Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 269
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by chillig35
    Next time i will use small simple words for your benefit
    Gee, ok, thanks.
    Palm V-->Visor Deluxe-->Visor Prism-->Visorphone-->Treo 180-->Treo 600-->Treo 650 on Sprint-->Treo 700p-->Centro-->Diamond-->Pre-->HTC EVO 4g???!
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Do I mind if the Creator of the Universe says one thing and people say something different? Nope. I'll stick with the one who's going to be around in another 100 years.
    So do I: Evolution and science will be around for sure in 100 years, also in 1000 unless we have a fundamentalist world government who forbids mentioning it. Some people in the US work towards that (e.g. in schools), but they are not very successful so far, luckily.
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaskanDad
    Doesn't bother me if people disagree with God. I'm pretty sure it bothers Him though. I guess we'll all find out the answer eventually anyway. I'm covered either way. You?
    How childish would god be if he was bothered by somebody not believing in him. Not even George W. Bush would mind if somebody does not believe in him as long as this person behaves. It's not that I kill people, lie, steal, etc. you know. I work on Sundays sometimes, but that's not a capital crime anymore, so I've learned, although you still did not tell me the quote where Jesus said those commandments are not binding any more...
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by heberman
    I think your definition of "literal" and mine in this context are different. "Literal" can have different meanings, including yours:

    From thefreedictionary.com:

    lit·er·al Pronunciation (ltr-l)
    adj.
    1. Being in accordance with, conforming to, or upholding the exact or primary meaning of a word or words.
    2. Word for word; verbatim: a literal translation.
    3. Avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment; factual; prosaic: a literal description; a literal mind.
    4. Consisting of, using, or expressed by letters: literal notation.
    5. Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious meaning of a word or words.

    I am following definition 3, "avoiding exaggeration, metaphor, or embellishment". In interpreting the bible, I believe it is "literally" true and not just legends or stories.
    I know literal has several meanings, that's why I used "word by word" for clarification, so it is meaning 2. But also in meaning 3, the bible simply cannot be literal in the sense of factual. We simply know too many facts about the history of earth and the development of life on it for the bible to be factual regarding Genesis. You can only say it is factual if most of what science consists of is wrong. When two statements contradict each other, at least one of them is wrong.

    Science says first stars, sun, earth, moon, then plants. The bible says first earth, then plants, then sun, moon, and rest of the stars. One of the two MUST be wrong (or both), that's obvious. You say the Bible is factual and correct? Do you REALLY believe first plants, then sun?
    1. Adam and Eve were real people in the Garden of Eden, and that this wasn't a metaphor;
    The Adam and Eve story is no better or no worse than other explanations people found thousands of years ago. If you would have been born in India and raised as a Hindu, you would not consider it real for a second. Maybe you would believe the Hindu religious explanations about the origins of the world and mankind, maybe not. Indian scientists, European, American, etc. agree on when/how life started and how it developed.
    2. The flood happened, somehow,
    I agree, it does seem to be the case that a flood happened, SOMEHOW. But not in the way described in the bible. I've asked you this before, but you did not answer: do you believe a man, 600 years old, has collected two of EACH species (or seven, the bible contradicts itself there, too...) and has lived with them on a wooden boat for a year or so (there are also conflicting statements about the duration)? Note that "each species" includes polar bear, tiger, every mite, spider, insect species, Indian elefant, African elefant, penguin, desert fox, rattle snake, and barn owls, too name just a few. Is this "factual" according to definition 3 above?
    And most importantly:
    3. Christ acted as the savior of mankind, by really atoning for our sins, really dying on the cross, and by really being ressurected.
    Each of the gospels claim different things about who was present at the tomb of Jesus (once it's Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, then Salome is there, too, then Mary Magdalene goes there alone. Once they meet one angel there, then two men, then one man, then two angels), but apart from that, who knows? Maybe it was so, at least there is not ample scietific evidence for the contrary. No objection based on evidence here.
    Last edited by clulup; 06/30/2005 at 10:30 AM.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  4.    #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    How childish would god be if he was bothered by somebody not believing in him.
    I have two daughters and one son. It bothers me when any of my children ignore my instruction or counsel. This is not because I am somehow validated by their adherence , but rather because I know what they lose as a result of their decision.
  5. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    At least you could quote me. I think you mis-interpret my statements and read things into them that I do not feel.
    Help me see this, as I read your posts, it is clear to me that you are dumbfounded that anyone could believe in the words of the bible and you go to great lengths to try and prove their beliefs are wrong.

    The specific definition of disdain I refer to is: A feeling or show of contempt

    Is my perception wrong?
  6. #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo2die4
    Help me see this, as I read your posts, it is clear to me that you are dumbfounded that anyone could believe in the words of the bible and you go to great lengths to try and prove their beliefs are wrong.

    The specific definition of disdain I refer to is: A feeling or show of contempt

    Is my perception wrong?
    Yes. Stating that I do not understand how somebody believes in the bible in a literal way(!) and deals with what I consider inherent contradictions in the bible is neither disdain, nor contempt.
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  7. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I have two daughters and one son. It bothers me when any of my children ignore my instruction or counsel.
    Sure, if they ignore your instructions. However, I behave very nicely, more nicely than many Christians, I guess, even if I don't believe in god. So why would he care?

    Besides, you don't follow the instructions of all gods around, with the exception of one. You eat pork, work on Sundays sometimes (I guess) even though your god forbid it (ok, it seems that he changed his mind later, though the Jews will disagree on this). You don't don't treat cows as holy animals. What if the Hindu are right, and Shiva etc. rule, not your god? Maybe Shiva prefers atheists to Christians, and Christians are reborn on a lower level than atheists? After all, it was just coincidence that you grew up in a Christian culture, wasn't it?
    “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” (Philip K. ****)
  8. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Yes. Stating that I do not understand how somebody believes in the bible in a literal way(!) and deals with what I consider inherent contradictions in the bible is neither disdain, nor contempt.
    Fair enough, I just get the feeling that you feel the need to prove other's beliefs wrong. My thoughts are it's up to them to believe as they choose and presumptuous of me to think they should change.
  9.    #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Sure, if they ignore your instructions. However, I behave very nicely, more nicely than many Christians, I guess, even if I don't believe in god. So why would he care?
    He cares because:
    1. No amount of niceness undoes any amount of lack-of-niceness.
    2. Those (I'm sure in your case rare) occassions of lack-of-niceness have temporal and eternal consequences.
    3. He does not want you to experience the eternal consequences of your lack-of-niceness
  10.    #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Besides, you don't follow the instructions of all gods around, with the exception of one. You eat pork, work on Sundays sometimes (I guess) even though your god forbid it (ok, it seems that he changed his mind later, though the Jews will disagree on this). You don't don't treat cows as holy animals. What if the Hindu are right, and Shiva etc. rule, not your god? Maybe Shiva prefers atheists to Christians, and Christians are reborn on a lower level than atheists? After all, it was just coincidence that you grew up in a Christian culture, wasn't it?
    I have made a conscous decision to seek to adhere to the instructions of the God of the Bible, exclusively. In reviewing the credentials of the other gods of which I have become aware, not one makes a better case.

    I have even considered the implications of having been totally defrauded. It occurs to me that no healthier, wealthier, more productive, lifestyle is available (even if productivity is measured only in the likelihood of passing on my genes). And, no other eternal consequences that I've learned of are of any greater concern -- not even close.

    NOTE: Faith is a confidence in a promise, not merely the result of a deductive process. However, looking at the alternatives can assist in determining whether the promise and/or the promise-maker is credible.
  11.    #172  
    Meanwhile, back on the article (http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html) for a moment...

    One popular approach enlisted by creation "scientists" is the classic all-or-nothing argument wherein proponents claim that nothing in science can be known with confidence until every last detail is described with absolute certainty. Appealing largely to those unschooled in the scientific method, critics point to such nonissues as gaps in the fossil record, poorly understood aspects of gene function, and the mystery of life's origins as reasons to view evolutionary theory as speculative or provisional. What they fail to appreciate is that scientific theories are built solely upon evidence that is actually available for study and so cannot be refuted by speculation regarding those clues that remain hidden. As long as a theory remains consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions, it must be considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered. Thus, it is entirely irrelevant that gaps in the fossil record exist, but vitally important that those fossils that do exist make sense in the context of evolution. A single hominid fossil found among the trilobites of the Burgess Shale, for instance, would immediately throw Darwin's theory into doubt. Likewise, the fact that certain aspects of molecular genetics remain to be fully described in no way negates the fact that the substantial amount that is known about gene function is entirely consistent with evolution as we understand it today
    (bold emphasis added my me)

    Here Mr. Trumble acknolwedges that there is (albeit remote) possiblity that some discovery could throw the "theory into doubt." Why then are challenges dismissed out of hand?

    I understand that the theory is "consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions." I understand that as such it is "considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered."

    To the extent that the theory is still "vulnerable" to the undiscovered, it seems reasonable that at least some observations could be viewed through a different theoretical framework. There may be a better story to tell.
  12. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    He cares because:
    1. No amount of niceness undoes any amount of lack-of-niceness.
    shopharim,

    Shhhhhh! Don't let born again evangelicals know about this. I suppose that we are all in for a little slap on the wrist from the big guy, right?
  13. #174  
    Psst! All of us born again evangelicals know this already!!!

    That's the point!
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  14. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    shopharim,

    Shhhhhh! Don't let born again evangelicals know about this. I suppose that we are all in for a little slap on the wrist from the big guy, right?
    Wow, and from Portland - you must have to slink around in the shadows up there with these views
  15.    #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by pdxtreo
    shopharim,

    Shhhhhh! Don't let born again evangelicals know about this. I suppose that we are all in for a little slap on the wrist from the big guy, right?
    Not me. My big brother always takes up for me
  16. #177  
    You got it, I fit right in within this great blue state of ours! I rarely have the opportunity to go toe to toe with the one neocon at the office. Need to come here for the heavy lifting.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  17. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Not me. My big brother always takes up for me
    Ha! I'm covered, too!

    Shopharim, see you in a few and we'll have a good laugh over this.
    Recognizing that I volunteered...
  18. #179  
    I am pretty darn nice. I guess I'm covered as well.
    Visor-->Visor Phone-->Treo 180-->Treo 270-->Treo 600-->Treo 650-->Treo 700P-->Treo 755P-->Centro-->Pre+-->Pre 2
  19. #180  
    Nobody's nice enough to get into heaven. Nice has nothing to do with it. I'm only covered by accepting Jesus into my heart. I wasn't good enough on my own.

    Back to Shopharim's dead-on post:
    Originally Posted by shopharim
    He cares because:
    1. No amount of niceness undoes any amount of lack-of-niceness.
    None of this is my opinion. Just reading...
    Recognizing that I volunteered...

Posting Permissions