Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.



VIP Members don't see these ads. Join VIP Now
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 234567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 63

Thread: Your view regarding Heaven

  1. -51
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,134
    vCash:
    6211
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Wildbill3 View Post
    if we're talking about the christian version of heaven, and not the greek, norse, etc, you have to imagine a place where the laws we live by (time, space, etc) have no place, and as such eternity has no meaning in the sense of knowing time is passing. Even with that type of mindset, "eternal Joy" is the way a living being would describe the undescribable. It certainly is a place of no wants, no concerns, no sickness, no death, and quite possibly no desires. just contentment. This would imply that we leave behind a lot of the things that make us human, or mortal.

    So to actually describe heaven from a living beings point of view and experience, would be as impossible as an ant trying to understand a computer.
    Do you think we exist in that space your describing as ego-souls, or personality based souls? That each of these souls is a distinct, unique, separate soul from all the other souls that inhabit this place?
    Quote Quote  

  2. -52
    SpurzN703's Avatar
    I like your style Dude

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    26,527
    vCash:
    18603
    Loc:
    Springfield, VA
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Cam Wake 91Tannehill 172013 Dolphins Logo
    What have I started here?!




    Quote Quote  

  3. -53
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1240
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Indentured servants get to leave at some point. Apparently that’s not the case for these women.


    No that’s completely false; this verse is dealing with an arranged marriage between the daughter and the landowner. All maidservants who were unmarried at the time of six years were set free (Deuteronomy 15:12), if they were married to the landowner then they remained with him, unless he were to divorce her, neglect her, or mistreat her, then she didn’t have to stay with him (Exodus 21:8-11). I am not sure what century you think Moses lived in, but women were completely financially supported by the men back then, they needed to either be living at home or be married to a man who could support them. If their fathers couldn’t support their daughters they could arrange for them to be married to someone who could. This is also why the Israelites went through such great lengths to support their widows and “fatherless”. We live in a time now where women do not need this sort of financial support, but back then it was completely necessary because people made a living through very intensive labor.

    “20 Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
    26 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. (Fair trade, right? I lose sight forever, & you lose a slave; even-stevens)
    27 And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth.”

    So any body part not specifically mentioned there is up for beating. Commendable by slavery standards, though.
    Yes and computers, movies, and paperback books are not protected by the 1st Amendment because they are not explicitly mentioned in it! Give me a break and stop pretending to be obtuse, you know good and well that even laws today are not exhaustive. The Hebrew case law here is clearly intending to say that if you injure your slave you must set him free (and can be punished by the judges for abuse). It’s almost identical to our child abuse laws today, beat your child and don’t leave a mark and you’re good to go, beat your child and leave a mark and you’re in big trouble; so the Hebrews treated their servants as humane as Americans treat their children, how amazing is that? You really are only proving that the Bible is a book that is amazingly humane.

    Assertion, no proof.


    If scripture were not the word of God, knowledge would be impossible, knowledge is not impossible, therefore scripture is the word of God. That IS proof! You claiming it isn’t is what is the assertion here; refute the syllogism.

    Another assertion with no proof.


    No it’s a premise that is proven through the impossibility of the contrary (which is an acceptable form of proof), I can make sense of the preconditions for knowledge using Christianity, you cannot make sense of them with your worldview.

    Do you not see how this is completely circular?


    All reasoning has a circular nature to it, but with mine it is not viciously circular, it’s indirect, there’s a different, one is logically invalid one is valid.

    1. The Bible tells us that it is the word of God.


    Yup.

    2. The word of God is infallible.


    Yup.

    3. Therefore the Bible is infallible.

    Nope, I am astounded you continue to completely miss my argument or intentionally distort it. The Bible HAS to be the word of God because if it were not we wouldn’t be able to know anything at all (just like you know that you have to have a mind because if you didn’t you couldn’t even question whether you had a mind or not, the mind is a necessary precondition for thought, scripture’s validity is a necessary precondition for knowledge). That is not a circular argument at all; you just don’t like it, which is irrelevant.

    Since you seem to be so against using any kind of reasoning that has a circular nature to it, prove the following…

    1. Prove the laws of logic exist, but don’t use the laws of logic in your proof because that would be circular.
    2. Prove that the principle of induction will continue to be valid in the future, however do not use an inductive argument to do this because that would be circular.
    3. Prove your senses are reliable, but do not appeal to experience because that assumes your senses are reliable and therefore would be circular.
    4. Prove your memory is reliable, however do not make an appeal to experience because that assumes your memory is reliable and would therefore be circular.


