Originally posted by Eronakis Because according to God's word it doesn't. I don't know how God created everything. But I can give you two points. 1. When God created Adam and Eve there was no death, because they were with God. When they sinned, they were seperated by sin from God. Then death came. 2. In Genesis, it states that God made everyhing by it's kind. A kind means, a dog, a cat. So Christians who accept evolution, counterdicts them self with the word of God.
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Originally posted by Eronakis Because according to God's word it doesn't. I don't know how God created everything. But I can give you two points. 1. When God created Adam and Eve there was no death, because they were with God. When they sinned, they were seperated by sin from God. Then death came. 2. In Genesis, it states that God made everyhing by it's kind. A kind means, a dog, a cat. So Christians who accept evolution, counterdicts them self with the word of God.
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Originally posted by Eronakis Because according to God's word it doesn't. I don't know how God created everything. But I can give you two points. 1. When God created Adam and Eve there was no death, because they were with God. When they sinned, they were seperated by sin from God. Then death came. 2. In Genesis, it states that God made everyhing by it's kind. A kind means, a dog, a cat. So Christians who accept evolution, counterdicts them self with the word of God.
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
Well, good question. But I ask you, what does it mutate into? What does it evolve into? But it's still a virus after all of those mutations and evolutions right?
Originally posted by Eronakis Because according to God's word it doesn't. I don't know how God created everything. But I can give you two points. 1. When God created Adam and Eve there was no death, because they were with God. When they sinned, they were seperated by sin from God. Then death came. 2. In Genesis, it states that God made everyhing by it's kind. A kind means, a dog, a cat. So Christians who accept evolution, counterdicts them self with the word of God.
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
But isn't that what evolution is about, mutations over time?
Didn't Darwin argue that the ape mutated over time? Stood erect, lost hair, and eventually mutated into man?
Originally posted by Eronakis Because according to God's word it doesn't. I don't know how God created everything. But I can give you two points. 1. When God created Adam and Eve there was no death, because they were with God. When they sinned, they were seperated by sin from God. Then death came. 2. In Genesis, it states that God made everyhing by it's kind. A kind means, a dog, a cat. So Christians who accept evolution, counterdicts them self with the word of God.
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
But isn't that what evolution is about, mutations over time?
Didn't Darwin argue that the ape mutated over time? Stood erect, lost hair, and eventually mutated into man?
No I say its different. Like Darwins birds it changes based on its enviroment. Short term things that can change back. They did this with moths where they took a normal bron type bred them in a city and they change to a black/white/grey scheme over time. They would then turn back to brown in their natural habitats.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Originally posted by Eronakis Because according to God's word it doesn't. I don't know how God created everything. But I can give you two points. 1. When God created Adam and Eve there was no death, because they were with God. When they sinned, they were seperated by sin from God. Then death came. 2. In Genesis, it states that God made everyhing by it's kind. A kind means, a dog, a cat. So Christians who accept evolution, counterdicts them self with the word of God.
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
But isn't that what evolution is about, mutations over time?
Didn't Darwin argue that the ape mutated over time? Stood erect, lost hair, and eventually mutated into man?
No I say its different. Like Darwins birds it changes based on its enviroment. Short term things that can change back. They did this with moths where they took a normal bron type bred them in a city and they change to a black/white/grey scheme over time. They would then turn back to brown in their natural habitats.
That's adaptation. Thats not evolution. Because those moths already had it in their chemestry to camoflauge. It's still a moth. Evolutionist's can't win kind changing its kind. They can only win with adaptations and thats it.
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
If you really want to go that far you could start debating every part of history.
Is there some 270 year old man who saw the constitution being written? No, so I could techincally argue that it wasn't even written by Americans, but was forged by someone else.
Did the pyramids just instantly pop into place instead of being built?
Did dinosaurs really roam the earth, or did aliens just drop their old puzzles all over our planet?
Was jesus even a real being? Or did someone just make him up.
It works both ways.
Basically, religion comes down to faith. Even though I lack belief in any deity, I have to respect the faith some people have. It's hard to argue against faith, which is why I don't bother most of the time. The only exception to that rule is when religion is being forced on myself or others that don't want any part of it.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe.
