you won't find any common ground, because both sides are equally biased against one another. I mean, in an attempt to be civil, it seems that both sides have already quit the argument that was going on about a page ago, and you guys are apologizing to each other or something. Certainly no harm will come from this, but no real progress on the issue will be made, unless your goal is just to increase tolerance or something.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
The scariest thing I've read in a while.
- Thread starter Obsessed
- Start date
Actually, i spelled the word "There" correctly, i used it wrongly. People will confuse there and their sometimes. Give me a break.
Exactly, I believe in the historicity of the Bible, and its stories as fact, but don't interpret figurative language as literal, that is what i had in mind when i was saying it shouldn't be interpreted literally when figurative language is brought in. For example: if the Bible said "Jesus told a parable" then obviously, i believe Jesus told a parable, but obviously the parable was a fictitious story with a heavenly meaning. Another example would be Jesus is the vine and his disciples were the branches. Obviously Jesus wasn't a vine, but like a vine and his disciples weren't branches but like branches.
My arguments are sound as long as i don't make mistakes like the one above.
There are plenty of other reasons why your friend guessed that you would wear blue. Perhaps a majority of your wardrobe is blue, or maybe all of your wardrobe was blue? Maybe you have a habit of wearing blue on a certain day? Maybe he thought to himself "tomorrow is Wednesday, he often wears blue on Wednesday." It's more or less a miracle that the Israelites actually got to the Promised Land, considering the many kingdoms inhabiting it that they would have had to chase out (of course they let some stay, which was a mistake). I don't see any reason why to argue on this subject anymore. God promised Abraham that his descendants would take the land, and they did.
already talked about this.
Your interpretation is that God lied, however did you ever take into account this verse? "Abraham, Abraham!" And he said, "Here am I." 12He said,(F) "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for(G) now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." the whole story is God testing Abraham's fear of him, so when it seemed Abraham would actually obey God and sacrifice his son for him, God knew that Abraham feared him and prevented him from and gave him a replacement (a picture of Christ) to offer to God. That wasn't lying, that was a test of faith which Abraham passed with flying colors.
I believe that the Earth was created in 7 24 hour days. I believe that the earth is approximately 6000 years old. I believe two of every kind of animal was on board the ark, and that it was possible for them to fit in it (at most, only 16,000 Animals were needed, John Woodmorappe, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study) I don't believe the Earth is flat, and that is nothing more than a phantom argument. The verse stating the Four Corners is figurative speaking.
I never said i believed in a flat earth.
Once again, that is entirely based on presuppositions concerning the speed of geological processes and radiometric dating/radiocarbon dating. Mt. St. Helens is a great example of rapid geological processes in response to catastrophe.
Interesting, exactly what arguments did you use? Was your father a significant figure in the Church, such as a Pastor or elder? Would you have considered your knowledge of the Bible sufficient for a Christian? "Avid" seems too extreme for a fallen brother, or one who has fallen away.
You can't wave the magic wand of science and expect it to be the "Be all end all". From what i have read, i'm the one who is pointing out historical events that justify the Bible.
This argument is totally flawed because there is not sufficient enough information. What is the content of you essay? Is it historically, scientifically, and logically sound? What have you done to say that you are God? Are your friends the only ones who believe it? Were there more than your ten friends who witnessed your godliness? Unlike your argument, the Bible has content that can be studied.
From Dictionary.com
id·i·o·cy
/ˈɪd
Show Spelled[id-ee-uh-see] Show IPA –noun, plural -cies. 1. utterly senseless or foolish behavior; a stupid or foolish act, statement, etc.
2. Psychology . the state of being an idiot.
I ask you this, would a fool constantly do foolish things, or a sensible person constantly do foolish things?
Thank you for being the only one to forgive me of my mistakes.
We use our God given logic to define what is symbolic and what is concrete. If you read the Bible in such a way, then you will find it makes sense. For example, David and Bathsheba is concrete, because it involves a historic figure's life. The parable of the prodigal son is obviously symbolic since it never took place, and Jesus states it himself that they are just earthly stories with heavenly meanings.
Garbage, almost spent two hours on this.
