Page 54 of 89 FirstFirst ... 444495051525354555657585964 ... LastLast
Results 1,061 to 1,080 of 1780
  1. #1061  
    But if he was to frequent strip bars and say it's ok because he's saved...

  2. #1062  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Eccl. 9:11-12
    Thanks. I'll check that out.
    Btw:
    Aren't "natural" disasters considered to be by the hand of a power greater than man?
  3.    #1063  
    Strip bars are degrading to women. Entering one is minimally a near occasion of sin for anyone and will result in sin like 99/100 times anyway. It was several years ago when I was not regularly going to church, and I was going with friends.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  4. #1064  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    But if he was to frequent strip bars and say it's ok because he's saved...

    LoL
  5. #1065  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    ........ It was several years ago when I was not regularly going to church, and I was going with friends.
    Uh huh.
  6.    #1066  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbd View Post
    Uh huh.
    I'm being honest. Sorry if you don't like that.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  7. #1067  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm being honest. Sorry if you don't like that.
    I do, i'm just kidding.
    I completely appreciate your honesty.
  8. #1068  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    While belief of what is stated in the Bible certainly requires faith, I'd suggest that most people believe many things on faith.
    Agreed, most people do.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    You said that you make decisions on observable knowledge, and of that I have no doubt, but how many things do you (and anyone) accept without any direct observation of any kind? Even when it is available, I highly doubt that people actually take time to investigate and verify most things they believe. That's where the "plausible" part comes in.
    Agreed, it would be impossible to investigate everything that escaped a person's first-person observation.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Is it plausible to believe that Christopher Columbus lived and did the things he was said to do? Sure, pretty much, but we really don't have a good way of verifying any account of the man's life or what he actually did. We basically accept it. If you believe in Evolution for example, unless you are a biologist you probably don't understand the details, even if you do understand the basic premise, and as such, it seems that one must accept that others are correct in their findings--and as such this isn't based on observation, its based on faith in someone else's observations. Even if they wrote it all out for you to inspect, you are trusting that the data is correct.
    I am trusting the historical data in correct. But if the historical account of Columbus included him parting the Atlantic ocean, instead of sailing across it, that would require a present-day demonstration for me to believe it was possible. And evolution -- we see that evidence daily, it's empiric, and available to be refuted. In other words, some scientists say evolution happened, some religious people say it did not, but the evidence is plausible and there is reproducible science behind it.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    It seems that, no historical event, prior to some reviewable recording can be confirmed as having happened, because there is no possibility to verify any of it. Even if there are 100 accounts that agree, we are required to trust that those are both accurate and real. Yet, we accept thousands if not millions of things happened in the past.
    Correct, we accept millions of past occurrences as historical fact. But some accept more than others. Some are more liberal in their selection process of what to accept and others, myself included, are more stringent. And then, as you have pointed out before, emotions and politics enter the fray. Many modern people don't believe the holocaust existed, despite the mass graves, the concentration camps and gas chambers (available to be viewed today as part of a tour!), and the survivors first-person accounts. These people are politically or emotionally clouded despite the objective facts that are available today.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Essentially, it is highly unlikely that any person has either the opportunity or the capacity to observe and verify the millions of things we accept as "Truth." My point--we all believe things on faith.
    Still disagree. We should not assume there is ONLY faith and first-person observation. I don't need faith to know the sun will rise tomorrow (and I certainly can't prove it will), it's an observable pattern for both you and I. Even if I die today, the sun will rise tomorrow with or without my being here to see it. That is not faith, I can't know it to be true, yet logic and reason tells me it will happen.

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    The question isn't whether someone claims if something CAN be verified as truth, but whether one even bothers to try. I claim that more often than not, we simply don't bother.
    Agree 100%

    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    Why? Because we have faith that it IS plausible, and IS factual. Even if we believe something CAN be scientifically proven, if we don't actually do that ourselves, then the actual difference between believing that and believing something that doesn't appear to be provable is negligible.

