[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]
Given the sarcastic tone of your post, I take it you retract your earlier statement about god being the source of ALL knowledge and enlightenment?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
You’ve admitted there were spurious and fraudulent letters written during this time, yet none of them were pointed out by those who supposedly knew better.[/quote]
Actually I never did, most of these fraudulent letters came out during the second century. So…not the same time. And, not all the letters not taken were fraudulent. They just weren’t divinely inspired.
[/quote]
If they weren’t divinely inspired, weren’t written by the person they claimed to be written by, and were historically false, what else were they if not fraudulent?
Why do you accept that false letters could have been written during the second century, but not during the first century?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Shouldn’t your love for god unite all believers?[/quote]
Sadly, this is perhaps the truest statement ephrem has made.
But ephrem, for life, etc., have you ever stopped to wonder why so many of the greatest scientist in history were in fact either practicing Jews or Christians?
[/quote]
Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]
Let me know what you think of this, please.
http://clearsight.businesscatalyst.com/the-enlightenment-of-jesus.htm
[/quote]
Jesus always knew who he was, it didn’t take baptism for him to know.[/quote]
Then how do you explain Luke 2:52?
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Here, proof that God has healed amputees. Now I wonder if you are going to persist on the amputee issue like I have never posted this or actually bring up the deeper issue the problem of evil as the reason for your unbelief?
“we have the historical record of Jesus healing lepers, some of whom we may assume had lost digits or facial features. In each case, the lepers were restored whole (Mark 1:40-42; Luke 17:12-14). Also, there is the case of the man with the shriveled hand (Matthew 12:9-13), and the restoration of Malchus’s severed ear (Luke 22:50-51)”
from
http://www.gotquestions.org/God-heal-amputees.html[/quote]
Kudos for at least trying to answer the question.
Of course, I believe the bible is a book of fabricated stories so it doesn’t really answer the question for me. But even if it did, it begs the question why god doesn’t heal amputees today, while restricting himself to only performing healings that have alternate natural explanations.
People make up shit all the time. Put them in a controlled setting, and they can never repeat it. It’s true for divine healings, ESP, telekinesis, and every other supernatural claim people make. Of course, psychics are just con artists…but you can’t heal people in controlled conditions because, um, god will not prove himself and he will not be mocked!!!
[/quote]
Two things FL…
You know this is a bullshit argument to begin with…Please don’t tell me you don’t know, or know why.
Second, you also know that the whole Bible is a bunch of made up stories…I could see the argument in some books, but not the whole thing.
It’s a fascinating book, and you know it and you like it…I can tell. Yes, you like it.
[/quote]
Yes, I do find it interesting like I find other holy books interesting. You’re rare as a Christian to recognize that the bible is a bunch of made up stories. Of course, you must believe at least some of the stories are true, or you wouldn’t be a Christian in the first place.[/quote]
I made a typo, I don’t think any of them are ‘made up’. I do contend that for some of them the point and moral of the story is more important than the facts of the story, but like I said before it’s not a history book. But no, it’s not ‘made up’ what ever is in there exists for a reason…And you do like it, it does seem to bother you a lot.[/quote]
Can you name some examples of parts of the bible you don’t consider historically accurate?[/quote]
Gen chap 1 & 2 for instance? I thought that was obvious. Why are you trying to make me say it?..The story tells of God being the creator of all, and that he made man different from all the animals. It would not serve early Hebrews well to talk of String theory, and the illusion of material existence. He did have to remind them several times not to fuck sheep and goats, so mental giants they were not. But it does fit God’s personality, to pick the lowliest people to do his bidding.
Now I have read some interesting interpretations where the 6 days, where 6 phases of creation and such. I don’t know if that is square pegging a round hole or not. What is clear is the paradox of the story, that it cannot take six days to make something in the absence of time.
Do you understand the history of the period and why this is significant? In a nut shell, there were gods everywhere for everything. This is where ‘God of gaps’ was truly in play. God had to be different. He had to be the creator over everything, not a stop gap. Genesis explains this to the ancient Hebrews in a way they could understand.
Now to turn this around, can you present any documents from 3 - 5 thousand years ago, that are spot on historically accurate?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
…We’re still drooling infants when it comes to understanding this stuff, and are far from being able to conclude that a god MUST have created the universe like some of the posters in this forum believe.[/quote]
We’re even farther from being able to conclude that a god did NOT create the the universe like some of the posters in this forum believe.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat.