Wait, you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? How does that work at all o.o; Like, how do you refute all evidence we have saying it's millions of years old? Or in an asshole-ish kind of way, I guess I'd ask how you would respond to this? You keep citing history as supporting the bible, but this same history directly contradicts it.
Also, you earlier said the bible should be taken literally but are now backtracking and saying that the Earth is not flat and it was figurative because it is a fact proven by satellite imagery multiple times.
Lastly, science is not a "magic wand" and that's what people have been trying to say to you for the past hundred or so posts. It has a process and it is through this process that we explain the word. I think that once you graduate, if you really do want to learn more about science as you said before, you should take a class that explains the scientific theory to you in university. All I took was a statistics course for Communications students so I'm not an expert, but the first unit was explaining how scientific theories are defined so we could do research and it was very informative. It's really a shame that you have to pay all that extra money for a private Catholic school for what amounts to a lower quality education.
Also, you earlier said the bible should be taken literally but are now backtracking and saying that the Earth is not flat and it was figurative because it is a fact proven by satellite imagery multiple times.
Lastly, science is not a "magic wand" and that's what people have been trying to say to you for the past hundred or so posts. It has a process and it is through this process that we explain the word. I think that once you graduate, if you really do want to learn more about science as you said before, you should take a class that explains the scientific theory to you in university. All I took was a statistics course for Communications students so I'm not an expert, but the first unit was explaining how scientific theories are defined so we could do research and it was very informative. It's really a shame that you have to pay all that extra money for a private Catholic school for what amounts to a lower quality education.
XD I guess I missed something, no idea what you're talking about. Apologizing? We're definitely not quitting on debating just yet, the last page was a little lighter in tone ("nah man, everyone makes mistakes, sorry for my misunderstanding" that sort of thing) but we aren't done arguing.
Responding to Relictivity: I do think JimBob and btb are right, we're basically at stalemate because of our own inherent biases and differences in point of view that we came into argument with. However, that will not keep me from at least addressing your arguments that you provided in your post.
This is exactly what I'm saying; when you OK the premises for making assumptions based on faith (what your "heart says,") then yes you are correct. But I am arguing that you can't logically OK these premises. In fact your even assuming that the tangible, inexplicable feeling that "draws you toward" decisions or what you feel are truth is even supernatural in nature; LSD and other narcotics are extremely well-known for the same kind of supernatural experiences, but we cannot justify that they are divine in nature (forgetting the entire controversy surrounding drug use in general) because we have not proven that the sensations are anything more than neurotransmitters and chemical signals stimulating euphoria and mystical feelings. It is entirely possible to create a supernatural sensation even without narcotics by meditation or even simple placebo effects (as you did concede!). Basically I'm saying your justification for faith is circular and I don't see it as valid; you have faith that faith is valid reasoning. This is the central issue I have in your standpoint, and I think this is where we stalemate.
Further circular logic; your initial belief in God and faith is being used to justify itself. You are convinced of your position because you were convinced of your position. To say that the answers come after you believe the answers simply doesn't register logically to me. This is the fundamental issue as I mentioned earlier, and neither of us will concede. Nevertheless, I continue.
By "things" if you mean "pursuit of knowledge/science/etc," then yeah, you can assume things or do tests. But logic is not an initial independent starting point. In fact if the goal is proposing explanations for phenomena, the original starting point is Descarte's epiphany, Cogito ergo sum. This is a naturalistic statement based on a phenomena we observe; I do exist. You make the mistake of declaring that everything must be contrived from either logic or faith. It's basically a false dichotomy. In fact, in a naturalistic or scientific viewpoint, logic is derived from phenomena.
I had this argument with a friend (we were both on the same side but I predicted arguing a situation like this one so I played devil's advocate and I guess we'll see how well I analyzed the situation). Your argument is ultimately that everything must be derived from faith, and therefore faith must derive itself also. However, my friend came to a rather poignant explanation; "Logic is not a basis for understanding, as it can only be obtained through observation."
