[quote]forbes wrote:
Since this thread is fresh and I don’t want to start a new thread, anyone here have good resources about the Nicene Creed? Im interested in knowing more about it.
Anyways…carry on.[/quote]I’m always careful with wikipedia, but the article appears pretty good
What are you looking to find out exactly?
[/quote]
More so its validity. Have you heard of Yusef Estes? He’s an islamic preacher (used to be christian) who talked about the Nicene Creed and that is the origin of the Trinity, not the Bible.
[/quote]
LOL
[/quote]
I don’t know where the humor is coming from Im just a Christian trying to know about Christian history.
[quote]forbes wrote:
Since this thread is fresh and I don’t want to start a new thread, anyone here have good resources about the Nicene Creed? Im interested in knowing more about it.
Anyways…carry on.[/quote]I’m always careful with wikipedia, but the article appears pretty good
What are you looking to find out exactly?
[/quote]
More so its validity. Have you heard of Yusef Estes? He’s an islamic preacher (used to be christian) who talked about the Nicene Creed and that is the origin of the Trinity, not the Bible.
[/quote]
LOL
[/quote]
I don’t know where the humor is coming from Im just a Christian trying to know about Christian history.
[/quote]
Here is a good youtube channel concerning refutation of Yusef Estes arguements just type his name in the search part of his videos (http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689). Also if you go to college there may be some books with both the Greek and English sections of letters of the apostolic fathers.
[quote]forbes wrote:
<<< I don’t know where the humor is coming from Im just a Christian trying to know about Christian history.
[/quote]This came up in the Huge trinity thread with the JW’s. I thought I saw you in there.
I agree again with the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646:
[quote]<<< The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture >>>[/quote]Neither the word “trinity” nor the doctrine itself are “expressly set down in scripture”, but it is most definitely soundly and unavoidably deduced from scripture “by good and necessary consequence”.
The bible everywhere affirms that there is but one true and living God. It also refers to the persons of the Father ,the Son and the Holy Spirit as that one true and living God. This leaves those who would believe the Christian scriptures with no other conclusion than that the one true and living God eternally exists in those 3 persons. In light of several other ares of crucial doctrine this makes perfect sense.
The council of Nicea simply codified that formally. Largely in response to the heresy of Arius of Alexandria who held that only the Father was eternal God, the son was His first and greatest creation and the spirit was his power/influence. In a nutshell.
I was addressing the assertion that science and religion are separate when they are undeniably intertwined.[/quote]
Why don’t you just go right ahead and explain how they are intertwined.
[/quote]
Parthenogenesis in mammals. Science.
You make claims about the world that tread on science and expect people to just accept it?
No.[/quote]
Accept it, disregard it, it’s your choice, that’s what God given free will is all about. [/quote]
You claim science and religion are separate. I state that they are not so, giving an example. You go off on a tangent, apparently forgetting what you posted originally.
I was addressing the assertion that science and religion are separate when they are undeniably intertwined.[/quote]
Why don’t you just go right ahead and explain how they are intertwined.
[/quote]
Parthenogenesis in mammals. Science.
You make claims about the world that tread on science and expect people to just accept it?
No.[/quote]
Accept it, disregard it, it’s your choice, that’s what God given free will is all about. [/quote]
You claim science and religion are separate. I state that they are not so, giving an example. You go off on a tangent, apparently forgetting what you posted originally.
Well done.[/quote]
What example?! What are you even talking about? The virgin birth? Dude…no denomination claims Mary was biologically capable (i.e. antatomically and physiologically) of asexual reproduction. “Nuh-uh! Parthenogenisis hasn’t been observed in mammals.” It’s a supernatural event! Not a claim of some mutation. You might as well have brought up the fishes and the loaves…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What example?! What are you even talking about? The virgin birth? Dude…no denomination claims Mary was biologically capable (i.e. antatomically and physiologically) of asexual reproduction. “Nuh-uh! Parthenogenisis hasn’t been observed in mammals.” It’s a supernatural event! Not a claim of some mutation. You might as well have brought up the fishes and the loaves…[/quote]
You’re trying to have it both ways. You can’t claim compatibility between science, logic, and faith on one hand, while insisting that logic and science are the products of “fallen man” and hence are unreliable.