    Wow even you use circular reasoning every day! Imagine that!


    "1. The order and magnificence of the world is evidence of God's Creation.
    2. Therefore, we know that God exists.

    Here, it is assumed that God exists in order to satisfy the premise that "God's Creation" is evidence of his existence. There is no standalone argument here that connects existence to God's creation except the conclusion, which is that God exists. Note the slight structural differences in the argument to simple circular reasoning - the order of the world isn't implied by God's existence, but trying to use it as evidence of God's existence must assume he exists in the first place."


    Rationalwiki to try and prove a point? Really? A user-generated site? Obviously the author of that article didn’t realize that…

    1. A circular argument is one where the conclusion is merely a restatement of the premise(s), the example argument does not fit that criteria (although most Christians who would use a syllogism like that would give it one more premise, I have never seen an apologist use that particular syllogism).
    2. Even if the first premise does subtly assume God’s existence, which is dubiously the case at best, that does not mean the syllogism is invalid, proofs that use premises that assume the truth of what they are trying to prove are used in mathematics all the time.


    We use arguments like this all the time to “prove” that artists such as Da Vinci existed, we use their works. Granted it’s not a deductive proof, but rather an inductive one that is probabilistic in nature, there is nothing formally wrong with the proof itself. However, I have never used the above argument to prove God’s existence, so you posting this was a bit of a waste of time.

    Homosexual: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex. It doesn't define them as a person, but it does define their gayness.


    Are you really suggesting that all men who have sex with other men are indeed “gay men”?

    Sure they could’ve. Doesn’t mean I find it any less repugnant.


    I find caviar repugnant, but that doesn’t mean that people who eat caviar are doing anything morally wrong. You have just rendered all of morality utterly meaningless by asserting it is subjective or a matter of “taste”. I find men sodomizing other men to be repugnant, so does that mean homosexuality is indeed morally wrong?

    Here is a man willing to murder his own brother for his ideology.


    Murder? Who said anything about murder, murder is unjustifiable killing, killing someone for a crime deserving of death is by definition justified; stop using biased language, that’s logically fallacious. What does biology have to do with the topic?

    Lord knows what else your capable of. I should’ve changed the scenario to being excommunicated & banished from the country rather than being put to death yourself because then it becomes an issue of self-preservation, but I doubt it matters as you’d still have chosen to stone your brother to death.


    Stop with the feint outrage, it’s meaningless. I actually asked both of my brothers about this last night, neither seemed to have a problem with getting what they deserved. If your brother was the Sandy Hook shooter and he was sentenced to death you wouldn’t support the sentence? That’s in itself is horrible.

    You know they ought to add some fine-print to that “Thou shalt not kill” commandment.


    Nope, the Hebrew word used in that commandment means unjustifiable killing; someone committing a capital crime is justifiably killed, I don’t see why you don’t seem to understand that.

    It fascinates me how many 'Christ'ians are more concerned with having picked the 'correct' religion rather than trying to emulate the behavior of Jesus. You're more concerned with being the religion about Jesus rather than the religion of Jesus; as Watts would say.


    Yes, you and your beloved Watts; shame on those Christians for caring about truth! Jesus had no issues with capital punishment, he taught that the Earth was “young”; he also had no issues with the Mosaic judicial laws of the Old Testament, and his apostles taught that homosexuality was a sin regardless of a person’s “biology”.

    Quote Originally Posted by PhinzN703 View Post
    What have I started here?!
    Quote Originally Posted by PhinzN703 View Post
    This is what Rob and I do; it’s actually quite a bit of fun. It’s not your fault though :- )
    Last edited by Statler Waldorf; 02-26-2013 at 07:44 PM.
    Total Depravity
    Unconditional Election
    Limited Atonement
    Irresistible Grace
    Perseverance of the Saints
    Quote Quote  

  4. -54
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,134
    vCash:
    6211
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    If scripture were not the word of God, knowledge would be impossible, knowledge is not impossible, therefore scripture is the word of God.
    “Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

    You’re assuming that knowledge is impossible without God. Then you’re using that assumption to try to prove God.

    Also Known as: Circular Reasoning, Reasoning in a Circle, Petitio Principii.