Tit. Tat…[/quote]
Proving a negative?
Not fucking likely.[/quote]
And we can’t prove that an uncreated universe doesn’t exist. That doesn’t make the positing of an uncreated universe a fallacy does it?
BTW You can prove a negative. You can prove that the other of two mutually exclusive negatives does exist. [/quote]
Math can prove negatives, all day everyday…Just sayin’.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nor did I make any such claim you stated.[/quote]
Except you did. You replace prime mover with the God of your choice. You should try being intellectually honest and admitting you don’t know.[/quote]
No, I didn’t. But I find it interesting you support cosmology.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< Is this a good synopsis?
http://www.reformedtheology.ca/calvin.html
Cause if so, it my contentions and issues stand with the doctrine. And I do find Calvin’s inability to explain, but a retort of ‘smaller minds’ being incapable of understanding arrogant and fallacious. It does not explain away the issues it just disregards the opponents as being ‘lesser’ in someway. Which is basically an ad hominem attack, which is a fallacy.
What I get from it, is that predestination exists and if you don’t get it, your just to stupid to understand. He also seems to counter argue with a ‘God said so’ attitude.
I simply don’t find his arguments well founded. I know he quotes a lot of scripture, but out of context and you know I have huge issues with that.
Tell me if you think this is a good representation of what Calvin’s theology was.[/quote]I WILL read this Pat and I want you to know that your willingness to simply hear speaks well of you and I’m gratified. I have no illusions that you will fall on your face embracing the reformation, but we can discuss more meaningfully maybe if we at least understand each other better.
In any case I will try to dig up something shorter from Calvin. The reason I wanted you to read the man himself is so that you could see that he loved the Lord man. He didn’t spend all his time pounding on the pope. The vast majority of what he wrote, even in the institutes, was all about helping people love, exalt, worship and please God. Honestly. So many think of John Calvin as this cold academic theologian and are stunned at the devotional, Christ adoring style of his writings when they actually pick up one of his works and read it for themselves.
[/quote]
I don’t know what you mean by “embracing the reformation”. I will give what you find a read, but I doubt it will do much to change my mind.
I don’t know if Calvin was academic or devotional. I just think he was wrong and I have pretty solid reasons for doing so.
For instance, and my main beef so far, is that instead of trying to make a rational solution to between omniscience and freewill. He just slammed the two concepts together and basically said “…because he’s God, that’s why!” Going further to say that if you don’t accept it, you are of ‘little mind’.
There are two problems with this strait out. Creating a paradox out of it does not resolve a problem, it creates another problem, an even bigger one. Paradoxes are not solutions, they are problems.
Second issue, stating that God can over come the impossible, that he can over come paradoxes of his own making, means also that he can over come anything, but he just won’t. Rather than saying God chose not to know our choosing of him, Calvin asserts that he chose, rather to create and damn his creation to hell, not only by our choice, but his as well. BUT God’s omnipotence can overcome that as well, can it not? Can he simply not choose to accept everybody in to heaven regardless of faith, religion, belief or action? Sure he can.
Third issue is what it does to scripture. I have read it, independently on my own. I really cannot see how he got predestination out of it. Out of context, you can twist a phrase to say anything, but in context, it does not say that.
It’s fine if you want to accept things based on blind faith. I have no issue with that. You seem faithful enough, and it works for you. My mom is the same way, she knows it’s true and doesn’t care about the intricacies. I am not wired that way. I like the answers, I like to dig deeper and know the why’s and the hows. God tells us to seek wisdom, that it is all from him and that to seek wisdom is to know him. So that is what I do.
I will look for the link you provide. I apologize in advance if I don’t find it. I took a few days off that this thread seems to have exploded.
Later, I will provide you something also, to mull over.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]
No need to wonder. It never happened - EXCEPT in the minds of those who have faith in their new “religion.”[/quote]
You never bothered to check the links i posted, didn’t you?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]
No need to wonder. It never happened - EXCEPT in the minds of those who have faith in their new “religion.”[/quote]
You never bothered to check the links i posted, didn’t you?
[/quote]
God is perfectly natural. I see nothing super natural in the sense of being unnatural.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It is interesting indeed:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
Scientists not being religious is a red herring. Who cares? The Bolshevistics weren’t very religious either. What’s that got to do with anything?
