• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

ANSWERS TO ATHEIST NONSENSE

So, this is a serious problem for all religious beliefs if they are based on interpretation.
Religious leaders via council can (and have) interpret and codify concepts, and still be in error. Individuals can (and have) interpreted concepts in error.

Words can cause problems.
 
Religious leaders via council can (and have) interpret and codify concepts, and still be in error. Individuals can (and have) interpreted concepts in error.

Words can cause problems.

In error from what?
 
And they do what exactly? What's your plan? Think you're far too busy encouraging abortion rights, gay right rights, anti creationist picketing and making light of Christians to do a thing. And maybe GOD is more involved in climate change that will become more apparent as time moves on,

it will dawn on them eventually, hopefully sooner.

3 months people; choose wisely

Revelation Chapter 8:6-13
6Then the seven angels who had the seven trumpets prepared to sound them. 7The first angel sounded his trumpet, and there came hail and fire mixed with blood, and it was hurled down upon the earth. A third of the earth was burned up, a third of the trees were burned up, and all the green grass was burned up. 8The second angel sounded his trumpet, and something like a huge mountain, all ablaze, was thrown into the sea. A third of the sea turned into blood. 9a third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed. 10The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water--11the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter. 12The fourth angel sounded his trumpet, and a third of the sun was struck, a third of the moon, and a third of the stars, so that a third of them turned dark. A third of the day was without light, and also a third of the night. 13As I watched, I heard an eagle that was flying in midair call out in a loud voice: "Woe! Woe! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth, because of the trumpet blasts about to be sounded by the other three angels!"

Oh, I'm sorry --- all of that is just made up and will never happen... Pretend things don't happen...
Wutz?

I'm busy staying cool. I have no idea what that babble means.

It was 98 at game time last night. It'll be over 100 at tonight's game.

Mike, these are just the Beginnings of Sorrows....

Motorcyclist dies in Death Valley from extreme heat, 5 others treated​

Natalie Neysa Alund
USA TODAY

 
Where what? Make sense, please.

did you see the Signs along yur way this morning?
I saw a sign that said "**** the Dumb Shit." Reminded me of your posts.

I focus on the smart shit. Like real life. Children. Real children. Not ravings from the lunatic mind of Jack Chick.

^^^ reality. get some
 
In error from what?
Error from what was intended. For example, Americans abide by the principle that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That written statement seems simple, and one would think that we could arrive at some consensus on what was intended. But every single word can be interpreted to suit an agenda, a different set of values, an upbringing, etc. without the interpreter even being aware of those biases.
 
Exactly. Like I said, Nicaea didn't change anything.

I think we're finally getting somewhere.
Nicaea didnt stop changes from happening
I think you are starting to get somewhere
 
Error from what was intended. For example, Americans abide by the principle that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That written statement seems simple, and one would think that we could arrive at some consensus on what was intended. But every single word can be interpreted to suit an agenda, a different set of values, an upbringing, etc. without the interpreter even being aware of those biases.
So change is constant, including the fact that God(s) change
 
Religious leaders via council can (and have) interpret and codify concepts, and still be in error. Individuals can (and have) interpreted concepts in error.

Words can cause problems.

So do you agree with me that this is a very serious problem for all religious beliefs? Because it is about beliefs , not just words. Beliefs are the critical basis of all religions.
 
So change is constant, including the fact that God(s) change
If God exists, people's interpretation of him has no affect on him. If he doesn't exist, our opinions of him don't change him either, well, because he doesn't exist.
 
Error from what was intended. For example, Americans abide by the principle that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That written statement seems simple, and one would think that we could arrive at some consensus on what was intended. But every single word can be interpreted to suit an agenda, a different set of values, an upbringing, etc. without the interpreter even being aware of those biases.

That really doesn’t answer the question specifically as regards what you were addressing

.
Religious leaders via council can (and have) interpret and codify concepts, and still be in error. Individuals can (and have) interpreted concepts in error.

What “errors” were you claiming that were supposedly interpreted in error, and who exactly has the final say as to what is “not” in error in that regard?
 
Error from what was intended. For example, Americans abide by the principle that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That written statement seems simple, and one would think that we could arrive at some consensus on what was intended. But every single word can be interpreted to suit an agenda, a different set of values, an upbringing, etc. without the interpreter even being aware of those biases.
The biggest bias held irrevocably by every single person is life in the 21st century.

What is written in one era may not be rewritten by the same authors if they had a chance in another. No one will ever know. If the Founders could have foreseen automatic weapons, they may have thought differently. And firearm regulation was the norm at the founding.

Yes, this is the problem with interpreting language. As wonderful as it is, it must be interpreted in the context of when it was written.
 
Error from what was intended. For example, Americans abide by the principle that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That written statement seems simple, and one would think that we could arrive at some consensus on what was intended. But every single word can be interpreted to suit an agenda, a different set of values, an upbringing, etc. without the interpreter even being aware of those biases.

You can’t determine an error from what was intended if there is disagreement on the intention. It is disagreement, not error. Politics is not exactly like religion, as there are laws that are enforced. Religions that lack any earthly power of enforcement cannot enforce their beliefs. It becomes a true free for all.
 
Sorry the strawman you have made up in your head doesn't match with what I have posted
Quag, I think you're generally a good poster, but I honestly thinking you're flailing around here. And I have no idea of the point you're trying to make. You've asserted that God changed, and used the Nicaea as an example of where that change took place. Except we now agree that the idea of the deity of Christ didn't change at all as a result of Nicaea. Hell with strawmen. I don't even know of what you're trying to assert at this point.
 
You can’t determine an error from what was intended if there is disagreement on the intention. It is disagreement, not error. Politics is not exactly like religion, as there are laws that are enforced. Religions that lack any earthly power of enforcement cannot enforce their beliefs. It becomes a true free for all.
It absolutely could be.
 
That really doesn’t answer the question specifically as regards what you were addressing
I didn't really any particular point of doctrine in mind necessarily.
 
If God exists, people's interpretation of him has no affect on him. If he doesn't exist, our opinions of him don't change him either, well, because he doesn't exist.
All versions of God(s) are interpretations by humans and constantly change
 
Quag, I think you're generally a good poster, but I honestly thinking you're flailing around here. And I have no idea of the point you're trying to make. You've asserted that God changed, and used the Nicaea as an example of where that change took place. Except we now agree that the idea of the deity of Christ didn't change at all as a result of Nicaea. Hell with strawmen. I don't even know of what you're trying to assert at this point.
No where did you ever get such an absurd beleif that I agreed to such an erroneous statement?

As all beliefs in God(s) exist only in the believers their changing beliefs change the God(s)
 
Back
Top Bottom