spiritual science

[Justin Horne]

Actually, it's my faith in God's word, which the Bible clearly states was inspired by God, so, therefore, it IS my faith in God.

And you claim you don't know what circular logic is, you do it so well!



This is the word of god.
It says so here: This is the word of god

 

[Justin Horne]

Only way that makes sense that we know of. Man doesn't know even close to half of what is out there. We have alot of learning to do.

Are you directing that to the makeup of the universe or to evolution, because we likely know more about the latter than the former.
That says, it does apply to both, and in about the same amount.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

you can't be serious! the city of Tyre does exist. in fact, the bridge that Alexander the great built to get there still exists! besides, do you think the landmass just disappeared?

P.S. Work on your geography skills. A lot.

I belive you. It appears you are well versed in both history and geography (as I never mentioned the bridge in my posts) and have done significant research. That is enough to earn my respect.

That doesn't mean I agree with your theology, though.

 

[Theophilus01]

ALL WE ARE SAYING... IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!

slow down everyone. the mood is getting kinda tense in here. i'm feelin a lot of bad vibes.

 

[Theophilus01]

That doesn't mean I agree with your theology, though.

im glad i gained your respect. you have mine. my theology, though. what is it that you disagree with? all i said is that we need to look deeper than the literary tools that the authors used. even Jesus used hyperbole.

 

[MartinM]

My mistake. I was talking about the ISLAND of Tyre. You see, there were two "Tyres", one on the mailand, one on the island. You are refering to the city on the mainland, which was also destroyed by Alexander the Great, but was rebuilt. The Bible reffers the the island city.

Broadly accurate. The city on the mainland, at the Fountain of Ras-el-ain, was originally separate from Tyre, and seems to have become part of it along the way at some point. The Bible does indeed differentiate between the two. Ezekial talks of Nebuchadnezzar's army taking Tyre's "daughters on the mainland," before coming for Tyre itself, "out in the seas."


But modern Tyre sits on the site of the island stronghold of ancient Tyre, not at Ras-el-ain. The Sidonaian port of ancient Tyre is still in use as a port today, and the remains of the Egyptian port can still be seen. The modern buildings stand alongside ruins from Roman times, and atop those from Phoenician times.

Here's a map of modern Tyre:

As you can see, it's no longer an island. The causeway built by Alexander in order to capture the city still connects it to the mainland today. It's quite easy to see which part used to be the island, however. To the North of that part is the Sidonian port (marked on the map as the 'Old port')

Here is an aerial photograph of Tyre, taken from the North.

It's clear enough how this corresponds to the map, and again the area that was originally an island is easy to spot. At the bottom of the picture is the Sidonian port; the area all around it is thriving with life.

 

[Theophilus01]

quick question. isn't Ras-el-ain also called "Old Tyre"? if my history is correct, the city on the mainland grew of onto the island for defensive purposes (worked because Alexander had trouble with taking it). the island is also called "New Tyre".

 

[MartinM]

quick question. isn't Ras-el-ain also called "Old Tyre"? if my history is correct, the city on the mainland grew of onto the island for defensive purposes (worked because Alexander had trouble with taking it). the island is also called "New Tyre".

The Romans knew the city at Ras-el-ain as Palaetyrus and the island stronghold as Tyrus, yes. They believed that the mainland city was the older, and that the island city developed from it. However, both are mentioned as separate cities as far back as the Amarna tablets - written around 14th century BC, IIRC - with the mainland city known as Ushu. I'm not sure if it's known which city is older, let alone how either was founded. Tyre goes back to the beginning of the third millenium BC, and there isn't a whole lot to go on.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

So it looks like the old "Tyre never being rebuilt' is yet another failed prophecy from the bible...

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Actually, it's my faith in God's word, which the Bible clearly states was inspired by God, so, therefore, it IS my faith in God.

No, it's your faith in YOU. Faith that YOU have correctly interpreted a book which YOU believe is god's word.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

And you claim you don't know what circular logic is, you do it so well!



This is the word of god.
It says so here: This is the word of god

I never made that claim. I stated that circular reasoning proves nothing. To misinterprate that requires serious ignorance or bias.

 

[*-The-Elusive-Chicken-*]

ALL WE ARE SAYING... IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!

slow down everyone. the mood is getting kinda tense in here. i'm feelin a lot of bad vibes.

Good idea.

 

[Caphi]

Exactly. Circular reasoning proves nothing. So dad's circular reasoning proves neither the Bible nor his own pet pseudoscience, yet he continues insisiting we take both as true.

 

[Justin Horne]

I never made that claim. I stated that circular reasoning proves nothing. To misinterprate that requires serious ignorance or bias.

Actually, what I was meaning, though I guess you didn't read the tonal importance, was different than how you received it.