    Description of Begging the Question

    Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

    Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).

    Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

    This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

    Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

    Examples of Begging the Question

    Bill: "God must exist."
    Jill: "How do you know."
    Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
    Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
    Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
    http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...-question.html

    6. It says in the Bible that God exists. Since the Bible is God's word, and God never speaks falsely, then everything in the Bible must be true. So, God must exist.

    Obviously, if the Bible is God's word, then God exists (or at least did exist at one time). However, because the speaker is also claiming that the Bible is God's word, the assumption is made that God exists in order to demonstrate that God exists. The example can be simplified to:

    7. The Bible is true because God exists, and God exists because the Bible says so.

    This is what is known as circular reasoning - the circle is also sometimes called "vicious" because of how it works.
    http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalf...question_2.htm
    Last edited by rob19; 02-26-2013 at 11:27 PM. Reason: sp
    Quote Quote  

  5. -55
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1240
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    “Begging the question (Latin petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of informal fallacy in which an implicit premise would directly entail the conclusion. Begging the question is one of the classic informal fallacies in Aristotle's Prior Analytics. Some modern authors consider begging the question to be a species of circulus in probando (Latin, "circle in proving") or circular reasoning”.


    I am aware of what begging the question is.

    You’re assuming that knowledge is impossible without God. Then you’re using that assumption to try to prove God.


    Nope, I am concluding that knowledge is impossible without God because nobody seems to be able to postulate a logically cogent explanation for the preconditions of knowledge apart from using the existence of God. This is a completely logical conclusion, if you can’t postulate a manner in which a person can think without having a brain I am going to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to think without a brain. You really only have two options, refute that premise by postulating a way we can know anything without God existing, or concede the fact that the syllogism is both sound and valid and therefore proves God exists.

    I noticed you ignored my circular reasoning challenge though; I have to think you did this because you knew you’d have to invoke circular reasoning in order to complete the challenge. I’ll provide the challenge again though, best of luck to you!

    1. Prove the laws of logic exist, but don’t use the laws of logic in your proof because that would be circular.
    2. Prove that the principle of induction will continue to be valid in the future, however do not use an inductive argument to do this because that would be circular.
    3. Prove your senses are reliable, but do not appeal to experience because that assumes your senses are reliable and therefore would be circular.
    4. Prove your memory is reliable, however do not make an appeal to experience because that assumes your memory is reliable and would therefore be circular.
    Quote Quote  

  6. -56
    rob19's Avatar
    Soul Rebel

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    7,134
    vCash:
    6211
    Loc:
    Georgia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    1972 Dolphins Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by Statler
    Nope, I am concluding that knowledge is impossible without God because nobody seems to be able to postulate a logically cogent explanation for the preconditions of knowledge apart from using the existence of God. This is a completely logical conclusion, if you can’t postulate a manner in which a person can think without having a brain I am going to come to the conclusion that it is impossible to think without a brain. You really only have two options, refute that premise by postulating a way we can know anything without God existing, or concede the fact that the syllogism is both sound and valid and therefore proves God exists.
    It doesn’t matter what anyone else can do, if you’re going to assert that God is necessary for knowledge then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it’s true. It is your belief that knowledge is impossible without God, & just because you have a theory & don’t agree with anyone else’s theory doesn’t necessarily make your's true.

    See, your argument of “If scripture were not the word of God, knowledge would be impossible, knowledge is not impossible, therefore scripture is the word of God”, can be simplified to:

    “Knowledge is possible because God exists, & God exists because knowledge is possible”.

    It’s completely circular & looney.
    Quote Quote  

  7. -57
    Statler Waldorf's Avatar
    Bench Warmer

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    1,258
    vCash:
    1240
    Loc:
    Oregon
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    It doesn’t matter what anyone else can do, if you’re going to assert that God is necessary for knowledge then the burden of proof is on you to prove that it’s true. It is your belief that knowledge is impossible without God, & just because you have a theory & don’t agree with anyone else’s theory doesn’t necessarily make your's true.


    That’s not how logical syllogisms work. There’s nothing in logic requiring a person to demonstrate their premises are true (if my premise were “all electrons are negatively charged” I wouldn’t have to inventory every single electron in the universe to demonstrate this premise is indeed true, I can merely challenge someone to find me a positively charged electron), if you have a problem with one of my premises then it is up to you to refute it. If you believe that it is possible to have knowledge even if God didn’t exist then please present a way in which it is possible and refute my position. I am beginning to think you cannot refute my position.

