|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 19, 2020 20:50:32 GMT -5
that's interesting. I can't say that I agree, but I can't be reasonably certain I disagree. I love it when people do this to me (no sarcasm). Something to mull over. I am wondering what your definition of "false religion" is? I like James 1:27 for its opposite:"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Would false religion be then essentially be selfishness and recklessness indulgence? False religion is religious beliefs that run contrary to what he believes, of course!
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Mar 19, 2020 22:42:09 GMT -5
Evolution is only vital as a theory to disprove God, its only unifying in the sense that's its the only theory that addresses the variety of life forms, and its evidence is far from overwhelming. All things could also share a common Designer. Just because we have 98% DNA similarity with chimpanzees does not equate to common ancestry, 60 percent of our genes have a recognizable counterpart in the banana genome, but its a far fetch idea to presume we are genetically linked to banana's via a common ancestor.. What's amusing is that evolutionist think that Creationist have active imaginations!!
Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your father? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great-great grandfather? And so on. Where on this continuum do you think the DNA/relation link breaks down and why? Chimeras ? Containing two sets of DNA . Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 0:05:18 GMT -5
There are 14 scientists called Steve who publicly dissent from Darwinism. There 1,448 scientists called Steve who publicly assert that “Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, ..... Matt10 Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. “In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of” (From a talk at the California Institute of Technology on January 17, 2003, printed in Three Speeches by Michael Crichton, SPPI Commentary & Essay Series, 2009.) I wasn’t making an argument for consensus. I was making an argument against quoting one random polymer who happens to believe what you do as an argument for anything. John Herschel refers to Darwin’s theory as the “law of higgledy-piggledy”. Well, so what? Of course if you’re a believer in some wacky off the wall theory then you have to rage against consensus. You have to rage against consensus mathematics if you believe that 2+2=5. You have to be against consensus physics if you believe that the law of gravity can be suspended in order to make it seem that Jesus really could ascend up to heaven even through the story is clearly a myth and there is no such place as heaven. And you have to reject geographical consensus if you maintain the world is flat. It is no surprise therefore that creationists make arguments against consensus science. It is ironic that creationists (such as the nutty discovery institute) make such a big thing of claiming how many scientists believe in creationism to the point of actually publishing lists of them. But when the numbers argument is used against creationism they immediately seek to dismiss it on the grounds that not everything that there has been a consensus on has turned out to be right. This is another great example of creationists ducking and diving and applying double standards and no sensible person should be fooled by it. If anyone is interested in the correlation between nutty religious beliefs and the rejection of evolution as the best explanation of human life on earth, one has to look no further than the following table which shows religious differences on the question of evolution among religious groups in the US. One can see clearly that the most nutty religions are much more likely to reject evolution as the best explanation. I’m not sure where Cooneyism would lie on such a table but it definitely appears to show a link between rejection of evolution as the best explanation and nuttiness of religious belief. Matt10 Religious Differences on the Question of Evolution (United States, 2007) Percentage who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origin of human life on earth Source: Pew Forum[12] Buddhist 81% Hindu 80% Jewish 77% Unaffiliated 72% Catholic 58% Orthodox 54% Mainline Protestant 51% Muslim 45% Hist. Black Protest. 38% Evang. Protestant 24% Mormon 22% Jehovah's Witnesses 8%
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 20, 2020 3:50:13 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1584666546000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5">Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5</abbr> benar said: Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your father? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great-great grandfather? And so on. Where on this continuum do you think the DNA/relation link breaks down and why?
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
This is an excellent post snow. Well said!! The fact that science’s model of reality evolves over time is one of science’s greatest strengths—it reflects its ability to change/improve as it accumulates greater knowledge. The fact that “holy” books like the Quran and bible are the “final, unchanging word of a god” is one of religion’s greatest weaknesses (of which there are many). Religions like Christianity and Islam have no room to accommodate reality.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Mar 20, 2020 4:27:16 GMT -5
Ed, -your source, -Michael Behe, -lost this case as well as one other. You might want to rethink any reliance that you may have on his knowledge.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
Dover testimony
Main article: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the first direct challenge brought in United States federal courts to an attempt to mandate the teaching of intelligent design on First Amendment grounds, Behe was called as a primary witness for the defense and asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science.
