Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Question time!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lucaspa" data-source="post: 60069405" data-attributes="member: 4882"><p>Some of the laws in the OT are in the context of the time. Human ability to understand morality and what is "moral" changes over time. It also changes with technology. For instance, up until 1850 it was moral to kill someone with a penetrating abdominal wound (like a gunshot). Why? Because peritonitis would invariably set in and the person would suffer a very painful, lingering death. Killing him/her quickly was mercy. Since the discovery of antibiotics, killing someone with a penetrating abdominal wound is <strong>im</strong>moral.</p><p> </p><p>The 10 Commandments transcend the context of the time and represent some basic morals.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Absolutely important. The data for evolution is so strong that it is impossible to deny it. However, I see you also have the misconception: evolution = atheism. Listen carefully: <strong>EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM</strong>. Instead, evolution is HOW God created. See the second quote in my signature. </p><p> </p><p>Creationism (and Intelligent Design) is an alternative HOW that God created. God, in His Creation, tells us that these alternative how's are wrong. God did not create that way.</p><p> </p><p>Now, creation of the universe is different from evolution. Evolution is about the diversity of living things. Originally, the Hebrews did not need God to create the universe in order to be God. They had already seen God create Israel "out of nothing". So they knew Yahweh as "Creator" -- creator of Israel. We are somewhat more demanding. So, no, one way to falsify God would be to show that God did not create the universe. That, to my knowledge, has not been done. Science has come up with several hypotheses for alternative creators of the universe besides God. See my thread: </p><p><a href="http://christianforums.com/t43923" target="_blank">http://christianforums.com/t43923</a></p><p> </p><p>Thus, science remains agnostic.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>That's absolutely wrong. Have you ever heard of deductive logic or science? What science does ALL the time is "prove a practical negative" or disprove hypotheses. The only absolute statements in science are the negative ones:</p><p>1. The earth is NOT flat. Proved the negative, didn't we?</p><p>2. Proteins are NOT the hereditary material. (that was a hypothesis around 1900) Again, proved the negative.</p><p>3. The sun and planets do NOT orbit earth. Again, proved the negative.</p><p> </p><p>So, it's not that we CANNOT prove a negative, it's just that we haven't been able to prove THIS negative. Which is part of what makes atheism a faith. It's also one of the reasons atheism can be so dangerous to science. In the interests of your faith, you are sabotaging the basis of science. You are saying that we can't do what science does every day.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>Let's make this very specific. Turok proposed a theory call "ekpyrotic" for the origin of our universe. </p><p>C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001</p><p><a href="http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239" target="_blank">www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239</a> </p><p><a href="http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/turok2/" target="_blank">Dr. Neil Turok, Cambridge, A Cyclic Model of the Universe</a></p><p> </p><p>IF ekpyrotic is correct, then God is not Creator of the universe. As it turns out, ekpyrotic predicts different gravity waves than Big Bang. We don't have a gravity wave detector. Yet. When we do, then we'll see. But obviously, I <strong>have</strong> investigated it, as the references demonstrate.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>That is pretty crappy investigation on YOUR part. You really are going on faith, aren't you? </p><p> </p><p>What this would lead you to is: "I don't KNOW if God exists or not." But what you said is "I don't THINK God exists". What did you base that "think" on? </p><p> </p><p></p><p>Correct. Gay couples are not demanding that ministers marry them. Instead, marriage is a <strong>secular</strong> institution, as witness that justices of the peace can marry people. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p></p><p>So you stopped believing because you had a mistaken idea of Christianity. Well, that fits your crappy record at investigation. At least you are consistent in your failure to investigate things.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>So this has nothing to do with "truth" or objctive reality, but on what <strong>you </strong>feel. Nice to know.</p><p> </p><p>There is a very big difference between deism and atheism. But, with your lack of investigation, I would guess you didn't find it.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>And THERE is the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Tell me, what <strong>evidence </strong>did you have this is true?</p><p> </p><p></p><p>1. Did it ever occur to you to <strong>investigate</strong> how theists falsified other versions of deity? And why they think Judeo-Christianity is NOT falsified. Yeah, yeah, another bit of evidence of your inability to investigate.</p><p>2. Define "valid". You see, that qualification lets you deny anything you don't want to believe. BTW, it's exactly what creationists do with evolution. They say there is no "valid" evidence for evolution or an old earth. It's also the excuse for people who deny the moon landings, that Obama was born in the US, and flat earthers. Congratulations on belonging to such a fine club!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lucaspa, post: 60069405, member: 4882"] Some of the laws in the OT are in the context of the time. Human ability to understand morality and what is "moral" changes over time. It also changes with technology. For instance, up until 1850 it was moral to kill someone with a penetrating abdominal wound (like a gunshot). Why? Because peritonitis would invariably set in and the person would suffer a very painful, lingering death. Killing him/her quickly was mercy. Since the discovery of antibiotics, killing someone with a penetrating abdominal wound is [B]im[/B]moral. The 10 Commandments transcend the context of the time and represent some basic morals. Absolutely important. The data for evolution is so strong that it is impossible to deny it. However, I see you also have the misconception: evolution = atheism. Listen carefully: [B]EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM[/B]. Instead, evolution is HOW God created. See the second quote in my signature. Creationism (and Intelligent Design) is an alternative HOW that God created. God, in His Creation, tells us that these alternative how's are wrong. God did not create that way. Now, creation of the universe is different from evolution. Evolution is about the diversity of living things. Originally, the Hebrews did not need God to create the universe in order to be God. They had already seen God create Israel "out of nothing". So they knew Yahweh as "Creator" -- creator of Israel. We are somewhat more demanding. So, no, one way to falsify God would be to show that God did not create the universe. That, to my knowledge, has not been done. Science has come up with several hypotheses for alternative creators of the universe besides God. See my thread: [URL]http://christianforums.com/t43923[/URL] Thus, science remains agnostic. That's absolutely wrong. Have you ever heard of deductive logic or science? What science does ALL the time is "prove a practical negative" or disprove hypotheses. The only absolute statements in science are the negative ones: 1. The earth is NOT flat. Proved the negative, didn't we? 2. Proteins are NOT the hereditary material. (that was a hypothesis around 1900) Again, proved the negative. 3. The sun and planets do NOT orbit earth. Again, proved the negative. So, it's not that we CANNOT prove a negative, it's just that we haven't been able to prove THIS negative. Which is part of what makes atheism a faith. It's also one of the reasons atheism can be so dangerous to science. In the interests of your faith, you are sabotaging the basis of science. You are saying that we can't do what science does every day. Let's make this very specific. Turok proposed a theory call "ekpyrotic" for the origin of our universe. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001 [URL="http://www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239"]www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239[/URL] [URL="http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/colloq/turok2/"]Dr. Neil Turok, Cambridge, A Cyclic Model of the Universe[/URL] IF ekpyrotic is correct, then God is not Creator of the universe. As it turns out, ekpyrotic predicts different gravity waves than Big Bang. We don't have a gravity wave detector. Yet. When we do, then we'll see. But obviously, I [B]have[/B] investigated it, as the references demonstrate. That is pretty crappy investigation on YOUR part. You really are going on faith, aren't you? What this would lead you to is: "I don't KNOW if God exists or not." But what you said is "I don't THINK God exists". What did you base that "think" on? Correct. Gay couples are not demanding that ministers marry them. Instead, marriage is a [B]secular[/B] institution, as witness that justices of the peace can marry people. So you stopped believing because you had a mistaken idea of Christianity. Well, that fits your crappy record at investigation. At least you are consistent in your failure to investigate things. So this has nothing to do with "truth" or objctive reality, but on what [B]you [/B]feel. Nice to know. There is a very big difference between deism and atheism. But, with your lack of investigation, I would guess you didn't find it. And THERE is the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God. Tell me, what [B]evidence [/B]did you have this is true? 1. Did it ever occur to you to [B]investigate[/B] how theists falsified other versions of deity? And why they think Judeo-Christianity is NOT falsified. Yeah, yeah, another bit of evidence of your inability to investigate. 2. Define "valid". You see, that qualification lets you deny anything you don't want to believe. BTW, it's exactly what creationists do with evolution. They say there is no "valid" evidence for evolution or an old earth. It's also the excuse for people who deny the moon landings, that Obama was born in the US, and flat earthers. Congratulations on belonging to such a fine club! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Outreach
Outreach
Exploring Christianity
Question time!
Top
Bottom