Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Jodie.Lynne

I don't believe you

5,213 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Clarakore
7 minutes ago, danydandan said:

We all admire Xeno.

I was trying to make a joke, the poor guy seems to attract these trolling type posters. I've never seen a post from oslove before and the first one I see is a post attempting to belittle Xeno. 

https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/profile/73451-oslove/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, Clarakore said:

more than one, team xeno

 

apologies to oslove for being unable to understand his point, it is 0137 am here, but was it a logic or argument fallacy?

Where is the logic in attempting to logically explain an illogical concept? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore
Just now, danydandan said:

Where is the logic in attempting to logically explain an illogical concept? 

i was hoping if there was one that it could be pointed out and summarized neatly by title, such as any of these listed below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

Apparent anonymity makes people forget their manners and too free to give Fortnitesque bludgeonings.   

Social decorum has been made redundant by it, apparently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
1 minute ago, Clarakore said:

i was hoping if there was one that it could be pointed out and summarized neatly by title, such as any of these listed below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Do you understand propositional logic? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clarakore
Posted (edited)
37 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Do you understand propositional logic? 

thank you good sir, but i do not yet, it sounds so very interesting from the brief part i read

 

thank you for trying to help a newb like me across the ropes but i will bow out now of this as oslove, is no walker yet, but to me seems like oslove is going to devil advocate and nit pick down to brass tacks while nickle and diming random folk, and i like that

Edited by Clarakore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozymandias
5 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear Xeno, you are not talking with logic, and that is because you don't think about what you have said.

You see, when you write something, first you think on what you are going to write about, then as you write you also keep thinking on each word you write, to make sure that each word together with other words already written, and the words that will still come from you to complete your thought, they make a consistent, coherent, and sensible communication; finally when you have completed your text, read again the whole thought for a final examination: on whether you have produced a thought that is endowed with consistency, coherency, and logic.

Here is what you wrote (enumeration by yours truly):

"<1>I'm not a gambler so I can't make the same spiritual bet you can. <2>Plus if god/jesus/whatever exist <3>I figure that no matter what I'm going to hell regardless."

No. <3> is illogical; to be logicall you should say:  " . . . I'm going to strive to escape hell regardless."

I see you failed to follow your own advice.

  • Haha 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish
1 hour ago, danydandan said:

the poor guy seems to attract these trolling type posters. 

You have no idea. 

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
32 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You have no idea. 

I do! Like calls for like. Whenever fish is involved, it's inevitable that trolling will be used. But actually I think it's because Xenofish is such a likeable, and feisty creature, that he attracts so much attention. And some will even take up trolling just to get his attention. But as Xenofish states, it's all about nothing, really!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Skulduggery

I am a sceptic. By nature. As a person who, at the feeble age of 8, ran into a gun-wielding, rheumy eyed crackhead in the woods during a game of hide-and-seek, I don't believe past my own nose. Anything else would be folly. I believe in scientific method, yet I also believe in giving the benefit of the doubt to proponents of other ideas. I have seen things I still can't explain, and I remain sceptical. Not because I agree with other sceptics, but because I am honest with myself. I believe that there is a lot I don't know, and it is wise to align myself with the underdog of any given situation. Instinctively.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

The lesson being that 'he died for your sins', is not logical. Nor is the explanation that 'while he died for your sins, you are still responsible for your sins".

Well, as Psyche and others have pointed out belief in a deity at all isn't logical. Jesus died so that ever sin is already paid. But people, being human, can't accept that and so feel guilt, and that requires the asking of forgiveness to get over. So in a way you still are responsible, to yourself, for your sins though Jesus already cleared your card.

Quote

EXAMPLE: If you committed a crime, and I know you committed that crime, but I confess to the crime and suffer the punishment for it, absolving you of your guilt, then how is it that you are still 'guilty'?

I've actually heard of people doing similar things, and the person who got off will feel crippling guilt, regardless of if they went to jail or not.

Survivor's guilt is similar, IMHO. The person feels guilt regardless of actually being the victim.

Quote

EXAMPLE: A more accurate, less ambiguous one... If you have a college debt, and I pay that debt for you, no strings attached, do you still have a debt?

It is up to the person whether they will feel indebted to their college, or the person who paid it off. 

Quote

NO where, does it say that Jesus said "Hey guys, I'm taking the hit for you all! Just worship me forever, OK?

