Could anyone tell me if this is true?

[juvenissun]

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[juvenissun]

I think that you have lost me already. Dogma Hunter said that he wanted to read your dissertation. You first asked what illite is. When I answered that question you asked about the origin of illite. I have tried to answer that question, and have now pretty well come to the end of my knowledge about illite and the other clay minerals. Is any of this relevant to your dissertation? Is your dissertation about the origin of illite? If it is, then I should probably learn more if you told us about the dissertation. If you are going to ask more questions, then you are probably right; I shall be lost very quickly.

I am happy to tell you all I did when I was a graduate student. But I don't see a point of doing that if you are not interested. If you do, then you may let me know what is your interest. My question to you is not seeking your knowledge, but is seeking the direction of your interest.

Yes, my dissertation was about illite, in particular, the sedimentary origin of illite. Would that be enough for your purpose? As long as the question by DogmaHunter, I think he was just bored.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes it allows everyone to read whatever they want in it, even the slave owners used it to justify themselves and you could not get more opposite to Christianity than owning another human being.
It seems the writers of the bible did not have the brains to tell people not to own other people, if you believe "God told me what to write" you will believe anything.

What you said could be applied to any writing. That is not the point. People can read any way they like to in a book. Just like one can eat many different kinds of food, but not all will benefit to the health.

If one reads the Bible in a "good way", then what's said in the Bible is fantastic. Many atheists read the Bible too. Why don't they have the same feeling/understanding as Christians do? I read what's said in the Bible about slavery. And I think the said slavery system is a very beautiful system. It could be perfectly applied today.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Doesn't change the fact that creationism is believed to be true in the absence of any evidence to support it. Even worse, many forms of creationism are directly contradicted by the evidence. That is "blind faith", at best.

In an unbiased observation, am unclear how the order of creation=zero support. To me such claims are wishful thinking and evidence of a biased observation. The agnostics position is at least honest within his own mind in that regard. Holding up an alternative theory allegedly able to address the order of the species for example - even though very imperfectly in a lot of details - as supposedly being mutually exclusive (rather than the possibility of inclusion) of God is also being dishonest with oneself.

What we can say is that scientific theories make specific and testable hypotheses. If those hypotheses are supported by subsequent evidence, then you have evidence to support the theory.

Having testable hypotheses whose tests then further support a theory, is not the same as saying we know the theory to be true, which was pretty much the position some took in this thread.

Creationism, on the other hand, is just the opposite. Where creationism does make predictions that differ from standard scientific theories it has been falsified. The current strains of creationism have tried to argue that the supernatural can't be tested, so science shouldn't be applied. This is just another way of saying that they have no evidence or testable predictions.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, so am unclear how or why we would want to contrast it with a theory as if it was. That some creationist may take a stand that suggests the idea of God creating is incompatible with and therefore refutes a scientific theory I admitted already. As neither the Church or I see science, which is at the heart a search for God, as opposed to either faith or our beliefs, I was suggesting that not all Christians fall into the same creationist bucket. in fact I would hazard of those who have bothered to study/grow in their knowledge of Christian beliefs the position being disputed in this thread is a very very small (though perhaps at times vocal) minority. For that matter if a strict 6 day creation is indeed true, that truth in itself does not not have to be mutually exclusive of evolution - if the belief also provides more time following that creation. I do think the idea of a very young earth appears exclusive of providing sufficient time the evidence the fossil records appear to provide us. I think until we can say we absolutley know a thing to be true, we need to be careful taking absolute stands. Am told Einstein had to eat crow on his initial absolute rejection of the Big Bang theory and was called out for it by the Priest who first proposed that theory.

Unsupported beliefs and well supported theories are not the same thing.

A nice platitude and while not my point it helps make a point I did make. The "belief" that Christians have "blind faith" is not the same as a good theory, in that neither can in anyway be claimed to be fact/true.

The claim that faith is a gift from God is based on blind faith. That is not comparable to a well supported scientific theory.

