|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Aug 2, 2014 22:05:27 GMT -5
working perfectly is based on perspective .. there are many parts of nature that I don't necessarily care for but I understand it's how it's been created and how it is . ..kinda like yknot said . . ..and another consideration is much of what is evil or bad in our world is a direct result of the fall and satan's hand at work today everywhere ..
..and a ps . ..I kinda like tornados . ..long as they're not over my head . .
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 2, 2014 22:50:15 GMT -5
working perfectly is based on perspective .. there are many parts of nature that I don't necessarily care for but I understand it's how it's been created and how it is . ..kinda like yknot said . . ..and another consideration is much of what is evil or bad in our world is a direct result of the fall and satan's hand at work today everywhere .. ..and a ps . ..I kinda like tornados . ..long as they're not over my head . . I consider that the idea that, "what is evil or bad in our world is a direct result of the fall and Satan's hand at work, " is just the result of people through out the ages attempting to explain why certain things happened.
Being the curious beings that we had developed into, we couldn't understand why the volcano erupted, why the sunset was so brilliantly colored or why the tornado blew our huts away.
Therefore, we "created" a reason & thus myths of gods & goddesses were created. (including the "fall" and a "Satan.")
Today we have many of those explained by science. Not all, but a lot, -enough for us to realize how we had invented the idea of a "god."
We should realize now what we had done and we had been in error.
It difficult for me to understand in this age why so many continue to use those some kinds of methods (putting a god into the gape) a method that we know to be in error and still believe in those supernatural entities.
|
|
|
Post by Johnny DeRaad on Aug 2, 2014 23:06:14 GMT -5
If you've considered that .. then you also have to consider the reverse . . that it's true that that's why things happen ..the reason wasn't "created" . .that is what is actually happening ..and what does science do but verify what God's design is? ..it points to a Creator. ..and an "invented God" cannot take part in interaction with His creation..can he? . .yet He does .. ..you say it's difficult to understand why so many believe in supernatural entities ..if you want to know that He is real ..ask Him. ..if you honestly want to know ..He won't deny your request. .it's really that simple ..
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 3, 2014 0:01:36 GMT -5
If you've considered that .. t hen you also have to consider the reverse . . t hat it's true that that's why things happen ..the reason wasn't "created" . . that is what is actually happening ..and what does science do but verify what God's design is? . it points to a Creator. ..and an "invented God" cannot take part in interaction with His creation..can he? . .yet He does .. ..you say it's difficult to understand why so many believe in supernatural entities ..if you want to know that He is real ..ask Him. ..if you honestly want to know ..He won't deny your request. .it's really that simple .. I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly .
When during mankind's history, we couldn't understand why the volcano erupted, we created a "god' who lived in the volcano, who was angry with us and wanted a sacrifice to placate him.
Science certainly hasn't verified that was what was happening!
There is problem with the idea that there is a God who interacts with His creation.
It is we who "invented" that whole idea that there is a god who interacts with "HIS" creation to start with.
Yes, it's difficult for me believe in supernatural entities. The problem is if you believe in one supernatural entity, where does one draw the line?
Do you believe also in wee folk living under toadstools, elves, fairies, bogarts, unicorns, ghosts, vampires, etc. Where do you stop? If one doesn't believe in any or all of those, how can you rationalize why you don't believe in them , yet you do believe in a supernatural being you call "god?"
I believed GOD was was real all the time I grew up in the "TRUTH" and professed for 40+ years. I don't any more.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Aug 3, 2014 7:25:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 3, 2014 8:07:55 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly .
When during mankind's history, we couldn't understand why the volcano erupted, we created a "god' who lived in the volcano, who was angry with us and wanted a sacrifice to placate him.
Science certainly hasn't verified that was what was happening!
There is problem with the idea that there is a God who interacts with His creation.
It is we who "invented" that whole idea that there is a god who interacts with "HIS" creation to start with.
Yes, it's difficult for me believe in supernatural entities. The problem is if you believe in one supernatural entity, where does one draw the line?
Do you believe also in wee folk living under toadstools, elves, fairies, bogarts, unicorns, ghosts, vampires, etc. Where do you stop? If one doesn't believe in any or all of those, how can you rationalize why you don't believe in them , yet you do believe in a supernatural being you call "god?"
I believed GOD was was real all the time I grew up in the "TRUTH" and professed for 40+ years. I don't any more.
I am afraid that I am walking all over 'withlove's' thread for which I apologize. As I read DMG's last post, however, I am moved to suggest that perhaps the " reductio ad absurdum" form of argument may not be the most effective for this discussion. I am not certain, but it may be difficult to "PROVE IT!" that proposition "A" suggests, implies or purports any of the subsequent propositions. Just sayin' . . . . . .
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 3, 2014 15:48:47 GMT -5
I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly .
When during mankind's history, we couldn't understand why the volcano erupted, we created a "god' who lived in the volcano, who was angry with us and wanted a sacrifice to placate him.
Science certainly hasn't verified that was what was happening!
There is problem with the idea that there is a God who interacts with His creation.
It is we who "invented" that whole idea that there is a god who interacts with "HIS" creation to start with.
Yes, it's difficult for me believe in supernatural entities. The problem is if you believe in one supernatural entity, where does one draw the line?
Do you believe also in wee folk living under toadstools, elves, fairies, bogarts, unicorns, ghosts, vampires, etc. Where do you stop? If one doesn't believe in any or all of those, how can you rationalize why you don't believe in them , yet you do believe in a supernatural being you call "god?"
I believed GOD was was real all the time I grew up in the "TRUTH" and professed for 40+ years. I don't any more.
I am afraid that I am walking all over 'withlove's' thread for which I apologize. As I read DMG's last post, however, I am moved to suggest that perhaps the " reductio ad absurdum" form of argument may not be the most effective for this discussion. I am not certain, but it may be difficult to "PROVE IT!" that proposition "A" suggests, implies or purports any of the subsequent propositions. Just sayin' . . . . . . Perhaps you are right, yknot, perhaps not.(I also apologize to also am sorry to 'with love' for the intrusion onto his thread.)Here is the reductio ad absurdum argument definition: Reductio ad absurdumFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial, [1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance. First recognized and studied in classical Greek philosophy (the Latin term derives from the Greek "εις άτοπον απαγωγή" or eis atopon apagoge, "reduction to the impossible", for example in Aristotle's Prior Analytics), [1] this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as informal debate. The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms: "Rocks have weight, otherwise we would see them floating in the air." "Society must have laws, otherwise there would be chaos". "There is no smallest positive rational number, because if there were, it could be divided by two to get a smaller one."
The first example above argues that the denial of the assertion would have a ridiculous result that goes against the evidence of our senses. The second argues that the denial would have an untenable result: unacceptable, unworkable or unpleasant for society. The third is a mathematical proof by contradiction, arguing that the denial of the assertion would result in a logical contradiction (there is a smallest positive rational number and yet there is a positive rational number smaller than it).
Can you put my argument into any of three forms?
The first: that "assertion would have a ridiculous result that goes against the evidence of our senses?" There was a time in the history of mankind where some people did believe that such creatures existed, despite what their senses evidenced.
The second: that my argument would cause a "denial would have an untenable result: unacceptable, unworkable or unpleasant for society?"
The third: that my argument has anything to do with mathematics in this case?
Perhaps if a belief in "wee folk living under toadstools, elves, fairies, bogarts, unicorns, ghosts, vampires," is too far fetched and carrying the argument to the reductio ad absurdum, we could bring a belief closer to our own time?
Perhaps we could compare the belief in the Hindu Gods or Native American Gods that are believed in parts of the world today to the belief a "resurrection of a dead body (Jesus) and his asscension into the sky?"
Yknot, do you think that would that be less of a reductio ad absurdum?
Just sayin...
|
|
|
Post by placid-void on Aug 3, 2014 20:06:58 GMT -5
DMG,
Gotta say, for one opposed to those who evangelize,
you certainly do lead the band of those who proselytize.
Uncle!
I give.
yknot
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 3, 2014 22:20:46 GMT -5
DMG, Gotta say, for one opposed to those who evangelize, you certainly do lead the band of those who proselytize. Uncle! I give. yknot Hey! that didn't answer all my well thought out 8-)statements!
I'm not opposed to people who evangelize! I just want them to prove why & what they are saying is true!
How do I lead the band of those who proselytize?
What idea or belief am I proselytizing?
Geeze! Uncle?
You give up easily!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Aug 4, 2014 7:53:45 GMT -5
Sorry if there are similar threads. If you have versions of the bible or other books that have helped you understand the bible better, can you post them? Or websites or whatever. I don't know where to start, having only read KJV and NKJV. Thanks in advance!!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Aug 4, 2014 8:13:46 GMT -5
A number of us have been encouraged and helped by listening to a program called Living truth. Pastor Charles price is a very good bible teacher and not hard to listen to. An ex worker related how she felt moved to attend church there in Toronto and her friends had to literally help her go through the door, from fear of past teaching about false churches etc. There is also a website where you can listen -. Google The living truth, people's bible church, Toronto. Max Lucado has written numerous books that have been a help to many. Alvin
|
|