It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
All i have to say is if there is nothing after death then explain how ghost work? Cause if you follow say the Ghost hunters you will soon realise that ghost are real and if ghost are real atheist are wrong.
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
Nothing allows for ignorant pontification and the blatant, steely resolve to completely ignore what the other person says more than discussing the merits of religion vs. atheism.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Nothing allows for ignorant pontification and the blatant, steely resolve to completely ignore what the other person says more than discussing the merits of religion vs. atheism.
Yes, but unfortunately that just leaves us with discussing politics, why MMORPGs suck, and "which game is for me" threads.
(mumbles something about scraping the bottom of the barrel)
All i have to say is if there is nothing after death then explain how ghost work? Cause if you follow say the Ghost hunters you will soon realise that ghost are real and if ghost are real atheist are wrong.
I'm going to ignore the improbability of the Ghosthunters NOT faking their shows like hundreds of people before them for now.
Assuming ghosts or equivalent beings exist, it is not proof that atheistic views are wrong, nor is it proof that religion in general, or in particular, is correct. Proof either way must depend upon the ultimate nature of those beings.
- They could be contact from another dimension for example. Read the book Flatland when you get a chance, it is very interesting. It describes a universe of 2 dimensional beings. If a 3-D object, lets say a sphere, were to pass through their plane, the flatlanders would see first a point that expanded out in a circle before shrinking again and disappearing. Circles are certainly within the flatlander's realm of experience, but how that one got there and the way it behaved would be unexplainable. The same would be true for us for an object/being of 4 physical dimensions, we could only have a distorted, incomplete sense of them.
- Mental abilities could have more legitimacy than previously considered. What if, certain environmental conditions were capable of responding to thought? Is it not then possible for someone looking for the supernatural to sometimes effectively create it, or at least the illusion thereof? Heh, that could laugh away religion too come to think of it.
- They could even be something close to the usual explaination. Certain materials have been shown to be capable of maintaining energy patterns imposed upon them, albeit for a short time. If a longer term symbiosis could be achieved, it would not be outside the realm of possibility for the energy patterns in a dying mind to be contained, however crudely, in a more ethereal form.
Here's a tip, never assume an opponent is cornered based on a simple if/then statement.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word? If God created everything, did he not create science? And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution? Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
Oh there has been plenty of proof, we just can't show you a tape spanning millions of years to show it to people in progress. Would you care to explain why god chose to create apes that walked upright, then kill them off again? Or humans significantly less developed than modern ones? And what about those billions of years where no mammal of any description was dominant? Or perhaps you too choose to believe that the fossils we have found are fake/false or otherwise meaningless?
The example of the city camoflauging moths was mentioned. They were absorbed back in the wild because it was an abberation, niether a dominant trait, nor one necessary for survival. If the cityscape became their primary habitat for a particular strain, the patterning would likely reemerge over time.
P.S. to one of the unanswered questions above, people can and do believe that god set the mechanics of evolution in motion and went from there, it is the concept of Intelligent Design, and it actually would cover some of the few holes the purely scientific version can't yet answer.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
If you really want to go that far you could start debating every part of history.
Is there some 270 year old man who saw the constitution being written? No, so I could techincally argue that it wasn't even written by Americans, but was forged by someone else.
Did the pyramids just instantly pop into place instead of being built?
Did dinosaurs really roam the earth, or did aliens just drop their old puzzles all over our planet?
Was jesus even a real being? Or did someone just make him up.
It works both ways.
Basically, religion comes down to faith. Even though I lack belief in any deity, I have to respect the faith some people have. It's hard to argue against faith, which is why I don't bother most of the time. The only exception to that rule is when religion is being forced on myself or others that don't want any part of it.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe.
It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
As a Greek here one little correction Fisher. "Pistis" indeed means "to believe in" and also used to refer to loyalty and trust and certainity. It has nothing to do with evidence in its form. "Pistis" is required for science because you have to have a bit of faith in what you are doing, but it is not supported by evidence to begin with.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
No, the biblical meaning if the term is of utmost importance -- because that is what we people are arguing from and against. We are discussing what biblical faith means. Therefore it is essential to know this.
