Christians

[ssbb_lover]

(this is probably the 1st time I've ever done this, and hopefully the last, but...)

The last 2 pages = tl;ost (too long; only skimmed through) :lol: Don't bash me, I read all the content, just not some of the side stuff (like the verses on SamuS's post and other things, though I did read quite a few of them).

One thing I find about this thread, threads like this that discuss matters like religion and politics...is that ppl argue and argue...and argue...and the ppl's thoughts almost nvr change. :lol: I find it so funny that ppl press each others views on each other and argue how their view is more correct or logical, but this just makes the ppl more hardheaded for their own views.

 

[LyricistSoldier]

Ok yea so i only read the first page maybe part of this one.. but from the first post...

Thats a lot of questions... people spend a lifetime trying to give perfect answers to them. But for sake of life, i'm not gonna sit here n do that myself.

Let me just direct everyone to the very root of the questions here...

It was stated that someone wishes people wouldnt base their life on a ficticious book. That is a false statement, for if i understand right you are talking of the Bibile. That is not a ficticious book. But wait thats not the root question yet... cut to the chase...

The real question is... Are there absolutes?

Absoloutes meaning is there a for shure in stone right and wrong? Is it possible to know that the bible is really true, or even really untrue? Thats where we need to start.

Is it possible to know absolute truth?

 

[NateTheGreat]

^Interesting question. I have a few to add:

Why does there have to be an absolute truth?

Why is mystery about, say what happens to our spirit or soul or what have you when we die, not a valid option in many cases?

Why can't the answer simply be I don't know and/or I could care less?

What's the fun in life if we know everything (not absolutely everything as that is not humanly possible)?

 

[Brawny]

I read through the first 4 pages and skimmed the rest. I think that before starting a huge debate and stereotyping like crazy, (I actually laughed reading some of these) people should take a class on world religions.

To the thread starter, I know that you were just asking a question. Why ask on a video game forum though (there were some very insightful posts though)? If you are really into asking deep questions, why not talk face to face to a Priest, Pastor, Rabbi, Swami, Lama, etc. cant think of any more.

 

[LyricistSoldier]

Well i'm just starting with what comes first... you cant have a debate over who or what is wrong and what is not. If you cant first agree there is an absoloute wrong or right.

And yes you have to have an absolute right and wrong or there would be no basis for why laws are the way they are. I mean, its wrong to kill? Who says, why do u feel it is? Maybe some free thinking should show it is right?

Its wrong because there Are absolutes. There has to be a right and wrong, like in the universe there has to be negative and postive. Otherwise life would not exist.

 

[NateTheGreat]

To the thread starter, I know that you were just asking a question. Why ask on a video game forum though (there were some very insightful posts though)? If you are really into asking deep questions, why not talk face to face to a Priest, Pastor, Rabbi, Swami, Lama, etc. cant think of any more.

Why not? This forum isn't run by robots; we're people. There are reasons why we don't play or enjoy certain games because we have opinions about real life.

This is the Lounge, a place we can talk about things other than videogames. It's really amazing the mix you get here. While most people on here are a bit better off than lower class as they have to be in order to have a computer, internet access, and videogames/systems, almost everybody I know off this forum, boy or girl, are at least willing to play videogames, no matter their income level.

Why talk only to spiritual/religious leaders? You're only getting one opinion there and it's usually a very predictable one.

Well i'm just starting with what comes first... you cant have a debate over who or what is wrong and what is not. If you cant first agree there is an absoloute wrong or right.

And yes you have to have an absolute right and wrong or there would be no basis for why laws are the way they are. I mean, its wrong to kill? Who says, why do u feel it is? Maybe some free thinking should show it is right?

Its wrong because there Are absolutes. There has to be a right and wrong, like in the universe there has to be negative and postive. Otherwise life would not exist.

So are you answering your own question?


Sorry, but there is no absolute truth about war, abortion, the death penalty, hunting, I can go on if need be.

And going a little bit off, we can say the absolute truth about, say, the number of minutes in an hour. At least as far as I know, it's 60 minutes everywhere. But does that absolute truth really mean anything? Would our days suddenly go by much faster if we said four hours = 1 day? Would the sun set any sooner? Of course not. Time doesn't really mean anything. There really is no past or future, just what's happening at this very moment. These are just human gauges, used for crop growing and to remind us of things we've already done, but if those history books were destroyed and the people that remembered those events died out, there would be no real way of proving there was a past.