In fact a newborn child knows nothing. Regardless of whether he is religious or atheistic or agnostic or Christian or Buddhist or Spaghettist, he learns to make conclusions about phenomena (for example, crying leads to help or food or attention, buttons make toy cars go, etc). This is a kind of naturalism. Logic is seen in the laws of physics on nearly every scale and most phenomena can be rigorously accounted for with a combination of physical or natural laws and logic, but does that mean everything is based on logic? Logic is contrived through observations and phenomena, so observations can be made and logic can be derived without really requiring "faith" other than that you exist and the phenomena exist, but base axioms are very different from blind assumptions.
Or perhaps I just missed your point.
Responding to J-Man:
Your stance seems to be that if something in the Bible is false then it is not literal. Why must dramatic figurative language such as "the corners of the earth" be only metaphorical while other even further dramatic text (such as the accounts of Genesis and Exodus) be perfectly literal? Firestorm pointed this out as well. Your position looks feeble to me; you provide special pleading for things to be metaphorical that would contradict some modern knowledge and declare others to be literal when the entire book is not given with the intent of providing an accurate historical account of Earth and society but to give teachings on how one should live in an interactive culture.
You're missing the point, they claimed the land BECAUSE they were told they would have it. It doesn't matter if it was God who told them or a rock with words or a talking desert duck. It seems to be closer to confirmation bias than anything; the soldier at the Alamo who is told they will win will fight harder because they believe they are destined to win.
what is this i don't even
Your position is mind-bendingly convoluted. Scientists are not waving magic wands. Every statement made in science goes under heavy scrutiny, revision, more scrutiny, publication, decades of scrutiny, editing, further revision, recalculating, and even then is taken with a grain of salt. You seem to imply that the "presuppositions" of geology and radiometric dating are sketchy. But you haven't shown why or how, you merely declared you believed in a 6000 year old earth and a literal Genesis creation. You are waving magic wands and declaring the Bible as an end-all be-all truth.
To try and get to the core of the "this is literal, this is metaphorical" thing, here's a question or two:
If the day is defined in terms of earth's rotation, how can there have been a definition of a day before the earth was created, ie, a "zeroth" day?
How can there be light without a sun or stars, as it was in the beginning of the 7 days, if the light of the universe is ultimately derived from the nuclear fusion and consequent radiation in stars?
Why is the sun mentioned separately from stars, as if to imply that it is not a star and a separate, unique heavenly body, an idea which contradicts modern presuppositions about astronomy?
J-Man, you really are picking and choosing what is convenient to believe about/in the Bible. You say now that the Earth is obviously not flat because we can prove beyond a doubt that it is not. What if we someday have the ability to travel back in time and we prove beyond a doubt that the Earth is older than the Bible says? Will you change what you believe then to be "well obviously that part of the Bible was figurative language?" If such is the case then your stance is obviously that everything in the Bible should be taken literally until it is proven false, which I can not support. In my own opinion, that is blind faith. Faith is a fine thing in its own right. The ability to trust and believe in a higher power is actually admirable, not all people have that ability. However, blind faith, faith without the questioning process, is a very dangerous thing. The Nazi regime had blind faith in Adolf Hitler, and we all know how that turned out. I encourage you to read the Bible again and at each turn ask yourself, "Why should this be interpreted literally? Would it make more sense if it was figurative? Does it have a negative impact on my faith if it isn't literal?"
That last part I urge all religious people to consider. Does it really matter if the Earth is older than 6,000 years? What difference does it make in your faith?
EDIT: Just so you guys know, I spent "extra money" (not much because I had a large scholarship) on Catholic (private) education, and my education was actually quite good. We did touch on the view of Creationism (although none of my teachers seemed to agree with it), but we also looked at views such as evolution (my biology teacher made me really interested in science, actually). So yea, don't be turned off of a private school. Unless you want to save some money. They are rather expensive.
That last part I urge all religious people to consider. Does it really matter if the Earth is older than 6,000 years? What difference does it make in your faith?
EDIT: Just so you guys know, I spent "extra money" (not much because I had a large scholarship) on Catholic (private) education, and my education was actually quite good. We did touch on the view of Creationism (although none of my teachers seemed to agree with it), but we also looked at views such as evolution (my biology teacher made me really interested in science, actually). So yea, don't be turned off of a private school. Unless you want to save some money. They are rather expensive.