If you want to say "blind faith" then say so.
Sabian did not say that, which is the context (which you so conveniently removed).
The only thing religion has going for it is that it is impossible to prove something doesn't exist.
I could tell you there are 30 invisible pink zebras in your room right now and you couldn't prove me wrong. You could logically assume I am wrong, but never completely prove.
That is the frustrating part of arguing religion.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
If you really want to go that far you could start debating every part of history.
Is there some 270 year old man who saw the constitution being written? No, so I could techincally argue that it wasn't even written by Americans, but was forged by someone else.
Did the pyramids just instantly pop into place instead of being built?
Did dinosaurs really roam the earth, or did aliens just drop their old puzzles all over our planet?
Was jesus even a real being? Or did someone just make him up.
It works both ways.
Basically, religion comes down to faith. Even though I lack belief in any deity, I have to respect the faith some people have. It's hard to argue against faith, which is why I don't bother most of the time. The only exception to that rule is when religion is being forced on myself or others that don't want any part of it.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe.
It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
As a Greek here one little correction Fisher. "Pistis" indeed means "to believe in" and also used to refer to loyalty and trust and certainity. It has nothing to do with evidence in its form. "Pistis" is required for science because you have to have a bit of faith in what you are doing, but it is not supported by evidence to begin with.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you.
I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it.
Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then?
To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak.
This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
Yes, but unfortunately that just leaves us with discussing politics, why MMORPGs suck, and "which game is for me" threads. (mumbles something about scraping the bottom of the barrel)
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe. It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Yes, but unfortunately that just leaves us with discussing politics, why MMORPGs suck, and "which game is for me" threads. (mumbles something about scraping the bottom of the barrel)
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
How old are you? 12? And you tell me I can't write coherent sentences.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Buddhism is a selfish religion. Christianity is not. Do you understand that's why we will never ever see world peace? Is because of selfishness? Of course people don't want to be punished for their actions. So it's fair to be two faced all your life and stab friends and co-workers in the back so you can progress? Geez, everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions. I feel like when I discuss this I am talking to people in the 3rd grade. Now, obviously if you do or ever have a kid, you punish him when he does wrong? God, works just like a father. We have examples of his existence and how he works all over the place. The illuminated ones have blinded peoples sight so they can not see it.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you. I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it. Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then? To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak. This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors (Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Well, YOUR view of Christianity demands those things. In my interpretation of scripture, I don't even see those demands. I completely disagree with you that we have to do anything to be "saved." I believe that Christ already did all the work on the cross. You do not. From my view, your outlook means that Christ failed on the Cross and he needs YOU to help Him win. I find that view to be incorrect.
Once again, if we celebrate freedom in Christ, we can see that either Christianity is VERY demanding, or it isn't demanding at all. I choose the latter, you do not. I am fine with that. Are you?
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing. Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Well, YOUR view of Christianity demands those things. In my interpretation of scripture, I don't even see those demands. I completely disagree with you that we have to do anything to be "saved." I believe that Christ already did all the work on the cross. You do not. From my view, your outlook means that Christ failed on the Cross and he needs YOU to help Him win. I find that view to be incorrect.
Once again, if we celebrate freedom in Christ, we can see that either Christianity is VERY demanding, or it isn't demanding at all. I choose the latter, you do not. I am fine with that. Are you?
That may be your personal interpretation, and it would be an interpretation I can agree with. But that is not the way it is described/defined by the church or the majority of its officials/advocates. I personally have had the convert or burn speech thrown at me often enough to make me want to puke.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
Comments
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
Well, good question. But I ask you, what does it mutate into? What does it evolve into? But it's still a virus after all of those mutations and evolutions right?
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
But isn't that what evolution is about, mutations over time?
Didn't Darwin argue that the ape mutated over time? Stood erect, lost hair, and eventually mutated into man?
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
But isn't that what evolution is about, mutations over time?
Didn't Darwin argue that the ape mutated over time? Stood erect, lost hair, and eventually mutated into man?