 

[LyricistSoldier]

So are you answering your own question?


Sorry, but there is no absolute truth about war, abortion, the death penalty, hunting, I can go on if need be.

And going a little bit off, we can say the absolute truth about, say, the number of minutes in an hour. At least as far as I know, it's 60 minutes everywhere. But does that absolute truth really mean anything? Would our days suddenly go by much faster if we said four hours = 1 day? Would the sun set any sooner? Of course not. Time does really mean anything. There really is not past or future really, just what's happening at this very moment. These are just human gauges, used for crop growing and to remind us of things we've already done, but if those history books were destroyed and the people that remembered those events died out, there would be no real way of proving there was a past.

Basicly yes, i'm answering my own question...

Ok... this time thing... first off there is a past and there is a future. If there wasnt then you couldnt ever prosecute a criminal because he commited a crime in the past that according to you does not exist. Wether you call the past past by definition is realitive it doesnt mean the past does not exist. You're just proving my point. Past refers to a time that once was that has now passed. You cannot deny that there is not previously lived time, it is a known truth. And time does mean something, that is why you and everyone reading this wants to have a good life, because you know someday it will end.

If there is no absolute thruth, there is no right no wrong no direction for man kind. Once we agree that there IS an absolute right and wrong, then we can begin to debate what that right and wrong is.

 

[Brawny]

I just realized how my post could be read the wrong way (as natethegreat did). I also want to ask why are the views of only Christianity and the Bible talked about. Most other religions have the same basic outlook on all of these issues. Why not quote the Koran or the Torah?

Let it be known that there are many Christians (many on this forum) out there that are not crazy extremists yelling repent. Everyone (hopefully) knows that not all muslims and (even more ignorant), Arabs are terrorists. Why does such generalization occur on Christianity so much?

 

[LyricistSoldier]

we can debate other religions once we get passed my question... u cant deny it... its the basis for all argument

 

[Brawny]

Everything has its exception, even the 60 minutes example. (General theory of relativity dontcha know). You can still have general truths though. Everyone will agree that killing another human is wrong, there are exceptions but it is still wrong most of the time. Other examples I can't think of.

Also...Does anyone else see the paradox in thinking premarital sex is wrong but allowing abortion because "no irresponsible people have kids"? If your not responsibe enough to have a kid, you should not be having sex. Abortion should not be an emergency route.

 

[NateTheGreat]

Basicly yes, i'm answering my own question...

Ok... this time thing... first off there is a past and there is a future. If there wasnt then you couldnt ever prosecute a criminal because he commited a crime in the past that according to you does not exist. Wether you call the past past by definition is realitive it doesnt mean the past does not exist. You're just proving my point. Past refers to a time that once was that has now passed. You cannot deny that there is not previously lived time, it is a known truth.

If there is no absolute thruth, there is no right no wrong no direction for man kind. Once we agree that there IS an absolute right and wrong, then we can begin to debate what that right and wrong is.

First, I want to say I edited my post after you quoted me, though only to fix a few errors, like when I said "Time does really mean anything." Should have been "Time doesn't really mean anything." And it doesn't, just as neither the past nor the future can really be proven. Sure, we can say "I'll see you tomorrow" but we can't prove that will really happen til it actually happens, so there really is no future. At the same time, you ignored what I said about the past. I said if the people that knew of a past event were wiped out and books, info, etc. about that event were destroyed, there is no way of proving it ever happened. You know what, that's probably a little confusing and while a future can't be predicted, my argument about the past is sort of getting off the real point I'm trying to make. What I should be trying to prove is that there is no absolute truth, only relative truth or opinion. Example: You may find that killing people is ok, is an absolute truth for you, but it isn't for me. And I may think certain killing is ok and certain other killings as bad, meaning there is no absolute truth about that for me.

 

[Skippy]

I just realized how my post could be read the wrong way (as natethegreat did). I also want to ask why are the views of only Christianity and the Bible talked about. Most other religions have the same basic outlook on all of these issues. Why not quote the Koran or the Torah?

The main reason is that the title of the thread is "Christians" so that's mainly why it's mainly the views of Christianity here.
And far more people here are familiar with the Bible than with the Koran. And the Torah is just the first five books of the Bible, and there have been quotes from those.

 

[LyricistSoldier]

First, I want to say I edited my post after you quoted me, though only to fix a few errors, like when I said "Time does really mean anything." Should have been "Time doesn't really mean anything." And it doesn't, just as neither the past nor the future can really be proven. Sure, we can say "I'll see you tomorrow" but we can't prove that will really happen til it actually happens, so there really is no future. At the same time, you ignored what I said about the past. I said if the people that knew of a past event were wiped out and books, info, etc. about that event were destroyed, there is no way of proving it ever happened. You know what, that's probably a little confusing and while a future can't be predicted, my argument about the past is sort of getting off the real point I'm trying to make. What I should be trying to prove is that there is no absolute truth, only relative truth or opinion. Example: You may find that killing people is ok, is an absolute truth for you, but it isn't for me. And I may think certain killing is ok and certain other killings as bad.

If there is not absolute truth then you have no reason to be in this thread debating me. If there is no absolute truth then no one can beleive what u say to be true. The whole ideal of relativism (which is what you have) destroys the whole reason for a debate to begin with.

Also you are wrong, plain and simple everyone will tell you that. Past and Future exists. Its a proven truth and therefore fact. If all written history of a past event or peoples were wiped out... yea maybe there is no "hard evidence" that they/it existed but that wouldnt change the fact that if they/or it really did live/occur. Also "the past" is differnt than one event IN the past. "Future" is just a word to describe the time that will come. You cannot deny that this current time will be replaced by another, threfore u cannot deny that future exists. For future is the time that will replace current time.

Am i wrong? i think we just pulled a full circle. I disproved your reason the first time, i've just said the same thing in a different way.

Also one cannot call themselves a christian and not believe in absolute truth. For christians beleive that God is the absolute truth. So for them to not believe in absolute truth then they do not beleive in their own god.

 

[NateTheGreat]

Everything has its exception, even the 60 minutes example. (General theory of relativity dontcha know). You can still have general truths though. Everyone will agree that killing another human is wrong, there are exceptions but it is still wrong most of the time. Other examples I can't think of.

First off, the Theory of Relativity doesn't change the length of a minute. All that that theory is about is how long (in terms of time) something feels. An hour can pass very slowly if you want to, say, get out of class, but can fell like it's going by to fast if you're having fun with a friend. That hour does not increase or decrease in the number of minutes though.

Yes, you can have something that most people agree is true, like the killing of a person. But, many people if asked a blunt question like "Would it be ok for one person to kill another," most wouldn't simply say yes or no, they'd ask "under what circumstances." People hate to think of women or children dying in a house on fire, right? Yet many of those same people see people dying in a war, which can involve the same burning alive and all they'll say is "It's for a just cause. There's always sacrifice in war." Thus, proving once again, there really is no absolute truth.

Also...Does anyone else see the paradox in thinking premarital sex is wrong but allowing abortion because "no irresponsible people have kids"? If your not responsibe enough to have a kid, you should not be having sex. Abortion should not be an emergency route.

One of thousands of good examples of modern human paradoxes. But the last sentence is an opinion. I'm not saying it's the right opinion or the wrong opinion, it's just your opinion and it's only based on a very simple situation. What about girls that are raped? Young girls, ages 14 and under, which is possible. Should they have to endure the pain of carrying and having the baby of their rapist? What if the child birth could kill her? Then you have two humans dead. What if the baby will definitely be born without legs, arms and a mouth? Oh, sure, they can be kept alive on life support, but you have to take into account what kind of life that would be. Why not end a life that would be spent in near endless sorrow? How is that better for that person?

 

[Brawny]

I like that you are thinking deep and asking questions. First, the length of a minute does chance based on speed. You know, the atomic clock in a fighter jet experiment?
I do agree with you on rape and horrific deformity but for people that want to abort a mentally handicapped person imo is just wrong. Many handicapped people contribute to the world. I'm talking about stupid people just having sex for fun and when the actual purpose of sex happens, they freak and kill a baby that could've lived to be a great person in the world. At least put them up for adoption.