Conquer Club

....

What, a sect based on logic? I am shocked. Shocked and appalled
That actually sounds like a very good religion. Congratulations on not joining one of the crazy ones

Though there are a couple of things i dont agree with i find that a much more agreeable religion than most in its teachings.

How literally do you believe the garden of eden story? and how does a place like eden fit into evolution? From all evedence, the world has not experienced a place that was perfect in such a way.

static_ice wrote:Well you and I both know that God or Jesus is never gonna shine down from heaven in front of everyone and own us all with visible proof.

Why not?

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

static_ice wrote:Well you and I both know that God or Jesus is never gonna shine down from heaven in front of everyone and own us all with visible proof.

Why not?

Experience. Hasn't happened in the last 2000 years (before that every major figure had God on their speed dial) and is fairly unlikely to start happening now.

Neutrino wrote:Experience. Hasn't happened in the last 2000 years (before that every major figure had God on their speed dial) and is fairly unlikely to start happening now.

So the reason there is no proof in God in the last 2000 years is because there is no proof? That's not exactly a strong argument supporting Christianity there.

ABSTINENCE?

But.... sex is awesome! And the more you do it, the better it gets!

Well I have to say that I disagree with a lot of what you say, but it looks to me like in general you live a pretty good, meaningful life, so that's a good thing. The God is energy part doesn't really make that much sense to me though... you seem to describe it as a force in nature that influences... by that do you not mean literal energy then?

I disagree on almost everything you say, static. But hey, whatever makes you happy.

Well this might be fun.

static_ice wrote:I don't believe God created just 2 people, Adam and Eve; I think its more likely he created a small colony of people or something.

I believe this is loosly suggested in Genesis. (the book not the band.) I might take a look and see if I can find it.

static_ice wrote:In a nutshell, we believe Rev. Moon is the 2nd coming of the messiah.

The same one as before and if so, do you not believe his words are found correct as they are in the bible as much as possible with translations and the dynamics af language?

Balsiefen wrote:How literally do you believe the garden of eden story? and how does a place like eden fit into evolution? From all evedence, the world has not experienced a place that was perfect in such a way.

I don't find a problem believing that story as literal. If true there will never be evedence unless it's false. When the people were removed it was made unaccessable.

I wonder if it might be in the bermuda triangle? So far nothing has been able to explain fully what's going on in there all we have are theories because people and equipment that have gone in have not come back to explain it.

....

Would not defining God as something quantifiable by science disqualify him as being god by definition?

bloknayrb wrote:Would not defining God as something quantifiable by science disqualify him as being god by definition?

Would it? You tell me.
Maybe he'd be disqualified in the sense of what Christians believe about him?

That isn't actually what I meant. I'm not saying it would have to alter your perception of what God is, rather it would have to force you to re-evaluate calling something quantifiable "God."

static_ice wrote:I agree. But can you prove what I said wrong?

Nah, you have every right to be abstinent. As long as you don't do it out of fear for not getting accepted into heaven or getting TEH AIDS!

I know I wouldn't manage it though.

bloknayrb wrote:Would not defining God as something quantifiable by science disqualify him as being god by definition?

Probably yes. Science does not deal with the supernatural.

TheSupremeCourt wrote:
So the reason there is no proof in God in the last 2000 years is because there is no proof? That's not exactly a strong argument supporting Christianity there.

I wasn't disparaging the existence of God (in that particular post, at least), I was pointing out that since God hasn't actually done anything particularly important for the last 2000 years, it's unlikely to start now.

static_ice wrote:

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

static_ice wrote:Well you and I both know that God or Jesus is never gonna shine down from heaven in front of everyone and own us all with visible proof.

Why not?

What neutrino said, plus its just logical. The age of miracles is over.

So, why did God stop doing all the miracles then? You seem to be saying that "God doesn't perform miracles anymore to give hard proof because... er... he just doesn't. Even though He is perfectly capable and used to all the time, he just doesn't do that anymore. This makes sense. Honest."

Again, why not?

Your posts so far amount to circular logic- the reasoning behind the lack of miracles (it's just more logical that they don't happen anymore) derives directly from the fact that they don't happen anymore.

Is there a real reason why "the age of miracles is over" other than "God just doesn't do that anymore. This argument makes sense because we know there is no proof to say he did."?

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

static_ice wrote:

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

static_ice wrote:Well you and I both know that God or Jesus is never gonna shine down from heaven in front of everyone and own us all with visible proof.

Why not?

What neutrino said, plus its just logical. The age of miracles is over.

So, why did God stop doing all the miracles then? You seem to be saying that "God doesn't perform miracles anymore to give hard proof because... er... he just doesn't. Even though He is perfectly capable and used to all the time, he just doesn't do that anymore. This makes sense. Honest."

Again, why not?

Your posts so far amount to circular logic- the reasoning behind the lack of miracles (it's just more logical that they don't happen anymore) derives directly from the fact that they don't happen anymore.

Is there a real reason why "the age of miracles is over" other than "God just doesn't do that anymore. This argument makes sense because we know there is no proof to say he did."?

Miracles still happen, you just have to look for them. Though some disregard them without a second thought.

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

static_ice wrote:

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

static_ice wrote:Well you and I both know that God or Jesus is never gonna shine down from heaven in front of everyone and own us all with visible proof.

Why not?

What neutrino said, plus its just logical. The age of miracles is over.

So, why did God stop doing all the miracles then? You seem to be saying that "God doesn't perform miracles anymore to give hard proof because... er... he just doesn't. Even though He is perfectly capable and used to all the time, he just doesn't do that anymore. This makes sense. Honest."

Again, why not?

Your posts so far amount to circular logic- the reasoning behind the lack of miracles (it's just more logical that they don't happen anymore) derives directly from the fact that they don't happen anymore.

Is there a real reason why "the age of miracles is over" other than "God just doesn't do that anymore. This argument makes sense because we know there is no proof to say he did."?

Well, you can't go punching holes in their logic. Their belief about "the age of miracles"* are just beliefs.

*by which I mean that anonymous writers weren't talking about things wihout evidence anymore.

muy_thaiguy wrote:Miracles still happen, you just have to look for them. Though some disregard them without a second thought.

Alright, what was the latest miracle? By regular standards, it must be something both fantastic and highly statistically impropable.

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Miracles still happen, you just have to look for them. Though some disregard them without a second thought.

Alright, what was the latest miracle? By regular standards, it must be something both fantastic and highly statistically impropable.

Statistic improbability is irrelevant. If you define an actual miracle as a violation of the laws of nature then it would have to be something statistically impossible. Improbable things happen all the time. Hell, people even win the lottery sometimes!

bloknayrb wrote:

TheSupremeCourt wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:Miracles still happen, you just have to look for them. Though some disregard them without a second thought.

Alright, what was the latest miracle? By regular standards, it must be something both fantastic and highly statistically impropable.

Statistic improbability is irrelevant. If you define an actual miracle as a violation of the laws of nature then it would have to be something statistically impossible. Improbable things happen all the time. Hell, people even win the lottery sometimes!

Indeed.

Is it true the Moonies own Enteman's (sp?). You know, the snack cake and danish making company?

HungrySomali wrote:Is it true the Moonies own Enteman's (sp?). You know, the snack cake and danish making company?

If they do then they're ok in my book.