No I say its different. Like Darwins birds it changes based on its enviroment. Short term things that can change back. They did this with moths where they took a normal bron type bred them in a city and they change to a black/white/grey scheme over time. They would then turn back to brown in their natural habitats.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Yet which is God's word, and which is man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
If God created everything, did he not create science?
And if God created science, did he not create the building blocks of life? Did he not create evolution?
Can a person believe in God, yet not believe in man's interpretation and transcription of God's word?
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
But what of the life form we call a virus? It mutates, it evolves?
Is that not evolution?
I would say no. Its adaption. Im not a microbiology person but doesn't it ust mutate to a different strand of the same virus not a whole new one?
But isn't that what evolution is about, mutations over time?
Didn't Darwin argue that the ape mutated over time? Stood erect, lost hair, and eventually mutated into man?
No I say its different. Like Darwins birds it changes based on its enviroment. Short term things that can change back. They did this with moths where they took a normal bron type bred them in a city and they change to a black/white/grey scheme over time. They would then turn back to brown in their natural habitats.
That's adaptation. Thats not evolution. Because those moths already had it in their chemestry to camoflauge. It's still a moth. Evolutionist's can't win kind changing its kind. They can only win with adaptations and thats it.
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
If you really want to go that far you could start debating every part of history.
Is there some 270 year old man who saw the constitution being written? No, so I could techincally argue that it wasn't even written by Americans, but was forged by someone else.
Did the pyramids just instantly pop into place instead of being built?
Did dinosaurs really roam the earth, or did aliens just drop their old puzzles all over our planet?
Was jesus even a real being? Or did someone just make him up.
It works both ways.
Basically, religion comes down to faith. Even though I lack belief in any deity, I have to respect the faith some people have. It's hard to argue against faith, which is why I don't bother most of the time. The only exception to that rule is when religion is being forced on myself or others that don't want any part of it.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe.
It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
fishermage.blogspot.com
All i have to say is if there is nothing after death then explain how ghost work? Cause if you follow say the Ghost hunters you will soon realise that ghost are real and if ghost are real atheist are wrong.
http://www.scifi.com/ghosthunters/
played M59,UO,lineage,EQ,Daoc,Entropia,SWG,Horizons,Lineage2.EQ2,Vangaurd,Irth online, DarkFall,Star Trek
and many others that did not make the cut or i just plain forgetting about.
Nothing allows for ignorant pontification and the blatant, steely resolve to completely ignore what the other person says more than discussing the merits of religion vs. atheism.
So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist.
Yes, but unfortunately that just leaves us with discussing politics, why MMORPGs suck, and "which game is for me" threads.
(mumbles something about scraping the bottom of the barrel)
I'm going to ignore the improbability of the Ghosthunters NOT faking their shows like hundreds of people before them for now.
Assuming ghosts or equivalent beings exist, it is not proof that atheistic views are wrong, nor is it proof that religion in general, or in particular, is correct. Proof either way must depend upon the ultimate nature of those beings.
- They could be contact from another dimension for example. Read the book Flatland when you get a chance, it is very interesting. It describes a universe of 2 dimensional beings. If a 3-D object, lets say a sphere, were to pass through their plane, the flatlanders would see first a point that expanded out in a circle before shrinking again and disappearing. Circles are certainly within the flatlander's realm of experience, but how that one got there and the way it behaved would be unexplainable. The same would be true for us for an object/being of 4 physical dimensions, we could only have a distorted, incomplete sense of them.
- Mental abilities could have more legitimacy than previously considered. What if, certain environmental conditions were capable of responding to thought? Is it not then possible for someone looking for the supernatural to sometimes effectively create it, or at least the illusion thereof? Heh, that could laugh away religion too come to think of it.
- They could even be something close to the usual explaination. Certain materials have been shown to be capable of maintaining energy patterns imposed upon them, albeit for a short time. If a longer term symbiosis could be achieved, it would not be outside the realm of possibility for the energy patterns in a dying mind to be contained, however crudely, in a more ethereal form.
Here's a tip, never assume an opponent is cornered based on a simple if/then statement.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Maybe there is evolution. But there has been no proof at all. Maybe Darwinism's evolution theory is wrong. Sure, God created science. Science just tells you how God did and made things. A friend of mine last night said that," so according to the bible God created by each kind. What about, since it has never happened, maybe one day it will? Whos to say that they don't evolve into what ever. A possibility. " I can agree with that, because it could. Will it? I don't know. But in my opinion it wont. But you never know.
