Pros and Cons of Proving God Exists?

[Kidlicious]

That's what I said: "You're free to believe anything you want"

But you can't tell me that I can't back up my interpretation by the Bible

Why not? So far you've not come with with any biblical backup.
And the fact that you cross over to philosophical and existentialistic arguments (instead of Biblical ones) says enough.

Like I said: you're free to believe and do anything you want. That's indeed between God an you.
All I conclude is that your believes aren't based on the Bible but on personal ideas on how christianity should work.
If I'm wrong, show me, instead of whining that I am not allowed to say that you can't.

Well me posting verses won't work as well as you considering all the verses from an existentialist pov. I could post 10 verses and if you don't think existentially, as I do, you are not going to interpret those verses the same way. I mean I'd like to post verses about 'living inthe Spirit' but of course you've already decided that that means that you don't have to follow all the rules, only the rules that you agree with.

But let's talk about just one part of the Bible. It might as well be just one if we aren't going to talk about the whole Bible. So in the Garden of Eden when the Serpent told Eve sin, why did she sin? I don't k now your answer but this is mine. Eve ate the fruit because she didn't care about the truth but she wanted to impress the serpent and Adam. The same for Adam, he wanted to impress the serpent and Eve. Now what's wrong with this interpretation?

[Elok]

There's a difference from thinking existentially and believing in existentialism. You don't have to know anything about modern existentialist writing to think existentially. According to Nietzsche there have been people who have thought existentially throughout history. Othey existentialist writers seem to agree. Socrates was a very existentialist thinker for example although he never talked about existentialism as a way of thinking, not like Nietsche and others anyway. And like I said the Hebrew prophets were existentialist thinkers. Kierkegaard called Abraham the Knight of Faith. This means that Abraham is like a Nietsche superman, able to think and act in a way that the masses can not. Kierkegaard said he had never met a person in life like him and he didn't consider himself one. There's a difference between writing about existentialism and thinking existentially.

All that is nineteenth-century thinkers reimagining history through the lens of their own ideology. All of them have their historical favorites--Nietzsche, for example, loved Heraclitus (the first one, not ours). Why? Because Heraclitus was, of all the ancient philosophers, the one whose ideas came closest to Nietzsche's own. To call Socrates (at least the dominant Platonic presentation of him, which is most of what we have to go on) an existentialist thinker is a real stretch. He focused a lot on questions of personal moral responsibility without accepting appeals to existing authorities, and in that respect he was like an existentialist. In much the same way that Jesus favored some sort of redistribution of wealth and had dire warnings for the rich, and in that respect was like a communist. Or the way that the bed I'm sitting on is large, heavy, brown, and four-legged, and in those respects is like a grizzly bear. To call Socrates an existentialist, Jesus a communist or my bed a bear is to distort the truth.

If nothing else, that Abraham and Socrates, despite being totally different in their actions, can somehow both be labelled existentialists should throw up a red flag.

[Kidlicious]

To answer your question, I don't know anyone who tells teenage boys not to masterbaye. Maybe some catholics or free will baptists do. The christians I know see that as a losing battle.

recently I have told the youth in my church (I'm church elder for the youth) that masturbation is not a sin.
Not even lusting is a sin. Desiring something that's not yours or something that shouldn't be desired, that's as in. Desiring as in "wishing that a thought would become truth".

Regaring sex before marriage; I'd say that in general a monogamous life would make us all happier. (not saying the opposite, that a non-monogamous person can't be happy!) I'd advise people to have sex on the day that you promise eachother to be monogamous with eachother for the rest your life. And I'd celebrate such a vow with a party.
I wouldn't say that people who 'did it' months before that celebration sinned.
And well.... what's a sin? If someone commits adultery, is it a sin, or did someone just wrecked their own life? If I would cheat on my wife, just have 30 minutes of lust with some other woman...., then that would destroy my life with my family and my kids. Sinning is not the right phrase. Stupid beyond all means is a better word.

Why do you tell them that? Do you see nothing wrong with yourself lusting over women? It's a sin. It can also be an addiction. You could be encouraging people to be obsessed and addicted to sex. Wouldn't it be better to teach them to think of healthy things?

Have you considered that you are false teaching and encouraging sin?

[Elok]

But let's talk about just one part of the Bible. It might as well be just one if we aren't going to talk about the whole Bible. So in the Garden of Eden when the Serpent told Eve sin, why did she sin? I don't k now your answer but this is mine. Eve ate the fruit because she didn't care about the truth but she wanted to impress the serpent and Adam. The same for Adam, he wanted to impress the serpent and Eve. Now what's wrong with this interpretation?

A complete lack of textual support. Genesis 3:6:

So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

Nothing there about anyone impressing anybody.

