Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   To atheists: Why do you help me?
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 27 (21597)
11-05-2002 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Andya Primanda
11-05-2002 5:15 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
Anyway, tomorrow is the start of Ramadhan, the fasting month. We Muslims will refrain from eating, drinking, and having sexual intercourse from sunrise to sunset for a month. A local custom here among Muslims is that we seek forgiveness from our acquaintances the last day before Ramadhan. Allah will forgive our offenses to Him if we observe the fasting month, but forgiveness from our sins to other people can only be obtained from those people. Therefore, if I had done anything that offended anybody in EvC: Percy, Moose, Quetzal, John, Mammuthus, TB, Peter, SLPx, P.Borger, Schraf, Gene90, Mark24, Nos482, Delshad, Budikka, Fred Williams, and others I cannot remember right now (sorry!), I ask you for forgiveness.
Peace to all of you!

Ramadhan sounds basicially like the Christian practice of lent.
"Lent is the period of six and one half weeks from Ash Wednesday
to Easter Sunday. During Lent, for 40 days, excluding Sundays, fasting
is recommended for all Catholics according to the laws of fast.
This is reminiscent of the 40 days of our Lord's unbroken fast (Mt.
4:3-4). The entire period of Lent is also a time of spiritual preparation
for the passion, death, and resurrection of Christ. It is observed
as a time of penitence other than fasting, and as a time of prayer.
The Liturgy of the Church reflects the significance of this period
of spiritual preparation: each day has a special Mass assigned to
it; those Masses date back to the seventh and eighth centuries;
there are no feasts observed on Sundays; purple vestments are the daily color..."
You haven't offended me in the least, though, I've been the one who has offended others without really having to try hard.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-05-2002 5:15 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-05-2002 6:16 PM nos482 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 27 (21600)
11-05-2002 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Andya Primanda
11-04-2002 8:30 AM


Andya, my simple comment is that I think you have swallowed the evolutionary line too uncritically.
Have you ever stopped to consider that evolution could be the 'easy path' that our spiritual sight can correct us on? I know the 'narrow gate' is a Christian concept but I think that it may have parallels in your beliefs also (??).
My major point is that the worldview you have is very differnt to that of an aetheist. In your worldview God alrady knows the 'theory of everything'. I don't know what you believe about what the real purposes are of love, family, genders, community etc etc. But if I am right you do not believe these are conincidental. In that case you live in a very differnt world than an atheist.
You think I limit God by saying he couldn't have used evolution but you limit God by saying that he couldn't have created in a way that reuses genetic components and anatomies. I think you limit God in thinking that the flood could not have been the enormous and rapid event that the Bible, and also your book to some extent, describes.
If these books of God (at least one of them anyway ) describe something 'bizaree' then maybe it was a bizaree event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-04-2002 8:30 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by nos482, posted 11-05-2002 6:29 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 27 (21604)
11-05-2002 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by nos482
11-05-2002 5:18 PM


Whoops. I don't know if I'm ready to forgive Nos ().
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 11-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by nos482, posted 11-05-2002 5:18 PM nos482 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 27 (21605)
11-05-2002 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Andya Primanda
11-05-2002 5:15 AM


Andya
I don't think there is anything I need to forgive you about! You're a gentleman (unless you're a gentlewoman).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-05-2002 5:15 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 27 (21608)
11-05-2002 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
11-05-2002 5:54 PM


Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Andya, my simple comment is that I think you have swallowed the evolutionary line too uncritically.
That's like saying that he "swallowed the physics line" about gravity too uncritically.
Have you ever stopped to consider that evolution could be the 'easy path' that our spiritual sight can correct us on?
"spiriual sight"? Do you have any proof of this assertion? No, evolution isn't the "easy path". The easy path is saying, "GODDIDIT!"
[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 11-05-2002 5:54 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by John, posted 11-06-2002 12:37 AM nos482 has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 27 (21644)
11-06-2002 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by nos482
11-05-2002 6:29 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by nos482:
Have you ever stopped to consider that evolution could be the 'easy path' that our spiritual sight can correct us on?
"spiriual sight"? Do you have any proof of this assertion? No, evolution isn't the "easy path". The easy path is saying, "GODDIDIT!"
[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-05-2002][/B][/QUOTE]
Well, Nos is back and abrasive as usual but gosh darn if this comment isn't right on the nose. Having to figure things out for oneself is definitely not the "easy way out" The easy way out is "this book says so"
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by nos482, posted 11-05-2002 6:29 PM nos482 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by nos482, posted 11-06-2002 7:13 AM John has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 22 of 27 (21647)
11-06-2002 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Andya Primanda
11-05-2002 5:15 AM


My friend, you are very welcome. Peace be with you and yours during the Holy Month of Ramadan.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Andya Primanda, posted 11-05-2002 5:15 AM Andya Primanda has not replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 27 (21673)
11-06-2002 7:13 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by John
11-06-2002 12:37 AM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
Well, Nos is back and abrasive as usual but gosh darn if this comment isn't right on the nose. Having to figure things out for oneself is definitely not the "easy way out" The easy way out is "this book says so"

Would you expect anything else? Since I'm a type 2 diabetic I don't like to sugar-coat anything.
[This message has been edited by nos482, 11-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by John, posted 11-06-2002 12:37 AM John has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 24 of 27 (21698)
11-06-2002 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by John
11-04-2002 8:54 AM


quote:
In particular, Christianity's big scientific stumbling block is the OT. Accept it literally, the way it was meant to be taken, and you bumb heads with science.
I have to disagree with you here.
I don't think that the OT was not meant to be taken literally, as most Jews and mainstream Christians will tell you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John, posted 11-04-2002 8:54 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by John, posted 11-06-2002 10:19 AM nator has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 27 (21703)
11-06-2002 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by nator
11-06-2002 9:58 AM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
I have to disagree with you here.
I don't think that the OT was not meant to be taken literally, as most Jews and mainstream Christians will tell you.

Jews and Christians are talking 3000 years after the fact.
Did you see my post #7 on this thread? I elaborated on my statement a bit.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by nator, posted 11-06-2002 9:58 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nos482, posted 11-06-2002 10:30 AM John has replied

  
nos482
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 27 (21707)
11-06-2002 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by John
11-06-2002 10:19 AM


Originally posted by John:
Jews and Christians are talking 3000 years after the fact.
Did you see my post #7 on this thread? I elaborated on my statement a bit.
Isn't Judaism almost 6000 years old? And wasn't the OT originally recorded through much older oral traditions? Or doesn't that count unless it is written down?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John, posted 11-06-2002 10:19 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John, posted 11-06-2002 12:25 PM nos482 has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 27 (21712)
11-06-2002 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by nos482
11-06-2002 10:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by nos482:
Isn't Judaism almost 6000 years old?
Judaism claims an age of very close to that. We are in year 5763 of the Jewish calender, which, supposedly is calibrated to the beginning of the world and hence of Judaism.
But I wasn't talking about the age of Judaism but about the people who wrote the various parts of the Bible and what they intended. The oldest text we have of the OT is dated circa the 7th century BC, which is where I drew the date of 3000 years.
quote:
And wasn't the OT originally recorded through much older oral traditions?
"Recorded through oral tradition" is a bit of an oxymoron isn't it? Ever try to get five or six people to repeat the same thing?
quote:
Or doesn't that count unless it is written down?
It does count, but how does it effect what I said? One, we don't know what was being passed around prior to our first copy, so you can't argue that the Isrealites were some special case. Two, why would they not believe what they wrote? Wierd as it is, people do tend to take their religions seriously.
------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by nos482, posted 11-06-2002 10:30 AM nos482 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024