|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Ask and ye shall receive =)
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415 |
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415 |
Quote:
If there is a god and God made the entire universe I don't think he NEEDS anything from us. If he exists then all the benefit is for us, not him.
Oh, I agree that God doesn't "need" anything from us ...... but like a parent, He has certain rules that we must follow. He wants to have a relationship with us. He wants His children to seek Him.
God, by the very definition, could have "made" us love Him unconditionally. He could have made each of us accept him in an undisputed manner. Instead, he allowed us free will, and allows us to seek Him in our own ways, and according to our own needs and wishes.
God doesn't "need" us, but He does love us .... even those of us who reject Him. He weeps for those who choose a path into damnation, and rejoices when one of His lost children returns to Him. (Obviously, for an immortal, omniscient and omnipotent being, this is a massive oversimplification on my part)
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Tell that to the Pharaoh who lost his son because God hardened his heart so that he would not give in to Moses. The bible is full of instances where God manipulated people to do what he wanted. It's not really free choice. It's more along the lines of do what you want so long as you don't mess up my plans.
But lets please avoid the whole "free will" debate since no side ever wins that one and it just goes on and on... kind of like our little creation argument here =)
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415 |
Yeah, it is God's plan in the end, and he may push us does different paths, but how we handle those paths is entirely up to us.I know that there are certain times where God may require a certain outcome ..... like that Jesus would be crucified, and takes steps to ensure those events happen.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have not once tried to prove God in this thread. It is a matter of faith.
Then why engage in the argument in the first place?
Because you can't use a scientific argument to prove God.... but you can use a scientific argument to show that it has not DISproven God.
Quote:
With all due respect, faith boils down to 'because I think so'. You have nothing on your side in terms of reason.
But a small super condensed ball containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, which nobody can even begin to explain the origin of, exploding into an infinite cosmos and then forming into solar systems and planets and eventually spawning life which all function along these very delicate lines of balance all by accident seems reasonable to you? See, until somebody disproves God, it seems like by far the most reasonable explanation to me.
Well said!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
a man born to a virgin was executed and rose from the dead or that a man parted a body of water...
...I'm going to mock that.
Maybe I shouldn't...but, c'mon...you want me to take beliefs based on that seriously?
I sure do. God loves you bro 
:
thumbsup: 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
...I'm going to mock that.
Maybe I shouldn't...
Since you have an ample enough amount of doubt in your own thinking to say, "Maybe I shouldn't...", then maybe you shouldn't. Because mocking as you do is a sure sign of closed mindedness for someone who thinks himself a free thinker.
If you don't know; you don't know. So why speak as if you did?
My experience in the church was going to Sunday school with the neighbors which I chose to do as it was a fun day. Much like school but much more fun than school. I never understood any of the teaching. I was more interested in the finger painting, the group playing outside on nice days and the abundance of snacks offered.
When I was a very young teenager I spent a month one summer with my uncle and aunt in Kentucky (I'm from Ohio) and they went to church every Sunday and Wednesday. I tagged along out of respect for them but don't remember learning anything there. I guess it was the beginning of my close mindedness.
By the time I became a young adult I had figured out this "God thing". The primitives had no idea what the sun was or why it moved in the sky the way it does so they invented themselves a Sun God. They had no idea how or why their crops grew so they invented a God who oversees such things. The did this with everything they did not understand. They had Gods for everything.
Since we don't worship a Sun God anymore I took it to mean that once we learned enough we didn't need a God as an explanation. Going further I surmised that eventually all our mysteries will be solved and at that point we'll no longer need any God at all. That made sense to me. Since there was only one God left from the many we used to worship as human beings I realized that sooner or later we would not need that one.
I didn't actually go on a crusade to disprove God but whenever the subject came up I was not hesitant to voice my opinion and "evidence" for why God is not necessary so thereby doesn't exist. I was very strong in my opinion.
Fast forward 15 years and I'd found myself in a predicament. I'd been smoking weed throughout all that time. Whatever. I had a wife and a child. Our home and relationship was falling apart. She began going to bars, which is something I never did, and it was tearing up my gut thinking she might be looking for another man. Or if not looking may find one anyway.
Then the worst that could happen happened. I found her with another man. Quite by accident I drove by them sitting in his vehicle. They drove off in a hurry but later when I spoke to her I asked if that was her new guy. She affirmed that it was. I was devastated. I needed to figure this out, solve the issue and put everything right again.
Having failed to do so over the course of a month or so I began to think that maybe if I weren't smoking dope everyday my mind might be clear enough to think rationally instead of from the perspective I was thinking now. I often broke down crying at my inability to think my way to a solution. Having enough sense to know that it would be a long, hard road to quitting weed while hanging around my circle of friends of whom all smoked. I made the correct though embarrassing decision to check myself into rehab in 1987.
Brecksville VA Hospital was available to me through my veterans benefits. It's nothing like the rehab facilities you see on TV. Very military like in its starkness. The food was bad, the facility lacked any pleasing decor but nothing mattered to me except to strive to regain my ability to think rationally away from the daily onslaught of issues that plagued me and held me at bay.
The first night there was depressing. When I went to bed I was miserable. Even more miserable than usual because of where I let life lead me. I was spent. Feeling like I had nothing and nowhere to turn. Who can help at a time like this?
Lying in that bed on that first night I prayed my first prayer in earnest since I was a child at Sunday School. I prayed, "God, I know you are not there. But my best thinking has gotten me here, in a rehab facility, with a broken home and a broken heart. Although I don't believe in you, on the outside chance that I might be wrong about that I really need some help." I sobbed myself to sleep rather quickly.
I awoke in the morning with a smile on my face that has not left me to this day. I had no idea why I felt so good but suspected that maybe there is a God who cares about me. It sounded so irrational but I couldn't explain my new outlook.
