“To Believe is To Obey”

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#393 Aug 31, 2012
FSM wrote:
<quoted text>That's all well and good, but how much of it is going to satisfy a skeptic?
There is no answer that can be given to satisfy, until God wills to reveal His word to him. Until then, all we can do is testify and share our faith, and love and pray for those skeptics.

“To Believe is To Obey”

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#394 Aug 31, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
lol Like evolutionists pin all their hopes on science books and fossils of extinct species. Imagine having a relationship with fossils.
I suppose that is the irony. Fossils, dry bones, can never bring life. Only Jesus can do that. So those who put their trust in science or anything other than Christ, can only expect that, death. They call us silly or ignorant, but how wise is it to put trust into bones, which can only lead to the grave?

“Call sign: Apache One Six”

Since: Mar 11

US 62 @ US 81

#395 Aug 31, 2012
Punisher wrote:
Specious.
When you/others post a Bible passage/s you are RELYING on thousands of other commentators well before you as to what it means and why its important. Those are not Your ideas, your work - its the ideas and work of many, many others. So dont play the "I want your knowledge" card, when you/others do the same things....
Bulk wrap, some people have studied the Biblical languages and have the language resources to address any question.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#396 Aug 31, 2012
Deirdre222 wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose that is the irony. Fossils, dry bones, can never bring life. Only Jesus can do that. So those who put their trust in science or anything other than Christ, can only expect that, death. They call us silly or ignorant, but how wise is it to put trust into bones, which can only lead to the grave?
No one "puts their trust in bones," Deirdre. However, science knows what it knows, and that includes that evolution happened.

This is from the Biology Department at Baylor University, "the largest Baptist University in the world."
http://www.baylor.edu/biology/index.php...

Statement on Evolution
"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

And from Baylor's Geology Department:

"Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact.""
Sola Scriptura

Charleston, WV

#397 Aug 31, 2012
Deirdre222 wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose that is the irony. Fossils, dry bones, can never bring life. Only Jesus can do that. So those who put their trust in science or anything other than Christ, can only expect that, death. They call us silly or ignorant, but how wise is it to put trust into bones, which can only lead to the grave?
Science is a great tool for mankind when used properly. It is when science tries to become a theology book and promotes evolution over the Creation of God and then when it tries to posit life somehow came from non-life.
The Agnostic Buddhist

Havelock, NC

#398 Aug 31, 2012
Hi guys, the skeptics back with another question that you prbaly cant answer, but here goes anyways:

Considering all that we know today, how do you continue to justify your belief in Christianity? If you must cling to the idea of a deity, then would'nt Deism be a much more logical choice? Any objective study of the christian scripture is gonna lead you out of the faith...put that together with science and the many philosophical arguements against it, how do you continue?

Thanks

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

#399 Aug 31, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhhh, no. I asked you boil it down in a few paragraphs. Don't give me a whole website. That only shows you have no idea how to use your own knowledge to simply explain it. Evolution ain't that complicated but that is what you "intellectuals" rely on. All the big five dollar words and university explanations hide the fact that evolution, simply put, is a hypothesis that really can't be proven.
I'm not an intellectual. I merely have a reasonable education and an understanding I don't know everything. As to the link I provided, there is a plethora of information there. If you really want to know about evolution (which I very much doubt) it's a good place to start.

“Naturalism - Nature is Enough”

Since: Nov 07

Made in Yorkshire

#400 Aug 31, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
The only comment that could be made is that atheists don't know as much as they think they do. It did NOT bash religion all that bad but the atheist came away with a whole different mindset.
It was a film. A work of fiction. Whatever happened in it was because the screen play writers put it in.
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
Is something going to have to happen to you as extreme as it did Fosters character to make you think that maybe after all these years, you may be wrong?
The only thing which will change my mind is your deity materialising in my living room with a host of angels, the members of AC /DC, a Sinner Mango trike amd giving live performances of "Giving the Dog a Bone. and "A Wholw Lotta Rosie".

“Michin yeoja”

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#401 Aug 31, 2012
Roland_Deschain wrote:
<quoted text>
It was a film. A work of fiction. Whatever happened in it was because the screen play writers put it in.
<quoted text>
The only thing which will change my mind is your deity materialising in my living room with a host of angels, the members of AC /DC, a Sinner Mango trike amd giving live performances of "Giving the Dog a Bone. and "A Wholw Lotta Rosie".
I had a whole lot of Rosie once. Hey...I was drunk but I still kinda liked it.



When she woke up and saw another girl next to her? She still calls me :p
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#402 Sep 1, 2012
The Agnostic Buddhist wrote:
Hi guys, the skeptics back with another question that you prbaly cant answer, but here goes anyways:
Considering all that we know today, how do you continue to justify your belief in Christianity? If you must cling to the idea of a deity, then would'nt Deism be a much more logical choice? Any objective study of the christian scripture is gonna lead you out of the faith...put that together with science and the many philosophical arguements against it, how do you continue?
Thanks
Hi AB!