A theory proposes a system/structure to help explain the existence of something. A good theory would be one by which we can demonstrate support for it using existing principles (meaning truths) and also propose tests whose results could provide further support (or not) for the theory. Over simplified perhaps but enough for this thread. Part of our evaluating the "goodness" of a theory would be that we do not base our support of the theory on anything which is dependent on the theory itself. Hopefully that much is understood by all here.

If we agree that by "blind faith" we mean "a belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination"; then we should agree that someone (atheist, agnostic, or Christian) speaking about a theory either as being, or as if it is, a fact/true is expressing a "blind faith". So while we can have good theories (or bad ones), we do not (or should not) in blind faith claim it to be fact/true.

Attempting to understand, perceive and making discrimination in our beliefs about reality is what a theory is. A Christian's beliefs in what God has revealed as Truth comes not from our own understanding, perception or discrimination (which would be blind faith), but rather from a Divine Virtue given to us BY WHICH we can believe as True the things He has revealed to mankind. BTW that body of Truth we call "revelation" from God to mankind, back to this thread, does not include whether or not evolution is a good theory. It would however preclude a belief that evolution can explain our reality without God.

What is not possible about to say about "Christian faith" when we acknowledge it is a gift from God is to claim our beliefs of what is true (including the Gift) is a result of process devoid of true understanding, perception or discrimination. Which is sort of required for the atheist or poster here to claim that faith being a gift of God is itself a "blind faith". By acknowledging our faith is a Divine Gift, we remove ourselves from the equation. It is not possible then to counter by saying we are using our own understanding, perception or discrimination to arrive at our understanding, perception or discrimination.

Look at it another way. We believe the evidence of things like God made everything, God became Man, God lives us all,....etc, because God has given us the faith required to believe that evidence. That is not describing a mental process for achieving/acquiring that faith. The only mental process on our part is whether the degree we accept the gift of Faith removes all doubt in our belief on the evidence holding each and every of the particulars to be true. So "help Thou my unbelief" does not mean God help me believe in the evidence you have provided us devoid of true understanding, perception or discrimination. No!!! It means please give me more Faith so that WITH true understanding, perception and discrimination I can believe by the evidence what You have revealed as true.

In fact the existence of such faith cannot properly be said to be a "belief" at all, as it is something coming eternally to us rather than something we generate ourselves. And it is that distinction which separates our Christians beliefs from being just a bunch of theories we hold to be good ones to explain our reality and distinguishes that faith from the "blind faith" expressed by some posters in this thread that a scientific theory is true/fact.

 

[Loudmouth]

In an unbiased observation, am unclear how the order of creation=zero support. To me such claims are wishful thinking and evidence of a biased observation.

Multiple threads in the science forums on this site have asked for positive evidence for creation. No one has been able to supply any. They can't explain basic observations in geology, astronomy, or biology. They can't explain why life falls into a nested hierarchy, for example. They can't explain why no animal has three middle ear bones and feathers. They can't explain why the ratio of K/Ar isotopes in specific layer of rock will also predict the ratio of U/Pb isotopes in that same layer. Creation just doesn't explain the observations.

Holding up an alternative theory allegedly able to address the order of the species for example - even though very imperfectly in a lot of details - as supposedly being mutually exclusive (rather than the possibility of inclusion) of God is also being dishonest with oneself.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Having testable hypotheses whose tests then further support a theory, is not the same as saying we know the theory to be true, which was pretty much the position some took in this thread.

Colloquially, yes it is the same. It is true beyond any reasonable doubt which is the type of true that we use in common language.

