MovieChat Forums > filmflaneur > Replies
filmflaneur's Replies
No, I want you to keep an open mind and recognise the, quite reasonable, objections.
No I don't. But that is not my problem is it?
Also Biblical Prophecy itself is a vexed issue:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAChristian/comments/vaa6av/biblical_prophecy_is_not_proof_of_its_divine/
Edit:
Then we have the words of
Deut 22:18 If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the Lord does not take place or come true, that is a message the Lord has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously, so do not be alarmed.
which, at the very least assumes that not all prophecies are to be trusted. False prophecies cast doubt on all biblical claims. If one verse in the Bible is wrong, it’s possible for many verses to be wrong. As I say, to get round this. some resort to interpretation: creative exegesis and special pleading. Not a good look.
A good many of your fellow believers then need a good talking to lol
eg
https://www.biblestudywithrandy.com/2015/09/why-do-we-have-to-interpret-the-bible/
And to reach your view don't you have to interpret (understand) what your alleged deity means at the start?
And is there any evidence that they don't? For instance your Christ had strong words about divorce and said nothing about homosexuality. Yet among many believers the former is acceptable while among some the latter is condemned. Or in early days some believers used the Bible to justify slavery.
True, but it does make the infection, in many cases, less severe.
Here, it is that one can easily make a case for many indeed making their own interpretation of part of the Bible at least, while because of the nature of much of the text, this ought hardly to come as a surprise.
<blockquote> What desprate (sic) nonsense. </blockquote>
Wanting to appoint a possible sex trafficker to high legal office was good judgment? At the end even Gaetz felt obliged to jump ship lol Now we just have the vaccine denier in charge of health who admits to plenty of "skeletons in the closet"
<blockquote>There are no bad arguments against mandatory "vaccination".</blockquote>
Not read the link I gave you then, just above, of 5 such arguments?
<blockquote> Especially considering that they're not really vaccines </blockquote>
So vaccines are not, er, really vaccines?
<blockquote> and they don't work. </blockquote>
Sources for this? Do you mean vaccines in general? Know anyone who has caught polio lately?
<blockquote>My universal response is, you can fuck right off. </blockquote>
Now you just sound defensive.
<blockquote>I knew you would trot out a version of "the universe/space is eternal", but according to this line of thought, God cannot be eternal. .. FYI, none of your "ideas" exclude the possibility of God.
</blockquote>
Actually by this line of thought a deliberate supernatural, eternal or not, is, well, just not required. (Aquinas' famous Proofs of god can be construed as mostly arguing equally for both notions, for instance.)
<blockquote>By the way, this "theory" is no where near settled or proven.</blockquote>
It is just as logical, settled or proven as the idea of a Creator, a preferred deity, supposed to have the same qualities as the permanent in nature. Is there any reason why one must reject something out of hand that is wholly natural but permanent, over a deliberate supernatural with the same qualities? Evasion will be noted.
<blockquote>Acting like you KNOW, is ridiculous. </blockquote>
All I know is that the same logical arguments can held in favour of both theories, but the one I favour is more simple and wholly natural - and the natural is something we certainly do know exists. Thank you for the link btw, but I am not arguing that the universe per se is eternal, merely a wholly natural, permanent cause of universe(s) is just as arguably, logically speaking, as any preferred supernatural one. And you don't KNOW different, do you?
Thank you I have.
"What does John 5:31 mean?
According to Jewish legal procedure, a person could not testify alone on their own behalf. A creative liar can make up anything. Nor could a single witness establish facts, for the same reason. Rather, in a courtroom setting, two or three witnesses were required"
A slight diversion from the fact of reasoned disbelief, this and I see you do not dispute my point. I agree that attacking others and not what they say is not productive. But tell me why, exactly, in a free society one should not be able to criticize and yes, even ridicule, religion?
The new pick certainly is an improvement. Mind you, that would not be difficult..
We were not talking about prophecies as such.
As far as moral laws are concerned, I am sure what you say about Christians and their Bibles is correct but it is still true that what the Bible says is often interpreted different ways by different Christians who often justify things by creative exegesis and special pleading. I ought to know, I have often debated such people.
Unfortunately there is no way to prepare for a nuclear strike with any realistic chance of survival for most.
Yes that delay cost the UK dearly as well as the neglect of care homes.
Fair enough; but, reading the story it is about the UK not now following other's advice to their citizens over on how to seek shelter and what to do in case of a nuclear attack, or similar advice issued by their Baltic neighbours Norway and Denmark, which both put out checklists for food and medicine supplies. This is not the same as making 'no' preparations or precautions at all, especially, in military terms against potential attack which you implied. Also, the Daily Mail is a right wing rag..
<blockquote>The bible isn't open to private interpretation</blockquote>
True enough,
2 Peter 1:20 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things.
Says that. But the problem then still arises that, because religious scriptures are made up of words, they do need to be interpreted. Saying that you take it literally tells us nothing unless there is only one way to interpret the words. Usually there are many ways. The most obvious example of that is when we can see Biblical literalists disagreeing with those who see some scripture as more metaphorical or fabulist etc. In fact wars and deaths have happened over competing interpretations,
Hinduism has that cool god Ganesh, often depicted as a pink elephant, apparently the patron of intellectuals, bankers, scribes, and authors. I always think he ought to have appeared on Sesame Street.
<blockquote>It is not possible to definitively name one religion as having the most evidence backing it.</blockquote>
Where there is evidence no one talks of faith.