differentiating Christianity as a distinct faith rather than a branch of Judaism, and cementing the distinction between Christian Law and Jewish Law.What you're arguing is about 1,960 years out of date. The Old Testament is context, not law. Christianity is about the teachings of Christ. The teachings of Christ ARE the teachings of God, as per the principle of hypostasis.

But are they not all teachings of the same God? OT and Jesus's words alike? Same mouth, same source, same book.
If OT was honestly meant to be something separate and not part of Christianity why is it even still part of the Bible?
If it truly was not part of Christianity, what point does it have in the book that is meant to be the Religion of Christianity?

If they were simply Jewish teachings should they not be separate and not in the same book? And not be counted as Gods words?

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

I hope you can just agree to disagree.

[The Nexerus]

Magic Magnum said But are they not all teachings of the same God? OT and Jesus's words alike? Same mouth, same source, same book.If OT was honestly meant to be something separate and not part of Christianity why is it even still part of the Bible?If it truly was not part of Christianity, what point does it have in the book that is meant to be the Religion of Christianity?If they were simply Jewish teachings should they not be separate and not in the same book? And not be counted as Gods words?

They are all divinely inspired. You seem to misunderstand the teachings of Christianity with regard to scripture; God did not literally reach down with an ethereal hand and physically write the Bible. It was written, according to Christian teaching, by human beings who were divinely inspired. The same thing occurs with Islam and the Quran—Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel, as a representative of God, gave Muhammad the knowledge to write what he did, just as he had done with the prophets of the older faiths, whom Muslims recognize as legitimate prophets (including Jesus, even). Jews believe the same sort of thing about the prophets.

You need to remember that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are entirely separate, and made with God between two different parties—in the older case, the Israelites, and in the newer case, all of humanity. The reason that the Old Testament and New Testament are both within the Bible is what I've been telling you in all of my posts so far, but that you've apparently ignored. Context. The Old Testament explains the prophecy of the Messiah, of 'Christ', and tells the mutual heritage of all of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam alike. There's also the matter of a disagreement amount the different denominations of Christians over whether some of the Old Testament, specifically the Old Covenant, does apply to Christians. In my previous post I expressed the most mainstream view: that they're entirely and completely separate, and the Old Covenant is in no way whatsoever binding to Christians. There is also a popular view among Protestant Christian denominations that the moral teachings of the Old Covenant apply to Christians, but not the pen of the laws and rules for Orthodox Jews.

The Old Testament is a part of the Bible chiefly for contextual and historical reasons, but some denominations also believe that the moral teachings ring true as well. No one besides Jewish Christians would tell you that Christians must be Torah-submissive.

[Kho]

The Nexerus said The same thing occurs with Islam and the Quran—Muslims believe that the angel Gabriel, as a representative of God, gave Muhammad the knowledge to write what he did, just as he had done with the prophets of the older faiths, whom Muslims recognize as legitimate prophets (including Jesus, even).

I don't think this is entirely correct. While Christians accept the concept of divine inspiration, where the spirit of God enters a human and inspires them to write the will of God, in very human language and words within the limited knowledge of the one being inspired, Muslims do not accept this, and do not believe that was the case with the Qur'an or any of the 'Books of God'. They believe that the Qur'an is the exact word of God, conveyed in the exact wording of God from Gabriel to Muhammed who then taught it to his followers orally. It was only compiled as a written book after Muhammed's death.

Anyway, please do carry on, this is quite an interesting debate.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Kho said
I don't think this is entirely correct. While Christians accepts the concept of divine inspiration, where the spirit of God enters a human and inspires them to write the will of God, in very human language and words within the limited knowledge of the one being inspired, Muslims do not accept this, and do not believe that was the case with Qur'an. They believe that the Qur'an is the exact word of God, conveyed in the exact wording of God from Gabriel to Muhammed who then taught it to his followers orally. It was only compiled as a written book after Muhammed's death.Anyway, please do carry on, this is quite an interesting debate.

Intelligence is not allowed on RPGuild, get out!!! :D
/jk

[So Boerd]

But to answer this question specifically, any kind of way to proving the God's concrete existence.
How specifically? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. And scientists have a way of proving things through the very last method you'd expect them to.

Let me adopt a different tactic. Every scientist on Planet Earth, Dawkins included, knocks on your door and says there is a God. Do you then believe?

[Kho]

Magic Magnum said But to answer this question specifically, any kind of way to proving the God's concrete existence.How specifically? I don't know, I'm not a scientist. And scientists have a way of proving things through the very last method you'd expect them to.But it would have be some kind of observable and show able proof and nothing something such as "Look at the world around us" or "My toast has a face on it".

