| Welcome to Mahora Academy. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| The Dark Side Of Philosophy; ~~Feel the evil~~ | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 10 2007, 03:39 AM (772 Views) | |
| frodowise | Nov 4 2007, 08:00 PM Post #16 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To a degree, faith has to be apart of the belief that one faith/religion has the spiritual high-ground. Given that I'm 15 and am not yet an expert in the various denominations in the Christian Church, I don't feel that I should comment. I don't want to post erroneus information >.<. As to the various different religions... the "holy word" of the various religions and faiths (the Bible, the Koran, the Torah etc etc) should be correct historically, yes? I mean, if a religious text names a city, we should find some remnant of that city. The Bible, for example, names many, many ancient cities such as Ur and Tyre. The Bible also mentions (sometimes without mentioning them by name) many leaders that we know to have existed, ranging from Cyrus, King of Persia, to Alexander the Great. That provides historical proof of the religious text's vaildity, and thus the truth of the "unprovable" matters ,such as the validity of a moral code, the existence of God, etc etc. As far as the historical Jesus is concerned, I present something I picked up in my schooling, known as the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" debate. Basicly, the argument attempts to prove that Jesus was who He claimed to be, the Son of the Living God and the Christ. If He were not the Lord (Christ, Son of God etc) Jesus was either crazy and unaware of the falsity of His claims, or He was a liar. He is always described as having been calm and collected, never rebuking without reason. In short, He did not act insane. Thus Jesus is either Lord or Liar. If He was a liar, then what was the point of continuing the charade when He was threatened with charges of blasphemy against God? Given that such punishment brought , why would anyone continue such a pointless charade unless He truely were the Messiah and the Christ? The evidence points to Jesus being Christ the Lord. And now to the view of the Bible not being taken at face value. I assume you mean that when people in the Bible claimed that God was, for example, causing thunder and lightning and a great cloud over Mount Sinia that they were actually seeing an eruption/thundestorm? I turn to Exodus for an example. God caused the 10 plagues upon Egypt to occur. I have heard many times that these were natural happenings that occured close together or were perhaps a recording of the greatest disasters to hit Egypt. The very plagues themselves disprove any natural occurence. -Gotta stop typing, be back later >.< |
![]() |
|
| Alucard | Nov 4 2007, 09:33 PM Post #17 |
|
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Very "Holy" argument, in that it's filled with holes. Most every religious text on earth depicts real life events, testimony of scientifically sound happenings, and small allusions to recorded history - Often they percieve events as they are, an act from god, and tie it to him/her with their every ability. For one, most of the ancient "Rain gods" or "Mountain gods" were essentially created for the unexplainable (like how Ra passed across the sky every day to light the world, or how Susanoo would send storms upon the sea). In fact, I've heard on occasion the depiction of a certain "world-wide flood", with no specified time (the story depicting this involved the people also using a massive boat to save themselves). Religion can be a funny thing that way... |
![]() |
|
| frodowise | Nov 6 2007, 09:13 PM Post #18 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
How many religious texts accurately predict the fall of mighty cities? Knowing that Tyre would eventually fall probably didn't take a prophet, but knowing that three kings would destroy her would be a harder guess...As would the eventual purpose of one of the mighttiest bastions known to Isaiah at the time. I mean, who would think that the great fortress would become nothing more than a barren rock for fishermen to lay their nets out to dry...and yet Isaiah predicted it. Also consider that (unlike, for example, the Koran) all of the books of the Bible support each other. Never is a contradiction made despite...probably 30-40 authors? As for Noah's Flood, I heard an evolutionist propose that the world was at one time wiped out by great tsunamies. He explained that he thought the meteorite that struck Earth and wiped out the dinosaurs did so by causing a massive wave (or waves) that covered the entire earth in water. He also showed an island with a collosal crater that was of appropriate size for his killer meteorite. This he used a proof for his hypothesis. Odd, that even an evolusionist would find that the world was at one time wiped out by water. Also, many Christians (including myself) find that most nations having some form of Great Flood story, with the same general characteristics, a proof in itself. I mean, if something like that happened and only 8 or so people survive this titanic deluge (I tire of Great Flood :P) that their grandchildren would know of the story. And when God confused the languages at l and the humans there moved into Asia, Europe and Africa, they took the tale with them. Of course I expect you would say that we have no idea which of the hundreds of versions of the Flood tale is true...thats why we have the rest of the Bible to compound the validity of each individual tale. |
