Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Darth Crater]

Wulf - You've covered most of the stuff I had about the flood, and while I could keep linking contradictions (such as those in this video), they're not getting read or adequately addressed. I do have more to say about faith versus evidence, and I'd be interested if you weighed in on it, but I'll leave that till later.

Homestar - here's what I see from your posts. In one paragraph, you claim the Bible is accurate, infallible and perfect. In the next, you claim that parts of it no longer apply, and other parts are merely symbolic. In one place, you claim that its teachings are all helpful. In another, you say you only treat it as a guide, picking and choosing from the teachings. In one place you claim that evidence favors your hypothesis. In another, you claim evidence is not necessary or even valid. In one place you claim to agree with the Bible's values, which include the frankly bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament. In another, you claim to be peaceable.

Here's where I think the problem lies. You don't believe that the Bible is always right. But you do think that you believe the Bible is always right. You speak as though you believe the Bible is infallible, but act as though it is not. Basically - you are wrong, not in your belief, but about your belief. Does this make sense to you? If not, I can go into more detail or give you a link. This isn't easy to understand, I suspect. However, if you realize you don't actually believe your earlier position, you're no longer committed to your losing argument, logical impossibilities, and claims without evidence. This won't be you losing a debate - it will be you winning.

[WD-40]

Let's make it simple:

4038811458_307f34340b_o.jpg (75.65 KiB) Viewed 1554 times

[Col. Hstar]

Homestar - here's what I see from your posts. In one paragraph, you claim the Bible is accurate, infallible and perfect. In the next, you claim that parts of it no longer apply, and other parts are merely symbolic.

I said we are not bound by it (Mosaic Law), This doesn't mean I feel it was wrong. It was necessary for the time, as was stated by the Apostle Paul at Galatians. Also claiming that parts are symbolic is not a question of accuracy but of interpretation.

In one place, you claim that its teachings are all helpful. In another, you say you only treat it as a guide, picking and choosing from the teachings.

How does saying it's a guide contradict that I feel its teachings are helpful? What teachings am I picking and choosing from. While you answering that, explain this. You've said you live by things Jesus said For example the Golden Rule) But Jesus also spoke about the flood citing it as a warning for us to remember. So are you then picking and choosing what to believe from Jesus? He also said that the "word is truth" I don't treat Jesus' teaching or the bible's teaching like a candy store, only taking the things that I like.

In one place you claim that evidence favors your hypothesis. In another, you claim evidence is not necessary or even valid.

I claimed that depending on the question (does God exist, or is the sun hot) Physical evidence is not enough. If your talking about evidence you have presented...a lot of it comes from bias sources (even you admit that) and is developed with a conclusion already in mind. We are different people, we are going to interpret thing differently. I don't have to abide by a link you provide just because "Darth Crater says so"

In one place you claim to agree with the Bible's values, which include the frankly bloodthirsty God of the Old Testament. In another, you claim to be peaceable.

The bloodthirsty God you refer to is not the way I view it. Again we are different people with different views. You see a blood thirsty God and I see him defending his loyal people (Amalekites) You see a bloodthirsty God I see him liberating his loyal people from the hands of captors who are abusive and treacherous (Babylon) You see a bloodthirsty God and I see him having to allow his people to suffer the consequences of their own act of rebelling against him. (the destruction of Israel)

Here's where I think the problem lies. You don't believe that the Bible is always right. But you do think that you believe the Bible is always right.

Wrong.

You speak as though you believe the Bible is infallible, but act as though it is not.

How?

Basically - you are wrong, not in your belief, but about your belief. Does this make sense to you?

The statement is coherent, but wrong.

If not, I can go into more detail or give you a link. This isn't easy to understand, I suspect. However, if you realize you don't actually believe your earlier position, you're no longer committed to your losing argument, logical impossibilities, and claims without evidence. This won't be you losing a debate - it will be you winning.

Oh gee really? Oh boy oh boy oh boy, I can be on your perceived winning side of a debate on a star wars game website. Quick where do I sign up

You know this is all really funny. It's interesting that the subject has gone more from a debate to an attack on my personal beliefs. Because I believe in the Bible, as the word of God, and as completely accurate, you all have decided That I am a irrational bloodthirsty person, or in danger of becoming one. Yet all this is based on what you perceive to be the correct interpretation of the bible. Your committing the very act your accusing me of. Because you are 100% sure that the bible is inaccurate, your attacking me for my beliefs. Do you see where the hypocrisy of your standing lies?