I find it amazing that you guys are calling science and logic unreliable, while using faith as your excuse for believing in your particular brand of religion, which even by your own admission is completely lacking in reliable evidence.
Will someone please explain to me how people can feel justified believing something to be true, when by their own admission, there is zero evidence for that belief?
When you dig into it, what you typically find is that they really do believe in “evidence”. Their idea of evidence is a religious experience, which is so profoundly moving that they can’t deny it. However, they refuse to even think about the possibility that this experience comes from very powerful subconscious desires. They also refuse to acknowledge that millions of other people from contradictory religions have had identical experiences. These people are as deeply convinced that their experiences are evidence for their own particular brand of beliefs.
I was addressing the assertion that science and religion are separate when they are undeniably intertwined.[/quote]
Why don’t you just go right ahead and explain how they are intertwined.
[/quote]
Parthenogenesis in mammals. Science.
You make claims about the world that tread on science and expect people to just accept it?
No.[/quote]
Accept it, disregard it, it’s your choice, that’s what God given free will is all about. [/quote]
You claim science and religion are separate. I state that they are not so, giving an example. You go off on a tangent, apparently forgetting what you posted originally.
Well done.[/quote]
You must have the attention span of a gnat. I was talking about your unwillingness to accept what is in front of your face. And that’s your choice as I said.
[quote]forlife wrote:
You’re trying to have it both ways. You can’t claim compatibility between science, logic, and faith on one hand, while insisting that logic and science are the products of “fallen man” and hence are unreliable.
I find it amazing that you guys are calling science and logic unreliable, while using faith as your excuse for believing in your particular brand of religion, which even by your own admission is completely lacking in reliable evidence.
Will someone please explain to me how people can feel justified believing something to be true, when by their own admission, there is zero evidence for that belief?
When you dig into it, what you typically find is that they really do believe in “evidence”. Their idea of evidence is a religious experience, which is so profoundly moving that they can’t deny it. However, they refuse to even think about the possibility that this experience comes from very powerful subconscious desires. They also refuse to acknowledge that millions of other people from contradictory religions have had identical experiences. These people are as deeply convinced that their experiences are evidence for their own particular brand of beliefs.
So who is right???[/quote]
I’ve never stated that science is unreliable. Are you stereotyping again forlife? It’s just that I’ve lived long enough to see science be wrong often enough to know that it has not yet caught up with the Bible. And please don’t tell me that science has never been wrong.
Would you like me to give you a list on the many errors of science through the years. No, you don’t want that do you?
To fairly compare the track record of science vs. the bible, you need to look at the overall contribution of reliable, repeatable facts vs. unreliable, unrepeatable claims.
Are you saying that the bible has contributed more reliable, repeatable facts to the total repository of knowledge than science has done?
If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the statements of several believers in this thread, to the effect that it is impossible to prove god, which is why people are expected to have faith instead?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve never stated that science is unreliable. Are you stereotyping again forlife? It’s just that I’ve lived long enough to see science be wrong often enough to know that it has not yet caught up with the Bible. And please don’t tell me that science has never been wrong.
Would you like me to give you a list on the many errors of science through the years. No, you don’t want that do you?
[/quote]
It hasn’t caught up to the Bible? What does that mean exactly? Does the Bible contain schematics for integrated circuits? Does it mention the laws of thermodynamics? Is there a detailed list of chemical elements in one of the books of the Old Testament? Or a treatise on calculus?
Open up Luke. Read the genealogy of Christ. Then note the fact that the entire thing is redundant and false under the assumption that Jesus is in fact the son of God. You wouldn’t find such a basic mistake in a good peer-reviewed journal.
But do go on and list all of the errors scientists have made. Note I said scientists, as science is simply a method to arrive at truth about the things we can observe and test. I’ll help you out here: the heliocentric model of the universe, Newtonian gravity, the ether.