Some of the most crucial exchanges in the trial occurred during Behe's cross-examination, where his testimony would prove devastating to the defense.
Behe was forced to concede that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred" and that his definition of 'theory' as applied to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would also qualify.
Earlier during his direct testimony, Behe had argued that a computer simulation of evolution he performed with Snoke shows that evolution is not likely to produce certain complex biochemical systems.
Under cross examination however, Behe was forced to agree that "the number of prokaryotes in 1 ton of soil are 7 orders of magnitude higher than the population [it would take] to produce the disulfide bond" and that "it's entirely possible that something that couldn't be produced in the lab in two years... could be produced over three and half billion years." cont@ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 20, 2020 4:28:21 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1584666546000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5">Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5</abbr> benar said: Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your father? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great-great grandfather? And so on. Where on this continuum do you think the DNA/relation link breaks down and why?
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
This is an excellent post snow. Well said!! The fact that science’s model of reality evolves over time is one of science’s greatest strengths—it reflects its ability to change/improve as it accumulates greater knowledge. The fact that “holy” books like the Quran and bible are the “final, unchanging word of a god” is one of religion’s greatest weaknesses (of which there are many). Religions like Christianity and Islam have no room to accommodate reality.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
There is no way you can claim that the bible is the absolute unadulterated truth. Or that god is omniscient. So your entire worldview is not based on reality.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 20, 2020 5:00:31 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1584666546000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5">Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5</abbr> benar said: Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your father? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great-great grandfather? And so on. Where on this continuum do you think the DNA/relation link breaks down and why?
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
This is an excellent post snow. Well said!! The fact that science’s model of reality evolves over time is one of science’s greatest strengths—it reflects its ability to change/improve as it accumulates greater knowledge. The fact that “holy” books like the Quran and bible are the “final, unchanging word of a god” is one of religion’s greatest weaknesses (of which there are many). Religions like Christianity and Islam have no room to accommodate reality.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
Sorry to inform you but the Bible isn’t the absolute, unadulterated truth. It’s filled to the brim with nonsense and contradictions, which is a reflection of the scientific ignorance and superstitiousness, as well as the outright deceptiveness/dishonesty of its authors. One of the biggest sins of religious believers is the argument from ignorance—they don't have a sound (reality based) explanation for phenomena so they just make one up and say that’s good enough. It’s the entire basis for religions actually.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 20, 2020 5:42:20 GMT -5
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
There is no way you can claim that the bible is the absolute unadulterated truth. Or that god is omniscient. So your entire worldview is not based on reality. Jesus said that he was the Truth, so I believe him. Its not a worldview, but a divine view. Jesus said that he came to "Bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John 18:37). Sometimes the best way to recognize the truth is when you can find nothing false within it. That's a reality that supersedes worldviews, which are often chucked-full of lies and deceit. I believe God is omniscient because assuming He created all that is, He must also have all-knowledge of everything that exist, e.g; If I built a house myself from start to finish, odds are that I'd know everything about that house. So yes, God is omniscient about everything but us.
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
Sorry to inform you but the Bible isn’t the absolute, unadulterated truth. It’s filled to the brim with nonsense and contradictions, which is a reflection of the scientific ignorance and superstitiousness, as well as the outright deceptiveness/dishonesty of its authors. One of the biggest sins of religious believers is the argument from ignorance—they don't have a sound (reality based) explanation for phenomena so they just make one up and say that’s good enough. It’s the entire basis for religions actually.