Lol, I'd really kinda prefer this to be more of a discussion, rather than an argument... arguments get nasty and all, ya' know... so yah, umm.... is it cool if we just keep it mild? Thanks =D.
Cool, I enjoy reading and thinking about responses.
Yah, I see kinda where you are going, the thing is, in order to have accepted logic at all, you had to have used faith in the first place. When you first attempted to use logic, you didn't know it would work. You had faith it would. You hoped it would. And you were willing to try that. My opinion is that religion should be attempted the same way, for 'ye recieve no witness until after the trial of your faith' (paraphrased from Ether 12:6). It is our job, to try something, and to see whether it works. It is our job personally. I have tried out faith in God personally, and have found that it works. And for the same reason we believe logic - personal experiences testifying to correcteness - I have a religion.
That is true, there are things which can enduce a euphoria of sorts, but who says that logic does not the same thing to our minds? Who says that we aren't observing something other than what we see. Nobody does - and nobody can tell. That's where our faith in our personal experiences with the objects under scrutiny comes in. In this case, it's religion, or belief in God. And by my personal experiences, by my personal quest to seek for God, I determine that he exists.
Na, you misunderstand the trial of faith. Faith starts with two basic elements - hope and charity. Hope is the wish for something to be true, due to your being happy. Why do we need hope? Because hope is the only thing which will drive us to truly seek and ask for an answer directly from God, which is what we need. We have to be driven to ask, despite knowing it is all-together possible that he doesn't exist. We have to ask on faith, hoping for an answer to confirm our beliefs. Now charity, why do we need it? Because, without charity, we won't have the willingness to serve others in the way God wants us to do.
Nah, actually, I make a different statement - that everything must be obtained with at least a fraction of faith - even logic itself... ah wait, you said that later on XD. Well as for observation, that is the same as experience, would you not say? Well, experience is part of the process of faith - it is the process of confirming your faith. You only receive it once you have it though. In other words, observation/experience is part of faith, and thus, yes, it derives itself.
Well then, we must simply refute logic, for it is being 'blind assumed' the same way religion is. One obtains a testimony in the same way one discovers that logic works - by taking a step into the darkness, and seeing if it works. You use faith to obtain it. It should be similar with religion. You have to take a step to having faith in it, and then things will be shown unto you. And though the basic laws of physics exist everyday, even our thoughts about how they work our based, on... logic. So if logic falls apart, so does all that scientific research we have done. Similarly with relgion... everything that has been discovered about it has been done so through... faith. And if faith falls apart, so does religion.
Na, tis cool. Hmmm... perhaps you could point out to jman some of the links that I had earlier... they state clearly (in the bible itself) that God's time isn't our time, and that his days are not ours... so ummm... yah.
Response to bleed4m3
Ah, well, the thing is, religion shouldn't be blind faith. The reason why it is often viewed as blind is because many of the 'mysteries of God' are hidden from us before we have faith. But once you show it, those mysteries will slowly unfold, those questions will slowly be answered. I have had perhaps 50 questions I have had about God answered just by thinking about it and praying about it on my own, simply in like... the last 6 months or so. So yah, I do ask questions, and that's why it's not blind faith. The good thing is, you can find answers to those questions.
This is a difficult topic to debate so it's cool to see how people have sort of chilled in that last couple of pages.
I've been an evolutionist (by which I mean it's been an assumption I've held my whole life) for far longer than I've been a Christian.
Honestly, I've yet to find any tenable evidence for Creationism, but recent (and continuing!) events in my life have made it impossible for me to deny the existence of God.
It's a hard thing to reconcile, and I consider myself an infant in both evolution and Christian apologetics. A quick search has led me to this site: http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq
which I intend to cross-reference with the previous Evolution sites presented in this thread when it is less late.
One thing that bothers me, and the following is conjecture, is the possibility of a 'new' train of thought being hooked to the Evolution wagon.
In this clip, Richard Dawkins, being interviewed by Ben Stein of all people, admits that if he were to accept the possibility of the willed creation of humanity, it would have come from a super-intelligent alien race and not God. Again, he says, if we were to ever find a signature, or some clue in our DNA indicating a designer, he would attribute that to aliens first.