Anyway, smoothe way of getting around the heart of the post though.

 

[Justin Horne]

Ok, so, god doesn't rely on science... Ok. That's why Genesis makes no scientific claims! Good job, TEC, we agree!
God doesn't rely on science, and the people to whom Genesis was written, by Moses, wouldn't have understood it anyway!
So now, Genesis isn't a science book. Good.
However, since god doesn't deceive, he didn't with the fossils. Also, god instilled in us a desire to learn, curiosity. He also gave us the ability to do this, intelligence. And with that, we created the theory of evolution!
What parts don't you agree with?

And you also didn't touch on this post of mine, so, as is my typical fashion, I'll quote it twice (this is number one), just in case you happened to have missed it. Afterall, this is 26 pages long, mistakes happen.

 

[dad]

Hello! You haven't proved your "split" except by assuming the Bible is true, and you haven't proved the Bible except by assumine your split! That's circular reasoning, folks, and it simply means, to make it simple enough for dad's walnut brain, that you have proved SQUAT.
[If only christians who did even sort of believe the bible realize the invincible shield available to them with this concept, then the battle is almost over. It wouldn't take too long to mop up the floor for all intents and puposes, and us majority could stop you minority from forcing your has been beliefs on unsuspecting children!!]



Of course, you've proved that snakes speak English, apple trees make you immortal, and people live for thousands of years. Oh wait, YOU HAVEN'T!
[We covered belief already, and your minority belief, as baseless as it is is fine, as I say, if you keep it to your fellow believers. No one is going to prove the past was or was not merged with the spiritual, or was, or was not physical only. So no one has to believe either by force! We need to keep it to actual science being taught, and not minority beliefs!]



Until you conclusively prove the Bible is factually accurate, your spiritual science is a steaming pile of bunk.
[Fair enough, as far as your personal opinion goes. Opinions are like belly buttons, everyone has one. Conversely, until you prove that our future and past were physical only, your falsely so called science is a steaming pile of bunk. Not only that, a totally baseless steaming pile of bunk that doesn't even have the good book backing it up, nor men's world of spiritual experience. It has as little a nothing as they say the big bang universe all stsrted from!]



No, it's your claim that you are speaking out of logic and rationality. It simply amazes me that you can create a topic which is nothing beyond a gigantic textbook example of circular reasoning and then have the audacity to claim that you speak from logic. Just amazing.
[I speak with man's logic of known science. I speak with man's accumulated vast experiences with the supernatural, and spiritual. I also speak with the very word of the Living God, as well, the bible. All you can boast is some offshoot belief best called science, falsely so called. Amazing you evo bent folks got away with it for so long!]



But it is! You've created your very own deus ex machina device so you can pretend the Bible matches science, but the world doesn't work that way at all, dad.
[No need to pretend. Name any aspect of actual, real, known science, gravity, fossils, lightspeed, continental plate movement, etc etc. and it is all grist for bible believer's mills! Now when it comes to so called dating attempts of the past, and the beliefs and assumptions involved in that falsely so called science, well, who gives a hoot about mere beliefs here anyhow?]



Ahaha. And I have the Polkadot Supercalifragilistic Rhinobee's stinger, but that means nothing to the debate, now does it?
[Doesn't do much for me, you have a point. But if it is part of your beliefs, hey, sneak up to your room, and enjoy it!]



WHAT?! You have neither logic nor evidence. [Actual science, and a time honored and tested and proven document, logically outscore baseless distant presumpuous, death dreams of the denizens of the box!] You have an old book and a gigantic pile of fallacy. Again, how can you create such a gigantic logical circle and then proclaim that your ideas are based on logic?! That's some audacity, dad!



None of it's real science. It's just some giant fantasy you've concocted because you can't cope with the fact that the Universe is five billion years old. Welcome to reality, my friend.
[Your reality, palsy, is welcome here. It's always fun to put amateur's perceived evidence on the table, and expose it for the little joke it is. Go ahead, back up your billions claim if you can]



The Bible isn't evidence. You have not given any sort of compelling argument as to why I should believe anything Genesis says, or indeed any of the Bible. Instead, you have a lovely circular house of cards. You haven't proved that either the Bible or your Biblescience is true in its own right, you've just propped them up against each other and hoped no one notices.
[Speaking of circles, why do you keep spinning your wheels without going anywhere? Neither of us need prove our beliefs to each other. You don't have to believe it, and we don't have to believe your 'was only physical, and always will be only physical, and there is nothing but the box' routine. You have not given any sort of compelling argument as to why I should believe that the universe always will be, and was physical only. We all know it now is, we are not daft. No one argues real science of the here and now. So we simply need to stick to that, as we all agree on it, and leave out the beliefs of evo old age dreams.]