I don't think these are difficult questions at all. Off hand, without going into detail, what we know today, if anything, re enhances my belief.

Deism is actually quite illogical in my opinion. It's actually, IMO, quite close-minded, as far as how it is presented by the conventional deist.

As far as science goes, I have to first ask, are you a scientist by profession? If so, which field of science?

As far as the many philosophies etc., I don't see why they would/should present a conflict. I assume that you are a Buddhist. I 'highly' question 'that' religion/philosophy. How do 'you' justify Buddhism (or just give a brief synopsis of your view of Buddhism, philosophy, science, etc.)?
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#403 Sep 1, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I’m not sure why you are having so much trouble understanding the meaning of the word “hearsay”.
hear•say (n)- second-hand information: information that is heard from other people

2. If Josephus was 1 or 2 years old at the time of Jesus’ death anything he wrote about Jesus would have to be “hearsay” by definition of the word “hearsay”. Anything he wrote about Jesus could not possibly be from first-hand knowledge. If what a person writes is not from first-hand knowledge it is “hearsay”.
It's not the 'meaning' of 'hearsay' that's a problem. Technically, all historians refer to 'hearsay' when they write about there various subjects. For instance, can you provide me the name of any one 'modern' historian who writes about George Washington, that actually 'met' George Washington?

The term 'hearsay' often has a negative connotation. Particularly when it's applied to any 'historian' like 'Josephus'. In other words, you can't play 'innocent' here. Josephus was a 'historian'. You tell any 'modern' historian that he/she wrote 'hearsay', he/she will probably be offended. Either because of the extensive 'research' they've done; or by the relative close association to their subject (someone from their hometown, their ethnicity or nationality, etc.) that qualifies them respect to their expertise.

Can you prove that William Shakespeare really existed? How about his daughters who are said to have been illiterate? No writings other than living an ink mark.

And you didn't answer my question:

If Jesus 'did' do His own writing, how would that affect your belief?

2. I was merely calling you on a technicality. As I recall, you stated that if one did not live at the same time as the subject being addressed, anything that person states is 'hearsay'. Obviously if Josephus was 2 years old at the death of Christ, he would have been alive during part of Christ's life. Not a big deal though, but I suspect the term 'hearsay' gets tossed around when 'convenient'.
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#404 Sep 1, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>

I am also not sure why you would judge it “unlikely” that Saul had epilepsy when a person who has first-hand knowledge of the symptoms and signs of epilepsy says that the biblical account of Saul’s conversion is consistent with epilepsy. And other verses in the bible indicate that Paul had some sort of a chronic affliction. In the real world epilepsy is a much more rational and likely explanation for the events described than a supernatural mystical experience.
“A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence.”- David Hume
There's absolutely 'nothing' written to suggest that Paul had epilepsy. He probably had an infirmity, which from what has been written, points to bad eyesight (he apparently didn't see the snake that bit him on Malta for instance). Again, nothing towards 'epilepsy'. The only reason why it makes sense to some, is because they feel a need to explain the supernatural. They're uncomfortable with the references to the supernatural, so they have to look for an explanation that if anything creates more problems than solutions.

As I stated before, if we took all of the off-the-wall theories to try and justify the supernatural in the Bible, the book would resemble a French comedy where everyone is confused. Or an Abbott & Costello type movie where Bud & Lou think they've landed on the planet Mars, but actually landed in New Orleans....during 'Mardi Gras'.

To reference to the Jesus walking on ice theory for instance, we have to assume that the disciples were too dense to know that it was ice Jesus was waling which they had been floating 'around'. And Peter wasn't smart enough to know that 'he' stepped out on ice (or until it broke).
Job

Santa Clara, CA

#405 Sep 1, 2012
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
It doesn’t matter whether or not I desire to have a “personal relationship” with members of my family the circumstance of life have made it a necessity. There are one or two that I would prefer not to have to relate to, but at family gatherings I have no choice.

2. The fact that you have a subjective “feeling” that you have personal relationship with Jesus means nothing more than you have a subjective personal feeling. Subjective personal feelings are notoriously unreliable no matter how real they seem. Many people have the personal subjective feeling that they love someone only to find out their feeling was wrong a year or two later. Paranoid schizophrenics have the subjective personal feeling that everyone is against them and mystics of all types claim to have the subjective personal feeling of being transported to whichever heaven they believe in. Whatever value you attach to your subjective personal feelings (other than simply personal subjective feeling) there is no assurance that it has anything to do with the real world.
Then all you are saying is that my “God” is better than your “God”?
1. Yes, I took for granted that there are some relatives that you see more out of obligation, or would prefer not to see at all. I'm sure that you choose/have a desire to have a personal 'relationship' with 'some' relatives, usually closer knit (wife, children, etc.) in their respective format? Do you have a desire to have a personal relationship with the (or in your case 'a', or a 'possible') Creator?