The fact that he reveals this 'back-up' belief of his in an interview with a comedian leads me to believe the interview was staged in such a way as to plant that seed of thought into the audience's mind. Indeed, the whole movie seems to subtly serve that purpose. Richard Dawkins is just the first person with widely held credibility I've seen to kinda-maybe endorse that idea, even if with a -but let's hold our judgment until we have the evidence we need- clause.
It isn't a new idea by any means, but it's one that's been gaining some steam in the background (one of the reasons the movie has to pussyfoot around the subject). If this theory seems enticing to you, or if you actually hold this belief, please send me a PM. I'm pretty sure I can discredit at least the source.
edit: Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to use Dawkins to credit Creationism, as I said, I'm still not convinced about the issue. I don't believe, however, that Dawkins was 'outwitted' by Stein, but that both players knew where the conversation would lead. Dawkins seemed keenly aware of the theory he defined, it wasn't something he made up on the spot to humor his interviewer. Of course, he doesn't actually 'believe' it, but the idea is now on the shelf.
I've been an evolutionist (by which I mean it's been an assumption I've held my whole life) for far longer than I've been a Christian.
Honestly, I've yet to find any tenable evidence for Creationism, but recent (and continuing!) events in my life have made it impossible for me to deny the existence of God.
It's a hard thing to reconcile, and I consider myself an infant in both evolution and Christian apologetics. A quick search has led me to this site: http://creation.com/frequently-asked-questions-faq
which I intend to cross-reference with the previous Evolution sites presented in this thread when it is less late.
One thing that bothers me, and the following is conjecture, is the possibility of a 'new' train of thought being hooked to the Evolution wagon.
In this clip, Richard Dawkins, being interviewed by Ben Stein of all people, admits that if he were to accept the possibility of the willed creation of humanity, it would have come from a super-intelligent alien race and not God. Again, he says, if we were to ever find a signature, or some clue in our DNA indicating a designer, he would attribute that to aliens first.
The fact that he reveals this 'back-up' belief of his in an interview with a comedian leads me to believe the interview was staged in such a way as to plant that seed of thought into the audience's mind. Indeed, the whole movie seems to subtly serve that purpose. Richard Dawkins is just the first person with widely held credibility I've seen to kinda-maybe endorse that idea, even if with a -but let's hold our judgment until we have the evidence we need- clause.
It isn't a new idea by any means, but it's one that's been gaining some steam in the background (one of the reasons the movie has to pussyfoot around the subject). If this theory seems enticing to you, or if you actually hold this belief, please send me a PM. I'm pretty sure I can discredit at least the source.
edit: Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to use Dawkins to credit Creationism, as I said, I'm still not convinced about the issue. I don't believe, however, that Dawkins was 'outwitted' by Stein, but that both players knew where the conversation would lead. Dawkins seemed keenly aware of the theory he defined, it wasn't something he made up on the spot to humor his interviewer. Of course, he doesn't actually 'believe' it, but the idea is now on the shelf.
No, Richard Dawkins gives very little credibility to the theory of Creationism. He was not aware of what the interview would be used for and his words fell victim to quote-mining, and the meaning of what he was saying was exaggerated in the movie. He later clarified that he hardly considers Creationism a valid theory. Dawkins does not keep Intelligent Design as any kind of back up theory, he was attempting to be polite during the interview and in a seminar later said he was trying to "give Intelligent Design the best shot possible," (or his exact quote was something to that effect).
Dawkins was not attempting to link aliens to the Theory of Evolution, don't be confused. But yes, if we were to give Intelligent Design that extremely gracious benefit of the doubt, it is in fact a possibility that aliens manipulated life on Earth, but the aliens themselves would have to have evolved themselves or be manipulated as well, and just like with many other supernatural arguments it's turtles all the way down (if we refuse to accept a "starting point" for all life). If we pretend Intelligent Design with aliens instead of God is not simply more supernaturalism then for the most part it would just expand the phylogenetic tree of life to extraterrestrial organisms. However, be careful, because you may be able to call it "Intelligent Design" when it occurs on Earth (still assuming it has that best shot), when applied to all life in the universe it would still be as unfounded and crock as before.
