Total Posts:85|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Freemasonry??

Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 3:43:10 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
It's a secret society designed to sound cool, popular among those seeking power. It's not really a religion so much as a club with the religous requirement of belief in some sort of supreme being, and the "Ideals" of ""Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth.""

To really get a sense of how it works, I recommend reading War And Peace, has a pretty good description in there when an atheist character has an Author On Board conversion to them :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 3:58:50 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
*Frowns for a moment at the "liberal" thing before remembering the speaker is from Europe.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
I think they lean more towards agnosticism. All religions have some truth, but all the different "gods" are all the same God. They do not come out and say it, until you move up a bunch of degrees.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 4:11:51 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/6/2008 3:58:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
*Frowns for a moment at the "liberal" thing before remembering the speaker is from Europe.

Why do you frown? Your profile says your a libertarian! Europe made politics, U.S. copied.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 4:15:17 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/6/2008 4:11:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/6/2008 3:58:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
*Frowns for a moment at the "liberal" thing before remembering the speaker is from Europe.

Why do you frown? Your profile says your a libertarian! Europe made politics, U.S. copied.

In America (and in Great Britain, if you pay attention to the "Liberal Democrat Party), and in Canada, and oddly enough in a few other places, "Liberal" means "Keynesian." Which is very much opposed to libertarianism :D.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 4:21:24 PM
Posted: 8 years ago
At 12/6/2008 4:15:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:11:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/6/2008 3:58:50 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
*Frowns for a moment at the "liberal" thing before remembering the speaker is from Europe.

Why do you frown? Your profile says your a libertarian! Europe made politics, U.S. copied.

In America (and in Great Britain, if you pay attention to the "Liberal Democrat Party), and in Canada, and oddly enough in a few other places, "Liberal" means "Keynesian." Which is very much opposed to libertarianism :D.

Well, I meant being liberal lol. In Ireland we used to have this economically liberal party, but they is gone! From now on I refer to liberals as libertarians, as I'm just not bothered writing out the whole thing. So I see you as liberal, because you want less law, less government! Now run off and privatise things, you liberal, anti-Keynesian rapscallion you!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
roughneck
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 10:19:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.

Oh, I must not fully understand agnosticism then. I thought an agnostic believes there is a supreme being. But they believe no one religion has the full truth about that supreme being. My bad.
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 10:27:39 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:19:52 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.

Oh, I must not fully understand agnosticism then. I thought an agnostic believes there is a supreme being. But they believe no one religion has the full truth about that supreme being. My bad.

That is a deist. A deist is sort of the independent of religions. They believe there is some sort of higher power but that supreme being would not be as described by any organized religion.
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of god cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. However, there are plenty of Atheists here that would contend that there is no such thing as an agnostic. They say that all agnostics are really soft atheists because they do not believe in god.
manutdredseal46
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 10:40:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:27:39 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:19:52 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.

Oh, I must not fully understand agnosticism then. I thought an agnostic believes there is a supreme being. But they believe no one religion has the full truth about that supreme being. My bad.

That is a deist. A deist is sort of the independent of religions. They believe there is some sort of higher power but that supreme being would not be as described by any organized religion.
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of god cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. However, there are plenty of Atheists here that would contend that there is no such thing as an agnostic. They say that all agnostics are really soft atheists because they do not believe in god.

Agnostics are undoubtedly correct. It's a pretty obvious view. I don't agree with that atheist view because agnostics still think that it cannot be disproved so they can't be entirely "soft atheists."
-ManUtdRedSeal46
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:14:43 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 10:40:43 AM, manutdredseal46 wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:27:39 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:19:52 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.

Oh, I must not fully understand agnosticism then. I thought an agnostic believes there is a supreme being. But they believe no one religion has the full truth about that supreme being. My bad.

That is a deist. A deist is sort of the independent of religions. They believe there is some sort of higher power but that supreme being would not be as described by any organized religion.
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of god cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. However, there are plenty of Atheists here that would contend that there is no such thing as an agnostic. They say that all agnostics are really soft atheists because they do not believe in god.

Agnostics are undoubtedly correct. It's a pretty obvious view. I don't agree with that atheist view because agnostics still think that it cannot be disproved so they can't be entirely "soft atheists."

No view is right. We don't know what happens when we die.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
manutdredseal46
Posts: 189
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:17:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 11:14:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:40:43 AM, manutdredseal46 wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:27:39 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:19:52 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.

Oh, I must not fully understand agnosticism then. I thought an agnostic believes there is a supreme being. But they believe no one religion has the full truth about that supreme being. My bad.

That is a deist. A deist is sort of the independent of religions. They believe there is some sort of higher power but that supreme being would not be as described by any organized religion.
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of god cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. However, there are plenty of Atheists here that would contend that there is no such thing as an agnostic. They say that all agnostics are really soft atheists because they do not believe in god.

Agnostics are undoubtedly correct. It's a pretty obvious view. I don't agree with that atheist view because agnostics still think that it cannot be disproved so they can't be entirely "soft atheists."

No view is right. We don't know what happens when we die.

Agnosticism can't be proved wrong. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove he doesn't? No.
-ManUtdRedSeal46
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Agnosticism can't be proved wrong. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove he doesn't? No.

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).

Yes, in fact, you frequently can, as long as you have a specific definition of God to work with.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 12:16:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 11:17:08 AM, manutdredseal46 wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:14:43 AM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:40:43 AM, manutdredseal46 wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:27:39 AM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/7/2008 10:19:52 AM, roughneck wrote:
At 12/6/2008 5:14:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/6/2008 4:02:38 PM, roughneck wrote:
I think they lean more towards agnosticism.

They can't. By definition, a freemason HAS to affirm the existence of a supreme being, or they are not in the club.

Oh, I must not fully understand agnosticism then. I thought an agnostic believes there is a supreme being. But they believe no one religion has the full truth about that supreme being. My bad.

That is a deist. A deist is sort of the independent of religions. They believe there is some sort of higher power but that supreme being would not be as described by any organized religion.
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of god cannot be proven, nor can it be disproven. However, there are plenty of Atheists here that would contend that there is no such thing as an agnostic. They say that all agnostics are really soft atheists because they do not believe in god.

Agnostics are undoubtedly correct. It's a pretty obvious view. I don't agree with that atheist view because agnostics still think that it cannot be disproved so they can't be entirely "soft atheists."

No view is right. We don't know what happens when we die.

Agnosticism can't be proved wrong. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove he doesn't? No.

That's why faith is needed to believe in God.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 12:18:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Agnosticism can't be proved wrong. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove he doesn't? No.


An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).


Yes, in fact, you frequently can, as long as you have a specific definition of God to work with.

What number is larger than infinity?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 1:33:09 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 12:18:24 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Agnosticism can't be proved wrong. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove he doesn't? No.


An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).


Yes, in fact, you frequently can, as long as you have a specific definition of God to work with.

What number is larger than infinity?

None. Which is precisely why it is impossible for an omnipotent being to exist. :D
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 1:39:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Ragnar questions the existence of everything, and comes up with some great puns along the way. He even questions whether or not this website is a figment of this imagination and is really a website about elderly women's lingerie.

I don't think God can be proven or disproven, and that no religion is right. Just whatever floats you're boat to be honest.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 1:44:53 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
really? News to me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2008 1:47:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 1:44:53 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
really? News to me.

You do, but you don't realise.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Chestertonian
Posts: 84
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 8:43:08 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

That's really not true, and you can tell so by the very nature of the word "omnipotent." Or at least, it's only half true. An omnipotent being does have all powers imaginable, but can you imagine a being more powerful than omnipotence?

Look at the word: "Omni-potent." All-potent. That is the same "potent" as "potentiality." If you go by the actual root meanings of the words, omnipotence does not mean being able to perform any action, it means performing any action that can be performed. Drawing a square circle, then, is accordingly impossible for God.

And remember that all of this kind of topic was written in Latin primarily for a very long time, so the root meanings of the word are fairly reliable for telling what the word should mean.

You know, Ragnar, your criticisms of religion might hold more water if you didn't assume that all religious people were so stupid they were incapable of seeing a contradiction in front of their own eyes for over a thousand years.

This isn't to say you haven't been given cause to believe that (usually, the only people I can stand to listen to about religion are my ideological opposites, atheists and agnostics), but it might be over generalizing a bit.
The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies; probably because they are generally the same people."
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 8:46:07 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Agnosticism can't be proved wrong. Can you prove God exists? No. Can you prove he doesn't? No.


An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.

1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).


Yes, in fact, you frequently can, as long as you have a specific definition of God to work with.

Where in the Bible does that say God was omnipotent?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 6:23:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 8:43:08 AM, Chestertonian wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

An OMNIPOTENT being has all powers imaginable, and can perform any ACTION. CREATING something more powerful than omnipotent is an action, and therefore possible if one can perform any ACTION. It is not possible to CREATE something more powerful than omnipotent. Therefore, contradiction.


That's really not true, and you can tell so by the very nature of the word "omnipotent." Or at least, it's only half true. An omnipotent being does have all powers imaginable, but can you imagine a being more powerful than omnipotence?
If I couldn't imagine it, I wouldn't be talking about it.


Look at the word: "Omni-potent." All-potent. That is the same "potent" as "potentiality." If you go by the actual root meanings of the words, omnipotence does not mean being able to perform any action, it means performing any action that can be performed. Drawing a square circle, then, is accordingly impossible for God.
All->All. Not All-> All except the impossible.


You know, Ragnar, your criticisms of religion might hold more water if you didn't assume that all religious people were so stupid they were incapable of seeing a contradiction in front of their own eyes for over a thousand years.
It's not an assumption, it's a conclusion. Or more specifically, a conclusion if you change "All religous people" to "all Christians, Muslims, and Jews, and anyone else of a religion which claims divine omnipotence." And technically, no single christian has had a thousand years to grapple with it (unless you count the people the bible supposedly claims to have lived for a thousand years... well, those were Jews, in the Pre-Christian era, but still), so I think you're being unfair to the subgroup of people you claim I'm being unfair to :D.

Where in the Bible does that say God was omnipotent?
Matthew 19:24-26 ... [26] Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."
All things. Not all things with the exception of this, that, the other thing, and a square circle.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 6:24:51 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Oh, forgot to note, you had the latin roots wrong. Omni Potens: "all power" http://en.wikipedia.org...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 6:37:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 6:23:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:43:08 AM, Chestertonian wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Where in the Bible does that say God was omnipotent?
Matthew 19:24-26 ... [26] Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

This means that human efforts alone cannot save a man. The young man was zealous in keeping the commandments, but there was a great lack. The grace of God only can save. It can break down the trust in wealth, take away the love of wealth, and fill the heart with the love of Christ. It is the love of money, not money, that is the root of all evil.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 7:23:36 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 6:37:12 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 6:23:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:43:08 AM, Chestertonian wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Where in the Bible does that say God was omnipotent?
Matthew 19:24-26 ... [26] Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

This means that human efforts alone cannot save a man.
Which is irrelevant. The point is that is an independent sentence, declaring God's omnipotence. What specific feature of omnipotence he was speaking of does not matter for our purposes.

It can break down the trust in wealth, take away the love of wealth, and fill the heart with the love of Christ. It is the love of money, not money, that is the root of all evil.
That is also irrelevant, but...

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DiablosChaosBroker
Posts: 1,433
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 7:29:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 7:23:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2008 6:37:12 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 6:23:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:43:08 AM, Chestertonian wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Where in the Bible does that say God was omnipotent?
Matthew 19:24-26 ... [26] Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

This means that human efforts alone cannot save a man.
Which is irrelevant. The point is that is an independent sentence, declaring God's omnipotence. What specific feature of omnipotence he was speaking of does not matter for our purposes.

I told you the meaning of the quote not the literal interpretation that you have of it.

It can break down the trust in wealth, take away the love of wealth, and fill the heart with the love of Christ. It is the love of money, not money, that is the root of all evil.
That is also irrelevant, but...

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."

So greed is justified by love of money? Working for money is one thing, and stealing it, taking it for granted without knowing that there are better things than getting rich is another.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 9:22:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 12/14/2008 7:29:24 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 7:23:36 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2008 6:37:12 PM, DiablosChaosBroker wrote:
At 12/14/2008 6:23:58 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/14/2008 8:43:08 AM, Chestertonian wrote:
At 12/7/2008 11:21:21 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Where in the Bible does that say God was omnipotent?
Matthew 19:24-26 ... [26] Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

This means that human efforts alone cannot save a man.
Which is irrelevant. The point is that is an independent sentence, declaring God's omnipotence. What specific feature of omnipotence he was speaking of does not matter for our purposes.

I told you the meaning of the quote not the literal interpretation that you have of it.
In other words, you rejected a more-justified meaning (a literal one) in favor of a less-justifed one. Guess what-- if a book cannot be relied upon to mean what it says, it's not much of an authority :D.


It can break down the trust in wealth, take away the love of wealth, and fill the heart with the love of Christ. It is the love of money, not money, that is the root of all evil.
That is also irrelevant, but...

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is the loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money – and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it."

So greed is justified by love of money? Working for money is one thing, and stealing it, taking it for granted without knowing that there are better things than getting rich is another.

You're just running around in random circles aren't you? Obviously stealing is wrong-- and not something someone who loves money, who KNOWS AND LOVES ITS NATURE, would do. Stealing is done by those who misunderstand money.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Steve
Posts: 125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2008 9:30:22 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
1. O->A (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
2. A->C (Assumption, dare you to defy it.)
3. ~C (assumption, definition of omnipotent)
4. O (Assumption of the existence of God)
5. A (4,1 by arrow out rule of logic.
6. C (5,2 by arrow out rule).
7. C & ~C (6,3, by ampersand in rule, CONTRADICTION, check premises).

Bad logic. Good math but, still wrong.