If Jesus 'died for the sins of mankind', then there is no sin on your slate. If you accept him as your scapegoat. So how is it that we are all still 'sinful sinners'?

It does say Jesus was taking the hit. At the Last Supper he said he was going to pour out his blood for the forgiveness of sin for "many".

Though you are right in that Jesus never asked anyone to worship him. He said to follow the Father.

Sin is like germs... You can wash your hands and Know you are clean, but you may just wash them again and again, because you do not actually believe you are clean.

Myself, I know most of my sins, and I repent of them over and over, so I do believe I am clean. Though I think such is actually rare in a Christian. Most talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

Plus the Bible says all of us sin and fall short of Jesus's example. If we all fall short, then all are going to burn. Yet the Bible says that is not so. So, falling short, in and of itself is not damnation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
7 minutes ago, Skulduggery said:

I am a sceptic. By nature. As a person who, at the feeble age of 8, ran into a gun-wielding, rheumy eyed crackhead in the woods during a game of hide-and-seek, 

I got chased for a quarter mile by pot growers when I was 12. I hopped over a hedge and landed in their garden. Probably the exact opposite of what they wanted to happen.

The whole grow op was pulled up by the Sheriff Dept a month later. :lol:

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

With respect, Christianity implies the exact opposite of your position. By deed, thought, and teachings.

There is great theological debate about whether those who have never heard the Jesus narratives get a 'free pass'.

The idea being that if you have no knowledge about Jesus, you are exempt for hellish torment for not believing. Yet, missionaries take it as a sacred duty to 'spread the word' to all. This is setting a trap, IMO. 

I could be a happy native, living my life in accordance with my society's moral codes, confident that I am going to a happy place when I die. Until... da da da dun.... some cross wearing missionary comes along and tells me that my people need to be saved by Jesus.

Now, once having been told about this foreign god, I am placed in an untenable position: believe what my people have believed for hundreds (thousands) of years, and suffer the torments of hellfire...

OR,,,

throw away everything that I and my people have lived with, all our lives, in order to appease a very vengeful, FOREIGN god who threatens you with punishment if you don't love & obey him.

 

How does that fit into 'not forcing' one's beliefs on others?


Again, I am not saying you shouldn't believe what you believe, but how is this justified with what is referred to as a 'loving god'?

I actually believe that falls under legalism. Where some Christians believe they must convert people, to save them. This resulted in many horrible events during the Middle Ages. 

Jesus said go and spread the Good News. He didn't say convert or die. The hellfire routine came in after politics got tangled with religion. 

Most evangelicals actually practice mission work by going and living amongst their target group and trying to be examples to them. Thus leading people to Christ by them wanting to be more like these Christians. 

I met a man and his wife last summer who are missionaries living in Qutar. And they've converted maybe a dozen people in three years.

Not all missionaries attempt conversion by fear. IMHO not even many of them. It would be a fools errand to curse people and their lifestyle and expect them to just bow down.

I'm not sure, but I believe hellfire preaching missionaries is a thing of 50-100 years ago. Though I do know many churches still do the occasional hellfire message on Sundays. 

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
7 hours ago, Piney said:

No he wasn't. He was born one but never practiced or paid his tithe. The Nixons were one of the "First Families" who settled West Jersey and there is a road named for his ancestors near the Moorestown Meetinghouse though. I also have his genealogy in my files. 

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting would have you, no doubt. My sister would be driving you nuts to join the Union of Concerned Scientists too.

I don't think the Evangelicals on the West Coast would appreciate you though. Of course we "Traditionalists" don't consider them real Quakers. 

Hard to see why West coasters aren't considered Quakers, what with all the quakes out there.

Harte

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pettytalk
20 minutes ago, Skulduggery said:

I am a sceptic. By nature. As a person who, at the feeble age of 8, ran into a gun-wielding, rheumy eyed crackhead in the woods during a game of hide-and-seek, I don't believe past my own nose. Anything else would be folly. I believe in scientific method, yet I also believe in giving the benefit of the doubt to proponents of other ideas. I have seen things I still can't explain, and I remain sceptical. Not because I agree with other sceptics, but because I am honest with myself. I believe that there is a lot I don't know, and it is wise to align myself with the underdog of any given situation. Instinctively.

