Customer Discussions > Video Games forum

OT: Ehh, I don't think I believe in God anymore


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 701-725 of 746 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:40:27 PM PST
Nightmare says:
How so. I think it's a stretch of logic to think otherwise.

"Do you concur that god resides in a timeless realm where all events happen at once? Or is he trapped within time - which he created?

You're sort of picking and choosing your aspects of god now, so I'm interested firstly in what definition you subscribe to."

I don't believe that God created time. Such a concept makes no sense. Time is not something that can be created, but merely a sequence of events. Everything occurs in time. Rather than picking and choosing aspects of God, you are assuming that this IS an aspect of God. Do you actually believe in God, and therefore you believe that He is outside of time, or are you just listening to what some theologians have said? I heartily disagree that creating time and being outside of time are logically impossible.

"Translation: Ok, you find it closed-minded to base my morals 100% on rules made-up by Jews, thousands of years ago. Fair enough. What do you base your morals on?"

?????

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:42:16 PM PST
Nightmare says:
"The first question, I've used my past to develop a moral compass which I use to define my actions in each situation. And I would guess if it was good enough moral for the bible to steal, it should be good enough for me."

Do you believe that those morals are obligatory for all people to follow, or only for yourself?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:42:26 PM PST
Hey says:
It's a bit more complicated than that, with Relativity and all of that...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:44:35 PM PST
Only for me. Other people are only bound by what is legal. I might be annoyed by what other people do, and if it infringes on my rights I might even get upset, but they are not bound to think or believe what I do.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:44:58 PM PST
Yeah, I was being reductive. I apologize.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:51:51 PM PST
Nightmare says:
Ok, that sounds like a perfectly logically consistent position to me. So, that means that you don't think I my beliefs are immoral, correct?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:52:36 PM PST
Frankenzubaz says:
All you have left to cling to is your semantics games. "What does it all mean?" Nothing. Meaning is only what you make it. Meaning is just one more choice you are faced with. Are your choices going to have meaning to anyone other than yourself? We hope so, but no one knows for sure.

I made a choice to argue with you instead of doing my job. Risking my livelihood to argue definitions with you. My boss is talking to me right now, and I'm nodding and typing. It's my choice, and I'll own it. But...

Is this the edification you were seeking?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:56:07 PM PST
Rockhardly says:
"Why do you think those teachings have their origin in the Bible?
Or did you mean for you? As in you learned them from the Bible."

Actually, I learned them through my upbringing, society, church, and occasionally reading them in the Bible.

I believe the teachings were around long before the Bible - the majority of the Bible was written long after the events reported in them actually occurred.

I think the teachings have their origin with God, and the Bible is the closest thing we have to actually talking to God about his nature and the nature of the universe.

I understand that many of the teachings have been around long before the Bible came about. The Code of Hammurabi (spelling?) has quite a bit of the same teachings, and was around long before the Bible. When the Bible came about is immaterial to the teachings themselves. It's kind of like atomic theory: atoms didn't just start being smashable when Einstein et al came about discovered this was possible - they were smashable back when the dinosaurs were walking around. But, it was in Einstein's time that we really started to flesh out those ideas, write them down, and study them intently. The world didn't change, our understanding of it changed.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:56:40 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 1:00:48 PM PST
Time can be quantified, therefore it is certainly more than "merely a sequence of events". It is part of the physical world, along with the three dimensions.

"Everything occurs in time"

Who created god then?

This misconception lies within your view of time. Either time is infinite and god is bound by it, or god created time and time is not infinite.

...Unless you are you now arguing for a static universe, which would be a wild turn of events.

It is very clearly stated in the Bible that time had a *beginning* (Genesis 1) - that was started by god.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 12:59:11 PM PST
Hey says:
No need to apologize for that!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:00:17 PM PST
Ahh but the same thing could be said of all medicine. All medicine extends our lives. But there really wasnt anything in the Bible condemning using a doctor. So then under the same guidance life-support could be argued to not be a bad thing as you never know what miracle might occur if the body is given enough time to heal more.

The people that do come out of life support likely would have died if not given that chance, was that God's will? If so then should we not give everyone that chance? It's one of the really moral gray areas in today's culture and the Bible doesnt really cover it and can be interpreted in so many different ways that it really provides no guidance on the subject.

If you believe God can't see the future, then you likely would agree that he never could have planned for all the eventual outcomes of our civilization yes? So then how could the Bible be a source that could cover all our moral guidelines?

To me the Bible falls in much the same way as the original Constitution, while it IS still good at base guidelines, it was written so long ago, with a culture that was totally different that there are certain rules that have just become outdated. However, at least the Constitution was made to be able to be changed to compensate for this. The Bible unfortunately hasnt. And if like you said earlier, God can't see the future, then obviously he couldn't have wanted people to follow the Bible by the letter because he wouldnt have known how the future might unfold.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:02:10 PM PST
Rockhardly says:
Thank you for that.

