The Da Vinci Code

[Stal]

TheComedian said:

Wait a second...Moses wrote the book of Genesis? But was that years before his time, like a couple hundred or thousand?

Gee, what great credibility he has.

Oh my goodness, you mean (insert present day historian here), wrote this textbook? What great credibility he has!

[Ember at school]

Ducky said:

And on him being a great moral teacher and not God, I don't believe that. If he was a great moral teacher and lied and said he was God, then he wouldn't be a great moral teacher then. But he WAS a great moral teacher.

You see, I don't think he ever DID say he was God. He said he was the SON of God, that GOd was his father, etc., but I think he just meant that it the way that we are ALL sons and daughters of God.

[Deleted]

Ninja said:

Oh my goodness, you mean (insert present day historian here), wrote this textbook? What great credibility he has!

There's quite a difference. Present day historians base their facts on older documents and such. And still, not all events can be placed as factual or not.

I doubt Moses had older documents to work with.

[Stal]

TheComedian said:

There's quite a difference. Present day historians base their facts on older documents and such. And still, not all events can be placed as factual or not.

I doubt Moses had older documents to work with.

Prove it. You can say you doubt that all you want, but it's extremely easy for things to be destroyed over time.

[Tdyans]

Guest-Ember said:

You see, I don't think he ever DID say he was God. He said he was the SON of God, that GOd was his father, etc., but I think he just meant that it the way that we are ALL sons and daughters of God.

Well, if we're talking about the Bible, he refers to himself specifically as "the only begotten son" of God-- distinguishing himself from those who are "children of God" in a different sense.

If we're not talking about the Bible, or if you think the information in the Bible is fallible, then never mind.

[Deleted]

Ninja said:

Prove it. :P You can say you doubt that all you want, but it's extremely easy for things to be destroyed over time.

True, but if the documents were destroyed, there's no proof he's right, is there?

Therefore, he's not credible.

[Stal]

TheComedian said:

True, but if the documents were destroyed, there's no proof he's right, is there?

Therefore, he's not credible.

That's the same logic as this:

"Well, no one knows this ding dong is there. So even though it's not mine, I can eat it anyway. I won't be stealing, because no one knows it was there and therefore it wasn't there for me to steal."

Just because documents had been destroyed (after he wrote it) does not make it any less credible. He wrote it. There were histories and so forth to back him up at the time. He was credible then. They've been lost over the course of time. So now he's not credible?

No. You just don't think he's credible. From the sounds of it, you want very much to disprove the Bible and God. I know what you said earlier, but your actions are speaking otherwise.

EDIT --

I all ready know what your response is going to be. "But you can't prove he had documents, so they may never have existed to begin with in which case he's not credible."

My response to that is a simple: I have faith. See, I know God is real and there. It's not a belief. It's a true knowledge. In which case since He's there, that means Moses definitely wrote that in a credible standpoint.

With that, I think we can effectively draw this argument to a close.

[Deleted]

Ninja said:

That's the same logic as this:

"Well, no one knows this ding dong is there. So even though it's not mine, I can eat it anyway. I won't be stealing, because no one knows it was there and therefore it wasn't there for me to steal."

Just because documents had been destroyed (after he wrote it) does not make it any less credible. He wrote it. There were histories and so forth to back him up at the time. He was credible then. They've been lost over the course of time. So now he's not credible?

No. You just don't think he's credible. From the sounds of it, you want very much to disprove the Bible and God. I know what you said earlier, but your actions are speaking otherwise.

EDIT --

I all ready know what your response is going to be. "But you can't prove he had documents, so they may never have existed to begin with in which case he's not credible."

My response to that is a simple: I have faith. See, I know God is real and there. It's not a belief. It's a true knowledge. In which case since He's there, that means Moses definitely wrote that in a credible standpoint.

With that, I think we can effectively draw this argument to a close.

You're completely right.

In fact, I've been trying to say that all along:

With no proof of a god's existence, I can't see how one exists. But since there's no proof that one doesn't exist, you believe one does.

Our logics just take different meanings from the very same information. That's exactly what's happened throughout all of history.