I'm just selecting interesting things to respond to.

I think we will find that the point of the concept of 'belief' is that there has to be an essence of 'faith.' When I have faith in you to do the right things or get the grades you should etc. I do not base this faith in you on scientific, observable evidence. I think that Magnum is intelligent, cares for himself, has a history of doing the right thing and has a personality which tends towards hard work. I therefore believe that he will do the right thing due to his reputation and I now have faith in him to continue doing that in the future. No scientific evidence could ever prove that you will. But I have looked at all the available evidence, as a scientist would, and with that all in mind, I make a logical, reasoned conclusion. That is what many people call a 'leap of faith' though we must understand that while most people, in a real life situation such as whether I should have faith in Magnum or not, go to the trouble of examining the evidence before deciding to have faith or not, when it comes to the more divine and spiritual, such an approach is deemed ludicrous and mad. But let us try.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that God exists. Let us make that a fact. Now, firstly, we must understand why in the world he's put us here. Well, God-logic which can be construed from the Abrahamic faiths suggests to us that at some point we lived in perfect harmony and bliss before disobeying him, causing him to send us down here to test us. He wants to see who will believe in him and who won't. But as is the case in all tests, the one thing you're never given is the answer. That bit comes from you. What we are given are endless hints and suggestions which lead us closer and closer to gaining a wider understanding of the world, ourselves and God. Of course, no matter how much you stare at the sky or watch ants and worms, you're not really going to be convinced that there is a God. Some may make the leap of faith there, others might not see it as sufficient evidence. So God decides to send down books and messengers to help the more cynical along. There is now no religion with a book which does not claim scientific miracles within its scriptures, and upon observation of these 'miracles' we find that many of them do indeed coincide with scientific discoveries made in the past century and unavailable at the time these books were first compiled. Thus a logical person would be naturally driven to wonder at how such scientific discoveries of the past century can be found in such ancient books, and this is where most people stop, choosing to believe in a God, but not any particular one. That is their leap of faith, which is really the easy way of saying "Ok ok, I can see there are lottsa gods, but only one is God, so I believe in whichever one of you is God, now leave me alone and let me into whatever heaven you have for me when I die." And God, since we assume he exists, isn't all too chuffed with that unfortunately as he really wants people to actively believe in the religion he 'sent down' if you will. Only one can be right, right?

So the journey doesn't stop with belief in God. But that's another tale all together.

To summarise then, the very nature of this world as a 'test' by God to see who will gather all the possible evidences before daring to take a 'leap of faith' makes it impossible to go through the full scientific process when it comes to proving God's existence. We can only gather evidences and proofs which we personally find convincing enough to allow us to take a 'leap of faith' based on research and logic.

You may now stop assuming.

[Brovo]

*Whistles* Man does time fly by when one's having fun.

Also Gat's pretty much got it nailed. But I guess I can take pot shots at some of the sillier stuff anyway.

The idea that the Gospel is more than the Bible, and can openly contradict the Bible, is hilarious nonsense. That's like saying that my headcanoning of two characters in a fictional universe is actually canon because I say so. The Bible is the one stop shopping mall for Christianity and to claim, with any kind of authority, that anything beyond the Bible is true, is just plain wrong in every aspect.

This would be like if I claimed that the Constitution also has side notes that nobody else can see which allow me to contravene any argument conveniently. Like why Guantanamo doesn't somehow violate pretty much every single thing on the Constitution.

@So Boerd: The minimum amount of evidence that would be required for me to believe in God would be if there was physical evidence of his or her existence that could be verified by the scientific method. Seeing as how there is none, the claim has no evidence, and is thus tossed aside like elves and fairy god parents accordingly to my own belief system, which is belief only in the rational.

@Gwazi: Don't let ActRaiser's typical personal assaults get to you. It's what he usually does when he knows he's blatantly wrong.

@Kho: This whole thing sounds nice except that it still doesn't really get past the fact that God sets up an impossible test, dooms people he preprogrammed to be destined for doom, then proclaims total righteousness whilst condemning people to eternal purgatory for otherwise non-eternal crimes.

EDIT

Oh, and, yeah. No evidence for him. Whatsoever. Skepticism decrees I can't buy that.

EDIT #2

On second thought, nahh, forget the citations. Your argument isn't really all that bad, it's a different view.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

@Gwazi: Don't let ActRaiser's typical personal assaults get to you. It's what he usually does when he knows he's blatantly wrong.

[So Boerd]

@So Boerd: The minimum amount of evidence that would be required for me to believe in God would be if there was physical evidence of his or her existence that could be verified by the scientific method. Seeing as how there is none, the claim has no evidence, and is thus tossed aside like elves and fairy god parents accordingly to my own belief system, which is belief only in the rational.