If people want to consider adaptation and breads making new breads as evolution, alright that is reasonable. But, a dog will always be a dog and a cat will always be a cat.
Well, man wrote it physically you can say, but really, it was the Holy Spirit who wrote the bible. The statement I just said, you may not understand, but maybe if you study Christianity with an open heart and mind you can see. If you still truely can not believe in Christianity after knowing both sides of the coin, that is fair in my opinion.
Oh there has been plenty of proof, we just can't show you a tape spanning millions of years to show it to people in progress. Would you care to explain why god chose to create apes that walked upright, then kill them off again? Or humans significantly less developed than modern ones? And what about those billions of years where no mammal of any description was dominant? Or perhaps you too choose to believe that the fossils we have found are fake/false or otherwise meaningless?
The example of the city camoflauging moths was mentioned. They were absorbed back in the wild because it was an abberation, niether a dominant trait, nor one necessary for survival. If the cityscape became their primary habitat for a particular strain, the patterning would likely reemerge over time.
P.S. to one of the unanswered questions above, people can and do believe that god set the mechanics of evolution in motion and went from there, it is the concept of Intelligent Design, and it actually would cover some of the few holes the purely scientific version can't yet answer.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
If you really want to go that far you could start debating every part of history.
Is there some 270 year old man who saw the constitution being written? No, so I could techincally argue that it wasn't even written by Americans, but was forged by someone else.
Did the pyramids just instantly pop into place instead of being built?
Did dinosaurs really roam the earth, or did aliens just drop their old puzzles all over our planet?
Was jesus even a real being? Or did someone just make him up.
It works both ways.
Basically, religion comes down to faith. Even though I lack belief in any deity, I have to respect the faith some people have. It's hard to argue against faith, which is why I don't bother most of the time. The only exception to that rule is when religion is being forced on myself or others that don't want any part of it.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe.
It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
As a Greek here one little correction Fisher. "Pistis" indeed means "to believe in" and also used to refer to loyalty and trust and certainity. It has nothing to do with evidence in its form. "Pistis" is required for science because you have to have a bit of faith in what you are doing, but it is not supported by evidence to begin with.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
No, the biblical meaning if the term is of utmost importance -- because that is what we people are arguing from and against. We are discussing what biblical faith means. Therefore it is essential to know this.
If you want to say "blind faith" then say so.
Sabian did not say that, which is the context (which you so conveniently removed).
fishermage.blogspot.com
Evolution is not proven either and its impossible to prove this even exists either. And I can find 3 layers of rock that no one has ever seen and say the 1st later is 3 years old, the 2nd is 130 years and the 3rd is 4000 years. Just stating how your statement is flawed as well.
Off topic, but my friend compares Christians to EQ and SWG players and Athiests to WoW players. Why? Immaturity reasons.
You can prove how old rock is. Unless you're trying to get really deep saying that you can't prove anything 100%. Which is true.
Either way I don't know how my statement is flawed when you provided no reasoning to why it is.
I will tell you after you stated why mine was =D. (Because you posted first).
Sabian is making a good point. To say "there is no God" is a thoroughly unproveable assertion. To say "a rock is X years old" there are scientific methods to determine this. Now, in the second case, you can chose to dispite the science, but you don't have to leave the known universe to prove it.
To prove that there is no God, one must step outside of Spacetime and look down and see if this God can be observed.
This is why someone saying "there is no God" is an absurd statement, but someone saying, "I do not believe in God" is perfectly reasonable.
One interesting thing to note however is that the main athiests who are out there publishing came to their conclusions about God when they were very young (Hitchens for example was 12). many, many people who believe in God come to that conclusion at the height of their intellectual power (I was 36, CS Lewis was mature -- there are many cases of this).
Most people who lose faith in later life either do not become full atheists and merely doubt the dogma of religion.
Again this doesn't count for all of anything, but most of the people publishing in these areas seem to work this way.