I found I could think about my issues at home and our relationship without feeling overwhelmed in fear or sadness. I'd not been able to do such since the dilemma began.
There were times when the sadness did overtake me though. The first time it happened I was standing in the lunch line and was suddenly overcome, much like an anxiety attack. Desperate, I prayed saying, "God, I've heard you say that I should give my concerns to you, (probably from Sunday School or my church visits in Kentucky), and that you would take them. If you take them that would mean I would no longer have them. If you can really take them away from me then do it now". I supposed it was issued as a challenge to God because I'd not yet fully bought into the idea but within a minute I felt the sadness and overwhelming grief wash away.
I stood there in amazement as in a matter of one minute I went from an elevating anxiety attack to a feeling of peace. I was quickly buying in.
I remember another specific time when I was walking outside thinking, of course, of my relationship and my wife with another man along with my 10 year old daughter in that mess. I'd felt like I'd forsaken her by checking into rehab for 28 days leaving her alone with her mother, that guy and the craziness of their drinking and partying every night.
There was a picnic table next to the sidewalk so I stopped walking and set at the table. I lit a cigarette, put my head down and prayed the same thing I did while standing in the lunch line. Within seconds I raised my head with a completely different outlook. Different to the degree that I could still think about those things without feeling anxiety or overwhelmed.
Throughout a half dozen of these episodes I was convinced that there is a God and he can and will intervene if asked.
And it wasn't just the release of anxiety that I noted. I had a whole new outlook on many things. I used to find white people jokes about black people hilarious. Suddenly I found that kind of humor very distasteful. This was not something I sat and thought about and then came to that conclusion. I was simply and factually changed inside without my effort.
I had always loved the people who loved me and to hell with the rest. There were many people I hated without just cause. Suddenly, over a short time, I came to love everybody. Even those whom I didn't like. I could understand why some of them were the way they were and I wanted to pray for them. That was not me and I did not think that out. It just happened.
When I finished rehab I was drawn to visit a Pastor in a church. I picked one who couldn't possibly know me and I'd never have to see him again. My visit was for the sole purpose of completing the 5th of the 12 steps of AA, "We admitted to ourselves, to God and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs". It's a cleansing, a way to get things off your chest you've been holding for a long time. Things you'd never tell anybody and haven't. Kind of a confession like Catholics do. Kinda.
When we were finished the Pastor offered me a Bible. I refused it telling him that this relationship I have with God is very real and working miracles in my life. That I didn't want to risk that by putting anything (Jesus) between he and I. He understood but insisted I allow him to give me this gift and it was ok if I threw it away once I left. That's a no lose proposition so I took it graciously.
It sat on the top of my dresser for weeks. One night, lying in bed, I took it down and began reading the book of Mark. For the first time in my life I could read the Bible with some understanding. Any time in previous years I looked into it when a beloved friend had passed or some tragedy had occurred and I hoped against hope to find some comfort in the words none of it ever made any sense. This time though, it simply read like a book to me. I was intrigued.
I read every night. As I read I found my faith growing ever stronger. I already had faith in God by the things he had done with my life so far. Changes that were inexplicable by any other means. Now, reading the Bible that faith was being built upon. Not so much by the intellectual rational of deciphering of what was said, or blindly buying into any of it, but merely by reading my faith in God was getting stronger. Even when reading things that seemed to have nothing to do with what was going on in my life, still, my faith grew.
Such is the dilemma of a believer when trying to logically convince an unbeliever of the truth of God and Jesus Christ. There is no way to approach it so that it sounds logical to an unbeliever. Truth is, from the very beginning none of it was logical to me. But it was real, it was happening and my life was being changed for the better without me even trying.
The only thing I did was ask.
If you would like to experience what that dilemma is like think about your favorite food. Now imagine explaining how it tastes to someone who has never eaten anything like it. You can't say "It tastes like chicken" because they've never eaten chicken. How do you describe a taste and flavor? How do I describe the miracle of my relationship with God other than to tell you how it happened and what I felt? That's not necessarily convincing to one who doesn't believe.
An unbeliever can come up with plenty of ways to explain away my experience. But no one can taste the flavor of my experience and not come away believing in God.
I hope no one takes this a preaching. I was simply giving witness to the awesome power of God that came into my life merely by my opening the door a crack and allowing him in. Does it work the same way with everybody? Probably not. We all have our own journey. But I am a vastly different man the day after I put away my haughtiness and allowed for a possibility that in my infinite intelligence I hadn't even thought of before.
Awesome post. God bless
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I have not once tried to prove God in this thread. It is a matter of faith.
Then why engage in the argument in the first place?
Because you can't use a scientific argument to prove God.... but you can use a scientific argument to show that it has not DISproven God.
Quote:
With all due respect, faith boils down to 'because I think so'. You have nothing on your side in terms of reason.
But a small super condensed ball containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, which nobody can even begin to explain the origin of, exploding into an infinite cosmos and then forming into solar systems and planets and eventually spawning life which all function along these very delicate lines of balance all by accident seems reasonable to you? See, until somebody disproves God, it seems like by far the most reasonable explanation to me.
Well said!
More than well said!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,133 |
After reading through this thread (I've read every post), it appears the believers are posing a stronger argument. I've regularly found myself questioning my faith over the years, and after giving serious thought and reflecting on past experiences, I always end up believing in God.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,825 |
Me too - but, I'm taking off for a week, so I don't want to ruffle feathers, then not respond for a week and have others think "oh, Arch has nothing to say."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Also, the the phase 40 days and 40 nights doesn't actually mean 40 days. It just means a long time.
Can I borrow $1,000?