![]() |
|
| lord_lir | Nov 6 2007, 11:06 PM Post #19 |
![]()
MASTER OF FLAMES AND DARKNESS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I remember reading somewhere about a mistranslation of Red Sea... it meant to be Reed Sea... Archaeologists used that to try and prove the Parting by Moses... attributing it to a recorded massive volcano eruption. And please, try to avoid insults, otherwise I'll have this thread closed. |
![]() |
|
| frodowise | Nov 7 2007, 07:17 AM Post #20 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I insulted someone? If so, I apologize. I had heard about the mistranslation... No idea if its right or wrong given that I don't translate the Bible :). But if the person who was recording Exodus (Moses) had seen a volcanic eruption why would he note that a great wind parted the waters? |
![]() |
|
| Alucard | Nov 7 2007, 11:21 AM Post #21 |
|
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
did I do something wrong? (If so, please tell me) as for above, I'm not trying to argue the validity of religion, simply noting that your argument sounds too close to rationalist theory, which has been proven by the entire philosophy world to be a false concept (And you know that it's rare for philosophers to write off an idea) suffice to say, please elaborate further |
![]() |
|
| lord_lir | Nov 7 2007, 05:08 PM Post #22 |
![]()
MASTER OF FLAMES AND DARKNESS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
No you didn't... just that frodowise seemed to take offence. Sorry about that. I originally stated that no-one should be attacked over their beliefs... please, everyone, keep that in mind. |
![]() |
|
| Alucard | Nov 7 2007, 06:16 PM Post #23 |
|
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
best to get used to that. Philosophy can be an ugly business in the way that, to maintain a higher thinking ground, you must correct your opponent regularly(even among the masters, there's a kernal of naivety) It's not uncommon for people to take slight offense.(it's a very human trait) And even in a calm debate, there's always that air of offensiveness in the arguments (debating is, after all, an art based on civilly proving another wrong) |
![]() |
|
| lord_lir | Nov 7 2007, 06:18 PM Post #24 |
![]()
MASTER OF FLAMES AND DARKNESS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Oh, most certainly! Half the philosophic debates I've seen are really just slanging matches. |
![]() |
|
| frodowise | Nov 8 2007, 07:32 AM Post #25 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I think the attittude was more of the "O yeah? Well what about this? |
![]() |
|
| lord_lir | Nov 14 2007, 05:04 AM Post #26 |
![]()
MASTER OF FLAMES AND DARKNESS
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hmmm. That was slightly petty. |
![]() |
|
| frodowise | Nov 14 2007, 09:07 AM Post #27 |
|
Uber Soldant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
When each thinks the other is wrong, I suppose such an attitude could develop, though I shall do my best to avoid such an attitude in future discussion... On another point, most of us here are a bunch of teenagers...surely it's expected to some degree :) |
![]() |
|
| Gafgar Adolis | Nov 14 2007, 09:11 AM Post #28 |
![]()
Chaos God of Moderation (and No Pants)
![]()
|
Arguing religion with words is pointless when there's so much fun in debating it with swords (DEUS VULT!) or axes (BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!). |
![]() |
|
| Alucard | Nov 14 2007, 01:29 PM Post #29 |
|
Konoka-ness Master (army of one XD)
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
hes right you know. Some people hold their beliefs so strongly that it's pointless to argue with them(convincing a fanatic? Definatly not going to happen with justb words) to me, it's the opposite of growth - if any culture held their beliefs forever, they wouldn't hav gotten an anywhere(where we are now is only because of people in the past tossing away their belief, if only just a bit) What is there in modern science, invented by some monk or alchemist loyal to the chruch, that wasn't or couldn't have been seen as witchcraft in the eyes of some other monk 100 or 1000 years earlier? |
![]() |
|
| Gafgar Adolis | Nov 14 2007, 09:48 PM Post #30 |
![]()
Chaos God of Moderation (and No Pants)
![]()
|
An amazingly large amount of scientific advancement back in ancient times - hell, even a few hundred years ago - was actually furthered by religious leaders. I find it most amusing that most scientists these days dismiss all religion as 'unscientific' when it was Christian monks in Europe and Buddhist priests in China who came up with most of the things they now view as scientific fact. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Yue's Corner · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)






3:49 AM Jul 11