Is So, Is Not, Is Too

[AirPo]

Why is there no 'roll eyes' smiley?

With all of your implied expertise in evolutionary biology, do explain please the "new body plans" within the vertebrata that exist.
Better yet, explain first what you mean by "body plan", for I suspect that it means something different to the theologian/philosopher than it does to one that is actually knowledgeable in a relevant field.

And please - no plagiarism or paraphrases.

: rolleyes :

 

[tas8831]

: rolleyes :

I tried that once and the smiley itself did not show up...

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no evidece that parables are fictional. There is no reason to think Jesus invented His stories, and doing so would have no benefit. People prefer fact based stories and Jesus was not ignorant that he needed to create fictional tales.

I second this.

 

[SkyWriting]

I am throwing out 90% to cover the Old Earth creationists

Habakkuk's Prayer
…5 Plague went before Him, and pestilence followed in His steps. 6He stood and measured the earth; He looked and startled the nations; the ancient mountains were scattered; the perpetual hills bowed. His ways are everlasting.

Deuteronomy 33:15
with the best of the ancient mountains and the bounty of the everlasting hills,

 

[Ophiolite]

b) If you are an Evolutionist you of course believe in a very old earth based on our timescale, you think the Bible is irrelevant (even inaccurate), science trumps everything (whether you want to admit it or not, similar to a religion in that you have faith in it whether it’s assumptions are proven or not), you are against any form of Creation because it puts God in the picture above science.

As requested here is how I differ and how I match the proposed evolutionist stereotype.
1. The weight of evidence from a vast multiplicity of sources assures me of an Earth that is billions of years old. No other plausible explanation comes close.
2. The Bible is irrelevant to practically all science discussions, but it is certainly not irrelevant. As the vital scripture of a religion followed by a substantial part of the world's population it important in cultural, social, spiritual and political ways. Setting aside its religious significance it has importance as a work of myth, history, philosophy, poetry and the like.
3. Science trumps everything if we are talking about practical, proven methodologies for investigating the nature of the universe. If we are talking from a wider perspective there are plenty of "fields" in which science has no contribution to make.
4. I have zero faith in anything. I consider faith to be an affront to the essence of humanity. As a practical matter I accept certain concepts, "facts" and observations as being the most probable. I have noted and discovered, through practical work, that science is especially good at providing plausible explanations with sound, corroborating evidence.
5. Since I have no idea how the universe began, or if it even did begin, I have no particular view on Creation. I don't rule out the possibility that some "entity" did the Creation, but don't see any pressing reason to think this likely. I do find the notion that the Creation was enacted by the Christian deity is whimsical and, unltimately, rather sad.

 

[pitabread]

science trumps everything (whether you want to admit it or not, similar to a religion in that you have faith in it whether it’s assumptions are proven or not)

It's not a case of "science trumps everything".

Rather, it's that science trumps religion when it comes to explaining how the natural world works.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Religion and science are two different areas of inquiry. Its like comparing apples and oranges they are two separate fields. You can't use one to either prove or disprove the other. God's not in the habit of standing still and being measured so people can experiment on Him nor is He going into in-depth mathematical explanations of creation etc. for us. No need for it.

Some of us have figured this out. Just waiting for the rest of you to figure it out as well .

In the meantime.. where's the popcorn?

Just sounds like you are making excuses for the lack of solid evidence for the deity you believe in. Be honest: are you this lenient about believing in anything else? If you read a book describing purple people eaters, and other people around you acted as if the book depicted a real monster, would you go on believing this monster exists even if not so much of a picture of it was ever taken? Would you never question it?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Be honest: are you this lenient about believing in anything else? If you read a book describing purple people eaters, and other people around you acted as if the book depicted a real monster, would you go on believing this monster exists even if not so much of a picture of it was ever taken? Would you never question it?

I don't care what people believe. I don't see myself as the keeper of Truth who must force everyone to my version of it - I know my own truth and ill leave others to find it however they need.

If anyone asks I will share what I know - what I have learned in my own journey - but I won't get into pointless argumentation with people whose only purpose is to force their truth upon my head.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt; I'm not doing it to another human being nor will I accept it done to me as if I am some child. I'm fully mature and capable of my own decisions - as im sure you are as well.

So no, purple people eaters don't matter, if someone finds a thing they think is true it affects neither my being nor my truth, whether or not i can see what they do. Does the truth change because you understand it? Does it change because you don't?

 

[Ophiolite]

If anyone asks I will share what I know - what I have learned in my own journey - but I won't get into pointless argumentation with people whose only purpose is to force their truth upon my head.

I cannot speak for other agnostics and atheists, though I suspect my point will mirror the views of many of them. I am not seeking in such discussions to force "my truth" on your head. I see nothing in PsychoSarah's post to suggest she is seeking do so. Rather, when I engage in such argumentation I am generally attempting two things:

• To point out, where appropriate, that one or more of an individual's premises are faulty.
• To encourage them to explore alternate views more deeply.

That might lead them to change their wordlview, but it would hardly have been forced upon them. Quite the reverse: it would be their decision. In many instances they would have come away with a stronger conviction in their beliefs. Surely this is no bad thing?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I cannot speak for other agnostics and atheists, though I suspect my point will mirror the views of many of them. I am not seeking in such discussions to force "my truth" on your head. I see nothing in PsychoSarah's post to suggest she is seeking do so. Rather, when I engage in such argumentation I am generally attempting two things:

• To point out, where appropriate, that one or more of an individual's premises are faulty.
• To encourage them to explore alternate views more deeply.

