From faith to fact.

[ScottA]

The only problem with that "unlimited wealth" is that by the time you try to cash in, you'll be far too dead to demand a refund.

I have already cashed it in.

 

[ScottA]

You missed out the all important word, "Hope". Lovely words and sentiment that changes nothing, you have been conned by fair words and lies into giving up a percentage of your earnings in order to perpetuate a myth.

What "Hope?" What "words?" - I do not wait or hope for what I already have, nor did I "believe" any words. You don't have a clue about any of this.

 

[tallbouy]

What "Hope?" What "words?" - I do not wait or hope for what I already have, nor did I "believe" any words. You don't have a clue about any of this.

Of course I don't, no one does because it's all happening in your mind.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I would have no idea whatsoever. We were talking about my belief in the word of God, namely the Holy Bible.

Please don't muddy the water and deflect from the one discipline that we are talking about. Do you see any forums out there for those other deities worshipers? If so, ask them.

I'm asking You! First Peter 3:15 - Why would I accept this God you believe in and not any number of other Gods? There's only One Reality, and by extension, one truth. What differentiates your God from all these other Gods? Setting all your relevant holy texts aside, how is one supposed to correctly identify the One True God (if there actually were one to start with...)? What can you reveal that no other believer in any other religion could reveal about their God?

This is generally why any believer who seriously looks into their holy texts (be it Bible or otherwise) tends to leave their faith. They realise the Bible is no different than many of the other texts out there. Heck, the Abrahamic religions aren't even the oldest practiced religions surviving today, let alone back in their time...

 

[Nithavela]

The age of facts and truth has come and gone.

 

[tallbouy]

The age of facts and truth has come and gone.

In other words just shut your eyes sing La La La and all your doubts will go away.

 

[Nithavela]

In other words just shut your eyes sing La La La and all your doubts will go away.

Not so.
One has still to be carefull what he says, does and believes. But opinions are far more important.
When enough people believe something to be true, it does not matter if it is true.

 

[amariselle]

Yes there is the kind of evidence that is not really evidence at all, "The sun rose this morning so that's evidence of God"
all believers are doing is fooling themselves into believing exactly what they want to believe regardless of truth.

Your opinion.

One could argue the same in regards to Darwinian Evolution and those who believe it is true and accurate.

We all believe something.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Your opinion.

One could argue the same in regards to Darwinian Evolution and those who believe it is true and accurate.

We all believe something.

Except that we are able to present a strong case for the theory of evolution. We don't need to rely on unsupported claims like you do.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

@amariselle, I'm still waiting to hear your response to this question:

Interesting that you seem to be drawing a distinction between "manmade teachings" and something else? What is that something else?

You said that you think dogma should be questioned, despite 'dogma' tending to imply something that should not be open to criticism. But then you distinguished between "manmade teachings," which you acknowledged to be fallible, and something else. You never elaborated on what that something else could be and whether that too should be questioned.

 

[amariselle]

Except that we are able to present a strong case for the theory of evolution. We don't need to rely on unsupported claims like you do.

Really? I disagree, and obviously I'm not the only one.

Much of what you "rely on" is nothing more than wishful thinking and conjecture.

There is simply no conclusive and trustworthy evidence to support Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, and there is much that calls it into question.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Really? I disagree, and obviously I'm not the only one.

But your disagreement isn't based on anything except the discomforting implications the theory has for a certain aspect of your theological commitments.

There is simply no conclusive and trustworthy evidence to support Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, and there is much that calls it into question.

Based on what you've posted to date, your evaluation of the theory is based on a subpar understanding of it combined with the above.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I have already cashed it in.

And aside from a case of the warm fuzzies, what have you gained?

 

[TLK Valentine]

One could argue the same in regards to Darwinian Evolution and those who believe it is true and accurate.

One could, but they'd have to be pathetically banal and unoriginal to do so.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Really? I disagree, and obviously I'm not the only one.

So what?

Much of what you "rely on" is nothing more than wishful thinking and conjecture.

Your opinion.

There is simply no conclusive and trustworthy evidence to support Darwinian Evolutionary Theory, and there is much that calls it into question.

Your mistaken opinion.

 

[JacksBratt]

Of course, there are other ways to accomplish the same thing -- no person reads the same book twice; their life experiences always influence what they do or do not get out of it.

Ya, you can read a book or watch a movie several times and see stuff that you missed before. That's a comprehension capacity thing. I'm talking about understanding the true meaning. In books and movies, you may need the author to explain what their point was, or have some knowledge of the style of the author in order to understand the true concept of the story or message.

You missed the point. The point was that you can read a book as far as syntax and grammar, but to really understand it you need to speak the language, know the native tongue, and in the case of the Bible, know the author.

That's called "learning a new language." No faith is necessary.

Where did I say faith was necessary? I was making a point... see above.

And yet, so many Christians want to use their Bibles as the basis for the laws of my country -- laws I'll be forced to abide by.