.

 

[dad]

Broadly accurate. The city on the mainland, at the Fountain of Ras-el-ain, was originally separate from Tyre, and seems to have become part of it along the way at some point. The Bible does indeed differentiate between the two. Ezekial talks of Nebuchadnezzar's army taking Tyre's "daughters on the mainland," before coming for Tyre itself, "out in the seas."


But modern Tyre sits on the site of the island stronghold of ancient Tyre, not at Ras-el-ain. The Sidonaian port of ancient Tyre is still in use as a port today, and the remains of the Egyptian port can still be seen. The modern buildings stand alongside ruins from Roman times, and atop those from Phoenician times.

Here's a map of modern Tyre:

As you can see, it's no longer an island. The causeway built by Alexander in order to capture the city still connects it to the mainland today. It's quite easy to see which part used to be the island, however. To the North of that part is the Sidonian port (marked on the map as the 'Old port')

Here is an aerial photograph of Tyre, taken from the North.

It's clear enough how this corresponds to the map, and again the area that was originally an island is easy to spot. At the bottom of the picture is the Sidonian port; the area all around it is thriving with life.

I've heard this, or something similar as well. It seems that in some ways, it was fulfilled, but the ultimate fulfilment is yet to come. (?)

 

[Justin Horne]

I've heard this, or something similar as well. It seems that in some ways, it was fulfilled, but the ultimate fulfilment is yet to come. (?)

It will get destroyed again, so in the end, the prophecy is true?

 

[dad]

So it looks like the old "Tyre never being rebuilt' is yet another failed prophecy from the bible...

Don't you wish. When the ultimate fulfilment comes, all will be clear.

 

[Caphi]

If only christians who did even sort of believe the bible realize the invincible shield available to them with this concept, then the battle is almost over. It wouldn't take too long to mop up the floor for all intents and puposes, and us majority could stop you minority from forcing your has been beliefs on unsuspecting children

Oh, so now you're trying to persuade me by force? What, are you going to rally all the Christians under your banner and overwhelm the atheist commies? I would thank you to put some thought into your posts rather than spouting religious idealism.

We covered belief already, and your minority belief, as baseless as it is is fine, as I say, if you keep it to your fellow believers. No one is going to prove the past was or was not merged with the spiritual, or was, or was not physical only. So no one has to believe either by force! We need to keep it to actual science being taught, and not minority beliefs

How is my belief baseless? You're right, neither can be proved or disproved, but we have this lovely intellectual tool called Ockham's Razor (alternately spelled Occam's Razor). It is a very simple principle which states that the correct theory is generally the one that covers the facts and makes as few extraneous assumptions as possible. And I choose to believe the science we have, validated as it is by centuries of empirical observation. If it already works perfectly and turns up results that make sense, why come up with elaborate spiritual worlds?

I speak with man's logic of known science. I speak with man's accumulated vast experiences with the supernatural, and spiritual. I also speak with the very word of the Living God, as well, the bible. All you can boast is some offshoot belief best called science, falsely so called. Amazing you evo bent folks got away with it for so long

You have no proof of either your "vast experience" or the veracity of the Bible. Therefore, your spiritual split conspiracies are unnecessary to explain the world and serve only as unnecessary burden on thought, just the type of thing Ockham's Razor strives to eliminate.

Actual science, and a time honored and tested and proven document, logically outscore baseless distant presumpuous, death dreams of the denizens of the box

Your "document" is neither proven nor reliable except by your own elaborate circular-logic superstructure, so you have no claim at all to "actual science."

Your reality, palsy, is welcome here. It's always fun to put amateur's perceived evidence on the table, and expose it for the little joke it is. Go ahead, back up your billions claim if you can

Go first. A natural, five-billion-year-old world is the less outrageous claim compared to a separate set of physical laws which come and go according to the needs of your religion, so the burden of proof belongs to you. Don't try to shift it because of your high-horse complex. You have no reason for your arrogance save your own faith in your pet pseudoscience. The scientists, who you call the "evo bent people," have the high ground in terms of burden-of-proof.

Speaking of circles, why do you keep spinning your wheels without going anywhere? Neither of us need prove our beliefs to each other. You don't have to believe it, and we don't have to believe your 'was only physical, and always will be only physical, and there is nothing but the box' routine. You have not given any sort of compelling argument as to why I should believe that the universe always will be, and was physical only. We all know it now is, we are not daft. No one argues real science of the here and now. So we simply need to stick to that, as we all agree on it, and leave out the beliefs of evo old age dreams

Yes. The EVO old-age dreams. As opposed to blind faith in a book written 2000 years ago, a faith so extreme that you are willing to mutilate and pervert centuries of intervening science to maintain your cling to it. This is what's called irony, dad.