Page 48 of 89 FirstFirst ... 38434445464748495051525358 ... LastLast
Results 941 to 960 of 1780
  1. #941  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    If Christ didn't establish this Church, who did?
    Interesting read
    "Oldest Church" Discovery "Ridiculous," Critics Say
    Stated to be the First church established by 70 disciples 35 yrs after Jesus' death....
    What does that mean if anything IDK? just happened to stumble across this...
    Last edited by gsonspre; 02/25/2010 at 05:49 PM. Reason: bc i cant speell bc im in 3rd grade
  2. #942  
    OK I find this VERY interesting, I would Love input from all sides of the "argument" First I heard of this But touching on my prior post of neuroimaging there is a new wave of scientific experimentation called Neurotheology.... Hmmm

    I find this fascinating bc it tries to comprehend religious beliefs through science... This is what interest ME!
    heres a link, let me all know what you think on this subject, I know where a lot of my reading will be in the short near future!

    neurotheology article
  3. brdl04's Avatar
    Posts
    204 Posts
    Global Posts
    877 Global Posts
    #943  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    OK I find this VERY interesting, I would Love input from all sides of the "argument" First I heard of this But touching on my prior post of neuroimaging there is a new wave of scientific experimentation called Neurotheology.... Hmmm

    I find this fascinating bc it tries to comprehend religious beliefs through science... This is what interest ME!
    heres a link, let me all know what you think on this subject, I know where a lot of my reading will be in the short near future!

    neurotheology article
    Quit reading dan brown books. (lost symbol) they are fiction
  4. #944  
    Quote Originally Posted by brdl04 View Post
    Quit reading dan brown books. (lost symbol) they are fiction
    huh!? Never have... Does he mention Neurotheology?
  5. #945  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think you're confusing me for a Christian. I was responding to another person's question, and I was offering up my understanding of the fundamentalist protestant view.
    Quote Originally Posted by soccerbudd View Post
    I would suggest you watch a video called "The Priviledged Planet". It's chock full of scientists and researchers talking about our planet, it's location within the galaxy, etc. It's extremely interesting. I think you can find it on YouTube pretty easily.

    The information you want is out there, but you have to work a little to find it. The ground-breaking information is available, but today's society and media are extremely one-sided towards evolution, etc. As such, they aren't very interested in broadcasting news that's contrary to their agenda.

    A perfect example is the whole global warming/climate change debacle. I've never believed that man is the sole cause of changes in our climate. When I was getting my meteorology degree, I learned that all of my professors doubted climate change. Even recently, information's come out that the data "proving" climate change has been made up and doctored, but several media outlets still talk about it as if it's 100% fact.

    Anyway, this thread isn't about global warming, so I digress. My point is...information is available. There are lots of resources just waiting to be looked up.

    Like I said, watch the Priviledged Planet and see if that answers any of your questions.

    Thanks,
    Karla
    I appreciate your effort, but I don't want to "watch a video about a bunch of scientists talking about our planet". I want the proof that you mentioned. Give me peer-reviewed journal articles that explain in detail the step-by-step empirical approach used to prove Gods existence; otherwise its merely a bunch of guys discussing it. You say there are "lots of resources just waiting to be looked up". Shouldn't the religious population stop defending itself with subjective claims and simply provide the "scientific resources" and the "proof" you speak of?
  6.    #946  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    Interesting read
    "Oldest Church" Discovery "Ridiculous," Critics Say
    Stated to be the First church established by 70 disciples 35 yrs after Jesus' death....
    What does that mean if anything IDK? just happened to stumble across this...
    I've noticed an error in the articlle already (and I'm not even done reading it yet.) The article (incorrectly) states:
    Scholars widely believe that organized churches didn't exist until at least the third century A.D.
    There is a document called "The Didache" which I understood was dated from sometime between 70-100AD (but some on Wikipedia date it as late as 300AD). This means that the quotation in the article should have read:
    Scholars widely believe that organized churches existed prior to the third century A.D.
    EDIT: OK, I finished reading the article. There's a difference between a "church building" an the Church itself (the body of believers who participated in liturgical worship). Stephen Pfann is quoted in the article as saying the ecclesiastical Church was established before 100AD:
    Biblical scholar Stephen Pfann, president of the University of the Holy Land in Jerusalem, responded cautiously to Al-Housan's reported findings.

