Conquer Club

Logic dictates that there is a God!

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Does God exist?

 
Total votes : 0

Postby Backglass on Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:30 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
taterman wrote:Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days


Faith. =)


M

E

T

A

P

H

O

R

I

C

A

L


What about the dead rising from the grave. Also Metaphorical? ;)
Image
The Pro-TipĀ®, SkyDaddyĀ® and Image are registered trademarks of Backglass Heavy Industries.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Backglass
 
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: New York

Postby Neoteny on Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:40 pm

I haven't read the Koran yet, though. Still working on that...
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Dancing Mustard on Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:45 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
M

E

T

A

P

H

O

R

I

C

A

L

P

I

L

L

O

C

K

!

!

!

!

!

1
Wayne wrote:Wow, with a voice like that Dancing Mustard must get all the babes!

Garth wrote:Yeah, I bet he's totally studly and buff.
User avatar
Corporal Dancing Mustard
 
Posts: 5442
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:31 pm
Location: Pushing Buttons

Postby Snorri1234 on Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:57 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
taterman wrote:Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days


Faith. =)


M

E

T

A

P

H

O

R

I

C

A

L


Where was the mention that it was supposed to be taken methaphorically?
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby unriggable on Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:00 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
taterman wrote:Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days


Faith. =)


M

E

T

A

P

H

O

R

I

C

A

L


The 'selective memory' of future generations.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby MelonanadeMaster on Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:19 pm

Guiscard wrote:
MelonanadeMaster wrote: And just to clarify where I'm currently standing is this, all wars are a political one, as all wars are started by politicians. Thus a religous group, though it can provoke, inspire, and encourage a war, can not be the only


This is what I have a problem with. The crusades were a direct result of religion. They were inspired by, promoted by and essentially created by the Pope. Those that went out and got people involved were Priests. At what point did it stop being religious? Religion was always its core, even if not in the case of papal motivation (there is certainly a case for the extension of the peace of God among unattached young nobles and also a wish to control the church in the east, both political to an extent) then certainly in the motivations of both your average crusader and their leaders. Categorically. Perhaps the only example I can think of would be Philip on the Third Crusade but that's still very much debatable.

You're original statement seemed to imply that the Islamic wars of reconquest were religious, but the crusades political. Thats quite simply absurd, especially if all wars are political. I would go so so far as to argue that the crusades were more religious in their motivation than the Islamic efforts to push them back.

And I'm not quite understanding the Muslim / Arab point. It certainly was Muslims going to war. Not just Arabs but Turks and Persians. Although there were Arabs who were, for example, Syrian Orthodox or Monophysite, they didn't really play any major part in warfare.


Do you deny that the soldiers were citizens of countries, ruled by political rulers? If not, than we agree on the issue.

My original statement could be interpreted to mean that, so I apologize for not properly wording myself, as I'm writing the replies with only snippets of my free time.
What I ment was that the crusades were not fought by 'Muslims', but by Arabs, Turks, Persians (earlier I was just generalizing by saying Arabs) Yes, the citizens of Persia, Turkey, and Arabia may have very well been Muslims, but it was political powers that sent them off, even if the roots and provacation were triggered by religous groups. For example, I am a Christian, if during an imaginary American religous war, I was drafted by the military itwould be improper to say they recruited a Christian, as apposed to saying they recruited an American. Although the former may be true it is more directly related in the certain instance that I am a citzen of America, than my religous stance, even if it is a religous war.
I apologize for the gramatical problems, my keyboard has turned the space button into a forward backspace, a problem I can't figure how to fix.[/img][/list][/code]
Private 1st Class MelonanadeMaster
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:58 am

Postby Guiscard on Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:33 pm

MelonanadeMaster wrote:Do you deny that the soldiers were citizens of countries, ruled by political rulers? If not, than we agree on the issue.

My original statement could be interpreted to mean that, so I apologize for not properly wording myself, as I'm writing the replies with only snippets of my free time.
What I ment was that the crusades were not fought by 'Muslims', but by Arabs, Turks, Persians (earlier I was just generalizing by saying Arabs) Yes, the citizens of Persia, Turkey, and Arabia may have very well been Muslims, but it was political powers that sent them off, even if the roots and provacation were triggered by religous groups. For example, I am a Christian, if during an imaginary American religous war, I was drafted by the military itwould be improper to say they recruited a Christian, as apposed to saying they recruited an American. Although the former may be true it is more directly related in the certain instance that I am a citzen of America, than my religous stance, even if it is a religous war.
I apologize for the gramatical problems, my keyboard has turned the space button into a forward backspace, a problem I can't figure how to fix.[/img][/list][/code]


In answer to the first question, certainly. But would you say that if the Pope now called for Catholics to fight in, say, Iran and you responded, nothing to do with your government, you were an American responing? or a Catholic (hypothetically)... It didn't happen as you seem to believe. The King of England didn't say '2000 soldiers, you go on crusade' and the Holy Roman Empire said 'I command 12000 soldiers to go on crusade.' Representatives sent out by the pope preached crusade and people responded as Christians, not as Franks or Lombards or Lotharingians or Sicilians.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby Guiscard on Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:34 pm

MelonanadeMaster wrote:my keyboard has turned the space button into a forward backspace, a problem I can't figure how to fix.[/img][/list][/code]


Try pressing 'insert' at the top right of the keyboard.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Guiscard
 
Posts: 4103
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:27 pm
Location: In the bar... With my head on the bar

Postby heavycola on Thu Dec 13, 2007 5:47 pm

Backglass wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
taterman wrote:Okay explain this to me dumbasses, if thier was a god than you have to ask yourself one question,How the f*ck did Noah get all those dinosaurs on that ark of his and keep them fed for 40 days


Faith. =)


M

E

T

A

P

H

O

R

I

C

A

L


What about the dead rising from the grave. Also Metaphorical? ;)


Don't be ridiculous. What is more fantastical - that a man kept some animals on a boat, or that a virgin was impregnated by a ghost and the resulting offspring rose from the dead?

The bible is very clear on this.
Image
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class heavycola
 
Posts: 2925
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:22 am
Location: Maailmanvalloittajat

Postby Napoleon Ier on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:04 pm

The Gospels were written over a millenium after Genesis, by different authors at entirely different times. Clearly, you people have not gotten any qualifications in Biblical study. None of you know anything about it to be honest. What is blatantly obvious to any reasonaby educated person (not that I'm claiming you're stupid) who has read the Bible is that some parts are obviously metaphorical. You, like Creationists (intellecually the position you're holding is almost equally ridiculous) fail to bother to see the Bible in context and having carefully looked at it. Its more than obvious the snake in Genesis is a metaphor, in fact, fairly so for most of Genesis, though it blends to and from dream to reality in a strange exploration of the dead ground between the physical and metaphysical. However, I clearly do not view Genesis as a historical text in ipse. It is clear on the othr hand, the Gospels are intended to be history. The parables recounted by Jesus, are, again, metaphorical.
Simply because you are ignorant ( by no means does not having studied the Bible make you ignorant, its then despite making idiotic remarks that does) do you make these comments, desperatly clutching at whatever straws you can.
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby unriggable on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:08 pm

Well Napoleon you're just another man swayed by this text you know to be false, afraid of the sour grapes of reality.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:10 pm

i dont know if thats necessarily a fair charge, napoleon. I think a lot of the things that studying the synoptic gospels prove is that there are perhaps some historical doubts over what was written, who might have influenced who, and what we can take to be historicaly true. If someone did actually find the Q source, then maybe things would be a bit more in the light, but since that document is likely for now out of reach, there are a few things that could be debateable.

After all, which of the four do you take to be more historical and more metaphorical. Of the top of my head youd probably argue John to be the most metaphorical, but certainly with some of the genealogy lines always being debatable, it doesnt seem like its necessarily fair to argue that any of them are necessarily sound historical documentation.

Likewise, when you put in caveats such as the notion that if everything about jesus had been written all the libraries in the world would be filled, you kind of give yourself a fair amount of wiggle room dont you think?
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Napoleon Ier on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:26 pm

Ok, potentially you misinterpreted, the Gospels are intended as historical (more or less), Psalms, etc... clearly aren't. Besides, they're looking at it all from the wrong angle. They think, "aha! if the Bible is wrong, so is all Christian belief", whereas its a question not of believing the Bible (this is why the Church was reticent about allowing uneducated classes to have access to it) so much as ontologically proved doctrine.

(for me as a Roman Catholic anyway, a Genevan heretic would give you his interpretation differently)

As for the wiggle room, yeah, ok, but so what? :wink: Thats incidental....
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:36 pm

yes i suppose their could be a difference based on assumptions that there are additional elements outside of sola scriptura to be dealt with. However, i would argue much of faith (outside of course roman catholicsm) in the current context of christianity, is in theory supposed to be heavily laden on the textual accuracy (of most elements) of the bible. However, if you do even a small study on the histiography of the period or of some of the cultural justifications of the early new testament, it is certainly possible to have some criticisms.

In many ways i suspect part of the issue is a matter of perspective. To those who believe (as one once told me) the different sources throughout the new testament should be seen as a gift. We have the potential to understand much of the gospel through different sources, instead of simply one perspective. However, the cynic may counter, that when you look at the number of hands and social processes involved in the creation of the final text, it is much more open to doubt and rebuke.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby Napoleon Ier on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:45 pm

Certainly. I hardly ever read the Bible to try and gleam theological truths, only to find spiritual strength etc...
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Dec 13, 2007 7:49 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Certainly. I hardly ever read the Bible to try and gleam theological truths, only to find spiritual strength etc...


thats understandable, i would probably wager theres a good chunck of the umbrella of christendom that does pretty much a similar thing.

Part of me is often inclined to believe some of the notions of inverse theology that was espoused around the beginning of the last century or so.

Seemingly for much of history, humanity has done their best in describing God using the best terms than had at the time. Since we tend to gain our understandings of abstract concepts by and large through the process of language, these notions of human expeirence quickly become much of what we comprehend of the divine.

The problem is in many ways things that are divine are seemingly outside of human capability, almost by definition of divinity. So arguably, there has been a slow transformation of the best of human qualities, into qualities of the divine in an effort to better explain it. Which seemingly is all a bit fatalistic in the long run, if we cant truly be divine.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby MelonanadeMaster on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:22 pm

Guiscard wrote:
MelonanadeMaster wrote:Do you deny that the soldiers were citizens of countries, ruled by political rulers? If not, than we agree on the issue.

My original statement could be interpreted to mean that, so I apologize for not properly wording myself, as I'm writing the replies with only snippets of my free time.
What I ment was that the crusades were not fought by 'Muslims', but by Arabs, Turks, Persians (earlier I was just generalizing by saying Arabs) Yes, the citizens of Persia, Turkey, and Arabia may have very well been Muslims, but it was political powers that sent them off, even if the roots and provacation were triggered by religous groups. For example, I am a Christian, if during an imaginary American religous war, I was drafted by the military itwould be improper to say they recruited a Christian, as apposed to saying they recruited an American. Although the former may be true it is more directly related in the certain instance that I am a citzen of America, than my religous stance, even if it is a religous war.
I apologize for the gramatical problems, my keyboard has turned the space button into a forward backspace, a problem I can't figure how to fix.[/img][/list][/code]


In answer to the first question, certainly. But would you say that if the Pope now called for Catholics to fight in, say, Iran and you responded, nothing to do with your government, you were an American responing? or a Catholic (hypothetically)... It didn't happen as you seem to believe. The King of England didn't say '2000 soldiers, you go on crusade' and the Holy Roman Empire said 'I command 12000 soldiers to go on crusade.' Representatives sent out by the pope preached crusade and people responded as Christians, not as Franks or Lombards or Lotharingians or Sicilians.

Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?
Private 1st Class MelonanadeMaster
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:58 am

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:24 pm

well if you look at feudalism from the outside, since so much of rights to eventual land ownership rested in the first son, what were you going to do with all those extra sons. They clearly didnt have a whole lot of economic future, and seemingly were going to need something to do to keep them away from the old idle hands problem.

I think as a king from a functional perspective, killing off a bunch of people with little economic usefulness wasnt a terrible thing all in all, especially if they were going to be kicking you back part of the profits.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby radiojake on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:31 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Certainly. I hardly ever read the Bible to try and gleam theological truths, only to find spiritual strength etc...


Well, it is hard to find truths in a fiction book. Glad you acknowledge that Naps!
-- share what ya got --
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class radiojake
 
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 11:29 pm
Location: Adelaidian living in Melbourne

Postby MelonanadeMaster on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:32 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:The Gospels were written over a millenium after Genesis, by different authors at entirely different times. Clearly, you people have not gotten any qualifications in Biblical study. None of you know anything about it to be honest. What is blatantly obvious to any reasonaby educated person (not that I'm claiming you're stupid) who has read the Bible is that some parts are obviously metaphorical. You, like Creationists (intellecually the position you're holding is almost equally ridiculous) fail to bother to see the Bible in context and having carefully looked at it. Its more than obvious the snake in Genesis is a metaphor, in fact, fairly so for most of Genesis, though it blends to and from dream to reality in a strange exploration of the dead ground between the physical and metaphysical. However, I clearly do not view Genesis as a historical text in ipse. It is clear on the othr hand, the Gospels are intended to be history. The parables recounted by Jesus, are, again, metaphorical.
Simply because you are ignorant ( by no means does not having studied the Bible make you ignorant, its then despite making idiotic remarks that does) do you make these comments, desperatly clutching at whatever straws you can.

Just to help support this through an example, when the Bible speaks of the snake, it describes it as the most clever of animals. Now of course we know this to not be true of course if cleverness is to be interrepted as brain size/capacity, yet its realy beyond the point, as the author Moses only was using this as a metaphor that the people of the time would understand, as at the time, in fables, cleverness was an aspect of the snake.
Private 1st Class MelonanadeMaster
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:58 am

Postby MelonanadeMaster on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:33 pm

got tonkaed wrote:well if you look at feudalism from the outside, since so much of rights to eventual land ownership rested in the first son, what were you going to do with all those extra sons. They clearly didnt have a whole lot of economic future, and seemingly were going to need something to do to keep them away from the old idle hands problem.

I think as a king from a functional perspective, killing off a bunch of people with little economic usefulness wasnt a terrible thing all in all, especially if they were going to be kicking you back part of the profits.

But they were of economical use..
Private 1st Class MelonanadeMaster
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:58 am

Postby MelonanadeMaster on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:36 pm

radiojake wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Certainly. I hardly ever read the Bible to try and gleam theological truths, only to find spiritual strength etc...


Well, it is hard to find truths in a fiction book. Glad you acknowledge that Naps!

Hope you relise that you're pathetic for making childish jibes when some people, from both sides of this debate, are trying to make actual discussion.
Private 1st Class MelonanadeMaster
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:58 am

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:39 pm

MelonanadeMaster wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:well if you look at feudalism from the outside, since so much of rights to eventual land ownership rested in the first son, what were you going to do with all those extra sons. They clearly didnt have a whole lot of economic future, and seemingly were going to need something to do to keep them away from the old idle hands problem.

I think as a king from a functional perspective, killing off a bunch of people with little economic usefulness wasnt a terrible thing all in all, especially if they were going to be kicking you back part of the profits.

But they were of economical use..


they were of some yes....but not nearly as much as first born sons would have been. In a feudal system, there are really two good purposes to sending away people to die essentially in a war. You keep military personel who may be strong enough to challenge you out away from the crown, winning battles and you keep individual mouths to feed which could become discontented away earning things like eternal salvation and fame, which was pretty much what you had to look forward to as a later born son in the feudal era.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

Postby MelonanadeMaster on Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:58 pm

got tonkaed wrote:
MelonanadeMaster wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:well if you look at feudalism from the outside, since so much of rights to eventual land ownership rested in the first son, what were you going to do with all those extra sons. They clearly didnt have a whole lot of economic future, and seemingly were going to need something to do to keep them away from the old idle hands problem.

I think as a king from a functional perspective, killing off a bunch of people with little economic usefulness wasnt a terrible thing all in all, especially if they were going to be kicking you back part of the profits.

But they were of economical use..


they were of some yes....but not nearly as much as first born sons would have been. In a feudal system, there are really two good purposes to sending away people to die essentially in a war. You keep military personel who may be strong enough to challenge you out away from the crown, winning battles and you keep individual mouths to feed which could become discontented away earning things like eternal salvation and fame, which was pretty much what you had to look forward to as a later born son in the feudal era.


I see what your getting at, but I think its the exception, not the standerd, second sons could get some support from their fathers, giving them a chance to get in the more prospurous town life, instead of being a farmer on a fedual estate for the rest of his life.
Private 1st Class MelonanadeMaster
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2007 8:58 am

Postby got tonkaed on Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:01 pm

that would be where we would be agreeing to disagree there then, i think in a lot of the political outlook of feudalism, i think in many cases those sons were better positioned as far as a functional outlook to all of society to be sent away abroad rather than to be dealt with on the home front.
User avatar
Cadet got tonkaed
 
Posts: 5034
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 9:01 pm
Location: Detroit

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users