Creationism is not a scientific theory, so am unclear how or why we would want to contrast it with a theory as if it was. That some creationist may take a stand that suggests the idea of God creating is incompatible with and therefore refutes a scientific theory I admitted already. As neither the Church or I see science, which is at the heart a search for God, as opposed to either faith or our beliefs, I was suggesting that not all Christians fall into the same creationist bucket. in fact I would hazard of those who have bothered to study/grow in their knowledge of Christian beliefs the position being disputed in this thread is a very very small (though perhaps at times vocal) minority. For that matter if a strict 6 day creation is indeed true, that truth in itself does not not have to be mutually exclusive of evolution - if the belief also provides more time following that creation. I do think the idea of a very young earth appears exclusive of providing sufficient time the evidence the fossil records appear to provide us. I think until we can say we absolutley know a thing to be true, we need to be careful taking absolute stands. Am told Einstein had to eat crow on his initial absolute rejection of the Big Bang theory and was called out for it by the Priest who first proposed that theory.
A nice platitude and while not my point it helps make a point I did make. The "belief" that Christians have "blind faith" is not the same as a good theory, in that neither can in anyway be claimed to be fact/true.

If we took the attitude that something isn't true until it is absolutely proven true, then we wouldn't have any of the technology we enjoy today. Atoms are still a theory, for crying out loud. Does NASA wait for gravity to be proven absolutely true before it launches satellites into orbit?

A theory proposes a system/structure to help explain the existence of something. A good theory would be one by which we can demonstrate support for it using existing principles (meaning truths) and also propose tests whose results could provide further support (or not) for the theory. Over simplified perhaps but enough for this thread. Part of our evaluating the "goodness" of a theory would be that we do not base our support of the theory on anything which is dependent on the theory itself. Hopefully that much is understood by all here.

As far as the standard theories in biology, geology, and astronomy the data is independent of the theories. You don't have to use the theory of evolution to sequence DNA or compare the morphology of living and fossil species. You don't have to assume long ages to measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks. You don't have to assume the Big Bang in order to measure the cosmic microwave background or the redshift in galaxies.

If we agree that by "blind faith" we mean "a belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination"; then we should agree that someone (atheist, agnostic, or Christian) speaking about a theory either as being, or as if it is, a fact/true is expressing a "blind faith". So while we can have good theories (or bad ones), we do not (or should not) in blind faith claim it to be fact/true.

Notice that it didn't say absolutely true. We do have a true understanding of biology, geology, and astronomy as supported by perception (i.e. empirical evidence) and discrimination (i.e. the scientific method). On the other hand, religious faith is supported by "because I believe it". Not the same thing.

A Christian's beliefs in what God has revealed comes not from our own understanding, perception or discrimination (which would be blind faith), but rather from a Divine Virtue given to us BY WHICH we can believe as True the things He has revealed to mankind.

Where is the independent evidence for this claim? Where is the evidence that God has given anyone anything?

Again, you make bare assertions. That is blind faith.

What is not possible about to say about "Christian faith" when we acknowledge it is a gift from God is to claim our beliefs of what is true (including the Gift) is a result of process devoid of true understanding, perception or discrimination. Which is sort of required for the atheist or poster here to claim that faith being a gift of God is itself a "blind faith". By acknowledging our faith is a Divine Gift, we remove ourselves from the equation. It is not possible then to counter by saying we are using our own understanding, perception or discrimination to arrive at our understanding, perception or discrimination.

Blind faith is defined as belief WITHOUT true understanding, perception, or discrimination. You have defined it as just the opposite. That's not how it works.

Look at it another way. We believe the evidence of things like God made everything, God became Man, God lives us all,....etc, because God has given us the faith required to believe that evidence.

What evidence?

 

[juvenissun]

Just as long as you are not the slave I suppose, would you mind being a slave?

It depends on who would be my master.

 

[juvenissun]

That's just the thing slaves do not get to choose who their master is going to be they just do as they're told, why? because they are slaves.

I have the feeling a lot of people are not Christians because they don't want to mix with the people who say they are Christians.

According to the Bible they should be able to. If they cannot, then the beautiful system is corrupted BY MAN.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Multiple threads in the science forums on this site have asked for positive evidence for creation. No one has been able to supply any. They can't explain basic observations in geology, astronomy, or biology. They can't explain why life falls into a nested hierarchy, for example. They can't explain why no animal has three middle ear bones and feathers. They can't explain why the ratio of K/Ar isotopes in specific layer of rock will also predict the ratio of U/Pb isotopes in that same layer. Creation just doesn't explain the observations.

In such bazaar claims (and I do mean both sides) I always wonder if a person understands the difference between supporting evidence, faith, theories and truth. To me the distinctions called out here seemed blurred and rather one sided. Especially one sided when some atheist attempt to overstate their position by hoisting a theory's ability to explain a process that appears to be supported by a lot of evidence why conveniently leaving out it cannot explain all the evidence and appears to be refuted by some or at least lacking in some key aspect. I also did not realize that a belief in creationism was thought to require the ability to have creationism explain physics or all detail of our reality. Am not familiar with such a limited view of creationism apparently held by some atheist and agnostics.

The faith I spoke of is a free gift from God to then believe the evidence of things He has revealed to mankind, which for me at least is embodied in the collection of truths laid out in the Catechism, which is online for all to view. Last I checked nuclear physics is not part of that Catechism. And I said nothing in my reply in this thread about Him giving us the ability to explain physics, astronomy or biology. Nor did my expressed representation of Creationism require those things so am unclear what the point is here or why someone would think a belief in creationism requires the ability to explain physics. Can't help there.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Uhhhh, the topic. Am saying creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive thoughts. And that is true regardless of what some Christians or what some atheist claim to the contrary (which would be the being honest with oneself part). The mistaken Christian believes using a blind faith (verses what God gives them) that they must take a stance against evolution because any acceptance of it at all means there is no God or that He at least took no part in creating our reality. The mistaken atheist believes with his blind faith that the theory of evolution is "true" (or at least strongly supported by a lot of evidence) which means that we can explain our reality without God. Both "beliefs" are wrong.

Colloquially, yes it is the same. It is true beyond any reasonable doubt which is the type of true that we use in common language.

This would be something even I would call "word salad" and also nothing I would expect a scientist (at least not an honest one) to say. A lawyer or sea lawyer - yes. Not a scientist and I think when we start talking about scientific theories and nuclear physics we have gone beyond the idea of being able to use the language of common folk.
So no, I do not agree my statement about theories vs what is known to be "true" was just semantics or me colloquially speaking. Scientifically proving a theory is true means it is no longer a theory. Evolution, regardless what one else one thinks about it, remains a theory. Proving something true in a courtroom because a lot of evidence supports it only means that as far as the legal system is concerned it is true and a judgement can be justly made accordingly. It does not mean whatever was presented in court is indeed actually true or that the judgement actually correct - one reason why many object these days to a death penalty.

If we took the attitude that something isn't true until it is absolutely proven true, then we wouldn't have any of the technology we enjoy today. Atoms are still a theory, for crying out loud. Does NASA wait for gravity to be proven absolutely true before it launches satellites into orbit?

I wanna play. How could we imagine first and then actually split something apart if we were not certain it existed?
There are certainly behaviors and traits of atoms for which we only have theories to explain what we can observe, but am pretty sure it can be said that Einstein proved the existence of atoms thru his observations about light (photons) which requires the existence of atoms. So while true we cannot literally see them and may not be certain of everything about them, it is not true the existence of atoms remains a theory or that seeing them is required by science to prove their existence. Which also kind of slams the notion we need to see God in order to prove His Existence.
I also do not understand why we should further attempt to conflate the ideas of motivation, truth/facts, beliefs and theories in order to support our individual beliefs. As far as I (and the Church) am concerned if a Christian wants to believe in evolution as a good theory explaining how God caused these bodies we have to come to be, they are free to do so - with a caveat about God and our spirit. But that belief in the evidence supposedly supporting it, even if we say there is a lot - still does not prove the theory is true.
Yes we all agree it would be helpful in attempting a proof to believe it can be proven and that it indeed must be true, as long as that motivation does not unintentional skew observations (assuming one is taking a scientific approach). Having that motivation and belief that it is indeed true still does not mean the theory is actually true. So this is more "word salad" conflating ideas and even appealing to a legal system instead of science to support an idea a theory must be true in order to help maintain a mistaken blind faith that the theory being true negates the need for God in explaining our reality.