[loinburger]

Well me posting verses won't work as well as you considering all the verses from an existentialist pov. I could post 10 verses and if you don't think existentially, as I do, you are not going to interpret those verses the same way.

You went ape**** in a previous thread when people said that you interpreted the bible, and now you're talking about how you interpret the bible.

[giblets]

Why do you tell them that? Do you see nothing wrong with yourself lusting over women? It's a sin. It can also be an addiction. You could be encouraging people to be obsessed and addicted to sex. Wouldn't it be better to teach them to think of healthy things?

Have you considered that you are false teaching and encouraging sin?

Sex is an unhealthy thought...?

[Kidlicious]

Well that's the problem. Whatever I post people are just going to deny. If I say this verse is existentialist people are just going to say no it's not. If I say this person was an existential thinker people are just going to say no he wasn't. I don't know if they know what it means to be existentialist. For example if Nietsche or Kierkegaard said someone was an existentialist thinker what does it matter if Elok doesn't think so.

[Kidlicious]

A complete lack of textual support. Genesis 3:6:



Nothing there about anyone impressing anybody.

You're a stupid Bible literalist who believes that rabbits chew cud.

[Elok]

Well that's the problem. Whatever I post people are just going to deny. If I say this verse is existentialist people are just going to say no it's not. If I say this person was an existential thinker people are just going to say no he wasn't. I don't know what it means to be existentialist. For example if Nietsche or Kierkegaard said someone was an existentialist thinker what does it matter if Elok doesn't think so.

How is Socrates an existentialist? He was the godfather of scientific rationalism, which existentialism tends to ignore or downplay, if not outright attack. His life, as far as we know of it, was dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth and correctly formed morals. He did not, as far as we know, give a damn about ennui, despair, the absurd, meaninglessness, or any other post-enlightenment bugbears. Can we say he was a figure existentialists admired? Yes. Can we call him an existentialist? No. BTW, from Wiki's article on Existentialism (emphasis added by me):

Søren Kierkegaard and Friedrich Nietzsche were two of the first philosophers considered fundamental to the existentialist movement, though neither used the term "existentialism" and it is unclear whether they would have supported the existentialism of the 20th century.

[loinburger]

Kidicious has the most confusing (and confused) beliefs I've ever seen. One second he's not interpreting the bible, the next second he is. One second the bible is inerrant, the next second he uses "Bible literalist" as an insult while he reinterprets the Bible from the perspective of "God is dead" Nietzsche.

[giblets]

Maybe he changed his mind on biblical literalism after someone pointed out that rabbits don't chew cud but the Bible says they do.

[loinburger]

I wonder if he also changed his mind about the bible being God.

[Elok]

You're a stupid Bible literalist who believes that rabbits chew cud.

1. You have, in the past, criticized me for being a cherry-picker and historical relativist. Now you're calling me a stupid literalist. Make up your mind.
2. I am open to a less literal approach which uses textual evidence to some extent--for example, focusing on a key word and extrapolating further meaning from it. However, I will first need a key word, even the slightest smidgen of a hint, to start from. Otherwise you could make the Genesis story to be about anything at all. AFAICT there's just as much textual evidence for Eve wanting the fruit to gain mad guitar skills as there is for her wanting to impress Adam and the snake, ie none.
3. I said that rabbits, while they do not chew cud, have a somewhat analogous process in the form of "pellets." You really do need to learn to appreciate subtle distinctions.

[Elok]

Kidicious has the most confusing (and confused) beliefs I've ever seen. One second he's not interpreting the bible, the next second he is. One second the bible is inerrant, the next second he uses "Bible literalist" as an insult while he reinterprets the Bible from the perspective of "God is dead" Nietzsche.

In all fairness, I think he likes Kierkegaard much more. Also, given that existentialism is a patchwork of atheist, agnostic and religious philosophers stretched out over more than a century, there's probably an "existentialist" argument in support of every position on every issue.

[Kidlicious]

How is Socrates an existentialist? He was the godfather of scientific rationalism, which existentialism tends to ignore or downplay, if not outright attack. His life, as far as we know of it, was dedicated to the pursuit of objective truth and correctly formed morals. He did not, as far as we know, give a damn about ennui, despair, the absurd, meaninglessness, or any other post-enlightenment bugbears. Can we say he was a figure existentialists admired? Yes. Can we call him an existentialist? No.

He was an existentialist because he knew himself and no one else knew their ownselves. You can see the result of this in his dialogues. He told told people what they didn't want to hear even until it costed him his life. He never conformed to society. He questioned everything. If you don't think that's thinking and behaving existentially then you don't know what it means.

BTW, from Wiki's article on Existentialism (emphasis added by me):

So what?