As an example
Why did this:

I think we should simply be presenting what we believe, and why we believe it. Not trying to attack others' beliefs. Respect and understanding.

Turn into this?

These are all facts, and proof it didn't happen. If you don't agree, you are blindly following the Bible. Which is a dangerous thing to do.

[THEWULFMAN]

As an example
Why did this:

I think we should simply be presenting what we believe, and why we believe it. Not trying to attack others' beliefs. Respect and understanding.

Turn into this?

These are all facts, and proof it didn't happen. If you don't agree, you are blindly following the Bible. Which is a dangerous thing to do.

Yeah, I was an idiot back then. New me is an [derriere orifice], and I'm sticking with it.

In all seriousness though, I was referring the the existence of God. If I recall correctly (which right now, is a 50/50 chance at best considering the strain I'm under right now), Crater was making you feel uncomfortable because you believed in God, so I was trying to defend you. I believe in God too, and didn't want you to feel outnumbered and singled out so much.

However, that "respect and understanding" rule doesn't apply to full blown creationists and/or people who think everything in the bible is 100% true. I forgot the asterisk and annotation, sorry for that. I'm not going to defend your beliefs if you believe things like The Flood happened exactly as they say they did.

Look, I respect you as a person. I just don't respect your beliefs, at least not in their entirety. You were most likely raised to believe these things as true, it's hard to shake that feeling and break free of something you've always lived with. It's just now is a time to look around you and question everything, and see if things really are the way you were raised to believe. This applies to everything, not just religion. Politics, for example.

[Col. Hstar]

In all seriousness though, I was referring the the existence of God. If I recall correctly (which right now, is a 50/50 chance at best considering the strain I'm under right now), Crater was making you feel uncomfortable because you believed in God, so I was trying to defend you. I believe in God too, and didn't want you to feel outnumbered and singled out so much.

I never have and never would feel uncomfortable about believing in God. While I appreciate your original intentions, right now your starting to come off as patronizing. It could be just the way I'm reading your post, so I'm fine just giving the benefit of the doubt. I still feel that this thread has turned into more an attack on personal beliefs then a debate.

However, that "respect and understanding" rule doesn't apply to full blown creationists and/or people who think everything in the bible is 100% true. I forgot the asterisk and annotation, sorry for that. I'm not going to defend your beliefs if you believe things like The Flood happened exactly as they say they did.

And I never asked for your defense in my beliefs. It is funny though, that you make a call for tolerance, yet add an asterisk to what that tolerance allows...

Look, I respect you as a person. I just don't respect your beliefs, at least not in their entirety.

Fair enough

You were most likely raised to believe these things as true, it's hard to shake that feeling and break free of something you've always lived with.

Yes because you've known me all my life you are qualified to make that statement. Being raised around something is one thing, but there comes a time where each person makes a decision for themselves. Your comment insinuates that I am brainwashed or something, your wrong, honestly ask yourself this: If this isn't something that I truly believe, would I have spent as much time responding to each and every one of theses idiotic attacks? Now I am really really trying to keep this civil, but your condescending comments are very close to crossing the line.

It's just now is a time to look around you and question everything, and see if things really are the way you were raised to believe. This applies to everything, not just religion. Politics, for example.

I have done so. You just don't like the conclusion I have drawn.

[THEWULFMAN]

Perhaps I did cross a line somewhere, I'm sorry if I did. I'm under a tremendous amount of stress and shouldn't be talking to anyone right now.

I never have and never would feel uncomfortable about believing in God. While I appreciate your original intentions, right now your starting to come off as patronizing. It could be just the way I'm reading your post, so I'm fine just giving the benefit of the doubt. I still feel that this thread has turned into more an attack on personal beliefs then a debate.

You misunderstand. I was never saying you felt uncomfortable believing in God. I meant being here, in this discussion. And I'm not wrong. You said it yourself, you feel this thread is more about attacking your personal beliefs than anything, and this is the very thing I was trying to avoid.

It is funny though, that you make a call for tolerance, yet add an asterisk to what that tolerance allows...

