Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Reasons To Believe
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 46 of 72 (112495)
06-02-2004 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by mike the wiz
06-02-2004 7:56 PM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
Mike.
I believe that as a Christian I must be honest about my religion. And frankly, there are many aspects of the Religion, the Church, that are and were horrific. It does no good to simply let the failures go unrecognized lest they happen again. It is only by acknowledging the failures as well as the successes of the BODY called Christianity that it can grow in wisdom and strength.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2004 7:56 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2004 8:26 PM jar has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 47 of 72 (112500)
06-02-2004 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jar
06-02-2004 8:09 PM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
Your a sneaky Asgara spy! Dan Carroll sent you to haunt me!
I understand what you are saying. We have different definitions of christian/christianity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 06-02-2004 8:09 PM jar has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 72 (112501)
06-02-2004 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Hangdawg13
06-02-2004 12:34 AM


Hangdawg13 wrote:

If you die tonight I guess you will experientially KNOW, which one of us is right about Christ. And if you don't, well, we are all going to die.
Hmm.
Niether of us will ever know if anyone was right about Christ: that question and our care about the answer will fade with our mortal bodies.
I don't think I could ever be persuaded to believe in your God due to fear of death. Consciouness ends at death. There are simply no convincing arguements for the existing of an immortal soul.
Should I be inexplicably wrong in my conclusion about this, then:
1) Because a lot of the stuff I posted above, plus my own detailed analysis of Christianity, indicates to me that the Christian God and the Christian concepts of heaven and hell are not likely to exist.
2) If some other judgement/test exists by some deity, I have merely made the best assessment of the reality I was given, and tried to do the right thing by as many other people that I have come across in my life. That's better than a lot of self proclaimed Christians!
If that is insufficient then the judgement/test by the deity was absurd/nonsense and I'll gladly sit in a hot tub in hell with good friends for all enternity, or come back as a very studious worm wriggling around in the soil. Whatever.
I don't expect or need to contemplate that I will be able to prove you wrong in the afterlife. Many Christians obtain satisfaction from the belief that they will be proven right in the next life.
What's more important is: are you living the best life FOR YOURSELF? If you derive much comfort and satisfaction from your religion, then avoid analysing it, and let it play it's positive role in your life. Best avoid forums like this!
If I'm right: we only get one chance at consciousness. And this is it!
Every second is precious and will never be lived again. Why would you want to compromise that infinitely precious consciouness in pursuit of a false and intellectually unconvincing dream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-02-2004 12:34 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2004 8:35 PM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 52 by Sleeping Dragon, posted 06-03-2004 5:50 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 49 of 72 (112504)
06-02-2004 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Gilgamesh
06-02-2004 8:27 PM


That's your decision, and I understand it. Here's to ya! And have a beer on me.
I apreciate what you're saying there. I know where you are coming from.
You are wrong about taking satisfaction from the idea of people burning in hell. To be honest, my trust in God is enough, that I honestly think that place is preserved for the wicked.
No one here will try and force you "under?" christianity. As for one chance at consciousness, that's not enough for some. There's gotta be more to it for some. If I am just an evo robot, I could do without consciousness to be honest, look at what human's have done with their thoughts. Are animals as bad as us? --NO WAY!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-02-2004 8:27 PM Gilgamesh has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-02-2004 9:09 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 72 (112506)
06-02-2004 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by mike the wiz
06-02-2004 8:35 PM


Thanks Mike.

To be honest, my trust in God is enough, that I honestly think that place is preserved for the wicked.
Well maybe not "the wicked"! Maybe those who have tried to do the right thing!
Any lesser God would not be worthy of respect. Blithering sevitude for the reward of eternal life, yes. Respect, no.

As for one chance at consciousness, that's not enough for some. There's gotta be more to it for some. If I am just an evo robot, I could do without consciousness to be honest, look at what human's have done with their thoughts. Are animals as bad as us? --NO WAY!
One chance of consciousness isn't enough for me either! I'm not real impressed with this idea of an infinitely brief taste of reality, self awareness and pleasure. However no amount of wishful thinking is going to change what appears to be the most accurate interpretation of reality.
I'm going to make the best of it.
Animals don't have brain's big enough to think up stuff like religion.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-02-2004 08:11 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2004 8:35 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Firebird
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 72 (112538)
06-03-2004 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Hangdawg13
06-02-2004 12:30 AM


