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.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.It's not a matter of believing in God. It's a matter of believing in some MEN who wrote that they were speaking on behalf of a god.
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
You have something against men writing epistles, do you?Also written by some men...
You have something against men writing epistles, do you?
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
Are you ready to abandon [your] mein kampf now?
That's your prerogative.Men can write letters to anyone they like; I certainly won't stand in their way. But I feel no obligation to believe what they wrote either....
God spoke and Adam was created ex materia from the dust of the ground.HOW did God make them male and female?
Yes.The Brown Brink said:Did they just appear, suddenly?
Yes.The Brown Brink said:Fully formed?
Yes. I should mention however that Venus was created ex nihilo, not ex materia.The Brown Brink said:Like Venus?
That's your prerogative.
As it says:
1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
Atheists are the perfect fulfillment of that verse.
God spoke and Adam was created ex materia from the dust of the ground.
Eve was a different story altogether. Although created ex materia like Adam, God says He "formed" Eve.
Women are ... shall we say ... better put together than men.Yes.Yes.Yes. I should mention however that Venus was created ex nihilo, not ex materia.
That 'fallible, gullible, superstitious, ambitious human being was a born-again, spirit-filled, man of God, who went through more in one week than you could probably handle in a year.Another claim by a fallible, gullible, superstitious, ambitious human being.
That 'fallible, gullible, superstitious, ambitious human being was a born-again, spirit-filled, man of God,
who went through more in one week than you could probably handle in a year.
And he ended up being martyred.
Yes. They just appeared.So they just appeared.
They took space to fill up space.The Brown Brink said:They suddenly filled up space.
It's called a "miracle."The Brown Brink said:How?
Hi, consol!What kind if time frame are we talking about?
Were they created in minutes?
Or did it take longer than minutes...?
Oh, please.Suicide bombers martyr themselves all the time ...
Oh, please.
Calling them "martyrs" is like calling Adolf Hitler a hero.
Sorry. Busy right now. I will respond properly as soon as I can. In the meantime, here is my favourite piece by Richard Dawkins - a far more eloquent writer then me - on the subject of truth. Veritas: What is True?Yes I have read some Armstrong.
Truth. Can be very straightforward, more often is very complicated. And needs more or less agreed undestanding as to meaning in a good discussion. Most people think they know what truth is. Personally, I find it a difficult concept; perhaps I make it a problem myself. For example, I feel the need to distringuish between 'fact' and 'truth.' Fact is fact, but truth is (for me) considerably more. How to describe that 'more' is where I have difficulty.
John Saxon's poem based on the South Asian story of the six blind men of Hindustan who independently met an elephant illustrate just part of the issue. Our senses and perspectives are limited, and we seldom, if ever, can see the whole, or full truth. We cannot even be sure how much, or which part, of the truth we can see. One consequence of this is that we are likely to make erroneous extrapolations and conclusions from what we do see/"know." Scientists like to think that the modern scientific method is one that will reliably test for multiple alternatives to stated hypotheses, and many like to believe that all theories are open to revision, refinement or repudiation. Most conveniently forget the fact that every scientist is a human being and therefore subject to all the general types of bias, defence of pet theories or postulates, etc. etc. There are some ideas that have been very very difficult to debunk. Probably just as hard as some old religious beliefs. What becomes fascinating when watching scientific development is just how much of science is actually based on belief. Our old model of the atom, with its rings of electrons, was so much easier to grasp than the current one in which the "location" (you can't really call it that) of a specific electron is expressed as a probability. When it is the observer who through the act of observation determines (as a consequence of observing) the position of an entangled particle (and now no longer entangled particle), then "truth" or "fact" is in the eye of the observer, not independent of it. When I was taught the scientific method it was said very very clearly that repetition of the same experiment over and over again with the same results was the only way to be sure that theory being tested could be proved..."but there was still no 100% certainty, because if the result in a future test was different, then the theory could no longer be supported."
Even in the scientific world people ultimately believe what they want to believe. If I think of Thomas Edison, it could not (I surmise) have been thorough material science theory that convinced him to keep looking for a suitable filament material after "thousands" of attempts. (He is quoted as saying "I didn't fail, I just found 10 000 ways that didn't work!") He really believed he would find something and that gave him the motivation to continue. Darwin had an idea (not entirely original) that caught his attention and interest, and he set out deliberately to find a plausible explanation for the differences between the beaks of the Galapagos finches. He wouldn't have continued if he hadn't believed in his ideas. Certainly in the beginning he couldn't, and didn't know it was true. But he believed it. So science would not progress without people believing in something and going at it tooth and nail. Aristotle believed many things and taught them as true. But he was wrong. That doesn't mean that in everything he did was wrong or nonsense.
And I suspect that even you Barry hold "truths" on the basis of convictions and beliefs, that you hope very very much are not false. And you cannot live a meaningful social life without this. Friendship depends on trust, trust is a matter of belief, of faith. No doubt there have been times when you have discovered that that trust has not been underpinned by reality. My concept of truth links to the reliability of the one in whom I have put my trust. He or she is a "true" friend because of the nature of his or her trustworthiness vis a vis what I have committed to her.
Where I believe evolutionary scientists (like Dawkins) make a fundamental logical flaw is going from "we can explain the process. There is no designer." This is a logical non-sequitor. We don't need a God of the gaps, but just because people can no longer lazily say "I don't know how it happened, it must be God." the inverse is not necessarily correct.
Yes. They just appeared.They took space to fill up space.
Dust of the ground became Adam; Adam's rib became Eve.
The technical term is: creatio ex materia.
It differs from creatio ex nihilo, where the amount of mass/energy in the universe is raised accordingly.It's called a "miracle."
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?