Push, I’ve decided you really can’t handle this debate. As a favor, I’m going to discontinue it. When you need to bring up a persons age, in order to discredit them, you lose. When you are a biblical literalist and tell someone who disagrees with your point of view that they are full of “dogma”, you are wrong and hilarious.
Good day, sir.
Oh, and that I’m a catholic. That was a good one, as far as examples of your disconnect from reality go.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s a feeble attempt to essentially say, “Hey, I’m a Christian but I’m a ‘cool’ one cause accept macro-evolution. I can have it both ways; aint I quite the moderate, independent thinker?”
[/quote]
I won’t get into this much more, as the readers can take a look at the creation account, read it literally, sola scripture, determining my accuracy for themselves.
Now for the absurd. My motivation is to be the ‘cool’ christian? My strict pro-life, anti-gay marriage stance, opposition to the state’s ability to divorce barring complete and total failure to uphold traditional vows (domestic violence), support of traditional gender-familial roles, and anti-sex education stance makes me ‘cool’ seeking? My willingness to unfashionably chastise our culture for things ranging from it’s sexualization of damn near everything, it’s glorification of violence and gore, to it’s atomistic hyper-individualism and materialism makes me that “cool christian?” I’m really the life of the party.
I’ve been called many things; prude (as if that was actually an insult), zealot, jesus freak, boring, party-crasher, joy-kill, papist, fanatic, fascist, sexist, but never cool. Never, ever, cool.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Do you know how many scientific theories supported by “majorities” have gone down the tubes in the last few thousand years?
Do you know that in the 1980s and '90s a majority of bodybuilding and fitness folks thought fat was bad for you? And that fat made you fat?[/quote]
Do you know how many scientific theories had ~150 years of history and thousands and thousands of journal papers from a variety of fields supporting their conclusions only to eventually be proven completely, 100% flat-out wrong?
Don’t even bother with the “last few thousand years”. I’d like a couple examples from more modern times.
You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t immediately jump into a foxhole for this one.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s a feeble attempt to essentially say, “Hey, I’m a Christian but I’m a ‘cool’ one cause accept macro-evolution. I can have it both ways; aint I quite the moderate, independent thinker?”
[/quote]
I won’t get into this much more, as the readers can take a look at the creation account, read it literally, sola scripture, determining my accuracy for themselves.
Now for the absurd. My motivation is to be the ‘cool’ christian? My strict pro-life, anti-gay marriage stance, opposition to the state’s ability to divorce barring complete and total failure to uphold traditional vows (domestic violence), traditional gender-familial roles, and anti-sex education stance makes me ‘cool’ seeking? My willingness to unfashionably chastise our cultural from it’s sexualization of damn near everything (you prude!), it’s glorification of violence and gore, to it’s atomistic hyper-individualism and materialism makes me that “cool christian?” I’m really the life of the party.
I’ve been called many things; prude (as if that was actually an insult), zealot, jesus freak, boring, party-crasher, joy-kill, papist, fanatic, fascist, sexist, but never cool. Never, ever, cool.[/quote]
I think you know what I was getting at. The above was a misdirection play.
I do appreciate you putting the time in here though. Thanks. Seriously.[/quote]
We still cool? Not that I want to be cool, cool, dang it! But, are we? Eh?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s a feeble attempt to essentially say, “Hey, I’m a Christian but I’m a ‘cool’ one cause accept macro-evolution. I can have it both ways; aint I quite the moderate, independent thinker?”
[/quote]
I won’t get into this much more, as the readers can take a look at the creation account, read it literally, sola scripture, determining my accuracy for themselves.
Now for the absurd. My motivation is to be the ‘cool’ christian? My strict pro-life, anti-gay marriage stance, opposition to the state’s ability to divorce barring complete and total failure to uphold traditional vows (domestic violence), traditional gender-familial roles, and anti-sex education stance makes me ‘cool’ seeking? My willingness to unfashionably chastise our cultural from it’s sexualization of damn near everything (you prude!), it’s glorification of violence and gore, to it’s atomistic hyper-individualism and materialism makes me that “cool christian?” I’m really the life of the party.
I’ve been called many things; prude (as if that was actually an insult), zealot, jesus freak, boring, party-crasher, joy-kill, papist, fanatic, fascist, sexist, but never cool. Never, ever, cool.[/quote]
I think you know what I was getting at. The above was a misdirection play.
