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.
Interesting remark.
Of his eleven brothers, which one did Joseph put behind bars, and what does his name mean?
Extra credit: What is that a picture of?
Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.What do you think the Holy Spirit is?You mean like here ...
Naaa, scholarship has long since demonstrated ideas like these are incorrect.
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?Your lack of understanding is noted.And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?
You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.
Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.What do you think the Holy Spirit is?You mean like here ...
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?Your lack of understanding is noted.And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?
You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.
Either that, or it's basic doctrine with us.It applies to us too. We're in the same dispensation (Grace or Church Age) as Paul was, when he wrote it.What do you think the Holy Spirit is?You mean like here ...
2 Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
... where God put the leaders that married our women and basically destroyed the earth?Only to have who take their place? It could be that angels are still falling today.I'm sure God had His reasons for creating Lucifer and the third of the angels that would initially rebel. Who am I to suggest He should have done otherwise?Your lack of understanding is noted.And how did He put it? did He say, "Hang on, I'll be right back"? or did He say He would return at the end of this dispensation, when the "times of the Gentiles be fulfilled"?
You do know that the "times of the Gentiles" started in AD 70, and will end at Armageddon, don't you?They did nothing. They realized God works on a timetable.
After being created by humans that were created by God to create. So, no, they don't actually create themselves.
I like the diversity of our family. Nothing to be embarrassed about. There is lots of family sacredness going on there.But our other cousins: monkeys, lemurs, and apes don't embarrass you?
He's just another bigoted athiest. Yawn.
The important features to keep in mind about bigoted atheists and bigoted Christians is that they are bigots. I sense you view the atheism and the Christianity as the important features of their character.
No scientific method I'm aware of starts out with: 'Step #1: assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism. If you think it does, please cite the reference for that. (I would say that is just a belief you (and many others) hold there).
There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science. In fact the one you claim there, makes zero impact on the outcomes of properly conducted objective testing, anyway.
If you think it does; can you give an example of where you think it does?
So too, does the type of mind which perceives those processes and laws. How do you discount that demonstrably evident fact, (along with any of its influences), in forming the conclusions on the constancy of 'processes and laws' there?
Science's 'laws and processes' were evidently distinguished for the purposes of being useful for us. They make sense to a human mind. There is zip objective evidence that they would make sense to non-human minds elsewhere in the universe. (In fact the latter mentioned type of mind there, still takes a human mind to imagine it as existing, anyway ..)
No .. they don't think about them because they are completely irrelevant to the science they're doing. They are therefore not part of doing science.
Your assumption there is nothing more than yet another untestable belief, which is neutralised and bypassed in the drive to perform science's objective testing.
Its also noted that you almost demonstrated why those assumptions have nothing to do with science there .. (which was my point). You however, backed away from forming the logical conclusion there for some reason though ..(?)
Why do you think 'their models don't come up against them'?
I agree that science (in particular, QM) returns knowledge which forces philosophical rethinking about 'what nature is like'. That rethinking however, stands quite independently from doing science. This is the main point I'm making here. Philosophy is not science. Science starts out with no pre-assumptions about the nature of reality. Such pre-assumptions are philosophical notions, as they invariably assume untestable 'truths' (aka: beliefs).
No scientific method I'm aware of starts out with: 'Step #1: assume a form of naturalistic uniformitarianism. If you think it does, please cite the reference for that. (I would say that is just a belief you (and many others) hold there).
There's no pre-conditions needed prior to doing science. In fact the one you claim there, makes zero impact on the outcomes of properly conducted objective testing, anyway.
If you think it does; can you give an example of where you think it does?
So too, does the type of mind which perceives those processes and laws. How do you discount that demonstrably evident fact, (along with any of its influences), in forming the conclusions on the constancy of 'processes and laws' there?
Science's 'laws and processes' were evidently distinguished for the purposes of being useful for us. They make sense to a human mind. There is zip objective evidence that they would make sense to non-human minds elsewhere in the universe. (In fact the latter mentioned type of mind there, still takes a human mind to imagine it as existing, anyway ..)
No .. they don't think about them because they are completely irrelevant to the science they're doing. They are therefore not part of doing science.
Your assumption there is nothing more than yet another untestable belief, which is neutralised and bypassed in the drive to perform science's objective testing.
Its also noted that you almost demonstrated why those assumptions have nothing to do with science there .. (which was my point). You however, backed away from forming the logical conclusion there for some reason though ..(?)
Why do you think 'their models don't come up against them'?
I agree that science (in particular, QM) returns knowledge which forces philosophical rethinking about 'what nature is like'. That rethinking however, stands quite independently from doing science. This is the main point I'm making here. Philosophy is not science. Science starts out with no pre-assumptions about the nature of reality. Such pre-assumptions are philosophical notions, as they invariably assume untestable 'truths' (aka: beliefs).
From what I can see this is true. There are lots of other people who are Anglicans and in large mainline denominations that would agree. Many Christians agree and actually encourage scientists to deride fundamentalist type of thinking because their beliefs are so bad "in the face of obvious scientific evidence." It is embarrassing when your cousin is the equivalent of an "intellectually social drunk"
If nothing else, I'd say that they were written through a distinct religious lens.Yes, the Jewish fictional writers were quite clever weren't they. I don't for one minute believe they were writing history (as do most scholars), although they may have been writing something equivalent to today's historical fiction.
That depends. I'm sure someone can be bigoted in both camps.The important features to keep in mind about bigoted atheists and bigoted Christians is that they are bigots. I sense you view the atheism and the Christianity as the important features of their character.
Ironically, he's now an indoctrinater.I think Dawkins has struggled to free himself from the religious Anglican (C of E) indoctrination he suffered during his youth(?) In contemplating the complexity of life in his early teen years, he saw a different way of looking at biological complexity through a naturalistic viewpoint.
My personal view is that because he continues to have to struggle in order to maintain clarity on this viewpoint, we see this aspect more when he grapples with folk who actually embrace religious indoctrination. (Ie: we instinctively see 'the struggle' perhaps more than we listen for the objective evidence he brings to the table).
What is a car an imitation of? A horse? A camel?No we aren't the original creators of anything. We only create imitations of what God already created.
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?