Be careful with your choice of words. You cannot say there is none, only that you haven't observed any.

Now, use the hypothetical I gave Gwazi. Every scientist goes up to you and says a God exists. Would you therefore believe?

[Brovo]

So Boerd said
Be careful with your choice of words. You cannot say there is none, only that you haven't observed any.Now, use the hypothetical I gave Gwazi. Every scientist goes up to you and says a God exists. Would you therefore believe?

Depends, are we on Pluto?

Though in all seriousness? Probably, if they had the evidence for it. I don't believe people blindly, I tend to fact check things, even from people I ordinarily trust or people in positions of authority on the subject I'll typically at least take a side glance. If scientists all over the world were proclaiming that God exists, and had the evidence to back it up, I would probably believe it. At that point I'd probably go through a sort of revelation and feel awe and wonder and look up at the sky and wonder which God it was, or if there was more than one God, if God had a gender, if he had a name, if he was flawed, if he was still here, and so on.

In essence: If it did turn out tomorrow that there was a God who could be proven rationally with evidence and it was supported by the overall scientific community, I would simply adjust my own world view to accommodate it. I'm not afraid to be wrong, if I'm wrong that just means there's something more to learn, which is quite delightful, it means there's still mystery to the world.

EDIT

As for the comment about evidence, as I've said before, I only believe that which I can physically see. If someone else say, saw that there was a ghost in their living room, I wouldn't believe it on heresay. I need to see that evidence myself before I can believe it personally.

[So Boerd]

Would you need to physically see the evidence, in person, or is their word sufficient?

[Brovo]

So Boerd said
Would you need to physically see the evidence, in person, or is their word sufficient?

Scientists? I need to see the evidence exists. Like with evolution.

In science... Hm... How to explain this... The scientific community has a lot of different people from all over the world in the same fields. Therefore, different opinions, ideas, and so on, crop up all the time. A scientist can make a claim, but if they don't have evidence, then it's just a claim. There's no functioning theory to back it up. If every scientist in the world proclaimed all at once that God exists, I wouldn't believe it unless there was a functioning theory to the claim, with evidence. That's how science works.

[Kho]

Brovo said This whole thing sounds nice except that it still doesn't really get past the fact that God sets up an impossible test, dooms people he preprogrammed to be destined for doom, then proclaims total righteousness whilst condemning people to eternal purgatory for otherwise non-eternal crimes.

EDIT

Oh, and, yeah. No evidence for him. Whatsoever. Skepticism decrees I can't buy that.

EDIT #2

On second thought, nahh, forget the citations. Your argument isn't really all that bad, it's a different view.

While I agree the test which is set by the Abrahamic God (if we assume he is the same God in the sense that they all believe in this test) is a very difficult one, I wouldn't say it is impossible, there are numerous ways of coming to an answer, and there is nothing to say any are wrong or right. The point of a test is we only ever know that once it is done.

On your second two points, the issue of free will vs. destiny is enormous, if we were to delve into that it would take a long time. Maybe when I am not half asleep, but I agree with you that it does appear contradictory, though there are those who would be more than happy to tell us how it doesn't - and I certainly don't mind exploring the arguments when I have time to write. We must take into account that while the reward in the after life is eternal, the Abrahamic faiths, and their various sects, actually differ on whether punishment is eternal or has a fixed time before God forgives the 'wrong-doers.' Thus non-eternal crimes, certain interpretations would argue, are punished with non-eternal 'sentences.'

As for evidences, that is really a personal matter. I outlined how I believe the closest thing to the scientific method/process can be used on the God issue, and as long as we live we'll just research and learn more till we are convinced for or against. It is a life long journey which we should never close at any stage in our lives, because then we allow for stubbornness and intolerance of different viewpoints to set-in, which is never good, and I am glad to see you're quite open to acknowledging another view.

[So Boerd]

Of course. Let me make up some possible evidence... In this hypothetical, suppose there was a hand which materialized out of air and wrote "I am God" on the nearest available surface to them at the same time all over the world. Some instances were videotaped, however they can't make the hand appear again. Is this sufficient?

[Kho]

So Boerd said
Of course. Let me make up some possible evidence... In this hypothetical, suppose there was a hand which materialized out of air and wrote "I am God" on the nearest available surface to them at the same time all over the world. Some instances were videotaped, however they can't make the hand appear again. Is this sufficient?

I think people would think that an impressive display of modern CGI technology. Quite nifty, but not sufficient. You must realise, Boerd, that miracles do not lead to belief and faith. It is a process which requires reflection and thought. Miracles help us along, but they are by no means a must.