I'll pay you back in 40 days.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
But a small super condensed ball containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, which nobody can even begin to explain the origin of, exploding into an infinite cosmos and then forming into solar systems and planets and eventually spawning life which all function along these very delicate lines of balance all by accident seems reasonable to you? See, until somebody disproves God, it seems like by far the most reasonable explanation to me.
As I said earlier, if you're talking in terms of creator or higher power...that's certainly a valid debate, and one I don't pretend to have the answers to.
It's when you get into things like Christianity where logic goes out the window, and yeah, none of that happened. A snake never talked, a man didn't put every species of animal on a boat, and a virgin didn't give birth.
They're ancient fables meant to teach morality.
But, to be fair, a great deal of this thread has stuck to the former.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
Quote:
But a small super condensed ball containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, which nobody can even begin to explain the origin of, exploding into an infinite cosmos and then forming into solar systems and planets and eventually spawning life which all function along these very delicate lines of balance all by accident seems reasonable to you? See, until somebody disproves God, it seems like by far the most reasonable explanation to me.
As I said earlier, if you're talking in terms of creator or higher power...that's certainly a valid debate, and one I don't pretend to have the answers to.
It's when you get into things like Christianity where logic goes out the window, and yeah, none of that happened. A snake never talked, a man didn't put every species of animal on a boat, and a virgin didn't give birth.
They're ancient fables meant to teach morality.
But, to be fair, a great deal of this thread has stuck to the former.
So are you saying you think a God might be a possibility and possibly reasonable, but an All Powerful God is impossible and unreasonable
If there is a God who created the womb, surely He would be able to cause a Virgin to conceive.
...and make the blind to see, the lame to walk, the deaf to hear...
If God is so mighty so as to create the universe, surely these kinds of things arent impossible for Him.
,,,Also, it was a fallen angel, (Lucifer) who talked through the serpent.
All these things are illogical and irrational only if you believe that the supernatural is irrational and illogical...But you said the existence of God is a valid debate. Do you hold He must be a non supernatural God. Th
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the the phase 40 days and 40 nights doesn't actually mean 40 days. It just means a long time.
Can I borrow $1,000?
I'll pay you back in 40 days.
Wow someone tries to educate you and best you can do is mock? Have at it but what I told you was a fact. Here are some examples of the Bible’s use of the number 40 that stress the theme of testing or judgment:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the Old Testament, when God destroyed the earth with water, He caused it to rain 40 days and 40 nights (Genesis 7:12). After Moses killed the Egyptian, he fled to Midian, where he spent 40 years in the desert tending flocks (Acts 7:30). Moses was on Mount Sinai for 40 days and 40 nights (Exodus 24:18). Moses interceded on Israel’s behalf for 40 days and 40 nights (Deuteronomy 9:18, 25). The Law specified a maximum number of lashes a man could receive for a crime, setting the limit at 40 (Deuteronomy 25:3). The Israelite spies took 40 days to spy out Canaan (Numbers 13:25). The Israelites wandered for 40 years (Deuteronomy 8:2-5). Before Samson’s deliverance, Israel served the Philistines for 40 years (Judges 13:1). Goliath taunted Saul’s army for 40 days before David arrived to slay him (1 Samuel 17:16). When Elijah fled from Jezebel, he traveled 40 days and 40 nights to Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:8).
The number 40 also appears in the prophecies of Ezekiel (4:6; 29:11-13) and Jonah (3:4).
In the New Testament, Jesus was tempted for 40 days and 40 nights (Matthew 4:2). There were 40 days between Jesus’ resurrection and ascension (Acts 1:3).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it just means a trial or hardship depending on how the old Hebrew is translated. And the people who study the orignial language for a living are not in agreement. This kind of problem happens a LOT in anchient Hebrew language because of the practice of "Gematria" where they would write in such a way as to place hidden meaning through the use of numbers, the number of letters in a word, and all kind of complicated and crazy stuff.
The short of it is that when you see the numbers 7 or 40 they have to be taken with a grain of salt because often they were more symbolic than actual. In fact the ONLY time you can trust Hebrew numbers to mean an actual number is when they are writing inventory for taxes and for listing amounts, such as money.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
Quote:
But a small super condensed ball containing all of the matter and energy of the universe, which nobody can even begin to explain the origin of, exploding into an infinite cosmos and then forming into solar systems and planets and eventually spawning life which all function along these very delicate lines of balance all by accident seems reasonable to you? See, until somebody disproves God, it seems like by far the most reasonable explanation to me.
As I said earlier, if you're talking in terms of creator or higher power...that's certainly a valid debate, and one I don't pretend to have the answers to.
It's when you get into things like Christianity where logic goes out the window, and yeah, none of that happened. A snake never talked, a man didn't put every species of animal on a boat, and a virgin didn't give birth.
They're ancient fables meant to teach morality.
But, to be fair, a great deal of this thread has stuck to the former.
A demon possessed animal could possibly speak. I have seen a spirit/ghost with my own eyes and I have never done drugs in my life or been high so I know they exist. Was the most terrifying thing I have ever experienced in my life. Although in this case I think the snake is metaphorical rather than actual.
I don't think the ark had every single animal on earth on it. However, over 500 separate accounts of the great flood and an ark with animals in it exist from all over the world. Geological evidence has proven it is FACT that the great flood happened 7-8,000 years ago. There are remnants of ancient civilizations all over the world. Some could do things with stones and metal that to this day we can not duplicate with our "advanced" technology.
Virgins can get pregnant with out ever having sex. It's not easy but its possible. Artificial insemination among other things that are not appropriate to post on a public forum. There are also the VERY rare cases where a woman's egg can self fertilize in essence making a clone of the mother. Of course the clone would be a woman barring a mutation so that one is not very likely but we are talking about a miracle long shot here. The point is its possible even though its improbable. To me personally it doesn't even matter.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Wow someone tries to educate you and best you can do is mock?