Well, yeah. Everyone should tolerate to a certain level. There have to be statutes in what is and is not supposed to be tolerated. Like, if I go beat the crap out of a squirrel for eating the bird seed yet again, should that be tolerated? No of course not, that's pointlessly cruel.

Yes because you've known me all my life you are qualified to make that statement. Being raised around something is one thing, but there comes a time where each person makes a decision for themselves. Your comment insinuates that I am brainwashed or something, your wrong, honestly ask yourself this: If this isn't something that I truly believe, would I have spent as much time responding to each and every one of theses idiotic attacks?

I never said I've known you all your life. I said "most likely." Meaning I was basing it off of statistics.

Honestly, you do sound a bit "brainwashed" because you refuse to look at facts and instead would seemingly die defending everything the bible has to say.

Although to be fair, anyone who is subjected to certain ideas for a long amount of time, and then adhere to those ideas, would be "brainwashed" in my opinion. Doesn't er how big or small the thing is. It's a really crude, and offensive term that I wouldn't have used. You said it, not me. I would have used the word "conditioned." As in, 'you have been conditioned to think a certain way.'

I've had the fortune of having parents who pretty much let me pick my own ideals and interfere with what I think as little as possible, beyond obvious things like making sure I don't go murder people and such. Most people, however, do not have my luck. They're taught from a very young age exactly how to think. This is hardly fair to the child.

If you continue to hold the position that everything in the Bible is 100% true, then yes, I will think you have poor judgement. It's how I see it.

[Darth Crater]

Wulf - I'm not exactly a fair judge (I'm naturally bad at judging tone, diplomatic phrasing, etc), but what you're saying makes sense to me.

Homestar - I don't think you understand how little sense your explanations are making. "Not bound by it" translates directly to "it's not correct for me". Symbolic translates directly to "not literally correct". By the way, you think that Deuteronomy, Leviticus, et al were correct for pre-Jesus worshipers? You are saying that it was ever right to, for example, kill adulterers (Deuteronomy 23:22)? Why would it be right then, if it isn't now? Is morality, which I think you believe is concrete ("sin" and such) rather than personal, capable of changing that drastically over a few thousand years? Why would the God you claim to follow ever want people killed?

The very fact that you claim you "interpret" the Bible means that you don't think it's perfect. You filter it, pick and choose from it, and prefer your and others' interpretations over the literal text. You "view" sections in which God orders or condones the slaughter of thousands of innocents as justified, because you can't worship a being who would do that without justification.

Like you, I absolutely am picking and choosing what I believe from the Bible, because I don't think most of it is true, and as you said, parts of it are no longer (or were never) good advice. I just am not simultaneously claiming that every single verse is good, useful, and scientifically sound. I see no contradiction on my end.

Why am I wrong in saying you only think you believe in the Bile's infallibility? Clearly, you think you believe, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Then - do you believe? As I've said, if you really believed, you would be living your life far differently than you do now. You don't listen just to the Bible - you listen to the Bible filtered through countless clerics, scholars, and your own sense of morality to remove the objectionable stuff. You are not bloodthirsty, cruel, or unjust. You do not have to change anything about your life. You just have to recognize that your way of life is not consistent with an infallible Bible.

As Wulf said, when literally everyone you're talking to is telling you you are wrong, perhaps it's time to step back and take another look. When what you claim to believe can be demonstrated (as with the Ark) to be factually wrong, it's time to address whatever's causing the problem. It doesn't matter where we are - this being SWGO's forum and not a church doesn't make anything we've said less valid. Your statement about the Bible is wrong, we can and have proved it, and you should stop thinking it is true.

Here's what I meant by that last bit. You won't be winning because you end up on my side - sides, teams, or political parties are terrible concepts that poison debates. As you've seen, since you picked the "side" of "the Bible is infallible" and have been bound to the contradictions required to defend it ever since. You will be winning because you will be more correct in your beliefs. If a debate happens, and everyone listens to the evidence and arguments the other provides, they all win. Stop losing and start listening.

(By the way, as Wulf does, I respect you as a person. You are human. You are entitled to life and pleasure. I am, however, willing to keep at this until you stop insisting on demonstrable falsehoods.)

[Col. Hstar]

Perhaps I did cross a line somewhere, I'm sorry if I did. I'm under a tremendous amount of stress and shouldn't be talking to anyone right now.