    "It sounds rather anachronistic," he said, adding that during the first century, the term "church" or "ekklesia" was used for the assembled body of believersónot the building or catacombs where they were assembling.
    Last edited by sudoer; 02/25/2010 at 06:27 PM.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  7. #947  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I've noticed an error in the articlle already (and I'm not even done reading it yet.) The article (incorrectly) states:

    There is a document called "The Didache" which I understood was dated from sometime between 70-100AD (but some on Wikipedia date it as late as 300AD). This means that the quotation in the article should have read:

    Good Catch! I dont know about this but is there a common belief that Churches started being created around 300 AD? This is a conversation I never had/ thought of or read about so I have no input but thought it may interest some.. Probably why the title stated ridiculousness in the title?
  8.    #948  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    Good Catch! I dont know about this but is there a common belief that Churches started being created around 300 AD? This is a conversation I never had/ thought of or read about so I have no input but thought it may interest some.. Probably why the title stated ridiculousness in the title?
    There is common belief that liturgical practice began in the first century (after Pentecost) in houses of believers. (Nobody disputes this.) The article was disputing the assertion that Jordanian archaeologist Abdel-Qader's assertion that a cave he discovered was formally a place of liturgical worship.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  9. #949  
    Ok makes sense... So what he found was a meeting place? Not necasarily a "church". Did I get that right!?
  10.    #950  
    It could have been used as a meeting place, a hiding place, a storage place, a house of worship, or possibly a combination of any or all of these. They had to worship in secrecy to escape Roman persecution.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  11. #951  
    Cool! I appreciate you taking the time to look into that.
    On a side note I think Neurotheology, will open the doors up to some good discussion!? The last hour of work ive been reading on it, and it is quite fascinating, i feel to any side... It does not answer anything about God but may answer a lot of questions as to why this question will always be in debate! Why you have the Soduer's and the Ryley's... or believers and non...
  12.    #952  
    I've been doing some unrelated study (computer work) so I only took a quick glance at the neurology article. (Perhaps I'm not the only one who didn't give it a thorough read.) If you think a summary of it's main points (or any takeaways you gained from it) would be interesting, please feel free to share enough to generate more interest. -thx!
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  13. #953  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I've been doing some unrelated study (computer work) so I only took a quick glance at the neurology article. (Perhaps I'm not the only one who didn't give it a thorough read.) If you think a summary of it's main points (or any takeaways you gained from it) would be interesting, please feel free to share enough to generate more interest. -thx!
    I will, I am finishing up work now. I'll wait to see what posts surface tomorrow and maybe I'll throw some highlights up... See (read) everyone tomorrow
  14. #954  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Exactly! Thank you! I wasn't taking a position, just pointing to this twist of logic. So, another spin on this paradox could be: if they are misled, or misunderstanding, the scripture, are they saved? If the pastor misleads his flock (knowingly or not), are they all damned?

    It does if you're trying to sell them on a different idea of Christianity. I've sat in Protestant pews listening to sermons about salvation. I've had ministers tell me directly that yes, if der fuhrer accepted Christ before he died, he was saved and went to heaven. I'm not saying its right or wrong. I'm just saying it's taught.
    It was tongue in cheek.... hence the coke/pepsi challenge reference.
    Huh?! Where have I been unclear on where I stand? Which question did I dodge? I bet I've stated at least 5 times in this thread that I'm not a Christian. Does that mean I should remain silent? Should I not talk about my (mis)understanding of Christianity?

    Great. Maybe we'll just end it with that.
    I didn't. You just chose to take it that way. My first sentence on this particular part of the discussion was "If I understand Protestant Christianity, and please correct me, but the answer basically boils down to this:"

    How challenging was that? You won't be challenged again by me.
    I feel absolutely embarrassed.
    I went back and reread your and my posts.
    I really did get you all wrong.
    I felt offended by your phrasing and choice of wording, and misunderstood your goal.
    Please accept my sincere apology.
    Just call me Berd.
  15. #955  
    There's been a lot of stress in the forums lately.
    Tempers are flaring. There's lots of issues in the world that I believe are weighing on a lot of people. And it's carrying over to many areas of our lives. I'm not exempt. I became extra sensitive regarding this topic and I lost my cool, and I apologize to all.
    Just call me Berd.
  16. #956  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    I appreciate your effort, but I don't want to "watch a video about a bunch of scientists talking about our planet". I want the proof that you mentioned. Give me peer-reviewed journal articles that explain in detail the step-by-step empirical approach used to prove Gods existence; otherwise its merely a bunch of guys discussing it. You say there are "lots of resources just waiting to be looked up". Shouldn't the religious population stop defending itself with subjective claims and simply provide the "scientific resources" and the "proof" you speak of?
    Look, no one can know anything with 100% certainty except that they exist. That's were faith comes in. Let's assume you drive over a bridge every day to get to work. Do I have to prove to you the bridge will never fall when you're crossing it? No. You assume you'll get across safely; that it was built well, is up to code, etc.

    My point is, I could give you proof until I'm blue in the face, and it's still your choice to believe it or not. The video I mentioned is "not a a bunch of scientists discussing our planet". It's scientists laying out data, providing studies and giving explanations for how our planet (and the universe) could not have "magically" formed from nothing. There is proof in the video, but you have to be willing to at least view it. If not, I can't help you.

    Why should I hunt down articles and journals knowing you may not even want to read them?