No contradictions in the bible, its authors were honest and inspired. I'll agree that the bible cannot be scientifically substantiated (Matthew 11:25), but that's due to the inefficiency of science, which is limited to physical observation to explain anything, and God is not an observable phenomenon. Putting one's faith in science to define and prove God is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by benar on Mar 20, 2020 5:42:23 GMT -5
<abbr data-timestamp="1584666546000" class="o-timestamp time" title="Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5">Mar 19, 2020 20:09:06 GMT -5</abbr> benar said: Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your father? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great grandfather? Do you dispute that, via DNA, you can be shown to be related to your great-great grandfather? And so on. Where on this continuum do you think the DNA/relation link breaks down and why?
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
This is an excellent post snow. Well said!! The fact that science’s model of reality evolves over time is one of science’s greatest strengths—it reflects its ability to change/improve as it accumulates greater knowledge. The fact that “holy” books like the Quran and bible are the “final, unchanging word of a god” is one of religion’s greatest weaknesses (of which there are many). Religions like Christianity and Islam have no room to accommodate reality.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
You did not answer my question. If DNA shows you are related to your ancestors, why does it not show humans and trees had a common ancestor?
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 20, 2020 6:13:39 GMT -5
Everything reproduces after its own kind, so no, I can't dispute that I'm genetically related to my forebearers. However, I can dispute that I'm not related to a banana, despite DNA similarities between all living things, there's no genetic link between fruit trees and humans.
If something is the absolute unadulterated truth, it doesn't need to evolve over time. Science changes with the addition of accumulated knowledge, but that's not a necessity for an omniscient God.
You did not answer my question. If DNA shows you are related to your ancestors, why does it not show humans and trees had a common ancestor?
For the same reason genetic incompatibility of DNA would reveal that someone is not my father. Your obviously trying to indicate that humans sharing genes with all living organisms is evidence of common ancestry, but that is a concept I don't accept. Because something could be remotely possible, does not make it likely. The fish to fisherman hypothesis is a hard line to swallow. Millions of years ago, a tree was a tree, and today a tree still produces exact copies of its own kind. There's no direct or convincing evidence that anything has ever evolved into a completely different species.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 20, 2020 6:19:47 GMT -5
There is no way you can claim that the bible is the absolute unadulterated truth. Or that god is omniscient. So your entire worldview is not based on reality. Jesus said that he was the Truth, so I believe him. Its not a worldview, but a divine view. Jesus said that he came to "Bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John 18:37). Sometimes the best way to recognize the truth is when you can find nothing false within it. That's a reality that supersedes worldviews, which are often chucked-full of lies and deceit. I believe God is omniscient because assuming He created all that is, He must also have all-knowledge of everything that exist, e.g; If I built a house myself from start to finish, odds are that I'd know everything about that house. So yes, God is omniscient about everything but us.
Sorry to inform you but the Bible isn’t the absolute, unadulterated truth. It’s filled to the brim with nonsense and contradictions, which is a reflection of the scientific ignorance and superstitiousness, as well as the outright deceptiveness/dishonesty of its authors. One of the biggest sins of religious believers is the argument from ignorance—they don't have a sound (reality based) explanation for phenomena so they just make one up and say that’s good enough. It’s the entire basis for religions actually.
No contradictions in the bible, its authors were honest and inspired. I'll agree that the bible cannot be scientifically substantiated (Matthew 11:25), but that's due to the inefficiency of science, which is limited to physical observation to explain anything, and God is not an observable phenomenon. Putting one's faith in science to define and prove God is nonsensical.
The bible is absolutely full of contradictions and inconsistencies and if you say there is nothing false within it your doing something wrong. The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources that do not always agree. Scholars will be the first to say that this is to be expected. Inconsistency’s or downright contradiction with in single books or between books in probably because the writers changed their mind over time or discovered new sources of information. The Bible has been formulated, assembled, edited, modified, censored, and transmitted orally and in writing over a long period of time. The individual books of the Bible are a layering of different sources, writers, editorial and authorial hands as the books grow over the time. The books are multi layered. If you can’t see this, you are most certainly doing something wrong in your readings of the bible..