Understandable, no worries, I won't hold it against you...much

It is funny though, that you make a call for tolerance, yet add an asterisk to what that tolerance allows...

Well, yeah. Everyone should tolerate to a certain level. There have to be statutes in what is and is not supposed to be tolerated. Like, if I go beat the crap out of a squirrel for eating the bird seed yet again, should that be tolerated? No of course not, that's pointlessly cruel.

True, and if there ever comes a point where I start beating the crap out of someone then that shouldn't be tolerated. But I am entitled to my option, and my beliefs. That should be tolerated.

I never said I've known you all your life. I said "most likely." Meaning I was basing it off of statistics. Honestly, you do sound a bit "brainwashed" because you refuse to look at facts and instead would seemingly die defending everything the bible has to say.

I'm sure I do sound brainwashed, to you. On the flip side I feel that you put too much faith in the conclusions that you've drawn on the facts. That's just two people with opinions that differ from each other.
As far as being willing to die for my beliefs. My belief in God is based on the bible, in it's entirety. Following God's standards and direction is paramount to me. Despite what any human, religious group, or government says I would follow those standards, even if it cost me my life.
If I feel that strong about my belief, is that so wrong?
(Before you tell me that's a dangerous way to think, remember I am basing this on my interpretation of the bible. My interpretation is that there is no divine law stating I have to bring any harm to another human being now or in the future.)

Although to be fair, anyone who is subjected to certain ideas for a long amount of time, and then adhere to those ideas, would be "brainwashed" in my opinion. Doesn't er how big or small the thing is. It's a really crude, and offensive term that I wouldn't have used. You said it, not me. I would have used the word "conditioned." As in, 'you have been conditioned to think a certain way.

This comment still bothers me some. Not in a angry way, but a "let's make this clear" way. The reason I used the term brainwashing is because of what your implying. A definition of brainwashing is: The application of a concentrated means of persuasion, such as an advertising campaign or repeated suggestion, in order to develop a specific belief or motivation. In a sense your implying that because I was raised this way I have been persuaded to develop this specific belief. You said

"it's hard to shake that feeling and break free of something you've always lived with"

as if I was trying to kick a drug habit. By stating this you imply that my beliefs are not my own, you try to diminish them by saying I was "conditioned" this way. As if no one would ever come to this conclusion themselves. I understand basing it on statistics was your reasoning, but those are statistic not rules.

I've had the fortune of having parents who pretty much let me pick my own ideals and interfere with what I think as little as possible, beyond obvious things like making sure I don't go murder people and such. Most people, however, do not have my luck. They're taught from a very young age exactly how to think. This is hardly fair to the child.

I do not doubt there are people of certain faiths only because of their up bringing. I am not one of them.

If you continue to hold the position that everything in the Bible is 100% true, then yes, I will think you have poor judgement. It's how I see it.

And that is your choice. I feel it's poor judgement on your part to regard the Bible as anything but 100% true. That is my choice. We agree to disagree. That's how I see it.

[Col. Hstar]

Sorry for the double post but just saw Craters comments
Definitions provided by http://www.thefreedictionary.com/

"Not bound by it" translates directly to "it's not correct for me".

Bound: Being under legal or moral obligation - "It's not correct for me" is not close at all

Symbolic translates directly to "not literally correct."

Symbolic: relating to, or expressed by means of symbols or a symbol - They are not to be taken literally but it doesn't make it incorrect

By the way, you think that Deuteronomy, Leviticus, et al were correct for pre-Jesus worshipers? You are saying that it was ever right to, for example, kill adulterers (Deuteronomy 23:22)? Why would it be right then, if it isn't now? Is morality, which I think you believe is concrete ("sin" and such) rather than personal, capable of changing that drastically over a few thousand years? Why would the God you claim to follow ever want people killed?

It was for those people because that was the covenant they agreed to. The Bible shows that they wanted those laws because they wanted to be God's special people. Back then they did have what you and Yanoda were asking for, iron clad physical proof that God existed because he delivered them out of Egypt. He also set out the conditions for the covenant between him and the Israelites. (Exodus 19:3-8; 20:1–23:33) When these conditions were related by Moses, the Israelites declared: “All that Jehovah has spoken we are willing to do and be obedient.” (Exodus 24:3-7) Of their own free will, they became a nation dedicated to the Sovereign Lord Jehovah. As a dedicated nation representing his name they adhered by the law code that was strict. It was strict to keep the nation morally and spiritually clean. Those people were not forced to remain with the nation, at anytime they could leave but they didn't because it was their choice.