Re: Knowledge and Faith
I suppose the only reason I find such things exciting is a combination of curiosity about God's creation and arrogance. I'm curious, but I also am a little bit of a rebel when it comes to the current trends of liberalism and evolutionism. If there were no people out there to argue with I probably would not find these things as interesting. But I also think the in depth understanding of God's creation can lead you to a better understanding of God's personality and a greater love for him. And yes, I am completely satisfied by my faith and the personal evidence of God in my own life as well as the lives of those I know. I suppose these things do strengthen my faith somewhat, and who knows? perhaps they will allow me to lead someone to Christ someday.
Curiosity and a search for a deeper understanding of the world would benefit us all, I think. However, you state that your belief is based on personal experiences - as is mine. The intensity with which many hold their positions here reflects the fact that these personal experiences are subjective and irreproducible - and therefore useless as a basis for debate.
So it seems we each find a belief system to contain them. Of course, there would be grounds for debate if what is objectively observed around us actually supports our belief system. The danger is that we try to force the reproducible facts to fit - and so run the risk of not seeing the world as the marvel it really is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Hangdawg13, posted 06-02-2004 12:30 AM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Sleeping Dragon
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 72 (112572)
06-03-2004 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Gilgamesh
06-02-2004 8:27 PM


To Gilgamesh:
Should I be inexplicably wrong in my conclusion about this, then:
1) Because a lot of the stuff I posted above, plus my own detailed analysis of Christianity, indicates to me that the Christian God and the Christian concepts of heaven and hell are not likely to exist.
2) If some other judgement/test exists by some deity, I have merely made the best assessment of the reality I was given, and tried to do the right thing by as many other people that I have come across in my life. That's better than a lot of self proclaimed Christians!
If that is insufficient then the judgement/test by the deity was absurd/nonsense and I'll gladly sit in a hot tub in hell with good friends for all enternity, or come back as a very studious worm wriggling around in the soil. Whatever.
I don't expect or need to contemplate that I will be able to prove you wrong in the afterlife. Many Christians obtain satisfaction from the belief that they will be proven right in the next life.
What's more important is: are you living the best life FOR YOURSELF? If you derive much comfort and satisfaction from your religion, then avoid analysing it, and let it play it's positive role in your life. Best avoid forums like this!
If I'm right: we only get one chance at consciousness. And this is it!
Every second is precious and will never be lived again. Why would you want to compromise that infinitely precious consciouness in pursuit of a false and intellectually unconvincing dream?
I agree with your stance completely.
My two cents:
I believe that faith serves a purpose, and the purpose is to build secruity in the insecure, give love to the unloved, provide encouragement for the moral and just, instill fear into the guilty, and assert compensatory rationalisation for the wronged and the unfortunate. Faith should never be proven, for then it would forfeit the mystique that helps it do its jobs (above) so well. Perhaps this is the reason why all faiths were created to be unfalsifiable, like Santa Claus.
In my opinion, faith works on a mental (or spiritual if you like, though I see no reason for bringing the metaphysical into the equation) level, and there it should stay, just like Santa Claus. I do not endorse the introduction of faith into mandatory education or politics (nor Santa Claus, for that matter).