If we really want to get funky with this, the argument could be made that the "law...written on their hearts" indicates an inherent morality - and it's not to much of a stretch to get from there to one of the common secularists arguments regarding morality being inherent as part of a social-survival instinct written our DNA. Is it possible that this was actually what the author was trying to say - but didn't have/use words like social-survival, DNA, inherent morality, etc.? Maybe they were just shown a concept in their mind by God and interpreted it to mean that a "law" is "written on their hearts"?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:02:25 PM PST
While I know you won't like it, my morals are based on the knowledge I am able to accumulate. Obviously some of my base morals were based on my parents raising me and the culture I grew up on. But since then I tend to do as much research into a moral issue as I can and form an opinion on it from there.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:04:45 PM PST
Banner says:
Lmao!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:08:05 PM PST
It's both for the entertainment value and to sort of broaden my horizons. I mean you never really know how someone believes or bases their belief systems on unless you talk with them about it.

While I agree, and almost think at times Nightmare is half-trolling with his responses. It is interesting to me to see that him and possibly other people really subscribe to his way of thinking. Especially that to them the contradictions I've seen in the Bible aren't contradictions and how he rationalizes that.

At the end of the day, I feel like anyone has the right to believe how they want. I'm not going to try to force someone to subscribe to my beliefs, because well they are just my beliefs, I have no right to force them onto someone else. However, if you engage in a discussion like this you should fully expect to have other people's beliefs matched up against your own.

Really I guess its all a way to confirm all of our own belief systems, you engage, discuss and see if what someone else says invalidates or makes you question something you believed in before. If not, then it makes your beliefs just a little stronger, if they do, then it shows you maybe you should question a bit more and search a bit more for yourself as well. I've had plenty of times where I believed one thing strongly and someone showed me something that made me really look into it and adjust my beliefs because they originally were based on an error.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:09:19 PM PST
"Only for me. Other people are only bound by what is legal. I might be annoyed by what other people do, and if it infringes on my rights I might even get upset, but they are not bound to think or believe what I do."

This times a thousand. Thanks you said it better than I could.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:13:36 PM PST
Nightmare says:
If you can't define your own words in a debate, then nobody is going to be edified.

"Time can be quantified, therefore it is certainly more than "merely a sequence of events". It is part of the physical world, along with the three dimensions."

Time is our measure of the sequence of events. I agree that is a more appropriate definition.

"Who created god then?

This misconception lies within your view of time. Either time is infinite and god is bound by it, or god created time and time is not infinite.

...Unless you are you now arguing for a static universe, which would be a wild turn of events.

It is very clearly stated in the Bible that time had a *beginning* (Genesis 1) - that was started by god."

Give me a quote that time itself had a beginning? I have no problem believing that God is bound by time. In fact, I don't know what it would mean to say otherwise.

"Ahh but the same thing could be said of all medicine. All medicine extends our lives. But there really wasnt anything in the Bible condemning using a doctor. So then under the same guidance life-support could be argued to not be a bad thing as you never know what miracle might occur if the body is given enough time to heal more.

The people that do come out of life support likely would have died if not given that chance, was that God's will? If so then should we not give everyone that chance? It's one of the really moral gray areas in today's culture and the Bible doesnt really cover it and can be interpreted in so many different ways that it really provides no guidance on the subject.

If you believe God can't see the future, then you likely would agree that he never could have planned for all the eventual outcomes of our civilization yes? So then how could the Bible be a source that could cover all our moral guidelines?

To me the Bible falls in much the same way as the original Constitution, while it IS still good at base guidelines, it was written so long ago, with a culture that was totally different that there are certain rules that have just become outdated. However, at least the Constitution was made to be able to be changed to compensate for this. The Bible unfortunately hasnt. And if like you said earlier, God can't see the future, then obviously he couldn't have wanted people to follow the Bible by the letter because he wouldnt have known how the future might unfold."

I agree the life support issue is definitely a grey area. However, where much is given, much is required. God, knowing that we wouldn't have the hard answer to everything that might occur in the future, made it perfectly clear that we are only responsible for as much as we are given.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:27:32 PM PST
pasteyswazey says:
Will you please tell me one moral principle set forth in the Bible that doesn't apply today?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:44:52 PM PST
Of course not, you are you and I am me. What works for me doesn't necessarily work for you. Our brains are completely unique, and we have to have to have our own ways of dealing with this world or we go nuts, and anyone that wants to take away a person's way of dealing is immoral.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 1:58:53 PM PST
Nightmare says:
Cool, thanks for the answer.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 2:04:34 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 2:05:22 PM PST
Ned Flanders says:
If I follow the two commandments Jesus taught without fault how can I do immoral things?

So Jesus summed up the law by breaking it into the following two groups.

1.Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. (first four laws)
2.Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (last six laws)

Posted on Nov 29, 2012 2:29:08 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 29, 2012 2:36:35 PM PST
Kirksplosion says:
Saw this for the first time a couple of weeks ago. Pretty funny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB3g6mXLEKk

Edit: Gets way too preachy by the end, though.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 2:41:11 PM PST
I would think number 2 would sum it up nicely (basically the golden rule common to any belief system), number 1 is for a certain subset of people and does nothing to establish morality.

Posted on Nov 29, 2012 2:47:39 PM PST
Believe in Me!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 29, 2012 2:47:57 PM PST
Ned Flanders says:
"Maybe they were just shown a concept in their mind by God and interpreted it to mean that a "law" is "written on their hearts"?

either way God created it.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Video Games forum
Participants:  70
Total posts:  746
Initial post:  Nov 24, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 30, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions