Religious Debates - come on in y'all!

[Solnath]

i remember something funny for this topic, let me try to find the right words:
"If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."

there was another one about omniscient, but couldn't find it.
Some say Science is another religion.

Science is a religion, but that proof is invalid. Lifting requires leverage from a heavier object. So in order for even God to "lift" the rock, He must be standing on a bigger one.

[Naivetry]

i remember something funny for this topic, let me try to find the right words:
"If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can't pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can't pick it up, then He isn't omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist."

Total red herring.     (<-- see?)  I don't know about Islam or Judaism, but Christianity at least has affirmed for centuries that God's omnipotence is bounded by logic.  God can't make 2+2 = anything other than 4, but I don't suppose that bothers anyone.

Some say Science is another religion.

Depends on how you think of science.

[Delfos]

  exactly, whoever is right earns a place in heaven.

[Eientei]

Total red herring.     (<-- see?)  I don't know about Islam or Judaism, but Christianity at least has affirmed for centuries that God's omnipotence is bounded by logic.  God can't make 2+2 = anything other than 4, but I don't suppose that bothers anyone.

As far as I know, the other faiths also bind God's power by logic.  Of course, they wouldn't think of it as logic binding his power, but rather his power defining the boundaries of logic.  There was, however, a debate among some Muslims over whether the Koran existed along with God in "the beginning", before there was anything else, which I find a little silly and contrary to logic.  Then again, some believe the whole idea of God is silly.

[Solnath]

The concept of omnipotence is self-negatory. If an omnipotent being exists, everything is because of it.

Which reminds me. The Heavenly Host never had free will, hence Lucifer rebelled. But if he couldn't decide it by himself, did God make him do it?

[Eientei]

The concept of omnipotence is self-negatory. If an omnipotent being exists, everything is because of it.

Which reminds me. The Heavenly Host never had free will, hence Lucifer rebelled. But if he couldn't decide it by himself, did God make him do it?

I'm not sure how Christianity explains that one, but Islam throws Satan into the "djinn" category instead.  Unlike angels, djinn (where our word "genie" comes from) are said to have free will while angels don't, although they're both pretty much imperceptible to humans.  The story about Satan's fall from grace is also a little different.

[Tatar]

I'm not sure how Christianity explains that one, but Islam throws Satan into the "djinn" category instead.  Unlike angels, djinn (where our word "genie" comes from) are said to have free will while angels don't, although they're both pretty much imperceptible to humans.  The story about Satan's fall from grace is also a little different.

That's true.The Islam Philosophy said that:Djinns are created by Allah from the smokeless fire.Humans created from land.Angels are created from divine radiance.The Djinns lived Earth before humans.They are very powerful,very smart,too fast,humans cannot see them.But they can see us.The story about Satan's fall from grace is also a little different.Satan fell from grace because he don't prostrate to Adam.

[Allama]

Which reminds me. The Heavenly Host never had free will, hence Lucifer rebelled. But if he couldn't decide it by himself, did God make him do it?

Like many modern or "blasphemous" Christians, I don't believe in a literal devil; I think it's a metaphor for the concept of evil, which was necessary so humans had something tangible to oppose.  It's all well and good to say "Be good and do nice things to keep your soul pure." but people are much more likely to understand and respond if you say, instead, "There's an evil being after your soul, so you have to be good to fight his destructive temptation."

A lot of things in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament, I feel you have to take with a grain of salt.  Things like the creation stories and whatnot were very well-constructed metaphor, or so say most reputable Biblical scholars of our time (and I am inclined to agree after all that I've studied).  Ancient Hebrew literature was rife with metaphor and all sorts of other literary devices across the board, both religious and secular writings included.  The authors, being immersed in their own culture, took it for granted that the reader would recognize when they were using metaphor and felt no need to announce the fact.

We do this in our writings today; take a classic book from your homeland, preferably an old one using well antiquated phrasing and allusions, take it to a country on the other side of the globe translated for someone who does not speak your language, and see exactly how much of what's going on "between the lines" they miss when reading the text.

Wow, what a tangent I'm on today! 

[Khem]

exactly why the bible was always just more of a story book to me.

[Bara]

usted sabe, sé que puedo ser uno de 13 años, pero heres lo que digo:

Si usted encuentra un relgion que le hace sentirse bien, vaya para ello. im peronaslly no que relgious, pero im ont yendo a forzarlo sobre otros.

No seguro si este está en el tema, pero sólo yendo a decirlo de todos modos:
Pienso que su mal matar peolpe en nombre de su relgion. tan, relious guerras = mal para mí.

(Translation:you know, i know i may be a 13 year old, but heres what i say:

If you find a relgion that makes you feel good, go for it. im peronaslly not that relgious, but im ont going to force it upon others.

Not sure if this is on topic, but just going to say it anyway:
I think that its wrong to kill peolpe in the name of your relgion. so, relious wars= bad for me.)

[Saletsia]

exactly why the bible was always just more of a story book to me.

Well it's not meat to be taken literally.

[Delfos]

exactly why the bible was always just more of a story book to me.

for me it's a moral guidance book. And the miracles are damn possible, they just...exaggerate, maybe blame the catholics when they revised the bible? If you have 1 bread and 2 people, how can you get 2 breads? just cut the bread in half and everyone is happy. people needed moral guidance so they could evolve to civilized world...that's my thoughts

[Bara]

i agree with Delfos.

[Ryazania]

For me, the complexity of the universe and life are too great for it to be completely chance. Obviously, I don't think of God as some 'Invisible Man in the Sky', or anything like that. Many people debate the concept of God because of time, but many forget that time is but one dimension, and that something can exist outside of it. I really don't claim to know what God's laws are, or what He wants us to do, but as one would think a Creator is benign, you would also think that He would wish his intelligent creations to be the same. Do not impede on others, even if they don't agree with you, etc.,

I also think that the human conscience is so enormously complicated, it can not be destroyed for eternity. However, I am not sure if this leads to an afterlife of pure being of thought, or reincarnation.

[Delfos]

except the part you don't believe in reincarnation, that seems to be Buddhism, have you read Siddhartha or other books of the same sort?

Also, in a post of 6 lines, only 2 were of your judgment. Do you know what you believe in?