    KAM
    Here I think we might have a simple issue of semantics. You might be using the word faith where I would choose the words rational assumption. There is a difference, I believe. Faith might involve a feeling or emotion or a strong sense from within for a lot of people; a rational assumption is typically objective, testable, and explainable. What do you think?
  9. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #1069  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Agreed, most people do.

    Agreed, it would be impossible to investigate everything that escaped a person's first-person observation.
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    I am trusting the historical data in correct. But if the historical account of Columbus included him parting the Atlantic ocean, instead of sailing across it, that would require a present-day demonstration for me to believe it was possible. And evolution -- we see that evidence daily, it's empiric, and available to be refuted. In other words, some scientists say evolution happened, some religious people say it did not, but the evidence is plausible and there is reproducible science behind it.
    Well, that first assumes that there is no spicing up of these things. But that's not really the point. I'm talking about the means in which someone believes something. Keep in mind, what is easily understood by you was likely impossible to someone in the past, and likely what someone in the future would consider possible might seem impossible to you. The point here is that our perceptions aren't at all perfect.

    Some things do have scientific data behind them, and theoretically they could be investigated or personally verified...but they aren't. I have a general belief in evolution, but I have not verified a single instance of it myself. I believe it on faith. I guess what I'm saying is that for an individual, who claims to believe things based on evidence, the possibility of proof doesn't mean anything. Either you have or have not proven it by experience. The belief that you COULD do it, isn't the same as having done it.

    Do you see the distinction I'm making. Belief that something is provable is just that--belief, and as you agree--we simply do not live our lives like that--no one does. So my point is...HOW we believe things is the same, even though what we believe or do not believe is different.


    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Correct, we accept millions of past occurrences as historical fact. But some accept more than others. Some are more liberal in their selection process of what to accept and others, myself included, are more stringent. And then, as you have pointed out before, emotions and politics enter the fray. Many modern people don't believe the holocaust existed, despite the mass graves, the concentration camps and gas chambers (available to be viewed today as part of a tour!), and the survivors first-person accounts. These people are politically or emotionally clouded despite the objective facts that are available today.
    Yes, but go back a few hundred years--we have no first person accounts, no film, video, photos, and very little physical evidence for most things, and where there is, we only related it because we believe some account--none of it.

    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Still disagree. We should not assume there is ONLY faith and first-person observation. I don't need faith to know the sun will rise tomorrow (and I certainly can't prove it will), it's an observable pattern for both you and I. Even if I die today, the sun will rise tomorrow with or without my being here to see it. That is not faith, I can't know it to be true, yet logic and reason tells me it will happen.
    Right, there is observation, faith, and also reasoning--inductive and deductive. You reason that the sun will rise tomorrow, because you know basically how it works, and you understand that it is highly unlikely NOT to happen, because of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Agree 100%
    Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Here I think we might have a simple issue of semantics. You might be using the word faith where I would choose the words rational assumption. There is a difference, I believe. Faith might involve a feeling or emotion or a strong sense from within for a lot of people; a rational assumption is typically objective, testable, and explainable. What do you think?
    Yes, I don't mean to imply religious faith. I can have a belief based on a rational assumption, but it remains a belief if it isn't verified, tested or directly observed (and even then perception comes into play).

    I'd agree that a Rational assumption is something you can test, but again--unless you DO test it...it remains a belief.

    It's clear that you see my point, whether you really agree with it or see it as I do. My conclusion is that people such as yourself and myself really aren't all that different. We believe things we do not prove or directly observe--and most of the time we don't even try. The difference is in WHAT we believe, not that we do believe.

    KAM
  10. #1070  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Just wanted to point out that the serpent of the garden was not the devil, but an animal, that God punished for his actions by having him crawl on his belly in the dirt etc, etc,
    Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong until AFTER they ate the apple. So as they ate it, they didn't know that it was wrong to do so. So punishing them for doing something they didn't know they shouldn't do seems wrong to me.
    They did know that God created them. They did know that God told them not to eat it. The question may be; did God really create them with the inability to decide to obey or not to obey?
    If they were really unable to obey, then God would be unjust to hold them accountable for something they didn't 'know' was wrong. They did know that it was wrong because Eve repeated back God's command that they were not to eat from it.

    So put it in this light; who decides what is good or evil? Who knows what it is truly good or evil? God does. Did Adam and Eve want to make this decision for themselves? Did they want to be the ones to decide what was good or evil for themselves? Yes, they rejected God's authority as to what was good for them, and what would cause them harm. We continue to make stupid choices. Do we really know what is good or evil, or are we choosing for ourselves what we consider good or evil? We continue to reject God's guidelines, and continue to reap the consequences.


    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    The god (small g on purpose) in that story can't be God because he fails two definitions of God, namely Omni-Presence and Omniscience. He was not present in the garden and did not know who put who up to eating the apple. Adam blamed Eve after questioning and Eve blamed the serpent (who, once again, was not Satan). The story says specifically that God asks them who told them they were naked, and asks if they ate of the tree. If he were either present everywhere or all knowing he would have known already, as it happened, and not have to ask.
    To illustrate:
    A parent saw his child throw the rock through the neighbors window. And yet he asks the child if he did it.
    Just call me Berd.
  11. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1071  
    Quote Originally Posted by Colonel Kernel View Post
    Not quite. In the sense that you mean, I am certain the I AM lacking. The truth, what ever it may be, exists, but I do not ascribe to said truth to any degree. The believer, be they athiest or Christian, by believing what they do, has the possibility of being at least partially right. I have made no such assertion to be either correct or incorrect about.

    In the sense that you mean, you are referring to athiests, which I am not. It is the athiest that believes their beliefs are not lacking. If there is a god, of what ever flavor, then they were lacking all along.

    I was referring to socially. I am as socially valid as you or any one else. Even if someone's beliefs are closer to The Truth, they are not better than me. I am not lacking.
    Ah, well, I certainly agree with you there. And I hope you weren't given the impression by anyone here that you are.
  12. #1072  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
    Um, not even the same testament, much less book.

    Gen 3:1
    Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made.


    He was a creature, that God made. They may call the Devil a serpent at different spots too, but that doesn't mean all serpents are Satan.

    Gen 3:14-15
    The LORD God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, cursed are you above all cattle, and above all wild animals; upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
    I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."


    Now, whatever else you believe, if you are religious in the least you believe that when God says something he means it and it sticks. If the serpent was Satan, he would not be in hell, he would be on the ground, eating dirt, and trying to bruise my heel.
  13. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1073  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Actually I am not. My rational mind (at least I strive to be rational) makes decisions based on observable knowledge and plausible logic over time -- neither of these habits involve absolute truth or faith. 2 + 2 = 4, that is truth. Believing the fantastic tales in the bible, that is faith. The rational laws of nature, employed objectively, operate with or without faith and sometimes point to absolute truth, with or without a rational mind in observance.

    Love the Darwin quote, I'll have to write that down.
    I think the key to what you said was "observable knowledge and plausible logic". Both of these employ somewhat subjective tools: namely, your perception, your ability to reason, and your scope of knowledge at the time. Would you agree that all of these tools are points of possible failure?
  14. #1074  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I think the key to what you said was "observable knowledge and plausible logic". Both of these employ somewhat subjective tools: namely, your perception and your ability to reason. Would you agree that both of these tools are points of possible failure?
    Are you saying that since your observations and logic could both be flawed in some way I should discard them and instead believe in things that can only be imagined, and not ever observed or explained in a logical way?

    For that matter, are you actually saying that observation and logic are more subjective than faith?

    Man is ill-equipped to explain or understand any thought or action of Gods. We have barely scratched the surface of how the universe works. But we use the tools we were given to the best of our ability. When I don't have a screwdriver, sometimes I need to go at it with a butter knife. But you seem to be saying that because that tool is flawed for the purpose at hand, I should abandon it completely, and try imagining the screw out of the hole.
  15. #1075  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Um, not even the same testament, much less book.
    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,


    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Now, whatever else you believe, if you are religious in the least you believe that when God says something he means it and it sticks. If the serpent was Satan, he would not be in hell, he would be on the ground, eating dirt, and trying to bruise my heel.
    Could you show me where it says that Satan is in hell?
    Just call me Berd.
  16. #1076  
    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
    And I showed you, in the same book I was talking about, where it says he was a creature, just like the rest God created.

    You know, it says God appeared as a burning bush too, do you think if I set the bush in front of my house on fire that it is God?

    Quote Originally Posted by berdinkerdickle View Post
    Could you show me where it says that Satan is in hell?
    Only using revelations, which I really don't like and don't understand enough to use as support. But I can put it this way. How does a creature on the ground of earth eating dirt start a rebellion in heaven and wage a war against God?
  17. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #1077  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Not really. Just his comparisons. There are lots of things that have been applied to the story of Jesus, and especially to religious holidays, that were outright stolen from other religions and stories, and only 5 of his comparisons were shot down, others may be true. But here are some things that are unrelated but known to be true...
    I actually stopped at the first. I would have gone on but I ran out of time and figured my point was made.

    ...just so you can see the point:

    Jesus was not born in December. He was born in late summer. There was no pine tree in the stable where he was born (and before someone says thats not a part of the religious observance but something separate, find me a single catholic church without evergreen boughs inside, at a minimum.) The evergreens, decorations, and timing were stolen from a pagan winter festival. The evergreens symbolize continuing life in the dead of winter.

    Easter is even worse. The timing is roughly the same, but the similarity ends there. Bunnies? Eggs? This is a pagan fertility festival, and though the church doesn't officially support the bunny/egg/chocolate thing in the celebration of mass, they don't push against it either like they do with the commercialization of Christmas or the whole X-Mas thing.

    And those are really the two biggest Christian holidays, so don't you think if anything was going to be sacred enough to keep true and accurate, it would be the birth, death, and resurrection of our savior? And if not, how can you trust any of the other things the church tells you to celebrate?
    Well, those are different arguments. The modern celebrations of Christmas and Easter have been infused into Christian tradition over time but they are not part of doctrine. Whether one believes Jesus was born on December 25 or not is inconsequential to one's religious faith. Whether one believes Jesus was a fabrication based on earlier myths is quite another thing altogether.
  18.    #1078  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Just wanted to point out that the serpent of the garden was not the devil, but an animal, that God punished for his actions by having him crawl on his belly in the dirt etc, etc, and that it was God who caused the physical harm to Adam and Eve (and all of mankind) by punishing them for eating the apple.
    You are welcome to believe whatever you wish, but the above is not congruent with any Catholic teaching that I know about.
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Adam and Eve did not know right from wrong until AFTER they ate the apple. So as they ate it, they didn't know that it was wrong to do so. So punishing them for doing something they didn't know they shouldn't do seems wrong to me.
    Certainly either you or I am then misreading the following passage:
    Quote Originally Posted by Genisis 3:2-3
    2: And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden;
    3: but God said, `You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'"
    Also, what authority do you have that I should believe your "interpretation" over the one the Church has maintained for thousands of years?