EDIT: The one thing that I can't say you're right about is that a god's existance is "true knowledge."

Now that I think about, Agnostics are the only people who do make sense. #nosmileys

[Princess Ember Mononoke]

TheComedian said:

EDIT: The one thing that I can't say you're right about is that a god's existance is "true knowledge."

I know what he means, and I SOOO wish I could explain, but I can't. But it IS indeed possible to KNOW something without any form of physical evidence. In fact, many times its the things without physical evidence that are most true and real.

That made NO sense. Like I said, you can't really explain it - no one will understand unles they've had a similar experience.

[Stal]

Ember said:

I know what he means, and I SOOO wish I could explain, but I can't. But it IS indeed possible to KNOW something without any form of physical evidence. In fact, many times its the things without physical evidence that are most true and real.

That made NO sense. Like I said, you can't really explain it - no one will understand unles they've had a similar experience.

Let me give an example, Ember (and thanks for backing me up ^_^ )

There're times where you just know with no evidence at all that something is wrong with a friend. Any outside observer would never be able to tell, but there is always that closeness and bond that you have with your closest friends and will be able to tell when something is up, no matter how normal they act.

[thegreenmooseofdoom]

Ember said:

I know what he means, and I SOOO wish I could explain, but I can't. But it IS indeed possible to KNOW something without any form of physical evidence. In fact, many times its the things without physical evidence that are most true and real.

That made NO sense. Like I said, you can't really explain it - no one will understand unles they've had a similar experience.

I agree. It's called closure.
Like... for instance...
Let me use the example in Understanding Comics.
When you were a little kid and you played Peekaboo with your mom, when she hid behind something, you knew she was still there, even though your senses couldn't prove it. Your brain created the inbetween action of her crouching down, and even though you technically cannot prove she is back there without physically going down there and looking, your past experiences tell you that she is still there.

However, I still don't buy religion. I'm just saying that it could feasibly be possible.

[Deleted]

thegreenmooseofdoom said:

I agree. It's called closure.
Like... for instance...
Let me use the example in Understanding Comics.
When you were a little kid and you played Peekaboo with your mom, when she hid behind something, you knew she was still there, even though your senses couldn't prove it. Your brain created the inbetween action of her crouching down, and even though you technically cannot prove she is back there without physically going down there and looking, your past experiences tell you that she is still there.

However, I still don't buy religion. ;) I'm just saying that it could feasibly be possible.

That's a bit different, because you're basing it off your own observations, and not those of others.

But still, as I said before, people just take things different ways.

Toe-may-toe
Toe-mah-toe

Poe-tay-toe
Poe-tah-toe

Half-empty
Half-full

[thegreenmooseofdoom]

TheComedian said:

That's a bit different, because you're basing it off your own observations, and not those of others.

But still, as I said before, people just take things different ways.

Toe-may-toe
Toe-mah-toe

Poe-tay-toe
Poe-tah-toe

Half-empty
Half-full

True, true. Which is why I was speaking generally about things you can't see but exist anyways.

Which is why I don't believe in god... I have no reason to believe he exists. I have never seen or 'felt' his prescence, nor does any of it really make any sense.

[Ducky being lazy]

One of the things that..well, not led me to Christianity, but..I guess just strengthed my belief in it was a theory called Pascal's Wager. Basically, a long time ago, this guy named Pascal basically said that if God exists, he'd better believe in Him. If he doesn't, he's in trouble. If He doesn't exist, then it doesn't hurt to believe in Him while he's alive, so he might as well believe.

[Deleted]

Guest-Ducky said:

One of the things that..well, not led me to Christianity, but..I guess just strengthed my belief in it was a theory called Pascal's Wager. Basically, a long time ago, this guy named Pascal basically said that if God exists, he'd better believe in Him. If he doesn't, he's in trouble. If He doesn't exist, then it doesn't hurt to believe in Him while he's alive, so he might as well believe.

I tried that, but it seems to me like a false belief. I can't force myself to believe in a god just to save myself. Wouldn't the god know better?