Death Sentence for Sorcery

[Jefe]

Seems most of you aren't really educated enough about "faith and doubt". It's these two concepts that bring you closer to God. I hate to sound like an evangelist or missionary, but it's true. (It pains me to say, considering the anti-theist grouping on this board)

You place God before all else, true. But that does not mean you should abandon reason all together ( sounds stupid, even to me, being an Age of Reason kind of guy). It's the fanatical that place everything before God, and show their ignorance. Sadly, I have to be lumped with those people on BG for some reason.

I am actually encouraged to question my faith in my biblical study classes. It's really fun to throw some of the rhetoric I see on BG into essays. My teachers actually agree with me on some stances. I had a good conversation with mine about the "wrath" of God (YHWH since it was OT), and how I believed the justification to use any means necessary to stop evil (subjected to opinion) was inherently wrong according to NT teachings.

Faith is beyond Reason, I will agree, but it is not the abandonment of it. Yea, it can be contradictory, but it is a belief. Deal with it, mother fucker *cool-shades*

Preach on, brotha~

[Neosutra]

Science is factual because scientist say so?

Really?

Pulling strings, but don't take sentences out of context.

No, scientific concepts are factual because they are proved such via peer reviewed evidence based trials.

You just stated that the bible is true because theologians have analyized it.. That doesnt make it true.

There is no doubt a lot of history in the bible, but that doesnt mean a large portion of it isnt fiction.

Or do you believe in Zeus too? Obviously Zues existed because stories of him are in ancient history. Pagan historians have reviewed it, so it is obviously true.

[Plow]

Pretty sure the bible has had more peer review than any scientific fact ever.

[Jefe]

Here we go w/ the same tired circular arguments about Zeus, "the spaggety flying monster," unicorns, and what else am I missing?

Like someone said, think about it like if you're playing poker. If ya'll think you have the "winning hand," a royal flush, why in fucks sake do you want to peek at my hand, why do you care? Seriously no, and who was the retard who compared Hitler to Jesus or something like that lol?

[Neosutra]

Was waiting for Meteora's token "why are you guys talking about religion!??!" post. And yep Meteora, again: Followers of Hitler have killed less people than the followers of Jesus and Mohamud. Maybe if I say it enough you'll be able to digest that FACT.

Anyways Plow: I dont really think we are classifying the same definition to "peer review". Unless you believe theologians arguing the deeper meaning of the tower of babel is the same as scientist attempting to determine the legitamicy of such a story.

Surely, the bible has been "peer reviewed" for theological meanings, but rarely do the stories within it pass logical or scientific analysis.

[Jaybar]

No, scientific concepts are factual because they are proved such via peer reviewed evidence based trials.

You just stated that the bible is true because theologians have analyized it.. That doesnt make it true.

There is no doubt a lot of history in the bible, but that doesnt make a large portion of it fiction.

Or do you believe in Zeus too? Obviously Zues existed because stories of him are in ancient history. Pagan historians have reviewed it, so it is obviously true.

Did you not read the rest of my paragraph? I'm simply basing that a canonized Old Testament is why people have belief in it's existence (see: Jews).

You didn't seriously bring a polytheistic religion into debate, did you? Yes, you did. Perhaps you misunderstand my stance. You see, some Egyptian Stellas actually confirmed some of the stories in the OT (mostly post-Exodus, but primarily Judges/Post-Davidic kingdom). Theologians still can't confirm the introduction of the Tribes of Jacob into Canaan, but they can attest to the fact that they ruled, or had occupied some of the land according to various other documents. This really means that anything pre/around the era of Joshua is really up for grabs. Most Christians take it as a simple story rather than factual truth.

Anyway, comparing what I said about Zeus is slightly different, even though I understand how you are trying to correlate my argument to better fit yours. Actually, that argument is a lot harder to dispute, considering how I worded my own, now that I think about it. How much has the laws of science changed due to peer-reviewed research? A lot, I know. Why can't you also say the same about religion? Why have other religions not stood the test of time?

Why am I even trying to relate religious study with scientific study. Everyone knows that scientific study is based on research while theological study is based on historical evidence. I can't honestly debunk your argument of Zeus vs. God (?), because it is sound in my opinion. I'll leave that up to someone else unless I can come up with a better argument.

[Neosutra]

Other religions did stand the test of time.. Christianity isnt the oldest current religion by far, it just killed the most people and thus is the most dominant (for westerners).

Also:

Everyone knows that scientific study is based on research while theological study is based on historical evidence.

This is incorrect. History is a form of evidence, though one has to assert the validity of such history with the ability to validate any recorded data. Events with multiple records from multiple sources have more "historical evidence" and thus have a higher probability of being true.

Theology is based on belief, not history. The only thing theology has to do with history is that most of your stories were based in the past.. (because apparently god doesnt like to do any of the cool stuff he did a few thousand years ago anymore).

[Aleth]

It seems that the assumption is being made that people who prize reason and method are atheist (thus allowing theists to pull the "you have faith that there is no god" card).

It's actually much more usual for people who think about such things in a logical way to be agnostic or at least of the opinion that there isn't enough proof to lead one to an established religion. (There needs to be a term created with similar meaning to agnostic but without the " - don't care" vibe removed.)

It's worth bearing in mind that if you are remotely capable of reason that you would see that the likelihood of any mainstream religion being correct is exceptionally unlikely. Even if you feel that a god (or gods) are likely, or possible, why would anyone reasonable tie that thought to joining an established religion when they are all highly suspect (and dangerous)? Just because there may be a god, doesn't validate all the rhetoric and fallacies written down by dirt farmers a couple of millennia ago.

A sensible theist wouldn't be tricked into joining what are essentially big cults.

Edit: Also evolution or the Big Bang being true doesn't rule out gods. If they are the case it just means the current stories that are held in high-esteem are wrong. Religions are theist, but being a theist doesn't require a religion.

[Plow]

Theology is based on belief, not history. The only thing theology has to do with history is that most of your stories were based in the past.. (because apparently god doesnt like to do any of the cool stuff he did a few thousand years ago anymore).

Theology and religion are not the same thing.

Religion is the beliefs, the "mission statement" or whatever.

Theology is the actual study of what it is and the history and real implications of it.

[Neosutra]

True, I should have said religion rather than theology. Though the terms can be loosely related to what I was saying in that theology is often times the study of said religious principles, often times a devotion to those principles. Semantics I would say, but you are correct.

[Jaybar]

I shouldn't have said "historical evidence" as loosely as I did, either. I was confirming that scientific research comes to factual conclusions that work in real world systems over and over again, while theological conclusions have to come from what we have documented from the past. Like I said, anything prior to around ... 1200 BCE can not be taken as fact according to theologians, but they are able to confirm some of the eras of the OT.

[Pirian]

So the guy is dead now, right?

[Melena]

Nope, they delayed his execution.