    People need to be willing to do some searching themselves. I can't make you believe anything, but I can give you my opinion and provide some basic resources. It's up to you to get your hands a little dirty, research and study resources on both sides and then make up your own mind.
  17. #957  
    Quote Originally Posted by soccerbudd View Post
    Look, no one can know anything with 100% certainty except that they exist. That's were faith comes in. Let's assume you drive over a bridge every day to get to work. Do I have to prove to you the bridge will never fall when you're crossing it? No. You assume you'll get across safely; that it was built well, is up to code, etc.

    My point is, I could give you proof until I'm blue in the face, and it's still your choice to believe it or not. The video I mentioned is "not a a bunch of scientists discussing our planet". It's scientists laying out data, providing studies and giving explanations for how our planet (and the universe) could not have "magically" formed from nothing. There is proof in the video, but you have to be willing to at least view it. If not, I can't help you.

    Why should I hunt down articles and journals knowing you may not even want to read them?

    People need to be willing to do some searching themselves. I can't make you believe anything, but I can give you my opinion and provide some basic resources. It's up to you to get your hands a little dirty, research and study resources on both sides and then make up your own mind.
    This video is not science sorry. This is creationism which is not science and has been proven in court more than once. Also, the scientist in this video are not well received by their peers because there is nothing to be learned from it. This is a god of gaps theory. I tried to watch it based on your recommendation and made it half way through and there was nothing new in this. If there is no science by half way through i doubt there is any at all.
    I just hope you are not a teacher anywhere - no offense, I am sure you are a sweet person but you don't know what science is.
  18. #958  
    Quote Originally Posted by soccerbudd View Post
    Look, no one can know anything with 100% certainty except that they exist. That's were faith comes in.
    It is at this quintessential point that you and I diverge. Millions of scientific facts, some meaningless, some extremely significant, and many in between, have been proven "100%" and are infallible. Examples:

    Gravity
    Spontaneous cellular mutation
    Table of elements
    Magnetism
    DNA code
    e=mc2
    etc.

    Scientific facts, or laws, are independent of observation, i.e. they exist in nature, are observable, empiric, etc. whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. Faith is the opposite -- believing in something you cannot see, cannot test, and cannot reproduce. To me, faith is believing because you want to, nothing more. I can have faith that when an apple falls from the top of a tree it will head skyward, or that a man (with help from the big guy) parted an ocean, but the laws of science trump that faith every time.

    Anyway, I will continue to wait patiently for proof of Gods existence, because I think that would be pretty neat. And maybe I will look into the video you mention, but it sounds similar to Al Gores video on global warming -- a bunch of data with no reproducible proof. Until then, I enjoy looking into these topics to check on the opinion of the day.
  19.    #959  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Anyway, I will continue to wait patiently for proof of Gods existence, because I think that would be pretty neat.
    I hope you get that chance (which will only occur in the beatific vision in Heaven), but you need to be searching (rather than just waiting) in order to have any chance of that happening. Sorry if this sounds like "Santa Claus" but it looks like God requires at least a small "leaf of faith".
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #960  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    It is at this quintessential point that you and I diverge. Millions of scientific facts, some meaningless, some extremely significant, and many in between, have been proven "100%" and are infallible. Examples:

    Gravity
    Spontaneous cellular mutation
    Table of elements
    Magnetism
    DNA code
    e=mc2
    etc.

    Scientific facts, or laws, are independent of observation, i.e. they exist in nature, are observable, empiric, etc. whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. Faith is the opposite -- believing in something you cannot see, cannot test, and cannot reproduce. To me, faith is believing because you want to, nothing more. I can have faith that when an apple falls from the top of a tree it will head skyward, or that a man (with help from the big guy) parted an ocean, but the laws of science trump that faith every time.

    Anyway, I will continue to wait patiently for proof of Gods existence, because I think that would be pretty neat. And maybe I will look into the video you mention, but it sounds similar to Al Gores video on global warming -- a bunch of data with no reproducible proof. Until then, I enjoy looking into these topics to check on the opinion of the day.
    Ouch, I hope you are not claiming that global warming is not occurring because of Al Gores video. The fact is the recent controversy was due to scientist not telling us that the problem is bigger than we were told. I am not a fan of Al Gore (the guy is too full of himself) but global warming is fact. This is also supported by practically every scientist out there (also many who spoke against it in recent years have changed their minds and now support it). I think what CAN be argued about global warming is the cause - that is where there are many different opinions (lookup global cooling - a group of scientist who claim humans many not be the main reason for the temperature changes that ARE occurring). However, the facts are the planet is warming but this could be due to natural causes, human causes, etc.
    The scientific consensus is that increasing earth temperature is occurring. So, I may have misunderstood but I wanted to add that.
    Last edited by donovan34; 02/26/2010 at 11:16 AM.

Posting Permissions