"Respect is like money, it can only be earned. When it is given, it becomes pittance"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-02-2004 8:27 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 72 (112588)
06-03-2004 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mike the wiz
06-02-2004 4:46 PM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
mike the wiz writes:
I didn't err. For my version says;
That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven
Now you can see why it's a good idea to quote Biblical passages when you reference them. You're quoting the poetic KJV, one of the more non-literal translations. Your making a scientific intrepretation not of the original version or of an accurate translation, but of a poetic translation. I used NIV, which provides a more accurate rendition.
I am aware that this may come under apologetics but I never claimed it was science.
That's what RTB is claiming, and RTB is the subject of this thread. What do you think you are claiming?
They? Are they the prophet inspired by God? I am aware of man's beliefs concerning the earth, but it appears very possible, that God never made them get it wrong, they made the mistake themselves. Am I claiming that man is infallible?
My point was that the only evidence, which is all we can go by, is from the civilizations in which these men lived. These civilizations believed in a flat earth and fixed stars. You have no evidence for the contrary view that your modern cosmological interpretation of these passages is the intended one.
Can you quote where the bible tells them that? I never found such things in the bible, even when I was a child. People also burned witches in the past, and let demons out of people's skulls. I suppose you want me to believe it's the bible's fault.
The point isn't which parts of the Bible they felt told them the earth was flat and the stars were fixed, although we could certainly identify those parts if you like (and we've already mentioned a couple, such as the circle of the earth in one passage and the earth's four corners in another). Certainly the judges at the Salem witch trials cited Biblical passages supporting their views, such as the one about not suffering a witch to live. And it was only a short while ago that we argued at length with Stephen Fretwell who found evidence for demons in the Bible.
But these aren't the important or relevant issues in this thread. The important point is that scientific knowledge isn't revealed in holy books, but arrives through investigation, observation, study and research.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by mike the wiz, posted 06-02-2004 4:46 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 10:05 AM Percy has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 72 (112599)
06-03-2004 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
06-03-2004 9:05 AM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
No Percy, I didn't use any bible. I thought "numerous" and I thought "multiplied". Sorry to dissapoint you. I said both. Atleast admitt that I didn't make a mistake, rather than blaming different versions of the bible. You can check my posts, I suggested both words, without reading the bible. I then hunted for that quote in the green font, when you suggested that word of knowledge was wrong.
The point isn't which parts of the Bible they felt told them the earth was flat and the stars were fixed, although we could certainly identify those parts if you like (and we've already mentioned a couple, such as the circle of the earth in one passage and the earth's four corners in another).
What? A circle with four corners? Is this really an example from the bible? Or an interpretation of sorts?
As for people trying to justify murder, the teachings of Jesus Christ themselves would have to be altogether removed, to justify those acts.
My point was that the only evidence, which is all we can go by, is from the civilizations in which these men lived. These civilizations believed in a flat earth and fixed stars.
Even if people did, that doesn't mean the prophet's revelation was from man's ideas.
I'm not making scientific interpretations of them. I'm listening to RTB, and it seems reasonable - what they are saying. You have ignored my points that the "stretching" was and is, according to the bible. IOW, you've ignored that a tent doesn't need to be continually stretched. There are passages referring to him interacting in the present tense, aswell as the past.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 06-03-2004 9:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 06-03-2004 11:25 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 56 by jar, posted 06-03-2004 11:40 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 55 of 72 (112615)
06-03-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-03-2004 10:05 AM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
No Percy, I didn't use any bible. I thought "numerous" and I thought "multiplied". Sorry to dissapoint you. I said both. Atleast admitt that I didn't make a mistake...
I think I actually had a couple of points I thought important. First was to suggest you quote a passage when you comment on it. Second, you are making a mistake, and it's the same one over and over again. You think there is one, right and true intepretation of Biblical passages. This has led you to the secondary error of believing ancient seers had modern cosmological views, they just wrote in ways easily open to incorrect interpretations, at least until modern science came along to tell us what they really meant.
When the next significant scientific discovery comes along you can bet that one of the RTB style groups will be telling you that it was in the Bible all along. Post facto recognition means nothing. If they want to convince people the information was already in the Bible, then they had better find it before the scientific discovery, not after.
What? A circle with four corners? Is this really an example from the bible? Or an interpretation of sorts?
And your view isn't an interpretation?
As for people trying to justify murder, the teachings of Jesus Christ themselves would have to be altogether removed, to justify those acts.
The Bible has been used to justify every act imaginable, including murder and slavery. You can claim their interpretation is wrong, but they would just claim your interpretation is wrong.
My point was that the only evidence, which is all we can go by, is from the civilizations in which these men lived. These civilizations believed in a flat earth and fixed stars.
Even if people did, that doesn't mean the prophet's revelation was from man's ideas.
My point was that I have evidence for my point of view, and you have no evidence for yours.
I'm not making scientific interpretations of them. I'm listening to RTB, and it seems reasonable - what they are saying. You have ignored my points that the "stretching" was and is, according to the bible. IOW, you've ignored that a tent doesn't need to be continually stretched. There are passages referring to him interacting in the present tense, aswell as the past.
I'm sorry you feel I'm ignoring your points, but the details of your particular Biblical interpretations are secondary to the more primary concerns raised by your unquestioning approach to RTB interpretations. You can interpret "stretch" as you like, but once a canvas is stretched across a tent framework, the tent does not keep expanding. The important point is that you should be looking to the Bible for insights to your heart and soul and to God. The Bible is not a source of scientific information.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 10:05 AM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 1:13 PM Percy has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 56 of 72 (112622)