As far as God wanting people killed

but he is patient with YOU because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance

The very fact that you claim you "interpret" the Bible means that you don't think it's perfect. You filter it, pick and choose from it, and prefer your and others' interpretations over the literal text. You "view" sections in which God orders or condones the slaughter of thousands of innocents as justified, because you can't worship a being who would do that without justification.

The fact that it must be translated from one language to another doesn't make it imperfect. You claim as well to have the correct interpretation of the Bible. You "view" the same sections as evidence of a thirst for violence because you can't bring yourself to think that there is a higher power to answer to.

Like you, I absolutely am picking and choosing what I believe from the Bible, because I don't think most of it is true, and as you said, parts of it are no longer (or were never) good advice. I just am not simultaneously claiming that every single verse is good, useful, and scientifically sound. I see no contradiction on my end.

And that is your choice to think that way.

Why am I wrong in saying you only think you believe in the Bile's infallibility? Clearly, you think you believe, or we wouldn't be having this discussion. Then - do you believe? As I've said, if you really believed, you would be living your life far differently than you do now.

You base this on your interpretation of the Bible and what you perceive living according to the Bible would look like.

You don't listen just to the Bible - you listen to the Bible filtered through countless clerics, scholars, and your own sense of morality to remove the objectionable stuff.

The same could be said about you and your beliefs on evolution. That is unless you have personally conducted experiments and tests on the evolutionary process.....

You are not bloodthirsty, cruel, or unjust. You do not have to change anything about your life. You just have to recognize that your way of life is not consistent with an infallible Bible.

I would like to think I am keeping as close as I possibly can. The Bible points out that no one is perfect - Roman's 3:23. The very first step though is humbly accepting that since we are imperfect we need God's guidance.

As Wulf said, when literally everyone you're talking to is telling you you are wrong, perhaps it's time to step back and take another look.

So I should follow the majority is that what you're saying?

13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it.

Going with the popular opinion is a stupid reason to believe something.

When what you claim to believe can be demonstrated (as with the Ark) to be factually wrong, it's time to address whatever's causing the problem. It doesn't er where we are - this being SWGO's forum and not a church doesn't make anything we've said less valid. Your statement about the Bible is wrong, we can and have proved it, and you should stop thinking it is true.

Oh well now that you put it that way what was I thinking in the first place. OK let me go and readjust everything I believe because you deem that it has been answer once and for all here in the Star Wars Gaming Organization website. x1,000,000 (there is not a enough room for all of the little laughing guys I want to put on here)

Here's what I meant by that last bit. Oh good please explain You won't be winning because you end up on my side - sides, teams, or political parties are terrible concepts that poison debates. As you've seen, since you picked the "side" of "the Bible is infallible" and have been bound to the contradictions required to defend it ever since.yes I chose sides, as if there weren't any before You will be winning because you will be more correct in your beliefs. If a debate happens, and everyone listens to the evidence and arguments the other provides, they all win. Stop losing and start listening.

So in this debate you have all of the correct facts and indisputable proof? If that truly was the case there would be no need for debate. This is by far one of the most arrogant statements you've made so far. I'll start listening when I see something worthy of paying my attention to. Call it losing or what ever you perceive it to be.

(By the way, as Wulf does, I respect you as a person. You are human. You are entitled to life and pleasure. I am, however, willing to keep at this until you stop insisting on demonstrable falsehoods.)

Yes I can totally see the respect when you start telling me to listen to you and believe what you say, because you say so. But I'll let it go, and take your comment for what it's worth. I respect you and your opinions too, but I disagree with them. You're not obligated to agree with mine as I am not obliged to agree with yours

[[m'kay]]

Homestar, you've said multiple times that the Bible is completely infallible. Isn't that you saying you have all the proof? Jesus christ man, stop being such a dumbass. This debate has become an absolute farce to watch because all you do is shove your fingers in your ears and start screeching about random [poo] every time the other side makes a point - that is, when you actually decide to respond to their points at all. You might as well have stopped responding about five pages ago. Let it go, you're making this annoying and unpleasant.