To be skeptical is to be wise. And by being skeptical I mean to be skeptical of everything, including science. If we cannot know the beginning we cannot really know anything that follows it. Sure we can begin to know that we know somethings, but these somethings cannot be really known without knowing the whole story. As they say, the foundation is what everything is based on. And one can build lots of things even on a baseless foundation. The problem is that eventually all will fall when the whole has not a good solid foundation. And the only good solid foundation is a true one, as truth is the most solid thing in the universe, and it can never be taken apart. The problem lies at the bottom; not knowing the beginning.

First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is
that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always
becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason
is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the
help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and
perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of
necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.
The work of the creator, whenever he looks to the unchangeable and fashions the
form and nature of his work after an unchangeable pattern, must necessarily be
made fair and perfect; but when he looks to the created only, and uses a created
pattern, it is not fair or perfect. Was the heaven then or the world, whether
called by this or by any other more appropriate name–assuming the name, I am
asking a question which has to be asked at the beginning of an enquiry about
anything–was the world, I say, always in existence and without beginning? or
created, and had it a beginning? Created, I reply, being visible and tangible and
having a body, and therefore sensible; and all sensible things are apprehended
by opinion and sense and are in a process of creation and created. Now that
which is created must, as we affirm, of necessity be created by a cause. But the
father and maker of all this universe is past finding out; and even if we found
him, to tell of him to all men would be impossible. And there is still a question
to be asked about him: Which of the patterns had the artificer in view when he
made the world–the pattern of the unchangeable, or of that which is created? If
the world be indeed fair and the artificer good, it is manifest that he must have
looked to that which is eternal; but if what cannot be said without blasphemy is
true, then to the created pattern. Every one will see that he must have looked
to the eternal; for the world is the fairest of creations and he is the best of
causes. And having been created in this way, the world has been framed in the
likeness of that which is apprehended by reason and mind and is unchangeable,
and must therefore of necessity, if this is admitted, be a copy of something.
Now it is all-important that the beginning of everything should be according to
nature. And in speaking of the copy and the original we may assume that words
are akin to the matter which they describe; when they relate to the lasting and
permanent and intelligible, they ought to be lasting and unalterable, and, as far
as their nature allows, irrefutable and immovable–nothing less. But when they
express only the copy or likeness and not the eternal things themselves, they
need only be likely and analogous to the real words. As being is to becoming,
so is truth to belief. If then, Socrates, amid the many opinions about the gods
and the generation of the universe, we are not able to give notions which are
altogether and in every respect exact and consistent with one another, do not
be surprised. Enough, if we adduce probabilities as likely as any others; for we
must remember that I who am the speaker, and you who are the judges, are
only mortal men, and we ought to accept the tale which is probable and enquire
no further.
SOCRATES: Excellent, Timaeus; and we will do precisely as you bid us.
The prelude is charming, and is already accepted by us–may we beg of you to
proceed to the strain?..................

Time, then, and the heaven came into being at the same instant in order
that, having been created together, if ever there was to be a dissolution of them,
they might be dissolved together. It was framed after the pattern of the eternal
nature, that it might resemble this as far as was possible; for the pattern exists
from eternity, and the created heaven has been, and is, and will be, in all time.
Such was the mind and thought of God in the creation of time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
7 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Myself, I know most of my sins, and I repent of them over and over, so I do believe I am clean.

Why repent if Jesus has already died for and paid for all sins?  Doesn't that alone make you as clean as you can ever possibly be?

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

Doing God's will is the way that keeps it clean. And leaves no room for sin.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Doing God's will is the way that keeps it clean. And leaves no room for sin.

 

 

Being arrogant enough to believe you are actually doing God's will is a sin.

  • Like 4
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
17 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Being arrogant enough to believe you are actually doing God's will is a sin.

 

Do you think you can go 2 seconds without sinning?

How about 2 minutes?

Half an hour?

All day?

How about for an entire month?

 

I know exactly when I'm doing God's will. If that's arrogant, then so be it. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

if-you-dont-sin-jesus-died-for-nothing-p

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due

 

Sometimes, doing God's will is simply smiling on someone who.needs it. 

 

05072014quakermain.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Sometimes, doing God's will is simply smiling on someone who.needs it. 

 

05072014quakermain.jpg

I have sensed you have a strong affinity with oatmeal, Will.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

I have sensed you have a strong affinity with oatmeal, Will.

 

Grits are much better.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
Just now, Will Due said:

 

Grits are much better.

 

 

Thank you for that reinforcement.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
11 hours ago, danydandan said:

Where is the logic in attempting to logically explain an illogical concept? 

Theologic.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.