EDIT: MetalGearSamus pointed it out, it's probably more accurate to say "hypothesis of Creationism," to give it its best shot.
Dawkins was not attempting to link aliens to the Theory of Evolution, don't be confused. But yes, if we were to give Intelligent Design that extremely gracious benefit of the doubt, it is in fact a possibility that aliens manipulated life on Earth, but the aliens themselves would have to have evolved themselves or be manipulated as well, and just like with many other supernatural arguments it's turtles all the way down (if we refuse to accept a "starting point" for all life). If we pretend Intelligent Design with aliens instead of God is not simply more supernaturalism then for the most part it would just expand the phylogenetic tree of life to extraterrestrial organisms. However, be careful, because you may be able to call it "Intelligent Design" when it occurs on Earth (still assuming it has that best shot), when applied to all life in the universe it would still be as unfounded and crock as before.
EDIT: MetalGearSamus pointed it out, it's probably more accurate to say "hypothesis of Creationism," to give it its best shot.
You missed his point completely. His friend guessed he would where a blue shirt the next day. The next day he picks out a blue shirt to wear because his friend predicted it. In other words, he consciously fulfilled his friend's prediction. That is not indication of any supernatural phenomenon, only a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Besides the point that all those are contradicted by evidence and forbidden by the laws of physics, how do you determine which is literal and which is figurative? People believed that the earth was flat 6000 years ago, what prevents them from writing about it literally?
No. This is the "No true Scotsman" fallacy. You cannot say he was not avid simply because he has "fallen away," one's choices later in life do not effect their enthusiasm for anything they already did. And what is "sufficient knowledge for a Christian?" He was a Christian by all definitions of the word. Being un-convertible is not one of them.
It has been studied and it has been debunked. Thoroughly. It is contradicted by evidence and itself. Also, have you witnessed God's godliness? What has he done to say that he is God?
There's no such thing. Creationism cannot be called a theory because it makes no testable predictions, only biblical statements of "truth," and has no evidence to back it up, whatsoever.
But the reason I see this AS blind faith is that you ignore scientific FACT (ie, fossil, rocks, etc. dating before when God "created the world" according to the Bible) to justify your beliefs, when in reality it makes no difference when the world was created.
You have already said that at least SOME parts of the Bible are figurative/metaphorical/whatever else you want to call it. Why can't this part of the Bible be as well? What difference does it make? Is God any less godly if that particular part of the Bible isn't meant to be interpreted literally?
Also, whoever decided that was God's own words? I know, I know, "the Bible was divinely inspired and put into human words by the disciples of Jesus." Well, to be honest, I'm listening to Live (the band) right now, and they are a religious band to say the least. Whose to say they aren't divinely inspired? And if you do say that, why aren't their words being interpreted literally? Who decided that these words were directly from God? Even if God inspired the words, whose to say the "prophets" didn't mix up the message? Or more feasibly yet, whose to say WE didn't misinterpret what the prophets were saying? What if, somewhere along the line, a prophet actually said "6 billion years ago, the Earth was created" and someone just, for some reason, decided to shorten it to 6,000? Beowulf (the epic poem) was changed by monks to include God in it since it was seen as a pagan story (which it was). Whose to say monks didn't change the Bible? And if they did, what then? You're entire religion would be debased if that were the case. Which is why I find it to be blind faith. You focus too much on aspects of your religion that don't even matter. Who honestly cares when the Earth was created? I wasn't there to see it, and I seriously doubt you were, so who really cares?
Jus' sayin'.
simple, i read stuff on this subject.
evidence is interpreted to support pre-suppositions. you find it difficult to except 6000 years, i find it likewise to believe in millions of years. i would expand on this, but i'm on my wii and it is extremely limiting
find another website that speaks of this, and i'll research this.
Just throwing out one of the scientific methods that is used to tell us the earth is older than 6,000 years old: carbon dating.