2. As I stated before, I don't deny 'anyone's' professed spiritual experience. I often think they are 'genuine'. If they are contradictory to 'my' experience, then I'm willing to compare notes with them, as opposed to 'writing' them off. However, there's not many people willing to do that. Certainly not here. There's a particular individual here for instance who maintains having a 'god' experience who thinks Christianity is a lie. He seems very hesitant to give any real detail. Seems more poised to just critique (to put it rather mildly) the beliefs of Christians. We all have things that are 'personal', but why 'smokescreen' one's belief? I've tried finding out the relationship between some pagans on topix with some of the pagan gods like Odin. Not much success. One association with Zeus, upon a rather indirect confession from the poster, was one of merely a 'parody' on Christianity.

I don't question your 'skepticism'. I question your etched-in-stone knowledge of how my belief pattern works.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#406 Sep 1, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the 'meaning' of 'hearsay' that's a problem. Technically, all historians refer to 'hearsay' when they write about there various subjects. For instance, can you provide me the name of any one 'modern' historian who writes about George Washington, that actually 'met' George Washington?
The term 'hearsay' often has a negative connotation. Particularly when it's applied to any 'historian' like 'Josephus'. In other words, you can't play 'innocent' here. Josephus was a 'historian'. You tell any 'modern' historian that he/she wrote 'hearsay', he/she will probably be offended. Either because of the extensive 'research' they've done; or by the relative close association to their subject (someone from their hometown, their ethnicity or nationality, etc.) that qualifies them respect to their expertise.
Can you prove that William Shakespeare really existed? How about his daughters who are said to have been illiterate? No writings other than living an ink mark.
And you didn't answer my question:
If Jesus 'did' do His own writing, how would that affect your belief?
2. I was merely calling you on a technicality. As I recall, you stated that if one did not live at the same time as the subject being addressed, anything that person states is 'hearsay'. Obviously if Josephus was 2 years old at the death of Christ, he would have been alive during part of Christ's life. Not a big deal though, but I suspect the term 'hearsay' gets tossed around when 'convenient'.
The biggest problem with hearsay as it applies to the Bible is the miracles and, of course, God.

Spectacular claims require spectacular evidence.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#407 Sep 1, 2012
Allen Richards wrote:
<quoted text>
Bulk wrap, some people have studied the Biblical languages and have the language resources to address any question.
Yes, there are those that very well may have that tool in their toolbox...but even if you could read, say ancient Hebrew, of which there are but a handful of people alive who can (ancient Hebrew, not Hebrew of the CE) or the Greek, or the Aramaic (again a small class)- you would be relying on what has already been said about scripture. You would be relying on decided doctrines.

You must realize there is a very wide gap between reading the Bible as an Advocate, and critically/academically. If one approaches it from a purely advocacy POV, than its very possible to never see the many issues in the texts. Whereas those who approach it critically/academically will and do. Its where many who enter Bible and Xtian studies find a themselves at a very important crossroads, laden with a very important Q; "do I forge ahead ignoring the issues, and remain a Bible is Infallible/Inerrant type, or move to a rational, more logical POV about it and all of which is derived from it?"

I refer you to the works of Bart Ehrman PhD., as one (read that again - ONE, 1) example.

http://ehrmanblog.org/category/public-forum/

Plus, one MUST include a very full knowledge of History of the current time period in which scripture was written to understand the languages better. Anymore than can be done with most languages. One cant read English works from the 1700's and not consider the meanings of terms, etc of the time that are no longer commonly known or even simply lost to time. The same holds for the KJV. Many terms in that book, like the term righteous, are not what we would define them as today. Historical and cultural context IS VERY important in these matters.

But the reality of my other post stands unshaken. Modern American Bible readers, Like SS/Wayne and most of those here (you too?)- are relying on thousands of years of Interpretations, Theology and decided doctrinal teachings - and are NOT ever reading in isolation. No one here reads the Bible without relying on the past 2K (plus a few more K's) years of interpretations and commentary.

More importantly no one here or for that matter the majority in the pews is reading the Bible and coming to any conclusions on their own, and none that don't agree with what they are told they mean.

