Just wondering

Yerda · Jul 27, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
None of those books are about the same religion. So it would be pointless to refer to all of them as "Holy books".

Not unless you take the view that they are inspired from the same source. Just some mix-ups in the transcription. I know some folk who believe this is the truth.

niamhwitch · Jul 27, 2005

Are you saying that these "Holy books" are not written by humans?

...uh...I think Painted Wolf was implying that, like your science books, the holy books were written by humans also....

None of those books are about the same religion. So it would be pointless to refer to all of them as "Holy books".

I dont thinks so. I dont follow any of those books, but I most certainly do consider all of them holy. And I agree with truthseekingsoul.

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 27, 2005

niamhwitch said:
...uh...I think Painted Wolf was implying that, like your science books, the holy books were written by humans also....

the diffrence is that science books are written everyday. Unlike these "Holy" books that were written back when everyone thought that the world was flat.

niamhwitch said:
...I dont thinks so. I dont follow any of those books, but I most certainly do consider all of them holy. And I agree with truthseekingsoul.

Well good for you. However I still see them as book, fiction books.

truthseekingsoul said:
Not unless you take the view that they are inspired from the same source. Just some mix-ups in the transcription. I know some folk who believe this is the truth.

They are not all inspired from the same source. Also if they are all from the same source then they are wrong in one way or another, because they are all very diffrent.

niamhwitch · Jul 27, 2005

They are not all inspired from the same source. Also if they are all from the same source then they are wrong in one way or another, because they are all very diffrent.

Inspired doesnt mean that they all have to say the same thing. I can be inspired by something and come out with a different product than the thing I was inspired from.

Well good for you. However I still see them as book, fiction books.

Did I say they werent fiction? A good story can be holy and fictional at the same time.

the diffrence is that science books are written everyday. Unlike these "Holy" books that were written back when everyone thought that the world was flat.

That has nothing to do with my comment... I merely said that Painted Wolf was implying that the holy books were written by man just like the science books. I didnt say the how often people write holy books, or when they were written... just that they were written by humans. period.

matey · Jul 27, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
As for the whole science book and bible having flaws. The diffrence between the 2 is that your religion has one and only one book that it is based off of. On the other hand science has many many books that it's based off of. Yes, I understand that religion is based off of complete blind faith or lack there of. So I guess the question was misphrased. So the real question is what do you do with the questions that shake your faith?

Give a question that will shake my faith and I will let you know what I do with it.

Yerda · Jul 27, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
They are not all inspired from the same source. Also if they are all from the same source then they are wrong in one way or another, because they are all very diffrent.

I, for one, see no reason to believe this is the case either. I was simply offering the opinion of a couple of individuals I know, who maintain that all religious books are inspired by the same source and all religions lead to the same source.

If it were the case it would make all of these books 'holy' would it not?

Uncertaindrummer · Jul 27, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
Can god make a stone that he himself can not lift?

God is so powerful that God can make a contradiction.

Mister Emu · Jul 27, 2005

Unlike these "Holy" books that were written back when everyone thought that the world was flat.

I am pretty sure ancient Greeks did not beleive in a flat world. From what I understand this was the accepted belief of the time.

Give a question that will shake my faith and I will let you know what I do with it.

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 28, 2005

Uncertaindrummer said:
God is so powerful that God can make a contradiction.

No he can't. See if he makes the stone he can't lift it. If he doesn't then he doesn't.

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 28, 2005

truthseekingsoul said:
I, for one, see no reason to believe this is the case either. I was simply offering the opinion of a couple of individuals I know, who maintain that all religious books are inspired by the same source and all religions lead to the same source.

If it were the case it would make all of these books 'holy' would it not?

If that were the case, but that is just another belief. Just like I believe that none of those books are "holy".

Fluffy · Jul 28, 2005

No he can't. See if he makes the stone he can't lift it. If he doesn't then he doesn't.

No not if you believe that God can do the irrational and illogical. If he can create square circles and make 2 and 2 equal 11 then he most certainly can do a logical contradiction even if the contradiction is him being unable to do it.

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 28, 2005

niamhwitch said:
That has nothing to do with my comment... I merely said that Painted Wolf was implying that the holy books were written by man just like the science books. I didnt say the how often people write holy books, or when they were written... just that they were written by humans. period.

I was simply saying that since people write science books everyday and "Holy" books were written one time and that time was a long time ago. And because of this science books are more valid that these "holy" books.

Yerda · Jul 28, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
If that were the case, but that is just another belief. Just like I believe that none of those books are "holy".

So why would it be pointless to refer to them all as holy books if you believe they are?

Yerda · Jul 28, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
I was simply saying that since people write science books everyday and "Holy" books were written one time and that time was a long time ago. And because of this science books are more valid that these "holy" books.

Sounds to me like you're commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad novitatem - the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 28, 2005

Mister Emu said:
I am pretty sure ancient Greeks did not beleive in a flat world. From what I understand this was the accepted belief of the time.

Why would you say that when the bible itself refers to the world being flat? Also it wasn't the Greeks that finally found out that the world was flat.

Fluffy · Jul 28, 2005

Sounds to me like you're commiting the fallacy of argumentum ad novitatem - the fallacy of asserting that something is better or more correct simply because it is new, or newer than something else.

This is not necessarily the case here since the fact that the books are "newer" isn't the reason for them being more correct. The additional knowledge that is able to be obtained to write about a given subject, on the other hand, does support such a proposition.

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 28, 2005

truthseekingsoul said:
So why would it be pointless to refer to them all as holy books if you believe they are?

I said If that were the case, but that is just another belief. Just like I believe that none of those books are "holy".

Mister Emu · Jul 28, 2005

the bible itself refers to the world being flat

Does it now?

waR toRn Rebel · Jul 28, 2005

Mister Emu said:
Does it now?

Daniel 4:10,11 says, "There was a tree in the midst (or center) of the earth, and its height was great.it reached to the sky, and was visible to the end of the whole earth." Such visibility (i.e., "a tree of great height at the center of the earth and seen to the end of the whole earth") implies a flat earth.

Isaiah 42:5 & 44:24 states that at creation God "spread out the earth" -- the Hebrew verb for "spread" being used elsewhere in Scripture to depict a "flattening" or "pounding."

Isaiah 11:12 declares, "Gather (them) from the four corners of the earth,"

Revelation 7:1 adds, "I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth."

Matthew 4:8 states that "The devil took him (Jesus) to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world, and their glory." One could see "all" the kingdoms of the world from a very high mountain if the world were flat.

Throughout Scripture the shape and construction of the earth is assumed to resemble that of a building having a firm immovable foundation, and a roof (or canopy). "He established the earth upon its foundations, that it will not totter, forever and ever." (Psalm 104:5) "The world is firmly established, it will not be moved." (Psalm 93:1) "For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's, and he set the world on them." (I Samuel 2:8) "It is I who have firmly set its pillars."

Uncertaindrummer · Aug 17, 2005

waR toRn Rebel said:
No he can't. See if he makes the stone he can't lift it. If he doesn't then he doesn't.

Wait, hold on... You just said He wasn't capable of contradiction. I say He IS. That is how powerful my God is. Debate whether or not my God is true, but don't tell me what I believe about my God. Just because YOU can't understand how it is possible means nothing.

Just wondering

Veteran Member

Celtic Faery Wiccan )O(

Member

Celtic Faery Wiccan )O(

Member

Veteran Member

Active Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Member

Member

A fool

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

A fool

Member

Emu Extraordinaire

Member

Active Member