As far as the standard theories in biology, geology, and astronomy the data is independent of the theories. You don't have to use the theory of evolution to sequence DNA or compare the morphology of living and fossil species. You don't have to assume long ages to measure the ratio of isotopes in rocks. You don't have to assume the Big Bang in order to measure the cosmic microwave background or the redshift in galaxies.

Don't believe I suggested otherwise. Since it was not pointed out where I did (so this is just a claim perhaps) and even if I did or seemed to; then either I mis-wrote or was misunderstood.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Notice that it didn't say absolutely true. We do have a true understanding of biology, geology, and astronomy as supported by perception (i.e. empirical evidence) and discrimination (i.e. the scientific method). On the other hand, religious faith is supported by "because I believe it". Not the same thing.

What I notice and would object to, is that this reply both mis-represents and intentionally distorts what I said.
And again, only a lawyer or our legal system would argue over what "truth" means. Thought we were speaking of "truth" and theories as scientist should; not as lawyers arguing a case in court. As such we cannot accept that the notion that a theory must be believed as true because a balance or a lot of the evidence we observe seems to support it. Having a lot of supporting evidence is what could make us say one theory seems better than a competing theory for explaining the same thing/process. Since I already pointed out that Creationism and evolution do not have to be seen as competing theories, the point that some Christians may believe otherwise "because I believe it" should not be part of this exchange with me.

And no where in my given definition of Christian faith did I invoke a blind faith statement of "because I believe it". I did mention that some posters here, including atheist and agnostics, apparently want to invoke a judicial definition of "truth", are using a blind faith statement of evolution is true "because I believe it"; with "it" meaning the evidence supporting the theory makes the theory true. That is not what true scientist do and is not an example of a scientific process. Neither is it blind faith for what Christian do in expressing a belief in the evidence God has revealed to man. Christians believe that evidence is real/true because God gave them the faith to believe it.

Where is the independent evidence for this claim? Where is the evidence that God has given anyone anything?

Again, you make bare assertions. That is blind faith.

The concept of Christian faith is still obviously unclear and given the desire/willingness to mix science with legal definitions am not sure how to better explain this or move on unless we attempt to agree more precisely on terms and meanings.
The evidence is the evidence unless we fake it, then it really isn't evidence at all, just something that is claimed to be supporting. What should be independent (from the theory itself) when we speak of scientific proof for a theory are the principles (not the evidence itself) used to evaluate the evidence and create/test the hypothesis to prove (or disprove) theory or parts of it as true (or false). We could talk about a proof, especially when it comes to hypothesis testing being repeatable, so in that respect the evidence from that proof is independent of who performs the test.
The evidence God has revealed to mankind that I speak of is found in history, science, writings of men, stories, art, nature, music, miracles, Scripture and generally all around us in so many, many different ways. My understanding, perception and discrimination of that evidence is possible only because I have been given what is required for accepting it for what is and accepting how it explains our reality.
What is required is a gift of Faith from God. So that type of Faith in my beliefs precedes my ability to intellectualize that evidence, which is why that faith is said to be a Gift - that faith did not develop within me as the result of some intellectual process of evaluating that evidence. Whereas a "blind faith" requires my intellectualizing the evidence first and then forming a belief that something is true from that process. So while both the atheist and the Christian can obviously from these threads exhibit blind faith in certain things being true, it does not follow that Christian beliefs (what is actually held as and is true about our reality) are held with a blind faith.

So while we can all, agnostic, atheist and Christians contemplate the evidence the Christian would give for our beliefs, without the gift of Faith from God required to understand, perceive and discriminate that evidence even the Christian can get lost. The direct evidence being asked for are things like prophecy and miracles, either witnessed personally or recorded for us. And no, and again because the Christians faith is not blind, that evidence is of no value to someone who has not been given the required faith. Lacking that faith from God, and it could be a matter of degree so even a Christian may not accept everything God has revealed; they have only two responses to that same evidence. Either they reject the evidence as supporting anything or have only a belief without true understanding, perception or discrimination (a blind faith). And that blind faith would be no different than a sea lawyer claiming a scientific theory is true because there is a lot of evidence supporting it.

Blind faith is defined as belief WITHOUT true understanding, perception, or discrimination. You have defined it as just the opposite. That's not how it works.

Correct that is what I said blind faith is. Please point out where I said blind faith is the opposite of blind faith.
What I said is that a faith given to us as a gift from God cannot be claimed as "blind" because that true faith does not result from ANY (true or otherwise) internal process of understanding, perception or discrimination of evidence. A "blind faith" in something whether a Christian (God hates evolution) or an atheist holds it (evolution is true and explains are existing without requiring God's influence), requires a belief something is true WITHOUT a true understanding, perception or discrimination on what we observe (evidence). It is like saying trust someone or trust your feelings about it and deciding (internal process) blindly that <insert belief> is true. So the blind faith can only come from us. Real Christian faith turns that around. We only have true understanding, true perception and are able to discriminate reality (in regards to what He has revealed) BECAUSE God has given us faith to do so.

What evidence?

Answered already, but again in short; That which He is has revealed to all of us and some of us get because we have been given the gift of Faith from God.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

According to the Bible they should be able to.

Mmmmm. . .no, I don't think so. According to the Bible some slaves were property with no consideration given to their choice in the matter.

 

[Armoured]

According to the Bible they should be able to. If they cannot, then the beautiful system is corrupted BY MAN.

Which Bible are you reading?

Exodus 21:2
If thou buy an Hebrew servant....

Exodus 21:7

If a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant....


Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.


Exodus 22:3
If he have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft.


Leviticus 22:11
If the priest buy any soul with his money....


Leviticus 25:39
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee....


Leviticus 25:44-46
Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever.


Ephesians 6:5
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.


Colossians 3:22
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.


1 Timothy 6:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed.


Titus 2:9-10
Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and to please them well in all things; not answering again; Not purloining, but shewing all good fidelity; that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things.


1 Peter 2:18
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I don't think it matters which Bible or work of men one reads with a blind faith and this is true whether we talk of the blind faith of a Christian, agnostic or atheist reading Scripture. As for a Christian reading the Bible I suppose we could say the level of understanding gained from reading would be directly proportional to how much true Faith they have accepted from God.

If they are really being honest with us, (and only they would know unless deceiving themselves too), neither the agnostic or atheist has been given any amount of Faith from God. Note I did not say none of them have such faith, just that they typically deny it. The human mind is complex and we cannot currently easily read minds to know what is really going on in there. But obviously a Christian, agnostic or atheist reading the Bible and failing to "get" the message has not been given sufficient faith to get it. And all three groups are equally capable of asking God for help in that area.

 

[juvenissun]

Mmmmm. . .no, I don't think so. According to the Bible some slaves were property with no consideration given to their choice in the matter.

The teaching is that a slave can choose his master.

 

[juvenissun]

Which Bible are you reading?

I am reading the same Bible as you do.
Which verse you quoted says that I am wrong?

 

[Armoured]

I am reading the same Bible as you do.
Which verse you quoted says that I am wrong?

Um, any of the ones about selling and buying people? Not seeing anything about the slave having any input into who gets to buy them.

 

[juvenissun]

Um, any of the ones about selling and buying people? Not seeing anything about the slave having any input into who gets to buy them.

Selling and buying is the action, not the system.

Only if the person agreed to become of a slave of his master, then the deal is done.
And the system has a lot more content to it (as described by those you quoted).

The slave system becomes a highly distorted concept because the evil nature of human. If necessary, I won't be mind to become a slave IF my master is a "good" person. And if needed, I won't mind to defend my master with my life.

 

[juvenissun]

Are there any Christians here who would like to put this man straight or are you just going to let him waffle on and make a fool of himself?

YOU need to open your eyes and be educated.

You are not even qualified to be a humanist. Do you know there are good natures in a human? Do you like to torture your slave? If you bought a slave, would you let him go free after 6 years? Would you be a good master so that at the 7th year, your slave would be reluctant to leave you?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't think it matters which Bible or work of men one reads with a blind faith and this is true whether we talk of the blind faith of a Christian, agnostic or atheist reading Scripture. As for a Christian reading the Bible I suppose we could say the level of understanding gained from reading would be directly proportional to how much true Faith they have accepted from God.

If they are really being honest with us, (and only they would know unless deceiving themselves too), neither the agnostic or atheist has been given any amount of Faith from God. Note I did not say none of them have such faith, just that they typically deny it. The human mind is complex and we cannot currently easily read minds to know what is really going on in there. But obviously a Christian, agnostic or atheist reading the Bible and failing to "get" the message has not been given sufficient faith to get it. And all three groups are equally capable of asking God for help in that area.

There are a lot more religions out there in the world besides Christianity and the likely hood of a person having faith in a certain religion; is highly dependent on which religion they were exposed to as a child, their life experiences and whether they are an analytical and or intuitive thinker.

Studies have shown, strong correlations between analytical thinkers being less prone to be religious and intuitive thinkers being more likely to be religious. Also, there is a correlation between achieving higher levels of education and being less likely to being religious.

 

[Itinerant Lurker]

The teaching is that a slave can choose his master.

Please show me this teaching then, because I'm 100% sure that you have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

There are a lot more religions out there in the world besides Christianity and the likely hood of a person having faith in a certain religion; is highly dependent on which religion they were exposed to as a child, their life experiences and whether they are an analytical and or intuitive thinker.

Studies have shown, strong correlations between analytical thinkers being less prone to be religious and intuitive thinkers being more likely to be religious. Also, there is a correlation between achieving higher levels of education and being less likely to being religious.

Again, talking about people (Christians, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic...etc) themselves having "faith in" something is not the same as talking about a Faith that is a Gift given to them. The first type generates from within us (our minds) and the second comes to us externally. True, the degree we accept any gift can effect the benefit we derive from it, so we can all express/understand the need to be GIVEN more ("help Thou my unbelief") . What I was suggesting is that God can offer His Gift of Faith to everyone, He does not need my permission to offer me a Gift. What each person has done with that Gift I cannot judge from knowing only what they publicly claim (whether Christian, Buddhist, atheist, agnostic...etc). So my point was simply I cannot assume God has given a person nothing simply because they currently adopt a non-Christian icon for example. Even if I know the person better, I don't really know everything going on in their head and that is true regardless of what they currently express as a belief, or lack of, in anything.

Some studies show what the people conducting the study want it to show. Not that I refute all such efforts or the ones mentioned but unreferenced here. But I do know for example that one cannot read my Patron Saint Thomas and claim him to be not analytical. Nor could I read a pagan like Plato musing about the existence of a deity and suggest he had no Faith given to him. Until the last few hundred years most educational institutions were started by and run by religious organizations and represented the bulk of all higher education. The fact that almost all such institutions are now run by very secular, opinionated people that are predominately motivated negatively against any Christian faith (Islam is apparently still ok) is probably more responsible for leading generations away from Jesus while attempting to educate them than anything else. The quality of the education has also suffered greatly. I think in part because of the lack of intellectual honesty in the resulting view of reality from attempting to educate in a way which distorts our reality (without God). Plato, even though apparently pagan, would not do so in educating people for similar reasons I suspect. So I would be cautious of any study making claims about how/why higher levels of education today may be claimed likely to produce fewer people displaying Faith.