That wasn't mockery.
It was honestly a lighthearted attempt at humor.
I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.
Quote:
Have at it but what I told you was a fact.
No, it's not. It's a rationalization.
'When someone writes 40 days they don't really mean 40 days' isn't a fact, and rationalizations by others to make similar attempts to make fantasy work within the parameters of reality doesn't constitute evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Quote:
Also, the the phase 40 days and 40 nights doesn't actually mean 40 days. It just means a long time.
Much like, "I told you a hundred times to take out the trash!"
Or...
"There were millions of mosquitoes attacking us in the woods"
Neither number is true or specific. In our culture we use 100, 1,000, and 1,000,000 to mean a large number. There are many such examples of modern language doing the same thing.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
Quote:
Wow someone tries to educate you and best you can do is mock?
That wasn't mockery.
It was honestly a lighthearted attempt at humor.
I'm sorry you didn't see it that way.
Quote:
Have at it but what I told you was a fact.
No, it's not. It's a rationalization.
'When someone writes 40 days they don't really mean 40 days' isn't a fact, and rationalizations by others to make similar attempts to make fantasy work within the parameters of reality doesn't constitute evidence.
Np its not always easy to tell humor through type. To me it seemed you were implying that i was being naive or simple minded aka I've got ocean front property in Arizona kind of thing. Glad you clarified and no offense taken =)
On the other issue its not rationalization. It's fact that biblical writers used hidden meanings in how they wrote things. It was very common practice back then. the phrases including the numbers 3,7, and 40 were considered "Holy" numbers. 3 often had the meaning of perfect and holy/pure. 7 often related to important events. For instance, God creating the universe in 7 days can just as easily mean seven periods or ages. the phrase 40 days and 40 nights often referred to mean a long period of time greater than a week. That they wrote in this way is a fact. Though sometimes it was literal its almost impossible to tell the difference since much of the understanding of the methods for code they used have been lost over the past 3-4000 years.
Still when you have that knowledge and read the same scriptures it can greatly change the meaning and often make things make much more sense. Keep in mind when the original books of the Bible were written and entire tribe of Israel were born and raised as priest to safe guard and preserve the knowledge they contained and normal people like us were not even meant to have access to the books of the bible.
I am not telling you to believe anything you don't want to. I am just sharing information that I have learned through extensive study. take it or leave it but what I have told you is fact and not guesswork. Almost anyone who has been to seminary and studied Hebrew can tell you the same things as I have. Although even the top Hebrew scholars have disagreements on the subject due to so many passages that can be taken to have multiple meanings depending on how you read it.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, the the phase 40 days and 40 nights doesn't actually mean 40 days. It just means a long time.
Much like, "I told you a hundred times to take out the trash!"
Or...
"There were millions of mosquitoes attacking us in the woods"
Neither number is true or specific. In our culture we use 100, 1,000, and 1,000,000 to mean a large number. There are many such examples of modern language doing the same thing.
Similar but not quite. They don't use it like hyperbole the way we would. Rather its more like a poetic code where certain phrases can change meaning depending on key words that come before or after the phrase. Kind of similar to Japanese language actually. the problem is that many of the Keys to tell which meaning of the phrase is being used has been lost to us.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,189 |
Gotcha. And thanks for the education in your last few posts to the other guy. It's well taken and appreciated.
#gmstrong
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
Quote:
There's no scientific evidence, from a respected peer review source, which corroborates with any religious belief. I'd argue most scientists remain agnostic.
Yes, it's a question of faith. I'd rather have a pure belief in something tangible than hope because someone told me to.
In that case you would be skeptical of metaphysical naturalism, because it is both unprovable and undisprovable, and is therefore not science.
Am I done beating a dead horse, because noone has agreed nor disagreed with me on this.
I keep saying the same thing again and again, because everyone seems to think I am attacking science, but I have only challenged one thing this whole time, and every response I've gotten keeps going back to "you're attacking science"
This is because science and philosophical naturalism have become synonomous in the minds of many. But is it?
I'm only asking questions for the most part.
This is similar enough to what you asked a couple days ago of me, and don't worry, I too feel like a dead horse is being beaten. Maybe because we're talking past one another, I don't know, but the same things keep getting reiterated over and over. A professor told me once that if you're asking the same question over and over again and getting the wrong answer in return, you're not asking the question right. Maybe trying asking the questions differently.
Let me see if I have this correct. Metaphysical/philosphical naturalism is a belief system. You feel that since it is a belief system, like Christianity, it is inherently unproveable and disproveable. And that's true, I guess. Lack of evidence is not evidence of something's lack of existence. So why do I feel that this belief is better than any inherently religious one? It's the track record and the explanatory power. First, pretty much everything that could have been dubbed "supernatural" in the past has been found to have very natural mechanisms. If you look at just the past 50 years, the world has changed so drastically that many of the things we take for granted today would be almost magical at any other point in human history. Second, based off the previous success of philosophical naturalism, I don't think it's such a big deal to go on thinking that it will keep proving out as time progresses. As a belief system, while it in and of itself isn't provable, has an outstanding ability to lead us toward knowledge and understanding that is verifiable and correct.
As for you not attacking science, do I need to bring up the "science can't explain why earth has water on it" jibe you posted a couple pages back? The fact of the matter is, it can, it just hasn't nailed down the correct answer yet. That's how science works. We poke and prod at the question until we find out exactly why something is the way it is. So no, you've never gone into full science denial mode in this thread, but I've seen it from you before when you talk about the firmament or evolution. This is a just a guess, but I'd imagine these are a couple of areas that you feel religion can inform science and places you feel there's not enough God.