That might lead them to change their wordlview, but it would hardly have been forced upon them. Quite the reverse: it would be their decision. In many instances they would have come away with a stronger conviction in their beliefs. Surely this is no bad thing?

I was not making judgment calls, just stating my own position.

If it's your desire to find any fault you can with someone else's beliefs so that you can point them to your own alternatives its certainly your business.

But not everyone is going to engage - we all have different priorities. Mine is living my own beliefs.

 

[Ophiolite]

I was not making judgment calls, just stating my own position.

If it's your desire to find any fault you can with someone else's beliefs so that you can point them to your own alternatives its certainly your business.

But not everyone is going to engage - we all have different priorities. Mine is living my own beliefs.

I apologise for having written unclearly. I will take a moment of your time to try to clarify.

I did not think you were making a judgment call. I thought you were simply stating that some people discussed these matters in order to force a change of mind. This seems to be self evident. I was making the point that PsychoSarah did not appear to be doing this and that I certainly don't.

I'm not out to find "any fault I can" in other beliefs, but if I find a fault in the premises I shall point it out. This is quite distinct from finding fault with the person's beliefs. Their beliefs are left intact. They are free to assess whether or not the error in their premise requires any adjustment to their beliefs. I don't challenge the belief.

Any pointing towards my own beliefs is purely incidental. It's not the object of the exercise.

No need to reply. I just wanted to clarify the ambiguity I evidently placed in my original post.

 

[TLK Valentine]

There is no evidece that parables are fictional. There is no reason to think Jesus invented His stories, and doing so would have no benefit.

If the purpose of his stories had been to educate by illustrating a point, it would be far easier to craft a story than to hope to witness a real one.

Or were all of Aesop's fables also real events?

People prefer fact based stories and Jesus was not ignorant that he needed to create fictional tales.

You realize that there have been billions of people on this planet, most of which are not you, correct?

 

[TLK Valentine]

I second this.

And I laugh, because Jesus explicitly said why he chose to speak in parables, and you, as always, illustrate why he was right.

 

[AV1611VET]

And I laugh, because Jesus explicitly said why he chose to speak in parables, and you, as always, illustrate why he was right.

I know why Jesus told His parables, and you guys are proof that He was right.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know why Jesus told His parables, and you guys are proof that He was right.

You keep fumbling on the how; what makes you right about the why?

 

[Hazelelponi]

There is no evidece that parables are fictional. There is no reason to think Jesus invented His stories, and doing so would have no benefit. People prefer fact based stories and Jesus was not ignorant that he needed to create fictional tales.

First, since you contradicted yourself I'm guessing as to your meaning behind what you said.

The very word "parable" implies a fictonal (not factual) analogy..

The word parable comes from the Greek παραβολή (parabolē), meaning "comparison, illustration, analogy." It was the name given by Greek rhetorician to an illustration in the form of a brief fictional narrative.

So there is no argument as to whether Jesus' parables were factual stories with real people as the very definition of parable involves fiction (as opposed to nonfiction).

The point of Jesus telling these parables was to illustrate a moral, not a historical documentation of real world occurrences.

The moral however, applies in very real, meaningful ways in the lives of believers.

Hopefully this post helps..

 

[AV1611VET]

The word parable comes from the Greek παραβολή (parabolē), meaning "comparison, illustration, analogy." It was the name given by Greek rhetorician to an illustration in the form of a brief fictional narrative.

Who cares what the Greeks thought they were.

The Greeks thought sin was a sports term.

We say of parables that they are real stories, told with a Heavenly message.

So there is no argument as to whether Jesus' parables were factual stories with real people as the very definition of parable involves fiction (as opposed to nonfiction).

Was this fiction?

Numbers 23:7 And he took up his parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Who cares what the Greeks thought they were.

The Greeks thought sin was a sports term.

We say of parables that they are real stories, told with a Heavenly message.
Was this fiction?

Numbers 23:7 And he took up his parable, and said, Balak the king of Moab hath brought me from Aram, out of the mountains of the east, saying, Come, curse me Jacob, and come, defy Israel.

I gave the etymology of the word which the new testament writers used to describe Jesus' analogies of the language they used.

They were well versed in the greek language. Im certain, being inspired by God, they didn't use words incorrectly when relating to us what Jesus said and did, or how he said and did them.

 

[AV1611VET]

I gave the etymology of the word which the new testament writers used to describe Jesus' analogies of the language they used.

Indeed you did.

They were well versed in the greek language. Im certain, being inspired by God, they didn't use words incorrectly when relating to us what Jesus said and did, or how he said and did them.

But the Greek words don't cross-reference Hebrew words like the English words do.

So "mashal" and "parabole" are different spellings.

Are you familiar with the Law of First Mention?

 

[SkyWriting]

First, since you contradicted yourself I'm guessing as to your meaning behind what you said.

The very word "parable" implies a fictonal (not factual) analogy..

The word parable comes from the Greek παραβολή (parabolē), meaning "comparison, illustration, analogy." It was the name given by Greek rhetorician to an illustration in the form of a brief fictional narrative.

So there is no argument as to whether Jesus' parables were factual stories with real people as the very definition of parable involves fiction (as opposed to nonfiction).

The point of Jesus telling these parables was to illustrate a moral, not a historical documentation of real world occurrences.

The moral however, applies in very real, meaningful ways in the lives of believers.

Hopefully this post helps..

Not all definitions say fiction so there is
no reason to impose that idea especially
since many of the stories include details
suggesting they are were actual events.

And Jesus's claim to being The Truth
would not be helped by being a good
story inventor requiring imagination.