[quote]forlife wrote:
To fairly compare the track record of science vs. the bible, you need to look at the overall contribution of reliable, repeatable facts vs. unreliable, unrepeatable claims.
Are you saying that the bible has contributed more reliable, repeatable facts to the total repository of knowledge than science has done?
If so, how do you reconcile that claim with the statements of several believers in this thread, to the effect that it is impossible to prove god, which is why people are expected to have faith instead?[/quote]
Now you put words in my mouth - - LOL you’re a real winner.
I am the one who mentioned that faith is not provable. Try to keep up.
[quote]forlife wrote:
How about actually addressing the point, Zeb?
I didn’t say that faith was provable. Obviously, it’s not.
I said that faith is a poor substitute for facts.
Are you honest enough to admit that the bible has produced nowhere near the amount of reliable, repeatable FACTS compared to science?
Or are you going to stand by your assertion that science “has not yet caught up with the Bible”?[/quote]
I am the one who said early in the thread that science is not faith. They are two diametrically opposed topics. Yet, the Godless, like you, want to compare them so badly because in doing so you feel you’ve taken a swipe at God. You and your fellow atheists/agnostics whatever, are pathetic.
Give it a rest - LOL
Science has not yet caught up with the Bible in terms of what it preaches and teaches. This has nothing to do with science vs the Bible. Ha haha you guys are so freakin stupid it’s highly entertaining.
“Go ahead say something about my science…come on I dare youz guyz…” LOL
I don’t think anyone here has claimed that science preaches and teaches more than the bible.
What we’re saying is that science is FAR better at producing repeatable, reliable FACTS compared to the bible.
So again, I’ll ask:
How can people possibly justify belief in something for which, by their own admission, there are ZERO actual supporting facts? They admit to having NO actual knowledge, yet they choose to believe in something because…why? It makes them feel good?
Typically, when you ask this question, believers will about face and start claiming that there really are supporting facts for their beliefs. But when you pursue those claims, all they can come up with is a subjective religious experience, which is directly contradicted by equally powerful subjective religious experiences of millions of other people. In other words, their evidence is useless and cannot be relied upon to tell them what is actually true. Subjective religious experiences don’t cut it, because logically they contradict one another.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’ve never stated that science is unreliable. Are you stereotyping again forlife? It’s just that I’ve lived long enough to see science be wrong often enough to know that it has not yet caught up with the Bible. And please don’t tell me that science has never been wrong.
[/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Science has not yet caught up with the Bible in terms of what it preaches and teaches. This has nothing to do with science vs the Bible. Ha haha you guys are so freakin stupid it’s highly entertaining.
[/quote]
No. I think it’s clear that you are the stupid one. Or perhaps you are mentally ill, I wouldn’t rule that out either.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I don’t think anyone here has claimed that science preaches and teaches more than the bible.[/quote]
Right, but you want the Bible to be some sort of science book. That way you can line up the current science of the day vs that nasty old Bible. How stupid, how very very stupid.
DUH - And I say that you can get more tackles in a football game than in a baseball game. You have no point - NONE
Yeah, I see that coming. You just have to try to belittle God or you’re not happy I get it. And here I was thinking that you were a happy well adjusted person who didn’t need God. You do need God. You need him as a foil otherwise you just don’t know what to do with yourself.
What makes you feel so good when you’re with the one you love forlife? Why don’t you define it? Characterize every detail and tell us at what precise moment that it worked for you and I want specifics. Give me the percentages that you two will stay together for life. And how do you know that it will last. What is it based on? How do you relate at specific times?
See what I’m saying? Some things you cannot measure they just happen - And when it’s a good thing you’re happy that it happened. When you try to put it in a box you find that you cannot.
Stop comparing apples to oranges forlife it doesn’t work. Faith is faith and science is science. If you can’t accept that find another reason to belittle God (you have to work through those anger issues of yours) this one just doesn’t work.
I think Zeb is trying to point out that man does not always understand as much as he would like to believe . Man interprets the things he sees many time incorrectly. I still maintain if there is a God he had to create the operating system and our observations of that system are what we call Science .