As for confounding philosophical naturalism and science, it's easy to see why this happens. Philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is nothing more to this universe than what is natural. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. They both deal in the natural world, however one is a belief, another is a methodology (or process) through which people try to determine an effect's cause. Science, by it's very definition cannot explain something outside of it's realm, the natural realm. If there's no way to test something, if there's no way to indirectly observe a process and corroborate it with alternate lines of evidence, if there's no way to invalidate a hypothesis, then the methodology you're practicing isn't science. That's why religion isn't in the realm of science, or vice versa, neither has bearing on the other because they deal with totally disparate lines of reasoning.
This brings me back to your point that you feel like philosophical naturalism is too cozy with science, and not cozy enough with religion. First, it's because philosophical naturalism is similar enough in it's foundation that allows science to coexist with it. On is a belief system that says there's nothing outside the natural, the other is a way of understanding the natural. So while they're not the same, they have similar ideas. Second, philosophical naturalism isn't talking about worldwide floods, or men walking on water, or everlasting life/death after we die in this world, religion is. Unless there's ways to test these things, you'll never have religion informing or guiding science in any way. You can make claims to the supernatural all you want, but if it's not verifiable, testable, or observed, you're going to have a tough time calling it science and not getting laughed at by real scientists.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
This is similar enough to what you asked a couple days ago of me, and don't worry, I too feel like a dead horse is being beaten. Maybe because we're talking past one another, I don't know, but the same things keep getting reiterated over and over. A professor told me once that if you're asking the same question over and over again and getting the wrong answer in return, you're not asking the question right. Maybe trying asking the questions differently.Let me see if I have this correct. Metaphysical/philosphical naturalism is a belief system. You feel that since it is a belief system, like Christianity, it is inherently unproveable and disproveable. And that's true, I guess
It's not a complicated question. The question is "is Metaphysical naturalism scientificly provable or disprovable"? Please give your honest answer.
It is a simple yes or no question.
You say you guess that metaphysical naturalism is unprovable and undisprovable. Does that imply a certain ammount of doubt in the proposition? Is the non existence of something outside of nature any more provable or disprovable than the existence of something outside of nature? It seems to me that the former propostion would be harder to disprove or prove. Do you agree?
Quote:
So why do I feel that this belief is better than any inherently religious one? It's the track record and the explanatory power. First, pretty much everything that could have been dubbed "supernatural" in the past has been found to have very natural mechanisms. If you look at just the past 50 years, the world has changed so drastically that many of the things we take for granted today would be almost magical at any other point in human history. Second, based off the previous success of philosophical naturalism, I don't think it's such a big deal to go on thinking that it will keep proving out as time progresses. As a belief system, while it in and of itself isn't provable, has an outstanding ability to lead us toward knowledge and understanding that is verifiable and correct.
You said believe, which means you "believe metaphysical naturalism is better than "Theism" and you base that "opinion" on what you observe and your interpretation of what you deserve. Intelligent designers have the same data, yet interpret it differently than you do. They see the universe, and they see evidence of intelligent design. Not all I.D adherents are Christian, Bible believers, and New Earthers. Some used to believe in naturalism, and switched over to because the evidence of Design was compelling to them.
Yes, Metaphysical naturalism is a belief system, and that is not my beef. My beef is that it is taught (by some) as proven fact when it is not, and people accept it as fact because supposed experts teach it as fact.
Quote:
As for you not attacking science, do I need to bring up the "science can't explain why earth has water on it" jibe you posted a couple pages back? The fact of the matter is, it can, it just hasn't nailed down the correct answer yet.
That is not an attack, it is a statement of fact. The point was that Science will never be able to prove the non-, existence of something outside of nature, (that only nature exists), until they can answer the question of origins. You can say that everything appears to be explainable by purely naturalistic means, but that is actually not the case at this time, because you cannot explain the presence of water on the earth by purely naturalistic means. In the end, my only point is that metaphysical naturalism is not a proven fact.
You missed the whole point, thinking I was attacking science, when science was not the target at all. I was addressing the confusion of metaphysical naturalism ( which is a belief system) with scientific fact, which is the biggest lie in the last 200 years.
If you can agree on this one proposition, (metaphysical naturalism is not a proven fact), then there is no disagreement between you and I. Are you bold enough to do so?
...and I don't really care about your "we'll prove it sooner or later". That is no different than me saying "people who don't believe in God will find out differently when they die"
Quote:
As for confounding philosophical naturalism and science, it's easy to see why this happens. Philosophical naturalism is the belief that there is nothing more to this universe than what is natural. Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. They both deal in the natural world, however one is a belief, another is a methodology (or process) through which people try to determine an effect's cause. Science, by it's very definition cannot explain something outside of it's realm, the natural realm. If there's no way to test something, if there's no way to indirectly observe a process and corroborate it with alternate lines of evidence, if there's no way to invalidate a hypothesis, then the methodology you're practicing isn't science. That's why religion isn't in the realm of science, or vice versa, neither has bearing on the other because they deal with totally disparate lines of reasoning.
Yet I have not been arguing for Intelligent Design or Creationism (though I certainly do believe God created all things). Yet I have not engaged in that argument in this thread. The only thing I have said is that metaphysical naturalism does not meet the criteria that you are presenting as defining science. The arguments you use against Intelligent Design and Creationism are equally applicable to metaphysical naturalism. That has been my only point the entire time.
Quote:
This brings me back to your point that you feel like philosophical naturalism is too cozy with science, and not cozy enough with religion. First, it's because philosophical naturalism is similar enough in it's foundation that allows science to coexist with it. On is a belief system that says there's nothing outside the natural, the other is a way of understanding the natural. So while they're not the same, they have similar ideas. Second, philosophical naturalism isn't talking about worldwide floods, or men walking on water, or everlasting life/death after we die in this world, religion is. Unless there's ways to test these things, you'll never have religion informing or guiding science in any way. You can make claims to the supernatural all you want, but if it's not verifiable, testable, or observed, you're going to have a tough time calling it science and not getting laughed at by real scientists.