    See, your argument of “If scripture were not the word of God, knowledge would be impossible, knowledge is not impossible, therefore scripture is the word of God”, can be simplified to:

    “Knowledge is possible because God exists, & God exists because knowledge is possible”.


    No, God doesn’t exist because knowledge is possible; we can know that God exists because we can know something at all. I know that I exist because the very act of thinking (doubting) about my existence is only possible if I existed to begin with (I think, therefore I am). Indirect syllogisms such as these are used all the time; they are completely valid and appropriate. “A” presupposes “B”, “A” is true therefore “B” is also true. Knowledge gained through experience presupposes that God exists, knowledge gained through experience is possible, therefore God exists.

    It’s completely circular & looney.


    That reminds me! Why have you dodged my challenge twice now? Is it because you know you cannot do it without being circular and therefore being “loony”?

    Here it is again!

    1. Prove the laws of logic exist, but don’t use the laws of logic in your proof because that would be circular.
    2. Prove that the principle of induction will continue to be valid in the future, however do not use an inductive argument to do this because that would be circular.
    3. Prove your senses are reliable, but do not appeal to experience because that assumes your senses are reliable and therefore would be circular.
    4. Prove your memory is reliable, however do not make an appeal to experience because that assumes your memory is reliable and would therefore be circular.
    Quote Quote  

  8. -58
    D0lphan72's Avatar
    Hokies class of 2016

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2009
    Posts:
    1,799
    vCash:
    1985
    Loc:
    Virginia
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Ford LogoDolphins HomerTannehill 17Snakes!Xbox Logo
    Quote Originally Posted by rob19 View Post
    Was baptized Catholic myself, did the communion, memorized the Lord's prayer, the whole nine yards. The smart ones do usually get disillusioned with it at some point or another. As with most religions, there's some good values there, but once you start taking all the dogma too seriously it gets a bit kooky (see Statler).
    I have actually been raised catholic my entire life. went to some small church in conencticut and have been going to the same church here in virginia ever since i was 7. we had the same priest here since i moved and i loved it and i loved him. Everyone enjoyed him and he ran the church awesomely. he never talked about any bad stuff like "hating gays" or any bull**** like that. Just made us closer to God. He left aboutttt... 9 months ago and was replaced by a new priest. he is driving people away and is driving me away from the catholic church, not to mention our youth minister left (who was also loved) and was replaced by a complete bitch. I actually hate her. I am steadily seperating from the catholic religion because of the priest we have and the youth minister. But i am certainly not seperating from God. I understand your beliefs and i can completely respect it. But i have had enough experiences in my life where i can fully believe.
    Quote Quote  

  9. -59
    Roman529's Avatar
    Moon Runner / The 3 AM Crew

    Status:
    Online
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Jul 2004
    Posts:
    33,606
    vCash:
    10355
    Loc:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Thanks / No Thanks
    I don't know if there is a heaven, but I don't think there is a hell. I think the concept of hell was a scare tactic used by the Church in the Middle Ages to keep people in line. I think there is a good possibility we get reincarnated. Sometimes you just have this feeling that you have had certain experiences before or have re-lived something. Like when you visit a place and you feel like you have been there before. I guess we all should find out for sure when we die. I just hope that there is a heaven for all kids who pass away before they can really live life....and I hope there is one for the dogs I have owned and the good friends and family I have been able to know.
    Quote Quote  

  10. -60
    ROADRUNNER's Avatar
    Super Moderator

    Status:
    Offline
    WPA:
    Join date:
    Dec 2008
    Posts:
    9,210
    vCash:
    129
    Loc:
    Aberdeen
    Thanks / No Thanks
    Arsenal shield
    Quote Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Realistic View, Not a Homer View...
    By T.O.phin in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 12-22-2009, 07:02 PM
  2. "Skeptic View of Dolphin Draft" (not my true view)
    By Lee2000 in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 05-15-2008, 01:20 PM
  3. Fin Heaven VIP
    By True Fins Fan in forum Questions and Suggestions Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 10:15 PM
  4. Fin Heaven VIP
    By True Fins Fan in forum Miami Dolphins Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-2006, 09:54 PM
  5. New to fin heaven
    By mdolp1 in forum Introduce Yourself!
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-12-2006, 11:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •