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.
That doesn't forbid corrective lenses, it forbids people with various flaws, including the vague "blemishes in the eyes" from even being near offerings about to be burned for Yahweh, as well as forbidding them from making such offers.
Sure, but those verses don't forbid the people with those conditions from seeking medical treatment or other solutions for those problems. It only forbids them from having anything to do with burnt offerings for Yahweh.Since you agree that the term is vague, why can't it refer to a defect in the eye that prevents said eye from functioning properly? And if someone needs glasses, it's safe to say that their eyes aren't functioning properly.
Sure, but those verses don't forbid the people with those conditions from seeking medical treatment or other solutions for those problems. It only forbids them from having anything to do with burnt offerings for Yahweh.
People that need corrective lenses don't necessarily have outwardly visible blemishes on their eyes, so they might have gotten a pass, who knows?
I doubt they kicked out all the spectacle wearers before this...
Why do you believe it is "safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively", when in fact we measure it subjectively?Technically, no, but I think it's safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively. After all, all of reality (including you) could just be an elaborate simulation being fed to me, and I am just a brain in a jar somewhere.
People that need corrective lenses don't necessarily have outwardly visible blemishes on their eyes, so they might have gotten a pass, who knows?
Why do you believe it is "safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively", when in fact we measure it subjectively?
I will suggest that it is impossible, because - in truth - everything is ultimately measured subjectively.Are you saying it is impossible to make any objective measurements of the real world? We can objectively measure the distance between the Earth and the moon, yes? We can objectively measure the amount of rainfall that fell in a particular time period at a particular location, yes?
I know quite a few Christians who would disagree with you.
Sounds to me like you saw the inconsistencies and then just decided to believe anyway, because you wanted to believe.
I really don´t want to be complicated - but I feel I can not simply answer this yes. Maybe it´s just due to the wording (I might not get exactly what you want to say), or maybe because you and I go differently about it. I cannot really tell at this point.But wouldn't you agree that for common, every day claims, you would only require common, everyday evidence? And for bigger claims that were harder to believe (like my ability to turn into a squirrel), you would need bigger evidence that was harder to explain away?
For me, it falls into the metaphysical category.And which of those categories, real life or metaphysical, does the way the universe works fall into?
No, actually I don´t see how we possibly can. To - reluctantly - borrow a Christian metaphore, I tend to believe that faith can move mountains.True, but we can test for that, can't we?
I will suggest that it is impossible, because - in truth - everything is ultimately measured subjectively.
Show us the Scripture which instructs us to listen to "former" Christians. Such thinking shows that you don't consider God to be perfect, thus incapable of error.
Eph 2:8 For by grace (unmerited reward) are ye saved through faith; and that (faith) not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. Eph 2:10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
What inconsistency do you see?
I really don´t want to be complicated - but I feel I can not simply answer this yes. Maybe it´s just due to the wording (I might not get exactly what you want to say), or maybe because you and I go differently about it. I cannot really tell at this point.
don´t think that asking to see something happening constitutes the request for "extraordinary" or big "evidence".
Rather, I guess, for certain everyday claims (particulary when I don´t even care) I abstain from asking for "normal" evidence. Like, if you told me that you had cereals fro breakfast, I wouldn´t even ask for any evidence at all.
For me, it falls into the metaphysical category.
No, actually I don´t see how we possibly can. To - reluctantly - borrow a Christian metaphore, I tend to believe that faith can move mountains.And so can doubts.
Well, Kylie, I have been trying to explain my position in my own words. Then you asked if one could paraphrase it with "extraordinary" being the keyword, and I responded "No, doesn´t work for me.". I think it´s unnecessarily complicated to work my way back to my position from your way of paraphrasing it - would you agree?Feel free to change the wording so it suits your position better.
I don´t think so. The sort of evidence would still be the same (e.g. "I want a video" - there´s nothing extraordinary about a video).But if the thing you ask to see as evidence is itself an extraordinary event, then wouldn't it count as extraordinary evidence? (Please feel free to substitute a word for "extraordinary" if you would prefer a different one)
As I said already, I can hear the same claim ("I had cereals for breakfast"), but - depending on the circumstances - sometimes demand evidence or even conclusive evidence or not.Of course. But why is that? I would suggest there are two reasons why you could accept such a claim with zero evidence. Firstly, eating cereal for breakfast is extremely common. Lots of people do it. eating cereal for breakfast is a very plausible claim. Secondly, it doesn't challenge your worldview.
To be honest, I probably wouldn´t accept it at all. I wouldn´t even ask for evidence. I would take you straight to the doctors.However, if I claimed I ate the sun for breakfast, would you accept it so easily? I doubt it.
So what sort of evidence would you demand from me in order to accept my claim that I have eaten the sun?First of all, it's not plausible. No one has ever eaten the sun before, and the idea of a person eating the sun violates many laws of nature. There's no way for me to get to the sun, and even if I could, the temperature would fry me to a crisp before I got anywhere close. And even if I could survive that, the sun is simply way to massive for a single person to eat it.
Ah, so in the meantime you have already added more to the story, and on top have made your claim unfalsifiable.Secondly, it would require a change in your worldview. It would require you to be convinced that I had destroyed the sun and replaced it with an exact duplicate.
This isn´t even in dispute. I am wondering how the category "extraordinary evidence" helps here, though.So, there is a lot more telling you that my claim is wrong if I claim I ate the sun for breakfast. There is little to nothing telling you my claim is wrong if I said I had cereal instead.
It´s all a matter of "frames of reference". Everything within the universe can possibly be explained by the forces at work within the universe. However, if someone starts asking "(How) did the laws of physics come into being", it would be absurd (a category error) to try to explain that by means of the laws of physics. We would have to widen the frame of reference.Could you explain why?
I think we have a misunderstanding here.Wouldn't it be easy to test for self fulfilling prophecies? Just give someone a prophecy that they can take action to accomplish. Then see if that group of people accomplishes those prophecies more than a control group who has prophecies made about them, but they AREN'T told.
Technically, no, but I think it's safe to assume that reality is what we can measure objectively. After all, all of reality (including you) could just be an elaborate simulation being fed to me, and I am just a brain in a jar somewhere.
Wow.
So you think you can ignore the statements of people who are no longer Christians, just because they left Christianity? Are you suggesting that people's opinions are worthless if they have left Christianity? Is this the attitude, "They disagree with me, therefore I can ignore them completely, because their views are worthless," attitude?
Wow, that's really horrible.
It´s not about becoming unborn, it´s about choosing to be born a third time.No, it's simply the demonstration of the willful ignorance of being born again Spiritually. Tell us HOW you can become unborn physically and I will understand HOW you can become unborn Spiritually.
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?