I am not trying to scientifically defend the claims of Christianity. Christianity is a matter of faith. I believe in the claims of Christianity because of reasons other than science. Secondly, people believe in God not because He is can be observed and tested, but because the universe exists, and in order for the universe to exist, it must either be self existent (without cause, eternally preexistent, always having existed), created, or it would have had to create itself. By universe, I do not mean the universe as we now now it, rather I mean everything that exists, ever has existed, and will ever exist.
If you go back to the origin, existence in it's earliest form, either something had to have always existed or something had to spring out of nothing. This is simple logic. If you can think of an alternative possibility, let me know.
I think it is reasonable to say that matter and energy are not self existent, eternal, and without any cause, and it is equally reasonable to say that there is warrant to believe that something can come out of absolute nothingness, seeing that there is nowhere in nature where nothing exists, so how can you observe, test, disprove, or verify that something can come out of nothing. At the same time, we cannot point to anything in nature and say "this is causeless and eternal". So logic dictates that metaphysical naturalism is not only unscientific, it is anti-science.
Last edited by LA Brown fan; 07/20/14 07:09 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
J/C Y'all should read this:  LinkLamb features satire on Christianity dogma. Totally tongue in cheek, not too offensive, and you'll be laughing at the absurd situations.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Everything I've said can be boiled down to two sentences...
Yes, Metaphysical naturalism is a belief system, and that is not my beef. My beef is that it is taught (by some) as proven fact when it is not, and people accept it as fact because supposed experts teach it as fact.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
Gotcha. And thanks for the education in your last few posts to the other guy. It's well taken and appreciated.
thanks mate I appreciate you saying that =)
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I appreciate you taking the time to write out a thoughtful response...
But at the end of the day, it's more or less a rationalization that's attempting to make a fictional work into a true account of holy gospel.
I try to stay out of these threads these days, because I have a tendency to get mean in regards to the nonsense otherwise rational people will accept as truth.
"When the man put two of every species on a boat, it wasn't really 40 days."
I mean...seriously?
The 40 days isn't the only nonsensical, illogical and impossible part of that premise.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,433 |
There's no guide with The Bible as to what's literal or not. That's a major knock on it for me, honestly.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Job, a comedy of justice is also along the same vein and a great book to read. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/355.Job
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
There's no guide with The Bible as to what's literal or not. That's a major knock on it for me, honestly.
It lets it's followers cherrypick what they wish to believe and ignore what they cannot rationally defend.
The New Testament pretty clearly considers being rich a sin. It's decidedly anti-captialist. The rationalizations I've heard on that front on these boards is something else.
Also, a bit off-topic, but I saw a clip today of some people protesting the illegals coming in. One woman was yelling 'Jesus wouldn't break the law!' Audible laughter on my end.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Quote:
It's not a complicated question. The question is "is Metaphysical naturalism scientificly provable or disprovable"? Please give your honest answer.
It is a simple yes or no question.
You say you guess that metaphysical naturalism is unprovable and undisprovable. Does that imply a certain ammount of doubt in the proposition? Is the non existence of something outside of nature any more provable or disprovable than the existence of something outside of nature? It seems to me that the former propostion would be harder to disprove or prove. Do you agree?
I gave you this answer. Philosophical naturalism's premise that there is no God isn't provable or disprovable, just like any other belief system purporting there is a God is provable or disprovable. However, that doesn't mean the scientific method and reliance on natural means to explain things is unscientific too. Afterall, what remains after stripping philosophical naturalism of it's unscientific assertions is just methodological naturalism.
Quote:
You said believe, which means you "believe metaphysical naturalism is better than "Theism" and you base that "opinion" on what you observe and your interpretation of what you deserve. Intelligent designers have the same data, yet interpret it differently than you do. They see the universe, and they see evidence of intelligent design. Not all I.D adherents are Christian, Bible believers, and New Earthers. Some used to believe in naturalism, and switched over to because the evidence of Design was compelling to them.
I don't know what that first sentence means. As for the rest, IDer's take all interpretations one step further than any normal scientist pursuing a question would. They take that data and they come to the conclusion that God did it, where a scientist would start trying to push that knowledge further and make no qualifications regarding the supernatural. It's just not necessary. Not only that, but they also try to roll all the science into a religious context, which as I explained before can't be done. This is why it's ludicrous to call ID science.
Quote:
My beef is that it is taught (by some) as proven fact when it is not, and people accept it as fact because supposed experts teach it as fact.
Who? Who does this? You're sounding like some of the people on this board who believe that Universities are liberal training grounds and they only exist to push a progressive agenda onto our children. No one in science pushes philosophical naturalism, barely anyone talks about their beliefs at all because it's not important when pursuing a hypothesis. Again, this isn't an issue, because literally no scientist thinks like this.
Quote:
That is not an attack, it is a statement of fact. The point was that Science will never be able to prove the non-, existence of something outside of nature, (that only nature exists), until they can answer the question of origins. You can say that everything appears to be explainable by purely naturalistic means, but that is actually not the case at this time, because you cannot explain the presence of water on the earth by purely naturalistic means. In the end, my only point is that metaphysical naturalism is not a proven fact.
No, if it were a statement of fact, it would be correct. If you read that paper, you'll see that the whole point was to push the discussion more toward water originating from asteroids, not comets. They talk about how the signature of radioisotopes in earth water are more similar to that of water in asteroids than in comets. So these guys do have a pretty good idea where the water came from.
Quote:
Are you bold enough to do so?