I do appreciate you putting the time in here though. Thanks. Seriously.[/quote]
We still cool? Not that I want to be cool, cool, dang it! But, are we? Eh? [/quote]
You’ll get cooler to the point of bein’ plumb frigid if you tell me where sin and death originated.[/quote]
Satisfied that’ve I said all there is to say on the previous topic, I’ll attempt to do just that. Tomorrow.
Be forewarned, I’ll summarize in my own words, providing links for the longish versions of my own explanations. This issue today/tonight alone took up more time then I originally wanted to spend on it. I didn’t even get to the reading I wanted to do today. Now on these topics, Sin and Death, each one could generate pages of back and forth, rebuttal and counter-rebuttal. So, I’m going to try to stay disciplined. I’ll make my case, maybe a few clarifications, answer a few questions, and then leave it up to you to do with it what you will.
But, for the next hour I’m on to other topics if any, before dozing off.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
So I can say it in two words and you have to prepare a master’s thesis? Sux to be u.[/quote]
You could try. But then you’d find yourself expounding when grilled (not neccessairly by me, as we have agnostics, atheists, and various denominations here) on those words. Backing them up, rebuttals, counter-arguments…Basically, two words would turn into many. I’m electing to fit them in a very, very, limited number of posts
Later now, Push. I want to see if I’m needed on any other threads before I lose consciousness tonight.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It’s a feeble attempt to essentially say, “Hey, I’m a Christian but I’m a ‘cool’ one cause accept macro-evolution. I can have it both ways; aint I quite the moderate, independent thinker?”
[/quote]
I won’t get into this much more, as the readers can take a look at the creation account, read it literally, sola scripture, determining my accuracy for themselves.
Now for the absurd. My motivation is to be the ‘cool’ christian? My strict pro-life, anti-gay marriage stance, opposition to the state’s ability to divorce barring complete and total failure to uphold traditional vows (domestic violence), traditional gender-familial roles, and anti-sex education stance makes me ‘cool’ seeking? My willingness to unfashionably chastise our cultural from it’s sexualization of damn near everything (you prude!), it’s glorification of violence and gore, to it’s atomistic hyper-individualism and materialism makes me that “cool christian?” I’m really the life of the party.
I’ve been called many things; prude (as if that was actually an insult), zealot, jesus freak, boring, party-crasher, joy-kill, papist, fanatic, fascist, sexist, but never cool. Never, ever, cool.[/quote]
I think you know what I was getting at. The above was a misdirection play.
I do appreciate you putting the time in here though. Thanks. Seriously.[/quote]
We still cool? Not that I want to be cool, cool, dang it! But, are we? Eh? [/quote]
Did he really accuse you of a misdirection play? Pot, meet kettle.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…interesting animation on the trek out of Africa and how humankind populated the planet over the course of 150.000 years. It may take a while to load: [/quote]
Eph, no disrespect but what does that have to do with, “Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?”[/quote]
…not much, but i just thought that for someone who asks the question, “where did death and sin come from?”, simple moving images were easiest to grasp…
…it’s people like you, who believe to know the absolute truth, who push people away from religion. It’s because your faith is not about god and how that relates to your reality, but is about your compulsion to be righteous and justified in your beliefs. If you weren’t like this, this house of cards you built for yourself of yourself comes tumbling down…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…interesting animation on the trek out of Africa and how humankind populated the planet over the course of 150.000 years. It may take a while to load: [/quote]
Eph, no disrespect but what does that have to do with, “Anyone Interested in a Serious Religious Debate?”[/quote]
…not much, but i just thought that for someone who asks the question, “where did death and sin come from?”, simple moving images were easiest to grasp…
…it’s people like you, who believe to know the absolute truth, who push people away from religion. It’s because your faith is not about god and how that relates to your reality, but is about your compulsion to be righteous and justified in your beliefs. If you weren’t like this, this house of cards you built for yourself of yourself comes tumbling down…
[/quote]
Agreed. If you look at any of his logic for believing, its always a matter of needing to believe, not believing on its own merits. “If I don’t believe, then man has to become God”, “If I don’t believe, then where did death and sin come from?” “If I don’t believe I’ll go to hell.”
