Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Right and it's logical to believe that there is truth that can clear up the contradicting and confusing information being thrown at us everyday. For me personally, that truth has been the word of God.
Opinions and thoughts of man are always changing in reference to each other, it's only when you find someone who's anchored in a truth that appears unshakeable, that you begin to take interest and listen to what they have to say and find out for yourself what this truth is that they believe.
In my experience, the men who've appeared to have unshakeable truth have always been men of God. There are also men who say true things, but this does not necessarily mean they don't end up contradicting themselves after you question them. When you find contradictions, it's safe to say that what they're telling you is based in falsehood. I realize religious people are some of the worst offenders of being contradictory, but this does not mean all religious beliefs lead to contradictions. Logically, the truth should not contradict itself.
Then please provide objective evidence, that this "word" you speak of, is the truth.
Yeah, sounds like you don't have evidence...Person 1: There is objective evidence that His word is truth and it can be understood by reading the scriptures.
Person 2: My interpretation of the scripture is that they appear to contradict, therefore they can't be true.
Fish 1: There is objective evidence of the bowl of water and it can be understood by following the contour of the glass.
Fish 2: My interpretation of the contour of the glass is that it appears to contradict the idea that it's a bowl. It appears to be the exact opposite of a bowl.
I'm sure you can understand that the true nature of things are not necessarily always as they appear. We base our beliefs on our interpretations of evidence, not necessarily on the truth that the evidence is pointing to.
I'm sure you can understand that the true nature of things are not necessarily always as they appear. We base our beliefs on our interpretations of evidence, not necessarily on the truth that the evidence is pointing to.
It's not every day I feel the need to appeal to Billy Madison...Person 1: There is objective evidence that His word is truth and it can be understood by reading the scriptures.
Person 2: My interpretation of the scripture is that they appear to contradict, therefore they can't be true.
Fish 1: There is objective evidence of the bowl of water and it can be understood by following the contour of the glass.
Fish 2: My interpretation of the contour of the glass is that it appears to contradict the idea that it's a bowl. It appears to be the exact opposite of a bowl.
I'm sure you can understand that the true nature of things are not necessarily always as they appear. We base our beliefs on our interpretations of evidence, not necessarily on the truth that the evidence is pointing to.
Are you saying that Christianity is not necessarily true, even though it may appear that way to you?
eudaimonia,
Mark
LOL. You so funny Chrili.No, I'm saying God's word is true, but it doesn't appear that way to you.
You're saying God's word is not true because it appears to be contradictory to you.
No, I'm saying God's word is true, but it doesn't appear that way to you.
You're saying God's word is not true because it appears to be contradictory to you.
Yes, so you are saying. Why should we accept what you are saying over what others are saying?No, I'm saying God's word is true, but it doesn't appear that way to you.
You're saying God's word is not true because it appears to be contradictory to you.
Person 1: There is objective evidence that His word is truth and it can be understood by reading the scriptures.
Person 2: My interpretation of the scripture is that they appear to contradict, therefore they can't be true.
Fish 1: There is objective evidence of the bowl of water and it can be understood by following the contour of the glass.
Fish 2: My interpretation of the contour of the glass is that it appears to contradict the idea that it's a bowl. It appears to be the exact opposite of a bowl.
I'm sure you can understand that the true nature of things are not necessarily always as they appear. We base our beliefs on our interpretations of evidence, not necessarily on the truth that the evidence is pointing to.
This is your idea of evidence?
Is it possible to accept a statement as true without first having evidence in the form of a logical explanation?
Yes. The term most commonly used is "gullibility". Are you saying that one must be gullible to accept what you claim?Is it possible to accept a statement as true without first having evidence in the form of a logical explanation?
Yes. The term most commonly used is "gullibility". Are you saying that one must be gullible to accept what you claim?
In the absence of these "logical explanations" that you allude to, it seems that you are describing yourself as gullible.Great I said something that you find logical!
I believe it's impossible to accept a statement without first having evidence in the form of a logical explanation.
I'd even say that gullible people can only accept statements if there is evidence in the form of logic, it's just that the logic their accepting is based in falsehood and they don't realize it at the time.
In the absence of these "logical explanations" that you allude to, it seems that you are describing yourself as gullible.
You did tacitly accept my statement as true when you failed to dispute the absence of those "logical explanations"If I were to accept your statement as true, then yes you could say I'm gullible.
Person 1: There is objective evidence that His word is truth and it can be understood by reading the scriptures.
Person 2: My interpretation of the scripture is that they appear to contradict, therefore they can't be true.
Fish 1: There is objective evidence of the bowl of water and it can be understood by following the contour of the glass.
Fish 2: My interpretation of the contour of the glass is that it appears to contradict the idea that it's a bowl. It appears to be the exact opposite of a bowl.
I'm sure you can understand that the true nature of things are not necessarily always as they appear. We base our beliefs on our interpretations of evidence, not necessarily on the truth that the evidence is pointing to.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?