Oh please 
Quote:
...and I don't really care about your "we'll prove it sooner or later". That is no different than me saying "people who don't believe in God will find out differently when they die"
This isn't something you should dismiss so casually. The idea that science builds off of previous knowledge, and is progressing at pace previously unseen, means that (depending on your age) you're more than like going to see the discovery and resolution of dark matter, maybe even dark energy, to our physics knowledge base. Characterization of these two forces will probably lead to better hypotheses about the origin of the universe, so that we could have a better idea of what gave rise to us.
The difference between the two statements is this, one is showing that something is provable with this universe with the right knowledge, the other requires you to pass from this plane of existence to another. One can happen as a result of careful observation and testing, the other can't because it doesn't work within this realm of existence. Again, one is knowable, the other isn't.
Quote:
Yet I have not been arguing for Intelligent Design or Creationism (though I certainly do believe God created all things). Yet I have not engaged in that argument in this thread. The only thing I have said is that metaphysical naturalism does not meet the criteria that you are presenting as defining science. The arguments you use against Intelligent Design and Creationism are equally applicable to metaphysical naturalism. That has been my only point the entire time.
And I guess my point is that it's a heck of a lot closer than anything else we have currently. If you're going to believe something, it might as well be that.
Quote:
Quote:
This brings me back to your point that you feel like philosophical naturalism is too cozy with science, and not cozy enough with religion. First, it's because philosophical naturalism is similar enough in it's foundation that allows science to coexist with it. On is a belief system that says there's nothing outside the natural, the other is a way of understanding the natural. So while they're not the same, they have similar ideas. Second, philosophical naturalism isn't talking about worldwide floods, or men walking on water, or everlasting life/death after we die in this world, religion is. Unless there's ways to test these things, you'll never have religion informing or guiding science in any way. You can make claims to the supernatural all you want, but if it's not verifiable, testable, or observed, you're going to have a tough time calling it science and not getting laughed at by real scientists.
I am not trying to scientifically defend the claims of Christianity. Christianity is a matter of faith. I believe in the claims of Christianity because of reasons other than science. Secondly, people believe in God not because He is can be observed and tested, but because the universe exists, and in order for the universe to exist, it must either be self existent (without cause, eternally preexistent, always having existed), created, or it would have had to create itself. By universe, I do not mean the universe as we now now it, rather I mean everything that exists, ever has existed, and will ever exist.
I wasn't saying you were. I was talking about why it's not such a far fetched idea that philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism tend to go hand in hand, while religious beliefs are left behind.
Quote:
If you go back to the origin, existence in it's earliest form, either something had to have always existed or something had to spring out of nothing. This is simple logic. If you can think of an alternative possibility, let me know.
And I've told you what I thought. There was something there - there's always something there. Do we know what it was? No, not yet. Can we describe it? No, not yet. Does this lack of knowledge invalidate everything we've uncovered up to this point? Does this call into question the ability of science to eventually figure it out? No, and to say otherwise is disingenuous.
Quote:
I think it is reasonable to say that matter and energy are not self existent, eternal, and without any cause, and it is equally reasonable to say that there is warrant to believe that something can come out of absolute nothingness, seeing that there is nowhere in nature where nothing exists, so how can you observe, test, disprove, or verify that something can come out of nothing. At the same time, we cannot point to anything in nature and say "this is causeless and eternal". So logic dictates that metaphysical naturalism is not only unscientific, it is anti-science.
No, it's not anti-science. It's not trying to disprove the ability of science or methodological naturalism to explain what we see in the universe, it's just saying that since nothing has ever been found that has required a supernatural explanation, we can probably just hold to the belief that nothing will ever come along that we can't explain using natural mechanisms. You want to call that assumption unscientific? Go right ahead, it is. But that doesn't mean it's anti-scientific. Anti-science implies the denial of the scientific method's ability to explain our universe. That's the exact opposite of what a person believing in philosophical naturalism would say.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Have you ever read The Jefferson Bible?
Thomas Jefferson went through the New Testament and took out all the nonsense about miracles and Christ being the son of God.
It's a wonderful read and a great way to bridge the gap.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
I appreciate you taking the time to write out a thoughtful response...
But at the end of the day, it's more or less a rationalization that's attempting to make a fictional work into a true account of holy gospel.
I try to stay out of these threads these days, because I have a tendency to get mean in regards to the nonsense otherwise rational people will accept as truth.
"When the man put two of every species on a boat, it wasn't really 40 days."
I mean...seriously?
The 40 days isn't the only nonsensical, illogical and impossible part of that premise.
Well since you have moved past 40 days and 40 nights thing that is a step of progress at least.
I will quote myself from earlier about the Noah's Ark.
"I don't think the ark had every single animal on earth on it. However, over 500 separate accounts of the great flood and an ark with animals in it exist from all over the world. Geological evidence has proven it is FACT that the great flood happened 7-8,000 years ago. There are remnants of ancient civilizations all over the world. Some could do things with stones and metal that to this day we can not duplicate with our "advanced" technology."
Do you deny that a great flood happened? It's been scientifically proven to be FACT.
Do you deny that at least one civilization knew it was coming and built a boat to preserve themselves and some of their animals? There are over 500 independent ancient writings and accounts of it happening from all over the world. That's fact not rationalization.
Now if you ask me if I think Noah's account is 100 percent accurate then no I don't. I think he merely put 2 of every kind of land bound animal from his area into his ark. Now to him that would have SEEMED like every animal in the world. So its not like he would have been trying to deceive anyone.
I mean c'mon man. Noah was a farmer/herder from 7000 years ago. How big do you think his world really was? What, you think he found time to go to North America and save those animals too? Or maybe Australia ... c'mon man we can use a little bit of common sense when reading. Now throw in the 500 other flood and arc stories from all over the world and add Noah's to it.