Also, do you then believe Abraham lived to be 1,000? If the Bible is to be taken literally then that would mean you do. How do you propose a human would go about living that long? Even if he didn't die of disease (which would be extremely likely in his time), his organs would just stop functioning after so long (well before 1,000 years). I am intrigued what answer you have to these (I'm being honest).
Also, do you then believe Abraham lived to be 1,000? If the Bible is to be taken literally then that would mean you do. How do you propose a human would go about living that long? Even if he didn't die of disease (which would be extremely likely in his time), his organs would just stop functioning after so long (well before 1,000 years). I am intrigued what answer you have to these (I'm being honest).
would you please re-phrase this so it doesn't say words that trigger my humiliating over-restricting blocks?
Responding to J-Man:
i interpret the bible according to context.
because it's according to context.
this comment is reeking of mega church anti-theology. roman catholics and mega church goers aren't the only christians that exist. who decided that the Bible is a social guide?
ok, i lose under the concept that this is a prophecy. After thinking this through however, it didn't occur to me that we're talking about a promise, not a prophecy... <.< doh.
concerning dating methods, i didn't expand on the subject when i should, but you completely ignored what i talked about geological
processes.
why don't you read genesis 1 and ask that question again
How can there be light without a sun or stars, as it was in the beginning of the 7 days, if the light of the universe is ultimately derived from the nuclear fusion and consequent radiation in stars?[/quote] this is a misconception from your naturalistic axiom. try seeing things from the christian point of view (i'm not saying be a christian). The Bible states that God is above his creation. Perhaps the light came from him?
perhaps the writer of genesis was trying to emphasize that God created all the stars, including the sun.
that is all for now, gotta go celebrate my mother's bday.
sorry about the double post, but that's the best i can do with the wii.
i've enough time to respond to this:
i've read enough about radiocarbon dating to know that it's a process base entirely on assumptions. and in reguards to the Bible, you are arguing on ignorance. come back when you know Abraham's real age at death.
We have methods of measuring the age of the Earth. I would love to hear how you define "assumptions" and why you believe carbon dating is not accurate.
Sorry, but I have no idea what this is supposed to mean unless the history you learn in Catholic school is actually a Bible study.
And you are now putting words in my mouth. I never said that you said you believed in a flat earth. I said that you are being hypocritical by saying everything in the bible should be taken literally except for things you have photographic evidence of being false in which case you opt for the "oh well that's figurative.
I have already answered this as has bleed4m3. We have fossils dating back millions of years. We had civilizations arise thousands of years ago. Someone already explained why the idea of 6 24 hour days is ludicrous considering we base our idea of a "day" around the Earth revolving around the sun (light / dark cycle).
Firestorm:
As a quick comment, carbon dating is not the primary method used for most materials for the actual age of the earth, IIRC, but the method of radiometric testing is used. Carbon testing is a type of radiometric testing.
J-man:
Also, why 6000 years? The Byzantines would put it at 7519 years, 7520 come the 1st of September.
As a quick comment, carbon dating is not the primary method used for most materials for the actual age of the earth, IIRC, but the method of radiometric testing is used. Carbon testing is a type of radiometric testing.
J-man:
Also, why 6000 years? The Byzantines would put it at 7519 years, 7520 come the 1st of September.
This is a great question actually, and one that I have thought about quite a bit... but let me respond to the first two paragraphs first.
Scientific fact, actually, I do like using it; the thing is, I have noticed that using it too much is somewhat of a 'corrupting' element in one's faith (which I don't wish to lose), so for personal reasons, I try to avoid using scientific reasons, although I could. I am just afraid that using it too liberally will make me prideful somewhat. But that's just for me.
Na, actually, I think the bible should be take literally or figuratively - the thing is, misinterpretations and above all, a not-so-complete understanding tend to skew alot of what is said about the bible. For example, with the days in the creation of the earth thing, people often misinterpret that as 24 hour human days, despite it directly saying in the Bible that it wasn't a human day. And ultimately, we aren't really seeking to follow the 'literal' or 'figurative' meaning, what we are really meaning to strive after is 'God's meaning'. And because we can pray and feel about it, finding out 'God's meaning' is a lot easier.
