|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Really? This isnt baiting religious people?
You think a lot of people believe what MM2 is stating?
I'm beginning to think atheists are friggin morons.
No, its not *remotely* necessary that someone who believes in miracles would also believe God would stop bullets. |
Don't fundies all blame school shootings on the lack of prayer in school? Seems to me a house full of prayers should be able to stop bullets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Really? This isnt baiting religious people?
You think a lot of people believe what MM2 is stating?
I'm beginning to think atheists are friggin morons.
No, its not *remotely* necessary that someone who believes in miracles would also believe God would stop bullets. |
Don't fundies all blame school shootings on the lack of prayer in school? Seems to me a house full of prayers should be able to stop bullets. |
That seems logical to you?
You must be a troll, then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Really? This isnt baiting religious people?
You think a lot of people believe what MM2 is stating?
I'm beginning to think atheists are friggin morons.
No, its not *remotely* necessary that someone who believes in miracles would also believe God would stop bullets. |
Don't fundies all blame school shootings on the lack of prayer in school? Seems to me a house full of prayers should be able to stop bullets. |
That seems logical to you?
You must be a troll, then. |
It is indeed not logical. But this is a church that breaks god down into a harry potter god. Bush won because god wanted him to. Evolution never happened. God waved his magic wand and the earth poofed into existence 6,000 years ago with species fully formed. AIDS is a curse direct from god upon homosexuals. Disasters are god's way of telling people they need to stop being muslim and become christian. If that's the world they live in, then it is reasonable to ask them why god didn't just have the guy hit by a bus. Clearly they're part of the one true Jesus club. What the hell is god doing having some guy shoot up their church? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atomic42
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Location: Gimhae
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Tony_Balony wrote: |
| Ummmm....Not a bombshell... |
You're being far too kind.
She looks like a broken down make-up counter clown. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| [s. Clearly they're part of the one true Jesus club. What the hell is god doing having some guy shoot up their church? |
Stop with the act. You are smarter than this. They had people patrolling the church with guns. Does that sound Christian to you? If they were true Christians (as you claim) wouldn't they think all they needed was God to protect them?
What the heck are they doing with armed security guards? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
twg
Joined: 02 Nov 2006
Location: Getting some fresh air...
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| No, its not *remotely* necessary that someone who believes in miracles would also believe God would stop bullets. |
Wouldn't that count as a miracle? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| You would think all those people there praying to a living god wouldn't need guards. If god can heal people, get them out of wheel chairs, he can't stop semi automatic rifle fire? Silly god. |
What an idiotic thing to say. |
Not really. If you believe a God can cure illnesses, then obviously he can stop gunfire also.
BTW good work by the blond security gaurd.. |
Apparently the only people with a more puerile grasp of religion than the fundamentalist evangelicals are the atheists on this board. |
Sorry you may be slow. IF you believe that God can intervene on this world and perform miracles such as curing illnesses then God also must be able to perform miracles such as re-directing the path of bullets.
What is your problem with this statement? Lot's of people believe in miracles not just the fundamental evangelicals. It's a common religious belief. |
True...and many believe that miracles (or at least spectacular miracles) ceased or stopped shortly after the times described in the Bible. According to this view, spectacular miracles were necessary to establish the Christian faith. Once it had been accepted they were no longer necessary. This is not to say that God does not work miracles today, just that they occur in ways that can be explained. Again that is the view that some Christians hold...not all.
According to this belief system: Curing illness can happen without the need of a spectacular miracle. Re-directing the path of bullets...not so
One can also argue that miracles were necessary in Christ's time to establish him as the Messiah. Miracles are not for the sole purpose of protecting believers. The Bible itself states that Christians should expect to be persecuted for following the word of God.
At the very least God does not play at puppets by having gunmen hit by buses. That's what free will is all about. We are free to accept Him or not. Doesn't mean that He is going to save us from all bad things. Why?
Because faith is the pre-requisite. If God obviously intervened each time, there'd be no need to take it on faith as He wants us to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twg wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| No, its not *remotely* necessary that someone who believes in miracles would also believe God would stop bullets. |
Wouldn't that count as a miracle? |
Yes, but that's mysticism to the Nth degree. That's Boxer-cult type insanity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leonidas
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| Jesus guided that bullet! Of course Jesus could have had the gunman hit by a bus before he even got close to the church. |
You sir, are an ass. Get some compassion and keep your anti-christian attitudes away from a thread about a tragedy. Save it for the christian athiest debates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| mindmetoo wrote: |
| You would think all those people there praying to a living god wouldn't need guards. If god can heal people, get them out of wheel chairs, he can't stop semi automatic rifle fire? Silly god. |
What an idiotic thing to say. |
Not really. If you believe a God can cure illnesses, then obviously he can stop gunfire also.
BTW good work by the blond security gaurd.. |
Apparently the only people with a more puerile grasp of religion than the fundamentalist evangelicals are the atheists on this board. |
Sorry you may be slow. IF you believe that God can intervene on this world and perform miracles such as curing illnesses then God also must be able to perform miracles such as re-directing the path of bullets.
