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.
Angels? How weak.
Okay, thank you, Oafman!It became lava when it erupted. Which would have been almost immediately before it cooled.
I think the question you meant to ask was 'how old was the magma which erupted as lava and cooled to form these rocks?'
Even if we had a way to determine that, there would be no single answer. The constituent parts of that magma would have become magma at a huge range of different times, before being churned together beneath the Earth's surface.
Indeed.
1 Corinthians 1:27b But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
Sure.Could you please define the term "faith"? I'm not sure any definition I could draw from that context actually works.
Have you noticed that what you are presenting are a series of further justifications all based on feeling good about yourself? No sign of any recognition that using faith as a justification for denial of reality might be worrying. No, just expressions of how good it makes you feel.
Sure.
I define "faith" as:
Believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.
I came up with that definition one day while talking to those who defined "faith" as:
"Believing something you know isn't true."
My definition puts our martyrs back on the pedestal where they belong, instead of making them look like they died for something they "knew wasn't true."
As long as you keep thinking I deny reality, you're not going to understand, are you?
Empiricists are the largest group of deniers of reality in the universe.
Let's say I hold it on faith that what you believe is wrong. That there are no angels there. That the Christian God does not exist. Let's say I apply your epistemology and hold that on faith.
How could you demonstrate that one or the other of these claims is true or false?
They cannot both be right, and any good epistemology offers us a way to determine between true and false claims. There is nothing to differentiate your faith from the faith of a Muslim.
Why aren't you a Muslim instead of a Christian?
Accusing people who study the real world of denying the real world is a somewhat desperate ploy.
Because I'm interested in the age of the lava that created lava rocks, not deep time.
I accuse them of denying the totality of reality -- that is, not willing to see the whole picture.
The Sadducees, for example, neither believed in a resurrection, nor angels, nor spirits.
Acts 23:8a For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit:
That's why they were sad, you see.
(You'll get that in a minute.)
Because AV doesn't believe in time --
And they haven't been proven wrong yet.
Then I would assume you are a scientist.
(Am I right, by the way?)
Well, for starters, I could show you statuary, paintings, churches, hospitals, organizations, symbols on flags & banners, billboards, demonstrations, legislation, bits of Scripture on buildings, and historical documents that demonstrate there's more to reality than meets the eye.
When you see these things, what do you see?
Beautiful art or more than meets the eye (or both)?
I beg to differ.
You just said "any good epistemology offers us a way to determine between true and false claims."
Our "good epistemology" does just that.
You see, we claim there were no more prophets since the completion of the Scriptures in AD 96.
Anyone, such as Mohammad or Joseph Smith, claiming they are prophets automatically incurs our denial.
This is what I'm trying to get at. The way you have defined faith means that anyone can apply faith to come to whatever conclusion they want to. It's not an epistemology. It's not a way of knowing anything. It's an excuse to believe something when you have no good reason to believe it.
I don't think any epistemology can explain this guy.
If by 'this guy,' you meant me, may I point out that my INFORMATION fields currently have ten times more information than yours.
Sure.
I define "faith" as:
Believing something, even when evidence says otherwise.
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?