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 20, 2020 8:26:46 GMT -5
Jesus said that he was the Truth, so I believe him. Its not a worldview, but a divine view. Jesus said that he came to "Bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice" (John 18:37). Sometimes the best way to recognize the truth is when you can find nothing false within it. That's a reality that supersedes worldviews, which are often chucked-full of lies and deceit. I believe God is omniscient because assuming He created all that is, He must also have all-knowledge of everything that exist, e.g; If I built a house myself from start to finish, odds are that I'd know everything about that house. So yes, God is omniscient about everything but us.
No contradictions in the bible, its authors were honest and inspired. I'll agree that the bible cannot be scientifically substantiated (Matthew 11:25), but that's due to the inefficiency of science, which is limited to physical observation to explain anything, and God is not an observable phenomenon. Putting one's faith in science to define and prove God is nonsensical.
The bible is absolutely full of contradictions and inconsistencies and if you say there is nothing false within it your doing something wrong. The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources that do not always agree. Scholars will be the first to say that this is to be expected. Inconsistency’s or downright contradiction with in single books or between books in probably because the writers changed their mind over time or discovered new sources of information. The Bible has been formulated, assembled, edited, modified, censored, and transmitted orally and in writing over a long period of time. The individual books of the Bible are a layering of different sources, writers, editorial and authorial hands as the books grow over the time. The books are multi layered. If you can’t see this, you are most certainly doing something wrong in your readings of the bible..
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 20, 2020 8:44:46 GMT -5
The bible is absolutely full of contradictions and inconsistencies and if you say there is nothing false within it your doing something wrong. The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources that do not always agree. Scholars will be the first to say that this is to be expected. Inconsistency’s or downright contradiction with in single books or between books in probably because the writers changed their mind over time or discovered new sources of information. The Bible has been formulated, assembled, edited, modified, censored, and transmitted orally and in writing over a long period of time. The individual books of the Bible are a layering of different sources, writers, editorial and authorial hands as the books grow over the time. The books are multi layered. If you can’t see this, you are most certainly doing something wrong in your readings of the bible..
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Pure conjecture my ass. I’m not going to go through them but here is a list of only some of the contradictions in the Bible: www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/William Burr has found 144 contradictions in the bible (source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Biblical_criticism_and_criticism_of_the_Bible). There are MANY lists out there of contradictions in the Bible so obviously many people do observe them. The fact that you can’t see them because you choose not to or use distorted logic to explain them away doesn’t mean they are not there. Edit: I can’t believe I failed to address one massive whole in your argument. Whether the Bible has remained unchanged for 2200 years (and I’m not stating it has), is completely irrelevant to whether the Bible contains inconsistencies and contradictions. There is no relationship. According to the dictionary inconsistent means “not staying the same throughout.” I’ve already addressed contradictions in the Bible but there are many inconsistencies too. To give two examples the Bible is inconsistent on whether people are predestined to be saved or have a role in choosing their salvation. Many verses come down on the side of predestination but others such as the verse that states god desires all to be saved is a huge inconsistency in the Bible, and as a result this is an issue that Christians themselves do not agree on. Another matter the Bible is inconsistent and unclear about is whether works such as obedience play a role in salvation. The orthodox Christian position is held to be that Christians are saved by grace through faith and not by works (good works supposedly follow “salvation”). However, an article I linked to in another thread (I’ve provided the link to the article again here: relearnchurch.org/praying-strength-quit-pornography-wont-help/) about how viewing pornography has the power to send Christians to hell quotes a massive number of verses from the Bible that make it clear obedience is necessary for or a requirement for salvation. The Bible is unclear on whether good works are necessary for salvation or not.