06-03-2004 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by mike the wiz
06-03-2004 10:05 AM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
As for people trying to justify murder, the teachings of Jesus Christ themselves would have to be altogether removed, to justify those acts.
I believe that Giordano Bruno might agree with you.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 10:05 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 57 of 72 (112640)
06-03-2004 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Percy
06-03-2004 11:25 AM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
The important point is that you should be looking to the Bible for insights to your heart and soul and to God.
No offense, but from unbelievers in biblical things to tell me to do biblical things? I always take that as hypocrisy, or an insult. For What makes you think that the apologetics would come first? Didn't I write that it is not the scientists that created the universe? I am aware of science, and yes, in a way I am post interpreting. But a topic about a website reconciling science is hardly going to come above my belief in in God and the bible. If you say I should be doing these things, can I then ask why you are not doing them?
BUT, I take these as possibilities, not certainties. What's so wrong with that Percy? Are you fearful that the bible could hold more than you previously thought?
Seems if we go creo we are ignorant, and if we say yes to science and even try and reconcile - still unnacceptable! Hmmmmm, me wonders if you guys are against christianity/bible. I'm not the brightest of sparks but it seems you take offense if we even mention the word "science" and "bible" in the same sentence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Percy, posted 06-03-2004 11:25 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by MrHambre, posted 06-03-2004 1:34 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 06-03-2004 2:49 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 58 of 72 (112647)
06-03-2004 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mike the wiz
06-03-2004 1:13 PM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
quote:
I take these as possibilities, not certainties.
So what would make you believe that this possibility is, ultimately, probably not certain after all? Whenever a believer decides to explore the possibilities of his belief, we're not surprised when he finds exactly what he's looking for. What we've never actually seen is a believer who submits his speculation (concerning Intelligent Agency, farting demons, Bible codes, etc.) to a rigorous enough test that we can all agree beforehand about what evidence would confirm his suspicions and which would refute them.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 1:13 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 59 of 72 (112654)
06-03-2004 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by mike the wiz
06-03-2004 1:13 PM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
No offense, but from unbelievers in biblical things to tell me to do biblical things?...If you say I should be doing these things, can I then ask why you are not doing them?
You might be making overgeneralizations about me. While not a Christian, I do look to the Bible for spirtual guidance. I don't consider the Bible inerrant or written by God or even written by men inspired by God, but I do believe it was written by men with great spirtual insights and I hold it Holy.
BUT, I take these as possibilities, not certainties. What's so wrong with that Percy? Are you fearful that the bible could hold more than you previously thought?
My primary concern is that you're ignoring that RTB is just playing an apologetics game. People have found in the Bible pretty much whatever they wanted to find, from helping the poor and destitute like Mother Teresa, to murdering and enslaving like historic Salem and the old South. You're applying the same techniques they used to rationalize what they wanted to do anyway, and I was hopeful you would come to realize this. You're finding in the Bible pretty much what you want to find, just like people have done for millenia. In my earlier comments I talked about how this is just an expression of human creativity, and you mustn't put too much stock in it. If you find something helpful to guide you in your life then that's great, but if you think you're finding modern scientific insights then you're probably making a mistake.
Seems if we go creo we are ignorant, and if we say yes to science and even try and reconcile - still unnacceptable!
But reconciliation is not what you're doing. Genesis 22:17 was never thought to be in conflict with modern cosmology, and neither were your passages from Job or Isaiah. They are poetic, and they are not addressing scientific issues. What you're doing is not reconciliation. You're simply claiming that ancient prophets were provided knowledge of the cosmos by God himself, and that they recorded that knowledge in the Bible.
I'm not the brightest of sparks but it seems you take offense if we even mention the word "science" and "bible" in the same sentence.
I admit to being bothered by fuzzy thinking.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 1:13 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by mike the wiz, posted 06-03-2004 3:11 PM Percy has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 60 of 72 (112658)
06-03-2004 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Percy
06-03-2004 2:49 PM


Re: This is apologetics, not science!
from helping the poor and destitute like Mother Teresa, to murdering and enslaving like historic Salem and the old South. You're applying the same techniques they used to rationalize what they wanted to do anyway
Isn't that a tad harsh?
Simply putting it, Mother Teresa basically succeeded in adhering to christianity, if she adhered to the peaceful teachings therein. Whereas killing people would be hard to justify, from looking at the NT.
But I am doing neither by apologetics, as I have said many times that I only see these interpretations as possibly scientifically correct. However, whatever science may find out, I am still going to believe that they are finding God's tools. So in that way, I am interpreting nothing, as I simply believe that this universe was created by God. So, I am quite clearly not going to burn witches, nor would I justify it as the bible doesn't support it. As for Mother Teresa, I think the bible would justify peaceful, and good acts. Helping the poor and destitute IS what Christ's teachings are about.
As for reality, obviously whatever science finds, I am going to believe God is the author, that's not scientific, or a claim, just a belief.
Maybe you think we are hi-jacking science. No, we simply are interested in seeing the universe as an awesome and glorious thing of God, including the science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Percy, posted 06-03-2004 2:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Asgara, posted 06-03-2004 3:25 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 63 by Percy, posted 06-03-2004 4:16 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024