What is your problem with this statement? Lot's of people believe in miracles not just the fundamental evangelicals. It's a common religious belief. |
True...and many believe that miracles (or at least spectacular miracles) ceased or stopped shortly after the times described in the Bible. According to this view, spectacular miracles were necessary to establish the Christian faith. Once it had been accepted they were no longer necessary. This is not to say that God does not work miracles today, just that they occur in ways that can be explained. Again that is the view that some Christians hold...not all.
According to this belief system: Curing illness can happen without the need of a spectacular miracle. Re-directing the path of bullets...not so
One can also argue that miracles were necessary in Christ's time to establish him as the Messiah. Miracles are not for the sole purpose of protecting believers. The Bible itself states that Christians should expect to be persecuted for following the word of God.
At the very least God does not play at puppets by having gunmen hit by buses. That's what free will is all about. We are free to accept Him or not. Doesn't mean that He is going to save us from all bad things. Why?
Because faith is the pre-requisite. If God obviously intervened each time, there'd be no need to take it on faith as He wants us to. |
By that many, I expect you don't mean catholics or most protestants. The majority of christians believe in miracles. For a person to become a saint(catholicism) you have to have two miracles attributed to you. When people survive calamities they say "thank god". My mom lights a holy candle when I get on a plane, go for an interviews..she believes in the power of miracles and takes people to Lourdes every year in the they will be miraculously cured.
Your arbitary way of splitting up miracles between the long ago(spectacular) and the now(naturally explained) is just a way of saying that real spectacular miracles don't happen nowadays and by implication never did. It really is special pleading to say that God somehow decided to calm down on the big ones once the church was established, to take it easy. As you said modern day miracles are generally naturally explainable, in other words not miracles.
The fact is, is that any miracle or intervention is the same as another. You are curing someone's illness is as much an intervention as stopping a bullet hit them. Its just that one happens naturally sometimes(illnesses recede) and the other doesn't so religions tend to latch unto the first one.
If you say that God intervenes in some people's sicknesses and not others then he is playing puppets, sorry. You can't pick and choose.
By the way I believe Dragons exist, it's just they decided to stop showing themselves to humans in the middle ages. It makes perfect sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The_Conservative
Joined: 15 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
[]
By that many, I expect you don't mean catholics or most protestants. The majority of christians believe in miracles. For a person to become a saint(catholicism) you have to have two miracles attributed to you. When people survive calamities they say "thank god". My mom lights a holy candle when I get on a plane, go for an interviews..she believes in the power of miracles and takes people to Lourdes every year in the they will be miraculously cured.
Read about cessation of miracles. As I said there are two camps of thought on this.
Your arbitary way of splitting up miracles between the long ago(spectacular) and the now(naturally explained) is just a way of saying that real spectacular miracles don't happen nowadays and by implication never did. It really is special pleading to say that God somehow decided to calm down on the big ones once the church was established, to take it easy. As you said modern day miracles are generally naturally explainable, in other words not miracles.
MY arbitrary way? I was merely explaining the view of one side, not making an arbitary distinction. I wasn't the one who made this distinction...take it up with those who did.
The fact is, is that any miracle or intervention is the same as another. You are curing someone's illness is as much an intervention as stopping a bullet hit them. Its just that one happens naturally sometimes(illnesses recede) and the other doesn't so religions tend to latch unto the first one.
If you say that God intervenes in some people's sicknesses and not others.. .
I never said any such thing though
By the way I believe Dragons exist, it's just they decided to stop showing themselves to humans in the middle ages. It makes perfect sense.
Now, now, everyone knows Dragons are extinct. It's pink unicorns that are pulling the non-visible trick. 
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
The fact is, is that any miracle or intervention is the same as another. You are curing someone's illness is as much an intervention as stopping a bullet hit them. Its just that one happens naturally sometimes(illnesses recede) and the other doesn't so religions tend to latch unto the first one.
If you say that God intervenes in some people's sicknesses and not others then he is playing puppets, sorry. You can't pick and choose.
By the way I believe Dragons exist, it's just they decided to stop showing themselves to humans in the middle ages. It makes perfect sense. |
Reductios are rather pointless if made in bad faith. The dragon argument is not very generous, how many dragons do you believe actual worshippers and congregations believe in?
There is an open door for miracles through Kant's 3rd antinomy.
Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived.
Antithesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature.
Notice that the antinomy does not deny consistent laws of nature, but advocates in the thesis that such a description is incomplete. A miracle would be an intervention, yes, a spontaneous and free event that 'breaks' the chain of causation.
You are trying to ascribe a logic to something that is (probably) beyond logic. You are suggesting that God by choosing one miracle over another is playing puppets. But that, again, is mere interpretation. Once we have gotten to miracles we are beyond the logic of the laws of causality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
[]
By that many, I expect you don't mean catholics or most protestants. The majority of christians believe in miracles. For a person to become a saint(catholicism) you have to have two miracles attributed to you. When people survive calamities they say "thank god". My mom lights a holy candle when I get on a plane, go for an interviews..she believes in the power of miracles and takes people to Lourdes every year in the they will be miraculously cured.