Ok now for the good question, you are asking, how do we determine what is 'Godly inspired' and what isn't. Well here's the thing - God does things for his own reasons, and his own purpose, although we may not be able to determine why. He inspires people everyday (even if they have slightly skewed beliefs, if they have a true and innocent heart, he helps them), and uses his ability to inspire to make things happen. For example, if you ever look at Columbus's diaries, he talks about 'inspiration from God'. Now Columbus himself was not a very nice guy to the Indians, but perhaps God needed to use him for the new world to be discovered in the first place.
Also, take a look at Martin Luther. I'm not Lutheran, but I think he may have been inspired to ask the questions he did, for God's own reasons. God doesn't respond to people solely in one church - he responds to all people willing to listen to him. That doesn't mean that there isn't one right church - there is - it is just simply his responsibility and promise to respond to all people who ask for it. So your band could be inspired, I dunno. God has his hand in lots of things, for lots of reasons.
Referring to the Bible's accuracy, I'm LDS, and one of the nice things we have is the re-translation, which clears up the accuracy issue, so yah... I don't worry about that so much.
Or perhaps he wasn't inspired by God? Honestly, it's not like he discovered the Americas, nor was he even the first European to find them. Unless you are looking at it in terms of personal discovery, as he had not known of the Americas beforehand, and did afterwards. In that case, I'm proud to say I discovered the Theory of Gravity.
Does God inspire non-Christians? Just kind of curious as you phrase all of your divine inspiration in terms of Christianity, or is it that Vishnu gets to inspire the followers of the Sanatana Dharma, and each of the other Gods get to inspire their followers?
I would like to hear where in the Bible it says that God actively intervenes in everything.
I'm not going to say much here, as I would end up being largely offensive. However, it's not like the Bible hasn't been retranslated numbers of times, in fact, my grandfather helped on one of the re-translations.
Na, I'm not saying he WAS inspired, I'm simply saying he could have been.
Yes, God at times will inspire non-Christians. Again, it really depends on his view of the long run, and what will be just for people. He does what is necessary, not what is obvious.
Here is a list: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/tg/g/141
And a specifically good scripture, not from the Bible: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/alma/37/7#7
Lol, as long as you say it mildly, I won't be offended.
Remember that the translation was through the Urim and Thumim (Seer's stone, also talked about in Genesis or Exodus), so it must be accurate. It wasn't just a language-translation.
You might want to read the passages that you cited. I followed your link, and assuming that I interpreted it correctly, the passages were examples of divine guidance in the Bible, none of which were examples that said God is a puppet master who manipulates people to have the world end up the way that he wants it.
Not to say that you're wrong, but a number of other Christian beliefs state that every time the Bible is translated, that God divinely guided all the translators to end up exactly where he wanted them to end up. Meaning that the involvement of any specific tool of god would not actually make a difference in the validity of the end product.
I would like to know how one can use their heart to find God. Mine is functioning extremely well. It pumps blood at a very steady rate (I have low blood pressure, actually), and I have yet to encounter a problem with it. So, since I have a healthy heart, may I ask what am I missing to activate my heart radar to Jesus? I keep hearing that you have to "use your heart" but I lack instruction. To think that I believed the heart was a muscle that pumped blood! Why didn't Biology ever teach me that it could lead to my salvation? Thanks for letting me know the truth, Relictivity.
(please let this make you understand how silly "use your heart" sounds in a debate)
(please let this make you understand how silly "use your heart" sounds in a debate)
/thread
Seriously that's as close as we'll get to end this debate. Ever. Taking a look at the last couple of pages makes that obvious. Summarizing these pages:
- God/the bible says this, so it must be true
- But we have scientific evidence that proves it wrong
- Your evidence is wrong/flawed because if the bible says it, it must be true
- But the evidence is correct as we can prove [link that backs up the evidence as true goes here]
- That is just based on assumptions that are not correct because my religion says so.
- Another link is provided
- Oh yeah, that part of the bible wasn't literal. How could you believe something like that? Silly you.../ God obviously planted the evidence to test your faith
And this argument goes on and on and on... I'm sorry if this sounds offensive to any of the pro religion people but I just wanted to point out how this debate looks from a neutral point of view.