If you like what somebody does, do you follow all their beliefs implicitly?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
It is interesting indeed:
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
Scientists not being religious is a red herring. Who cares? The Bolshevistics weren’t very religious either. What’s that got to do with anything?
If you like what somebody does, do you follow all their beliefs implicitly? [/quote]
Our good friend push insinuated that many scientists were religious, and he’s wrong. That’s all.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Shouldn’t your love for god unite all believers?[/quote]
Sadly, this is perhaps the truest statement ephrem has made.
But ephrem, for life, etc., have you ever stopped to wonder why so many of the greatest scientist in history were in fact either practicing Jews or Christians?
[/quote]
Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]
No need to wonder. It never happened - EXCEPT in the minds of those who have faith in their new “religion.”[/quote]
From Wiki:
Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
You’ve admitted there were spurious and fraudulent letters written during this time, yet none of them were pointed out by those who supposedly knew better.[/quote]
Actually I never did, most of these fraudulent letters came out during the second century. So…not the same time. And, not all the letters not taken were fraudulent. They just weren’t divinely inspired.
[/quote]
If they weren’t divinely inspired, weren’t written by the person they claimed to be written by, and were historically false, what else were they if not fraudulent?
Why do you accept that false letters could have been written during the second century, but not during the first century? [/quote]
Um…what? Not all of the letters not taken were written by someone not of the name sake. I’m thinking of the proto-evangelium of James. It’s a regular book and it is most of it is historically accurate, but there are parts that can be profitable to a Christian.
Other things like the Didache come to mind as being written by who it is claimed to be written by, is historically true, but just is not divinely inspired.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Shouldn’t your love for god unite all believers?[/quote]
Sadly, this is perhaps the truest statement ephrem has made.
But ephrem, for life, etc., have you ever stopped to wonder why so many of the greatest scientist in history were in fact either practicing Jews or Christians?
[/quote]
Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]
No, correlations don’t bother me. What I know is that historically science has grown up within the Church.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:<<< men are capable of advancing knowledge using the scientific method, and without the need for a supernatural being to exist.[/quote]THEY ARE?!?!?!? Good heavens. I take it all back.
[/quote]
Let me know what you think of this, please.
http://clearsight.businesscatalyst.com/the-enlightenment-of-jesus.htm
[/quote]
Jesus always knew who he was, it didn’t take baptism for him to know.[/quote]
Then how do you explain Luke 2:52?[/quote]
Luke 2:40. Jesus was filled (not half-way, but filled) with wisdom. Moreover, Jesus increased not unlike the sun who increases from morning to midday in brilliance. Although the sun does not increase in brilliance, it seems so to men.
This would be the same for Jesus, this is a generalized over look of it. It goes much deeper, but I don’t feel like writing a research paper on it at the moment.
Jesus was full of wisdom from conception. The growing in stature and wisdom was what men saw in Jesus.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
Shouldn’t your love for god unite all believers?[/quote]
Sadly, this is perhaps the truest statement ephrem has made.
But ephrem, for life, etc., have you ever stopped to wonder why so many of the greatest scientist in history were in fact either practicing Jews or Christians?
[/quote]
Have you ever wondered why there is a direct correlation between scientific progress and disbelief in supernatural beings?[/quote]
No need to wonder. It never happened - EXCEPT in the minds of those who have faith in their new “religion.”[/quote]
From Wiki:
Many studies have been conducted in the United States and have generally found that scientists are less likely to believe in God than are the rest of the population. Precise definitions and statistics vary, but generally about 1/3 are atheists, 1/3 agnostic, and 1/3 have some belief in God (although some might be deistic, for example). This is in contrast to the more than roughly 3/4 of the general population that believe in some God in the United States.[/quote]
I’ll take a certain genius who said that a scientist that denies the existence of G-d, does so only because he doesn’t understand the science as I do and has a cursory understanding of it at best.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Nor did I make any such claim you stated.[/quote]
Except you did. You replace prime mover with the God of your choice. You should try being intellectually honest and admitting you don’t know.[/quote]
No, I didn’t. But I find it interesting you support cosmology.[/quote]
Do I? I see it as an interesting line of thought when not perverted by religious people, that is all.
[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< Our good friend push insinuated that many scientists were religious, and he’s wrong. That’s all. >>>[/quote]You mean the fuller the view man gets of His creator’s revelation the more independent he proclaims himself? NO WAY!!! Actually that’s about right on schedule.