Well, in a perfect world....... but it's not. The modern world is NOT going to use the bible and Christian life as a basis for laws.
This world is not the Kingdom of Christ. This will come and He will show us how it should have been done. Right now the governments, political people and institutions, powerful companies and organizations are far from righteous. They are corrupted by the quest for power and wealth. The further down the line you are the less you matter to their agenda.

As in all cycles of civilized cultures we will be initiated with good intentions and later toppled by corruption.

The USA is already bankrupt but they are too proud to know it. It will only be a matter of time before there is major major upheaval in that country and others.

Because I usually am when I try to discuss the Bible -- I apparently deal with a great number of cowards who like to throw 1 Corinthians 2:14 in my face and run away from debate.

Well, I see both sides there. But they should never dismiss your view.
I will say that the Bible was meant to be read by the most simple people and still understood. It's when you start to analyze it with human wisdom that it becomes trouble. If you are going to pick it apart you must have wisdom of God to do it right. It's like a doctor describing an illness. You can get the layman's description and be happy with it and know whats up. Or you can get the doctor to doctor synopsis and be lost and, face it, your not going to start arguing with doctors when your a plumber, electrician or even an electrical engineer... So why, as a non believer do you expect to understand the writing of a creator that you won't even acknowledge exists.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Ya, you can read a book or watch a movie several times and see stuff that you missed before. That's a comprehension capacity thing. I'm talking about understanding the true meaning. In books and movies, you may need the author to explain what their point was, or have some knowledge of the style of the author in order to understand the true concept of the story or message.

You missed the point. You're assuming that 1: a book or other story has one and only one "true" meaning, and 2: Becoming a Christian will automatically clue you in to the "true" meaning of the Bible.

It's adorable, it really is -- if a touch naive.

You missed the point. The point was that you can read a book as far as syntax and grammar, but to really understand it you need to speak the language, know the native tongue, and in the case of the Bible, know the author.

Overlooking the whole "God wrote the Bible" nonsense you're heavily implying, doesn't the fact that the Bible is a primarily Jewish book, written almost entirely by Jewish authors involving famous Jewish characters, mean that in order to do more than scratch the surface, one should know Jewish history, language, culture, and customs?

It would make sense, and yet 99% of the people I've met who "know the author" wouldn't know a midrash from a hole in the ground, and still insist that Jesus wasn't a Jew. Funny, ain't it?

Where did I say faith was necessary? I was making a point... see above.

Except you didn't make a point -- you conflated the effort involved in learning a new language with the gift of God to instantly and effortlessly understnad the "true" meaning of the Bible.

Well, in a perfect world....... but it's not. The modern world is NOT going to use the bible and Christian life as a basis for laws.

You sound disappointed... don't.

This world is not the Kingdom of Christ. This will come and He will show us how it should have been done. Right now the governments, political people and institutions, powerful companies and organizations are far from righteous. They are corrupted by the quest for power and wealth. The further down the line you are the less you matter to their agenda.

Which is kind of funny, since I matter nothing to their agenda... or yours.

As in all cycles of civilized cultures we will be initiated with good intentions and later toppled by corruption.

But not the last one, right? That's one's going to be special, you betcha.

The USA is already bankrupt but they are too proud to know it. It will only be a matter of time before there is major major upheaval in that country and others.

You may be right -- but then again, one of the defining traits of humanity is the ability to keep moving forward -- sometimes in spite of itself.

Well, I see both sides there. But they should never dismiss your view.

They do -- and would happily see me under their heel, "for my own good," of course.

I will say that the Bible was meant to be read by the most simple people and still understood.

Simple people tend to stop at simple answers. Reality is not so simple, however.

It's when you start to analyze it with human wisdom that it becomes trouble.

Well, seeing as how we're all humans, that presents a conundrum, doesn't it?

If you are going to pick it apart you must have wisdom of God to do it right.

Meaning that nobody in human history has ever done it right -- and there is precious little reason to believe anyone who says they already have.

It's like a doctor describing an illness. You can get the layman's description and be happy with it and know whats up. Or you can get the doctor to doctor synopsis and be lost and, face it, your not going to start arguing with doctors when your a plumber, electrician or even an electrical engineer... So why, as a non believer do you expect to understand the writing of a creator that you won't even acknowledge exists.

Because it's the writing about a creator -- written by real people just like you and me. That seems to be the part you're stuck on.

 

[ScottA]

Of course I don't, no one does because it's all happening in your mind.

That is not true - and yet you speak as if you know, when you admittedly know nothing. You should be proud.

 

[amariselle]

One could, but they'd have to be pathetically banal and unoriginal to do so.

Really now? That's a strange thought.

Who gets to decide what is truly "unoriginal?"

 

[amariselle]

So what?

Your opinion.

Your mistaken opinion.

That's all you've got?

Good arguments.