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    The god (small g on purpose) in that story can't be God because he fails two definitions of God, namely Omni-Presence and Omniscience.
    I've never heard of the term "Omniscience" applied to God. Can you please explain to me whether this is a teaching of the Church or a teaching of yours. Just because God asks Adam and Eve about the sin does not mean he does not already know it. The point is that he wants them to freely choose to admit the sin to him. (God's maintained that same stance to this day.) Yes God is omnipresent, and he knew about their sin before asking them about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    He was not present in the garden and did not know who put who up to eating the apple.
    That's your interpretation again. I'm sorry to tell you but the Church responsible for the canon of the Bible gets to say what it means. Other interpretations (including yours) have not stood the test of 2000 years time.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Adam blamed Eve after questioning and Eve blamed the serpent (who, once again, was not Satan).
    You can repeat this as many times as you like, but I'd appreciate it if you would define who teaches this. (For the time being, I'll just call this the religion of jverity.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    The story says specifically that God asks them who told them they were naked, and asks if they ate of the tree. If he were either present everywhere or all knowing he would have known already, as it happened, and not have to ask.
    He's asking them to explain by what circumstances they came to know this. Any parent seeing a kid with chocolate all over face will still ask the kid "who ate the cake?".

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    And in the last example you gave, that was not Satan, but demons, who were cast in to hell with Satan when God expelled him from heaven. They fought along side Satan in his fight to take heaven, but by definition are not very reliable followers and may have been acting on their own in this case. Satan does not cause direct harm to anyone throughout the bible.
    Who do you think the demons are under the influence of? (They are agents of Satan.) Your belief that Satan cannot harm people is a very dangerous one. Minimally, Satan can cause people to do harm to themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    In fact, the only place where I think he may have caused even indirect harm to someone is in the story of Lot. Maybe that was Satan's goal all along, a win-win situation for him.
    We can agree that Lot's wife was harmed. We can agree that the people of Sodom were harmed. I'm sure Lot was discouraged by the loss of his wife, but he also knew that she didn't do what was required in her part of being saved from destruction. The point is, the angels brought them out of harms way, but God required actions on their part for their participation in being saved.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Go challenge God about one of his followers, and get God to torture the guy to Prove he'll still believe in him. If the guy denounces his faith, Devil wins. If god tortures a good faithful soul to no avail, Satan got God of all beings to bring more pain and suffering in to the world, against the most faithful of humans, so Satan still wins.
    Sounds like you drifted back to Job in your conversation. Is my assumption correct? (I can't answer the remainder of your post without knowing the context you are speaking in.)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  19. #1079  
    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    And I showed you, in the same book I was talking about, where it says he was a creature, just like the rest God created.

    You know, it says God appeared as a burning bush too,
    Yes, God spoke to Moses from a burning bush.
    So we can now conclude with our beautiful logical ability to reason, reconciling all inspired scripture, that God is revealing to us that the serpent in Eden was used by Satan to deceive Eve. Much as God used the bush.

    Quote Originally Posted by jverity View Post
    Only using revelations, which I really don't like and don't understand enough to use as support. But I can put it this way. How does a creature on the ground of earth eating dirt start a rebellion in heaven and wage a war against God?
    That's fine, I just thought if you wanted to tell people that Satan was in hell, it would be good to support that with scripture.

    Here is where Revelation says Satan is now:
    Revelation 12:9 The great dragon was hurled down--that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

    Later, he will be bound, and finally thrown into the Lake of Fire.
    Where he will never ever be able to deceive mankind again.
    Just call me Berd.
  20. #1080  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Whether one believes Jesus was born on December 25 or not is inconsequential to one's religious faith. Whether one believes Jesus was a fabrication based on earlier myths is quite another thing altogether.
    No, it's not, and that's my point.

    You are admitting that the church decides that somethings are important to the faith, and others aren't, so the church is allowing incorrect information about our faith to become part of our daily lives based on whether or not it is deemed relevant.

    If the church can decide that Jesus's birth day is irrelevant to my faith, what other facts have been dropped or changed because they either didn't matter or worse, they didn't say what the church wanted them to?

    If you don't care about the integrity of some of your data, no one should trust the rest of it no matter how you present it. Especially an organization like the catholic church that says it's all or nothing, you take the entire doctrine or it does you no good, in God's eyes at least, to only believe some of it.

Posting Permissions