Noah's story is one among many that survived from countless countries all over the world. The simple truth is that there were many Arks from many people and that is how life was preserved. The flood happened and there was an Ark with a man named Noah, with a lot of animals, on it. It rained for a really long time for at least 8 days.(Monsoon anyone). The real reason for the flood had more to do with glaciers breaking off on a large scale, more than anything else. The rain is what people saw though =) Yes, I am using my brain to take all the evidence available and add 2+2 but only on the number of animals on the arc and how long it rained, not that the event happened.
Let him who has ears hear and him who has eyes see and him who has a brain use it to think =)
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
There's no guide with The Bible as to what's literal or not. That's a major knock on it for me, honestly.
There used to be but that tribe of Israel has been pretty much wiped out.
I have problems with people who think the Bible is infallible and literal in every single thing written. There were more than 400 teachings and books that were destroyed before the bible was ever put together. The catholic church was known to have destroyed many of them when they didn't line up with their version of Jesus for example.
I view it like this: there is a God whatever his name and he is trying to tell goat herders how he made everything ... Think about that. Then go take a trip to say ... the Amazon and try to do the same thing to people who still don't have a written language. Now go read Genesis's second story of creation and tell me what you think...
Now read through the old testament and tell me everything is literal and I will call you a moron who can't read with comprehension.
That being said I do believe in miracles. I have seen one first hand. My uncle Rockie was diagnosed with severe degenerative joint disease. Basically the joints in your body start to either fuse together or rot away or randomly do both. he had cat scans and x-rays galore that showed all the physical trauma and damage done to him and he could not walk or even sit in a wheel chair very well well. I want to make it clear there was clear evidence of physical and irreparable damage. He was doomed to die a very painful and excruciating death.
His wife desperate to get him help took him to a faith healer. Not to cure but to help him die in peace. They did their thing and put their hands on him and prayed. My uncle was ready to die.
My uncle went home, went to bed, and went to sleep.
When he woke up, he was completely cured. thought he was being tricked or hypnotized so he walked over to the VA hospital and had tests done. Yes, I said walk. He didn't tell his wife because he didn't want to give her false hope. All new tests showed no sign of damage what so ever. He was cured of an incurable disease like it never happened. Science can't explain it. 10 years later he is still healthy as an ox.
So yes, I believe in miracles that science can't explain. Science doesn't know half has much as they think they do. For the most part they are too busy being full of themselves and what they think they know to learn though.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415 |
Quote:
Have you ever read The Jefferson Bible?
Thomas Jefferson went through the New Testament and took out all the nonsense about miracles and Christ being the son of God.
It's a wonderful read and a great way to bridge the gap.
Christ being the Messiah, the Son of God, and His perfect sacrifice, given for us, is the entire point of the New Testament. There is no way to remove Him from the New testament without completely destroying its meaning. You might get a good story at that point ..... maybe even an uplifting one ...... but you might as well remove the issue of slavery from a life story of Abraham Lincoln and call it a biography as do that to the Bible. What you consider "wonderful" is offensive at its core to Christians. There is no "bridge" from such a book, as it removes, completely, the core message, which is one about the ultimate and complete love God has for us, and that He was willing to sacrifice His only Son for each and every one of us. If you remove that message, then what remains, even if "uplifting", is an incomplete story, that still leaves mankind in death.
If you don't believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah, that is your choice. Neither Jews nor Muslims believe in Christ as the Messiah either. However, what you consider "nonsense" is what Christians consider the basis of Faith. There is a reason it's called Faith ..... and that's because it is beyond the scientific ability of man to prove with scientific certainty. That is the point. It takes a man being willing to give up just a little of himself to add a piece of God to himself. I know that concept is something you neither see, nor believe in. That's fine. Many people will never believe. They will remain convinced of their own ultimate superiority in the play of their own lives until that life is taken away from them by age, infirmity, and death. A corpse, in which life has died, is superior to nothing. It is, ultimately, equal to the body of a Christian, whose physical life on this earth has also ended. The difference is in the spirit, a concept which you seem to also reject. Perhaps for you the spirit is just a bio-electrical set of processes, that exist as long as the ability of the body to carry them out. For a Christian, the spirit is much, much more.
The one great part of all of this is that you will never get to gloat after this life ends.  lol If you are right, and there is nothing after we die ..... then you will be dust, as will everyone else, and nothing you have said or done will matter at that point. If, however, you do happen to wake and find yourself standing before God's judgement, I hope that you will put Jesus Christ back into that "bible" of yours, and accept Him as your savior.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I hope you copy and pasted that nonsensical gibberish and didn't take the time to type it out.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 5,001 |
Quote:
Have you ever read The Jefferson Bible?
Thomas Jefferson went through the New Testament and took out all the nonsense about miracles and Christ being the son of God.
It's a wonderful read and a great way to bridge the gap.
LOL if you take God and his miracles out of the bible then there really ain't much point now is there.
You can't fix stupid but you can destroy ignorance. When you destroy ignorance you remove the justifications for evil. If you want to destroy evil then educate our people. Hate is a tool of the stupid to deal with what they can't understand.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,415 |
Quote:
I hope you copy and pasted that nonsensical gibberish and didn't take the time to type it out.
I typed out every word, and did so just for you.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 934 |
Quote:
I gave you this answer. Philosophical naturalism's premise that there is no God isn't provable or disprovable,
Agreed.
Quote:
As for the rest, IDer's take all interpretations one step further than any normal scientist pursuing a question would. They take that data and they come to the conclusion that God did it,
So by your own admission, you should equally oppose scientists who take the data and come to the conclusion that "nothing exists outside of nature" and atheism, ie philosophical naturalism, and other unprovable, undisprovable claims, right?
Richard Dawkins- The only watchmaker is the blind forces of physics.”
Steven Hawking- I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.
Steven Jay Gould- We may yearn for a 'higher answer'- but none exists."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Christianity VS America.
|
|