Read about cessation of miracles. As I said there are two camps of thought on this.
Yes and i contend that the camp that believes in miracles in the sense i wrote is much larger.
Your arbitary way of splitting up miracles between the long ago(spectacular) and the now(naturally explained) is just a way of saying that real spectacular miracles don't happen nowadays and by implication never did. It really is special pleading to say that God somehow decided to calm down on the big ones once the church was established, to take it easy. As you said modern day miracles are generally naturally explainable, in other words not miracles.
MY arbitrary way? I was merely explaining the view of one side, not making an arbitary distinction. I wasn't the one who made this distinction...take it up with those who did.
Sorry. instead just view that paragraph of what is wrong with their arbitary way of classifying miracles.
The fact is, is that any miracle or intervention is the same as another. You are curing someone's illness is as much an intervention as stopping a bullet hit them. Its just that one happens naturally sometimes(illnesses recede) and the other doesn't so religions tend to latch unto the first one.
If you say that God intervenes in some people's sicknesses and not others.. .
I never said any such thing though
You implied it. If there are miraculous cures then there must be some people who aren't miraculously cured.
|
|
Well pink unicorns also..obviously^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
Reductios are rather pointless if made in bad faith. The dragon argument is not very generous, how many dragons do you believe actual worshippers and congregations believe in?
. |
I wasn't actually making that point. I was just taking a swipe at the 'spectacular miracle' argument as in they happened long ago, but in modern times don't happen.I was just illustrating how you could make that argument for anything..even dragons.
| Quote: |
There is an open door for miracles through Kant's 3rd antinomy.
Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived.
Antithesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature.
Notice that the antinomy does not deny consistent laws of nature, but advocates in the thesis that such a description is incomplete. A miracle would be an intervention, yes, a spontaneous and free event that 'breaks' the chain of causation.
You are trying to ascribe a logic to something that is (probably) beyond logic. You are suggesting that God by choosing one miracle over another is playing puppets. But that, again, is mere interpretation. Once we have gotten to miracles we are beyond the logic of the laws of causality |
i thought this whole thread was about talking about miracles logically. Why is it beyond logic? Is god not a logical creature?
If miracles are a break in the laws of casuality, am i not correct that any two miracles in essence are the same? In other words the argument with which we began.
Also because something is beyond the laws of casuality, does not mean it is beyong logic or critical thinking. I can still apply logic to how these miracles are meted out, or in comparing between them. i can also use these breaks to find out something about the creature that is causing them. I can infer the nature of God from his miracles.
In effect you are moving the goalposts. Now miracles are beyond logic where they cannot be touched. What does this remind me of...ah the old catholic 'mystery'... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
Reductios are rather pointless if made in bad faith. The dragon argument is not very generous, how many dragons do you believe actual worshippers and congregations believe in?
. |
I wasn't actually making that point. I was just taking a swipe at the 'spectacular miracle' argument as in they happened long ago, but in modern times don't happen.I was just illustrating how you could make that argument for anything..even dragons. |
Sorry
| Quote: |
There is an open door for miracles through Kant's 3rd antinomy.
Thesis: Causality in accordance with laws of nature is not the only causality from which the appearances of the world can one and all be derived.
Antithesis: There is no freedom; everything in the world takes place solely in accordance with laws of nature.
Notice that the antinomy does not deny consistent laws of nature, but advocates in the thesis that such a description is incomplete. A miracle would be an intervention, yes, a spontaneous and free event that 'breaks' the chain of causation.
You are trying to ascribe a logic to something that is (probably) beyond logic. You are suggesting that God by choosing one miracle over another is playing puppets. But that, again, is mere interpretation. Once we have gotten to miracles we are beyond the logic of the laws of causality |
i thought this whole thread was about talking about miracles logically. Why is it beyond logic? Is god not a logical creature?
If miracles are a break in the laws of casuality, am i not correct that any two miracles in essence are the same? In other words the argument with which we began.
Also because something is beyond the laws of casuality, does not mean it is beyong logic or critical thinking. I can still apply logic to how these miracles are meted out, or in comparing between them. i can also use these breaks to find out something about the creature that is causing them. I can infer the nature of God from his miracles.
In effect you are moving the goalposts. Now miracles are beyond logic where they cannot be touched. What does this remind me of...ah the old catholic 'mystery'...[/quote]
Good points. You're right that any two miracles are similar in respect to being spontaneous.
You're right that there is a kind of logic to miracles, potentially, but I should refine my statement. The same kind of logic would not apply as they do to natural science.
Lastly, one cannot defend miracles without moving the goalposts. Miracles are by essence outside of natural law. Anyone who thought otherwise would be confused.
Yes, its the classic reason v. revelation quandry. Although one should note that some people do just fine accepting certain revelations without abandoning reason altogether. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