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 20, 2020 8:50:28 GMT -5
The bible is absolutely full of contradictions and inconsistencies and if you say there is nothing false within it your doing something wrong. The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources that do not always agree. Scholars will be the first to say that this is to be expected. Inconsistency’s or downright contradiction with in single books or between books in probably because the writers changed their mind over time or discovered new sources of information. The Bible has been formulated, assembled, edited, modified, censored, and transmitted orally and in writing over a long period of time. The individual books of the Bible are a layering of different sources, writers, editorial and authorial hands as the books grow over the time. The books are multi layered. If you can’t see this, you are most certainly doing something wrong in your readings of the bible..
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Comparison of a few of the current English bibles should make it clear that there are many uncertainties in the biblical text. Part of this reason is that translation involves interpretation, and that adds to uncertainties. A perfect copy of the original text does not exist. All we have are copies made centuries after the texts were originally composed, and those copies differ among themselves. Have you ever studied the bible, outside of the bible?
|
|
|
Post by ant_rotten on Mar 20, 2020 8:55:49 GMT -5
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Pure conjecture my ass. I’m not going to go through them but here is a list of only some of the contradictions in the Bible: www.atheists.org/activism/resources/biblical-contradictions/William Burr has found 144 contradictions in the bible (source: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Biblical_criticism_and_criticism_of_the_Bible). There are MANY lists out there of contradictions so obviously many people do observe them. The fact that you can’t see them because you choose not to or use distorted logic to explain th see m away doesn’t mean they are not there. Dan obviously has his own meaning of the word conjecture. For a Christian, contradictions are only “apparent”. Goes to show how close minded they are towards a text that they see as “the book of life”.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2020 12:21:30 GMT -5
You're a little late to the party, when people began imaging truth could be whatever they wanted it to be. Maybe if the commies had contained Corona in their own country we'd be in a better position to help them. I’m pretty sure you mean “imagining” truth. I’ll take science over the Bible any day. At least science updates itself to better reflect reality vs. believers who twist and distort reality in an attempt to force it to fit an unchanging book written by people who were ignorant of science and much about reality. I realize “the commies” refers to China where COVID-19 originated. What that and the rest of your post has to do with my post I have no idea? In totality, your post comes off as meaningless babble—another failed attempt to sound deep. Science doesn't address motivations, for that you need transcendent living truth that is personal and morally impressing. About a million people left Wuhan to infect the rest of the world. Their government may worship science but they don't worship the good the true and the beautiful.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 20, 2020 12:22:34 GMT -5
Talk about cherry picking; allow me to suggest that you read further. “the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measured or confirmatory.” I do agree because knowledge is not about belief. Knowledge is the accumulation of facts that can be verified/measured/confirmed by anyone willing to do the research. Beliefs are based on faith and cannot be independently verified/measured/confirmed. But at the same time claims that ideas regarding the purpose of things could be examined by science. The purpose of anything is determined by the person doing the evaluation. If the other branches of learning or culture were measurable they too would have a higher value placed on natural science. I don''t know any scientist who claims science is capable of describing all reality and knowledge. truth - that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.The issue here is still the difference between beliefs and verifiable facts.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2020 12:29:11 GMT -5
that's interesting. I can't say that I agree, but I can't be reasonably certain I disagree. I love it when people do this to me (no sarcasm). Something to mull over. I am wondering what your definition of "false religion" is? I like James 1:27 for its opposite:"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world." Would false religion be then essentially be selfishness and recklessness indulgence? that is admitted by most people. Rejecting these is a good beginning
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 20, 2020 12:46:54 GMT -5
Science encroaching on another of god's tasks.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 20, 2020 14:28:20 GMT -5
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Really? The authors of the books in the new testament have been authenticated? Who wrote the Matthew? Or Mark? Who did the authentication? There are a number of lists showing the contradictions in the NT. Some are factual. Things like: He was to be called Emmanuel. Matthew1:23. He was called Jesus. Matthew 1:25.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 20, 2020 15:38:09 GMT -5
I’m pretty sure you mean “imagining” truth. I’ll take science over the Bible any day. At least science updates itself to better reflect reality vs. believers who twist and distort reality in an attempt to force it to fit an unchanging book written by people who were ignorant of science and much about reality. I realize “the commies” refers to China where COVID-19 originated. What that and the rest of your post has to do with my post I have no idea? In totality, your post comes off as meaningless babble—another failed attempt to sound deep. Science doesn't address motivations, for that you need transcendent living truth that is personal and morally impressing. About a million people left Wuhan to infect the rest of the world. Their government may worship science but they don't worship the good the true and the beautiful. More meaningless babble. You’re very good at that. The Chinese government doesn’t worship science and you’re clueless to say it does.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 19:53:19 GMT -5
Pure conjecture... I believe the bible has been preserved. The Dead Sea scrolls existed pre-Christ, and the old testament books are nearly word for word consistent with what we have today. So no editing or modifications have occurred for 2200 years. The books of the new testament have been preserved too, they were selected because the authors could be authenticated. And scholars aside, I've found no contradictions in scripture.
Really? The authors of the books in the new testament have been authenticated? Who wrote the Matthew? Or Mark? Who did the authentication? There are a number of lists showing the contradictions in the NT. Some are factual. Things like: He was to be called Emmanuel. Matthew1:23. He was called Jesus. Matthew 1:25. Nice try, but no lollypop for rational; The one we English speakers call "Jesus Christ" was neither named "Emmanuel" or "Jesus" in the Bible. So that so called 'contradiction' shoots itself through its very 'heart.' And THAT level of simple-mindedness permeates every list of so called "contradictions" I have yet seen.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 20, 2020 20:30:01 GMT -5
Really? The authors of the books in the new testament have been authenticated? Who wrote the Matthew? Or Mark? Who did the authentication? There are a number of lists showing the contradictions in the NT. Some are factual. Things like: He was to be called Emmanuel. Matthew1:23. He was called Jesus. Matthew 1:25. Nice try, but no lollypop for rational; The one we English speakers call "Jesus Christ" was neither named "Emmanuel" or "Jesus" in the Bible. So that so called 'contradiction' shoots itself through its very 'heart.' And THAT level of simple-mindedness permeates every list of so called "contradictions" I have yet seen. If the Christian god is omniscient and the Bible is the inspired word of Christianity’s god, then the Bible should still be free of “simpleminded lists of contradictions” as you nearly put it. The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions, not “contradictions” as you put it. To take one example from the list: Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13. Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1. These both cannot be true so which one is it? The fact that you're forced to refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in the Bible or try to rationalize them away is simply a sign that the Bible is highly flawed and not the inspired word of a god.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Mar 20, 2020 20:53:56 GMT -5
Science doesn't address motivations, for that you need transcendent living truth that is personal and morally impressing. About a million people left Wuhan to infect the rest of the world. Their government may worship science but they don't worship the good the true and the beautiful. More meaningless babble. You’re very good at that. The Chinese government doesn’t worship science and you’re clueless to say it does. It does in so far as it is primarily interested in power, as opposed to existential ideals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 20:56:28 GMT -5
Nice try, but no lollypop for rational; The one we English speakers call "Jesus Christ" was neither named "Emmanuel" or "Jesus" in the Bible. So that so called 'contradiction' shoots itself through its very 'heart.' And THAT level of simple-mindedness permeates every list of so called "contradictions" I have yet seen. If the Christian god is omniscient and the Bible is the inspired word of Christianity’s god, then the Bible should still be free of “simpleminded lists of contradictions” as you nearly put it. The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions, not “contradictions” as you put it. To take one example from the list: Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13. Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1. These both cannot be true so which one is it? The fact that you're forced to refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in the Bible or try to rationalize them away is simply a sign that the Bible is highly flawed and not the inspired word of a god. they both can be true. he was at the wedding then in the wilderness....defining "immediately" is personal and problematic it could easily mean 1 second later or 3 days later to some... i also noticed that john 2:1 says just "the third day" it does not say the third day after the baptism...it could easily mean the 3rd day after being in the wilderness..it could just mean the 3rd day of the week....etc...etc... and yes i know in chapter 1 he was baptised...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2020 21:02:18 GMT -5
Nice try, but no lollypop for rational; The one we English speakers call "Jesus Christ" was neither named "Emmanuel" or "Jesus" in the Bible. So that so called 'contradiction' shoots itself through its very 'heart.' And THAT level of simple-mindedness permeates every list of so called "contradictions" I have yet seen. If the Christian god is omniscient and the Bible is the inspired word of Christianity’s god, then the Bible should still be free of “simpleminded lists of contradictions” as you nearly put it. The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions, not “contradictions” as you put it. To take one example from the list: Immediately after the baptism, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness. Mt.4:1,2; Mk.1:12,13. Three days after the baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana. Jn.2:1. These both cannot be true so which one is it? The fact that you're forced to refuse to acknowledge the contradictions in the Bible or try to rationalize them away is simply a sign that the Bible is highly flawed and not the inspired word of a god. First off, there is no "Christian god." God is not "Christian." God is, according to God, the ONLY "God." Well now, that one is not as simple minded as rational's was, but WHAT in the text of the Bible disallows Jesus to have immediately after baptism gone into the wilderness alone for 40 days – and then, after He called His disciples according to John 1:35-51 to be at the wedding in Cana three days after calling His disciples. Nothing I see in the text of the Bible even suggests that Jesus was 40 days in the wilderness AND at the wedding in Cana at the same time. One HAS TO want contradictions DESPERATELY to make the claimed 'contradiction' made in the quoted post. And if one WANTS 'contradictions' in the Bible that much, it is still a nobrainer, especially when no Bible training is obtained, as is the case with 2x2ism, to create 'contradictions' where there are no contradictions. And once again, every list of alleged 'contradictions' in the Bible I have ever seen is prepared by someone that does not examine the text of the Bible to find an answer to such 'contradictions' - i.e., someone who WANTS to find 'contradictions in the Bible desperately enough to play the Bible illiteracy game to his/her own shame. “The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions ....” But then, the parrot of a list of alleged 'contradictions' is just a parrot, not the creator of such a 'contradiction' – if that excuses the poster for failing to examine the alleged 'contradiction' by examining the Bible text itself. Ho hum.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 20, 2020 21:38:48 GMT -5
More meaningless babble. You’re very good at that. The Chinese government doesn’t worship science and you’re clueless to say it does. It does in so far as it is primarily interested in power, as opposed to existential ideals. One of your primary goals in expressing yourself seems to be obfuscation but I’ll try breaking down what you seem to be saying in an attempt to make sense of it (assuming it makes any sense at all). I think it goes something like this. You’re saying science’s supposed interest in power is analogous/runs parallel to the Chinese government’s interest in power. I’d argue that’s a false analogy but that would be a completely different “discussion” with more of your rhetoric (and here I am using rhetoric in its more informal sense—“language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.” source: Dictionary definition provided by google search www.google.com/search?rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS734US735&hl=en-US&biw=320&bih=452&sxsrf=ALeKk01ma60B8xfP1y9GRYvafxnZhVJd1g%3A1584756572002&ei=W3d1XujQPIGMtAbxsoyYCg&q=rhetoric+definition&oq=rhetor&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.1.1.0i273l2j0l6.683140.687976..688848...1.1..1.263.2022.0j14j2......0....1.......8..0i71j0i67j0i131j35i39j0i20i263j35i362i39j46.SNMUJmK2IXU). If this is what you’re attempting to say, it’s stated incorrectly. The Chinese government doesn’t worship science. Correctly stated, the Chinese government operates (in your view) in the same manner as science. Next you’re harping on science/the Chinese government as a constraint on free will. I would agree with you about the Chinese government but applying this claim to science is nonsense. It’s the “scientific consensus” argument all over again. You’re free to believe whatever rubbish you like (people do all the time); just don’t complain when science doesn’t back you up on it.
|
|
|
Post by believingjesus on Mar 20, 2020 22:12:20 GMT -5
First off, there is no "Christian god." God is not "Christian." God is, according to God, the ONLY "God." Well now, that one is not as simple minded as rational's was, but WHAT in the text of the Bible disallows Jesus to have immediately after baptism gone into the wilderness alone for 40 days – and then, after He called His disciples according to John 1:35-51 to be at the wedding in Cana three days after calling His disciples. Nothing I see in the text of the Bible even suggests that Jesus was 40 days in the wilderness AND at the wedding in Cana at the same time. One HAS TO want contradictions DESPERATELY to make the claimed 'contradiction' made in the quoted post. And if one WANTS 'contradictions' in the Bible that much, it is still a nobrainer, especially when no Bible training is obtained, as is the case with 2x2ism, to create 'contradictions' where there are no contradictions. And once again, ervery list of alleged 'contradictions' in the Bible I have ever seen is prepared by someone that does not examine the text of the Bible to find an answer to such 'contradictions' - i.e., someone who WANTS to find 'contradictions in the Bible despreatly enough to play the Bible illiteracy game. “The NT list of contradictions provided DOES contain obvious and undeniable contradictions ....” But then, the parrot of a list of alleged 'contradictions' is just a parrot, not the creator of such a 'contradiction' – if that excuses the poster for failing to examine the alleged 'contradiction' by examining the Bible text itself. Ho hum. Ha! Of course (in theory at least) there is a Judeo-Christian god. Islam's god is Allah. Sometimes both these gods are lumped under the moniker of the Abrahamic god. Just because you believe there is only one god and that, of course, is the god you believe in, doesn't mean you get to operate from a privileged position. It's very possible some other religion's god could be the real one or that none of them are real. I am going to look more into your and wally’s explanations to see if they’re plausible or simply born of desperation. There are so many good ones on the list to choose from. I’m going to get a physical bible out tomorrow and look at some of them to see if the listed contradictions are really the product of delusional non-believers. Here is a list of contradictions taken from the list that look very promising (I’ve renumbered them): 1. The holy spirit was with John from before he was born. Lk.1:15,41. The holy spirit was with Elizabeth before John’s birth. Lk.1:41. The holy spirit was with Zechariah. Lk.1:67. The holy spirit was with Simeon. Lk.2:25. The holy spirit did not come into the world until after Jesus had departed. Jn.7:39; Jn.16:7; Acts 1:3-8. 2. Believers do not come into judgment. Jn.5:24. All people come into judgment. Mt.12:36; 2 Cor.5:10; Heb.9:27; 1 Pet.1:17; Jude 14,15; Rev.20:12,13. 3. Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is true. Jn.8:14. Jesus says that, if he bears witness to himself, his testimony is not true. Jn.5:31. 4. Men can choose whether or not to believe. Jn.5:38-47. Only God chooses who will believe. Jn.6:44. I love #4 because it’s one I’ve already brought up in this thread as a biblical inconsistency that I know for a fact is a point of contention for Christians. The reason it is a point of disagreement among Christians is because there are different verses that support opposing viewpoints. The side that supports the view of predestination is Calvinist and the other side (which emphasizes the role of man’s free will in salvation) is referred to as Armenian. I suspect most of the friends and workers would fall on the Armenian side but not all. I have heard very Calvinistic messages on salvation from a few workers. Anyway, I’m getting tired and I’m going to bed. I’ll dig in tomorrow and see what I find.
|
|