Now, to say that this unproveable assertion concept is all that religion has going for it is kinda odd, considering religion brought us civil rights, ended slavery, gave us the notion of human equality, the notion of having a government of Laws and not men, and pretty much everything we hold dear.
No doubt a lot of bad as well, and this counts against religion, but religion has a great deal going for it.
I am not saying carbon dating is wrong, I just believe the time frame is way off. Yes there may be scientific methods, however, someone thought of how old that layer or rock is and then the assumption was born for that. How do you know for certian, that layer of rock is 4 million years old? Was there a man, living and recorded it 4 million years ago? No.
If you really want to go that far you could start debating every part of history.
Is there some 270 year old man who saw the constitution being written? No, so I could techincally argue that it wasn't even written by Americans, but was forged by someone else.
Did the pyramids just instantly pop into place instead of being built?
Did dinosaurs really roam the earth, or did aliens just drop their old puzzles all over our planet?
Was jesus even a real being? Or did someone just make him up.
It works both ways.
Basically, religion comes down to faith. Even though I lack belief in any deity, I have to respect the faith some people have. It's hard to argue against faith, which is why I don't bother most of the time. The only exception to that rule is when religion is being forced on myself or others that don't want any part of it.
In scripture the word for faith is "pistis" That word, in greek, means, "to believe in," as in "to be convinced by evidence." There's nothing irrational about faith. In fact, faith is required for all inquiry and all science. This reason/faith dichotomy is what is totally make believe.
It comes from people on both sides of the divide being ignorant about what these words mean.
As a Greek here one little correction Fisher. "Pistis" indeed means "to believe in" and also used to refer to loyalty and trust and certainity. It has nothing to do with evidence in its form. "Pistis" is required for science because you have to have a bit of faith in what you are doing, but it is not supported by evidence to begin with.
Actually, in the Biblical context, faith does require evidence. The evidence was the witnesses to the resurrection itself, combined with personal interaction with a faithful God. Now you can choose to not believe the evidence, but that doesn't mean the evidence is not there and that the people who believe it are not as rational as you.
I believe in God, CS Lewis believed in God, and many believers believe in God, after years of atheism or agnostism, because we believe in following the evidence where it leads. Thus, we came to belief, or faith. It had everything to do with the evidence and acceptance of it.
Of course this is not every believer, but sam harris, Christiopher Hitchens, and most of the atheist evangelists out there came to their faith that there is no God when they were around twelve. How much evidence could they have evaluated then?
To this day, most show a horrible ignorance of simple Christian apologetics, which is why their arguments are so weak.
This once again comes to me asking the question: how many serious books on apologetics have you read? How closely have you evaluated the evidence?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
This is a sequence of characters intended to produce some profound mental effect, but it has failed.
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
A friend is not him who provides support during your failures.A friend is the one that cheers you during your successes.
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
fishermage.blogspot.com
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
That is truly a tired old argument, and one that is largely irrelevant. The original meaning of the term is obsolete. What matters is how people use it in the modern sense. I see people believing in religion for no better reason or argument or evidence than the fact that their parents did, and they were brought up to do so. That is what I and others mean by blind faith.
That's massively hypercritical. It's like saying using a pully and levar system is obsolete because it's old. It doesn't matter if its old or not right? I mean, evolutionists believe dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago, or is that like 85 now? Well that's old too and you all still believe that.
Well.. maybe we could use the interwebz 2 exchange ideas n lrn nu things nstead of just stating our opinions!
... Naw, I'd rather be surfing porn tbh.
How old are you? 12? And you tell me I can't write coherent sentences.
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Buddhism is a selfish religion. Christianity is not. Do you understand that's why we will never ever see world peace? Is because of selfishness? Of course people don't want to be punished for their actions. So it's fair to be two faced all your life and stab friends and co-workers in the back so you can progress? Geez, everyone needs to be held accountable for their actions. I feel like when I discuss this I am talking to people in the 3rd grade. Now, obviously if you do or ever have a kid, you punish him when he does wrong? God, works just like a father. We have examples of his existence and how he works all over the place. The illuminated ones have blinded peoples sight so they can not see it.