Conjuring up a reason that you must trust the bible is not rational reason to trust the bible.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Eh, I’m not sure it’s “exactly.” As in, we take the exact same conclusion. Mine would be more like the people who wrote the bible were inspired by God, to reveal God and his expectations (progressively, culminating with Christ), in the context of what they (the authors and their ancient audience) knew. Read it for the morality. Read it to understand the nature of God. To understand how Christians are directed to live their lives. But do not, do not, read it as a scientific or historical text. What it does get right in these subjects, it just happens to get right.[/quote]
Correct. It’s not an academic text. It’s a book of truth, not a book of facts. It uses many methods to get it’s point across. I have said it before, the bible has a personality, it’s almost like a person, in a way. It’s got ups and downs, bad times and good times, heck, sometimes it can be down right funny. It tells us truths about God.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
You are correct. Quoting the Bible to a non-believer is useless. However, before we even get to the Bible we would have to establish that God exists. If you can get them to agree that it’s a least a possibility, then you can discuss scripture.
[/quote]
Indeed. Telling me the bible says that the bible is true doesn’t make the bible credible.
The following sentence is true. You owe me five dollars. The preceding sentence was true.
See? Tautology doesn’t make for good argument. Of course the bible says the bible is true. Every other religious text that contradicts the bible says that it’s true as well.
You would need to get a non believer to agree that a higher power may exist, and that your interpretation of this higher power is the correct one. [/quote]
Well, this is also a good point. This is a fact, God is bigger than the Bible. My explanation would follow along the lines of God exists, and the Bible tells us about him and how to interact with him. They will counter argue that the Bible isn’t the only way to know God; which they would be right, but it is an effective way, a good way, and it works well.
Are there good people in other faiths, yes. Are non-Christians welcome in God’s kingdom, yes. God did not create us to be damned, we must choose to be with him or against him. Even the Bible tells us not to judge and that we do not think like God does.
What’s good about religion is that gives us a method by which to communicate to God. I liken it to a cell phone company. You can call God on most of them, some work better than others and some have better plans than others.[/quote]
lol I like that analogy.
Let me ask you, when you picture God, what do you see?[/quote]
Old man with a beard? I really cannot assign a “look” to him. I see purity of truth, love power, will and light. I look to Jesus for my human embodiment of God. God is so massive I cannot rap my brain around him.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Awesome points. Really liking debating with you.
My issue is this: Why is it assumed this “first cause” is sentient and has a plan? Gravity causes things to fall down… gravity doesn’t think about what it’s pulling down, it just is. [/quote]
That’s a legit question. It does not necessarily follow that the Uncaused-cause would have anything to do with what follows it’s initial act of causation.
But think about this, for something to be an uncaused-cause, what properties must it posses to fulfill the role of an uncaused-causer?
I would say first, it must exist unaffected in any way by anything. Second, since ‘it’ cannot be caused to do anything, then it must posses something like a ‘will’ to make it happen.
If it cannot be affected by outside influences, it must choose of it’s own freewill, what to do. If this is true, we can see something of a personality appear. As people we are proud of our work and we tend to protect, I’d imagine God is some what the same way.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
And when it comes to theology you can’t even answer a basic question about the origin of sin and death. It’s not complicated like you made it out to be unless you have to figure out a way to mix and match the distinctly different world views of uniformitarianism/evolutionism and creationism. Good luck with your struggle, friend.[/quote]
I do want to address this, since it’s rather uncharitable. When it comes to theology? I’m not using theology to deal with CALism. So, why allow myself to be detoured into a theological debate? As for my theology, if you wish, you might visit a number of sites dealing with Catholic theology/apologetics. But, I’m not here for that.
As of now, I’m dealing with observations the vast majority of CALs wouldn’t dispute. We do not live on land rising from the middle of a giant basin, set into what might be an infinite amount of water. There is not a dome with lights set in it, above our heads. There is not a body of water above, and kept at bay, by this dome.
And since the vast majority (barring some niche sects) wouldn’t dispute these things, they in fact are not literalists. Theology here would be a distraction when simple observation does the trick.[/quote]
Exactly. The people who wrote the bible were explaining the world around them to the best of their ability, but once humans were able to gather more data, it was disproven.[/quote]
No, Sloth is hung up on one word that I think must come from a Catholic translation that more accurately should be translated as “expanse.”[/quote]
I have been using the ESV translation lately. I really think it’s the gold standard right now. It’s the most direct translation that I know of.