That's the non-bulk wrap point.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#408 Sep 1, 2012
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not the 'meaning' of 'hearsay' that's a problem. Technically, all historians refer to 'hearsay' when they write about there various subjects. For instance, can you provide me the name of any one 'modern' historian who writes about George Washington, that actually 'met' George Washington?
The term 'hearsay' often has a negative connotation. Particularly when it's applied to any 'historian' like 'Josephus'. In other words, you can't play 'innocent' here. Josephus was a 'historian'. You tell any 'modern' historian that he/she wrote 'hearsay', he/she will probably be offended. Either because of the extensive 'research' they've done; or by the relative close association to their subject (someone from their hometown, their ethnicity or nationality, etc.) that qualifies them respect to their expertise.
Can you prove that William Shakespeare really existed? How about his daughters who are said to have been illiterate? No writings other than living an ink mark.
And you didn't answer my question:
If Jesus 'did' do His own writing, how would that affect your belief?
2. I was merely calling you on a technicality. As I recall, you stated that if one did not live at the same time as the subject being addressed, anything that person states is 'hearsay'. Obviously if Josephus was 2 years old at the death of Christ, he would have been alive during part of Christ's life. Not a big deal though, but I suspect the term 'hearsay' gets tossed around when 'convenient'.
If it could be justifiably stated that we KNOW Jesus wrote some of his stuff down...it would hopefully create a thread of writings/copies "closer to the bone". We'd hope...and not these much more distant writings.

A great example of this that I like, is this. Imagine if no one had written a thing down about Pres. Eisenhower. Nothing whatsoever was written. And then 30+ years after he died (1969) in 1999-ish, someone (who is never actually identified) began to write down what was in oral circulation. What sort of story about him would we receive?

Then others who are never identified, do the same and borrow from this other writer, adding stuff of their own too...than someone comes along who is legally killing many who are fans of Dwight, than this person begins his/her comments on what is circulating (oral and written) and bases his/her interpretations on a "vision" that corrects his/her POV to align with those He/she has been killing...

Imagine that taking place today...
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#409 Sep 1, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
No. If the atheist and liberal "intellectuals" didn't come up with the idea of evolution and its philosophy centuries ago you wouldn't have one original thought of your own to explain it. You would just still be walking around hating God and not belieing in Him without a reason. Evolution gave you that reason and you have been riding the same old dead horse ever since.

Bottom line of evolution is we used to crawl in the mud and now we walk. Period. ANd it is a impossibel theory to prove, that why everything conveniently happened billions of years ago.
Well since the very origins of atheism, non-Creator thinking and analysis predate Xtianity, you're wrong. The Greeks had already started the ball rolling in 6BCE...offering reality, natural world explanations of well...the Natural World, that didnt rely on Gods.

And for the thousandth time. Evo Theory has nothing to do with my Atheism. Never entered the equation. What did and only did was what Religions say about the Supernatural - and in this case Xtianity, since it was my Original (and only) Religion.

Like I said, this is all you guys ever have. Inane and ridiculously simple remarks..."Bottom line of evolution is we used to crawl in the mud and now we walk. Period. ANd it is a impossibel theory to prove, that why everything conveniently happened billions of years ago."

Its a series of silly sentences. Showing not a desire to learn, or ask honest questions - but to show a closed mind, and vilify first and foremost.
Punisher

Massapequa, NY

#410 Sep 1, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok. Produce the pre-human animal that changed into a man. The one right BEFORE we became human.
Okay, produce the spot where your God took a handful of mud/clay and formed Adam.
FSM

Highett, Australia

#411 Sep 1, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
Ok. Produce the pre-human animal that changed into a man. The one right BEFORE we became human.
I usually like to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you want the truth (the generally applied definition of the word) because I think you mean well. I just don't think you're honest with yourself.

What you've done is put the discussion outside the bounds of reality by applying standards of evidence for evolution that you wont apply to your own faith. It's the same as an atheist saying there is no evidence for god, then refusing to say what would constitute evidence for god(s) for them, or putting their claim for evidence outside the realm of any realistic possibility.
FSM

Highett, Australia

#412 Sep 1, 2012
Deirdre222 wrote:
There is no answer that can be given to satisfy, until God wills to reveal His word to him. Until then, all we can do is testify and share our faith, and love and pray for those skeptics.
The only Christians who make me think about anything these days are those who are honest about their faith, both to me and to themselves. I can think of only six believers who meet that requirement, four of which I've met on topix.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who stole the keys to Heaven? 4 min Nc resident 378
Does this mean that the Jews are the antichrists? 12 min Ezekial 3
Master Shem has appointed me to answer question... 28 min Ezekial 1
No Jew nor Greek in Christ... 28 min ol fuddy duddy 9
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 30 min messianic114 3,044
Bible says Satan will be Destroyed, Not Live Fo... (Apr '10) 43 min ol fuddy duddy 540
Why would God not tell the Jews about hell or t... 54 min messianic114 586
Are World Events Pointing to End Times 2 hr Strel 988
A Message from Nettie (Feb '14) 8 hr Hell-Sucks 1,429
•••

Christian People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••