I haven't read as many as I would like. For example I haven't read CS Lewis. I don't know if the books I have are as good as yours since I have greek versions of them and analyses by Greek authors
(Back from the time that i wasn't trilingual). For example I have read a lot of treatises by Origenis (I hope that is the correct name in engish).
I do however studied the bible with a bit of help from the theology university libraries and with what help I could find from the people there. And I do believe that many things should come from ones own intellect and experiences ,not simply by what other people wrote.
I never said that faith doesn't require evidence though. "Π?στευε και μη, ερε?να" "No matter if you believe or not, study" to quote the original greek phrase. Faith without evidence in my opinion is worthless to begin with.
As to how close I evaluated the evidence. I want to believe that I have at least average intelligence and deduction skills but I am not a fool to believe that I have found everything i need. Simply because for one thing I find, be from an apologetic or other philosophical treatise, another question is born. I have a long way to go yet till I find something definite for sure. The journey is pleasant though.
PS. Because for some reason I have the suspicion I gave the impression I am an atheist, no I am not. I don't have yet strong convictions on either side to put a tag for something.
PS2. I think I saw somewhere in this thread that Buddish is a less demanding religion. I think the person that said it has to check it a bit more. Buddism is even more demanding than most religions.
Ah, sorry I was mistaken about you. With all the viciousness on this site from the atheists it gets tedious, and I lose siight of who believs what.
CS Lewis was not exactly great apologist (although he does present some interseting arguments in is writings), but his spiritual journey, which was similar to mine, was a lifetime of evidence and debate over such things, primarily with Tolkein and Charles Williams. there was nothing "irrational" about what those guys did.
I have nothing against people who are not convinced enough by the evidence to believe -- what I do vehemently disagree with is those who make an a priori claim that faith, and believers in Jesus, are by definition irrational, or have something wrong with them intellectually. That is what Sabian said in this thread and in many others, and what I said was in that context.
That is the attitude that is held by many of the posters around here and its sad, since it destroys the discussion from the outset with its bigoted nature.
As to "demanding," Christianity demands NOTHING. God has done it all. In terms of Buddhism, it is EXTREMELY demanding. Committing oneself to Buddhism is a lifetime of work towards enlightenment.
I find much in Buddhism that is true (although I am more of a Taoism than a Buddhist in tersm of eastern thought), and much that I try and practice that in no way conflicts with my entire spritual worldview, but it is extremely demanding if one chooses to practice.
Christianity demands nothing except that you believe certain things, follow god's law, and beg forgiveness when you don't. You and I both might think those to be quite reasonable terms, but it is not nothing.
Buddhism on the other hand, while actually achieving the ultimate goal is extremely demanding, an individual has an effectively infinite number of chances to achieve said goal. In fact, one of the central tenets is that everyone will eventually achieve nirvanna, patient or not, dedicated or not. It just might take a few million reincarnations, and in the meantime, there are no punishments aside from that which life itself can mete out.
Well, YOUR view of Christianity demands those things. In my interpretation of scripture, I don't even see those demands. I completely disagree with you that we have to do anything to be "saved." I believe that Christ already did all the work on the cross. You do not. From my view, your outlook means that Christ failed on the Cross and he needs YOU to help Him win. I find that view to be incorrect.
Once again, if we celebrate freedom in Christ, we can see that either Christianity is VERY demanding, or it isn't demanding at all. I choose the latter, you do not. I am fine with that. Are you?
fishermage.blogspot.com
Well, YOUR view of Christianity demands those things. In my interpretation of scripture, I don't even see those demands. I completely disagree with you that we have to do anything to be "saved." I believe that Christ already did all the work on the cross. You do not. From my view, your outlook means that Christ failed on the Cross and he needs YOU to help Him win. I find that view to be incorrect.
Once again, if we celebrate freedom in Christ, we can see that either Christianity is VERY demanding, or it isn't demanding at all. I choose the latter, you do not. I am fine with that. Are you?
That may be your personal interpretation, and it would be an interpretation I can agree with. But that is not the way it is described/defined by the church or the majority of its officials/advocates. I personally have had the convert or burn speech thrown at me often enough to make me want to puke.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway