nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 9:42 amHow can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Sep 22, 2021 7:08 am
The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.
For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?
While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.
TRANSPONDER wrote:You're having me on, surely. Faith is more than the Bible? That's damn' near saying 'even if the Bible isn't true, the Faith based on it, is true'.
The bible is many things. You can't just say 'The Bible' and carry on from there. It would have to be discussed in its details.
I have indeed heard the Believer saying (in so many words) that science must be tossed out of the window if it conflicts with Faith.
But you can't see all people of faith like this. Some very religious people are scientists. But you should also appreciate that some people of faith have such strong convictions they take it for granted that the bible is essentially true. This is a mistake but some people just don't bother themselves with the historical details. They may have a naive grasp of history and intellectual matters and may say strange things but that does not undermine their faith because, for some people, faith is very intuitive. Some people are just not intellectuals and you can't fault them for that.
Not too many pages ago we saw science dismissed as ad hoc (which I take as just the excuses that materialist science makes up) when it didn't support Flood Geology as much as was expected.
I know but it is more important to be virtuous than knowledgeable. Some people are just not intellectuals and questions of faith cannot be resolved purely by scholars and smart people.
I see no valid evidence -based reason to suppose a god is operating through natural processes,
God created nature. Simple physical nature is an expression of God's plan.
even if it was 'more than natural' is meaningless in the context.
It is simply saying that nature goes way beyond what we understand it to be. Maybe paranormal would be a better term than supernatural, which gives a wrong impression sometimes.
The theory of evolution is one of the better - validated scientific theories. The broad outlines of evolution of life -forms has been validated by predictions
I have no problem with those parts of the theory that can be convincingly argued for. I have great respect for science. But the theory is fraught with difficulties. But that is for another thread.
TRANSPONDER wrote:You're having me on, surely. Faith is more than the Bible? That's damn' near saying 'even if the Bible isn't true, the Faith based on it, is true'.
The bible is many things. You can't just say 'The Bible' and carry on from there. It would have to be discussed in its details.
You did "I think faith is a lot more than the bible's reliability. So, the book has been distorted along that way, that does not matter much - except for fundamentalists. Faith is much more than the bible."
If you used the term without 'carrying on' from there, why should I?
I have indeed heard the Believer saying (in so many words) that science must be tossed out of the window if it conflicts with Faith.
But you can't see all people of faith like this. Some very religious people are scientists. But you should also appreciate that some people of faith have such strong convictions they take it for granted that the bible is essentially true. This is a mistake but some people just don't bother themselves with the historical details. They may have a naive grasp of history and intellectual matters and may say strange things but that does not undermine their faith because, for some people, faith is very intuitive. Some people are just not intellectuals and you can't fault them for that.
Not too many pages ago we saw science dismissed as ad hoc (which I take as just the excuses that materialist science makes up) when it didn't support Flood Geology as much as was expected.
I know but it is more important to be virtuous than knowledgeable. Some people are just not intellectuals and questions of faith cannot be resolved purely by scholars and smart people.
I see no valid evidence -based reason to suppose a god is operating through natural processes,
God created nature. Simple physical nature is an expression of God's plan.
even if it was 'more than natural' is meaningless in the context.
It is simply saying that nature goes way beyond what we understand it to be. Maybe paranormal would be a better term than supernatural, which gives a wrong impression sometimes.
The theory of evolution is one of the better - validated scientific theories. The broad outlines of evolution of life -forms has been validated by predictions
I have no problem with those parts of the theory that can be convincingly argued for. I have great respect for science. But the theory is fraught with difficulties. But that is for another thread.
Virtue and knowledge are different things. Knowledge is..knowledge. Virtue is using it the right way. But knowledge of what virtue actually is (it is not just whatever the Bible says) comes from knowledge not virtue itself. And the same with Faith, I think Understanding the biology of Faith will tell us more than just Having it.
I am sure there are unknowns that may look paranormal (indeterminacy surely looked like it) but we simply can't come to any conclusions about it until we know about it. If no conclusions are arrived at, what's the point in even talking about it unless to try to belittle science with claims that something (that you are sure of) exists that science can't see. But you'd have to validate that claim or what's the point?
The Theory of evolution is actually irrelevant event if it was disproved (and you're going to have more luck disproving the heliocentric system) as that would not do a thing to validate any other alternative theory. You's still have to produce the evidence.
I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history.
As Christians, what we believe is Jesus Christ is our Lord and we should follow his teachings and example. And it is through the Bible that we primarily get our knowledge of his life and instructions.
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:26 am
For Christians, the authority of the Bible is centered on Jesus.
"when we say the Bible is authoritative what we mean when we say that is Jesus is the risen King"
"Jesus has authority over me and that authority is expressed to me through the scriptures"
From a secular perspective, Jesus Christ also has had the most impact in human history. Our timeline is split relative to his life. In ancient times, time was relative to kings. Now, our time is relative to Jesus Christ, whether you use AD/BC or CE/BCE.
Currently, we are in Christmas season, the biggest holiday season of the year for Americans and for many around the world. This is all based on the birth of Christ. Of course, Easter season is also a major holiday.
There also has been no other single person in human history that has been more influential in books, music, arts, movies, poetry, culture, ethics, etc.
If you look at his life, it was quite unremarkable in the sense that he never wrote a book, was not was a king, was not a military ruler, did not start any institution, was not rich, was not powerful, did not build an empire, didn't travel to distant lands, and had a rag tag group of followers.
What can account for such a mundane life to result in him being the single most influential person in human history?
If we discount him being divine, he somehow had figured out something that we all don't know. He had knowledge of something that is not obvious to any of us to become so unique. We all think to be influential, you have to be famous, powerful, or rich. Isn't these things what practically everyone seeks? Jesus never sought any of these, and yet turned out to be on top of everyone else in human history.
Skeptics might argue Jesus is the product of a legend that developed over time, like Santa Claus. He was just a lucky person to be the recipient of everyone else mythologizing him. But, there was not enough time to have elapsed for that to happen. The "legend" of Jesus appeared pretty much immediately. The books of the New Testament were written shortly after the life of Jesus. And it would've been easy for people to falsify any claims that were not true.
For Jesus to have had such a quick and monumental impact in the minds of people, something must've happened. For those that accept the miraculous, resurrection from the dead would be the only thing that could account for his uniqueness and historical impact. For those that do not, it would be difficult to pinpoint any other reason for his legacy.
mgb wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:19 am
But nature for God must be much more than we think it is.
Not so fast. First, there has to be a God.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
mgb wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:04 am
The theory of evolution is woefully incomplete. Many parts of it that are presented as established science are really only articles of materialistic faith; dogma.
It would help immensely if you could provide some supporting evidence for those sweeping claims.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.” Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:28 am
Ok I checked your reference. I am corrected that the mantle is not liquid. But it doesn't alter the matter of tectonic plate movement on a base that Acts as though it was liquid.
This just confirms the ad hoc nature of SG. First you insist it's molten rock, then it's confirmed it's solid rock, then it's claimed it doesn't matter if it's molten rock or solid rock. Pretty much can claim anything in SG and it doesn't matter.
I'm proud to tell everyone here it's otseng who schooled me and my 70s public education.
I was still playing the floor is lava.
otseng presents an image wrote:
Let's all take a few moments to reflect on such a beautiful image.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 5:34 pm
I don't believe it can be contested that Jesus Christ is the most influential person in all of human history.
As Christians, what we believe is Jesus Christ is our Lord and we should follow his teachings and example. And it is through the Bible that we primarily get our knowledge of his life and instructions.
otseng wrote: ↑Wed Nov 03, 2021 8:26 am
For Christians, the authority of the Bible is centered on Jesus.
"when we say the Bible is authoritative what we mean when we say that is Jesus is the risen King"
"Jesus has authority over me and that authority is expressed to me through the scriptures"
From a secular perspective, Jesus Christ also has had the most impact in human history. Our timeline is split relative to his life. In ancient times, time was relative to kings. Now, our time is relative to Jesus Christ, whether you use AD/BC or CE/BCE.
Currently, we are in Christmas season, the biggest holiday season of the year for Americans and for many around the world. This is all based on the birth of Christ. Of course, Easter season is also a major holiday.
There also has been no other single person in human history that has been more influential in books, music, arts, movies, poetry, culture, ethics, etc.
If you look at his life, it was quite unremarkable in the sense that he never wrote a book, was not was a king, was not a military ruler, did not start any institution, was not rich, was not powerful, did not build an empire, didn't travel to distant lands, and had a rag tag group of followers.
What can account for such a mundane life to result in him being the single most influential person in human history?
If we discount him being divine, he somehow had figured out something that we all don't know. He had knowledge of something that is not obvious to any of us to become so unique. We all think to be influential, you have to be famous, powerful, or rich. Isn't these things what practically everyone seeks? Jesus never sought any of these, and yet turned out to be on top of everyone else in human history.
Skeptics might argue Jesus is the product of a legend that developed over time, like Santa Claus. He was just a lucky person to be the recipient of everyone else mythologizing him. But, there was not enough time to have elapsed for that to happen. The "legend" of Jesus appeared pretty much immediately. The books of the New Testament were written shortly after the life of Jesus. And it would've been easy for people to falsify any claims that were not true.
For Jesus to have had such a quick and monumental impact in the minds of people, something must've happened. For those that accept the miraculous, resurrection from the dead would be the only thing that could account for his uniqueness and historical impact. For those that do not, it would be difficult to pinpoint any other reason for his legacy.
This is to take a religion that has little or nothing (or so I'd argue) with the actual Jesus (if there was such a person), the beliefs of his followers remastered by Paul to suit Roman gentiles and revised again to suit Hellenistic views but without the inclusiveness of the Greco -roman religion. That it had great appeal can't be denied and became like Islam and Buddhism, very influential. This proves nothing about Jesus or Christianity being true. It's influence on Western civilisation is accepted, but that can't be used as some reason to not question its' teachings and move on if they are are found wanting.
TRANSPONDER wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 4:28 am
Ok I checked your reference. I am corrected that the mantle is not liquid. But it doesn't alter the matter of tectonic plate movement on a base that Acts as though it was liquid.
This just confirms the ad hoc nature of SG. First you insist it's molten rock, then it's confirmed it's solid rock, then it's claimed it doesn't matter if it's molten rock or solid rock. Pretty much can claim anything in SG and it doesn't matter.
I'm proud to tell everyone here it's otseng who schooled me and my 70s public education.
I was still playing the floor is lava.
otseng presents an image wrote:
Let's all take a few moments to reflect on such a beautiful image.
A nice picture showing the effects of erosion. Now otseng corrected me on a technicality of what was mobile about tectonic plate movement, but what I said was, essentially, correct. It is lava/Magma and not water that causes it.
What causes transform plates to move? As the sinking plate moves deeper into the mantle, fluids are released from the rock causing the overlying mantle to partially melt. The new magma (molten rock) rises and may erupt violently to form volcanoes, often building arcs of islands along the convergent boundary. ... This is known as a transform plate boundary.
Just a pick -up quote from the 'net but it repeats what geological science says. This not 'ad hoc' in any way, even if I was wrong in the mantle being liquid rather than becoming liquid or being moved about by liquid rock.
TRANSPONDER wrote:If you used the term without 'carrying on' from there, why should I?
I qualified my use of it by saying 'the bible is many things'. I'm talking about the unqualified use of the expression. If you say 'the bible' you need to be more specific about details.
If no conclusions are arrived at, what's the point in even talking about it unless to try to belittle science with claims that something (that you are sure of) exists that science can't see.
I don't see why science should be belittled by claims about the paranormal. Questions concerning consciousness are largely outside science because science cannot understand what the self or the person are, as whole things.
The Theory of evolution is actually irrelevant event if it was disproved (and you're going to have more luck disproving the heliocentric system) as that would not do a thing to validate any other alternative theory. You's still have to produce the evidence.
I'm not trying to disprove it. I believe in evolution and some parts of the theory. But the theory is full of holes and is missing something.
mgb wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 7:04 am
The theory of evolution is woefully incomplete. Many parts of it that are presented as established science are really only articles of materialistic faith; dogma.
It would help immensely if you could provide some supporting evidence for those sweeping claims.
I have already mentioned one. We are supposed to believe that mutations + natural selection can produce a person. A person? Think about it...
[Replying to otseng in post #8] The Bible teaches about the only true God, Jesus' God, the same one whom Jesus called Father and who was worshiped in the temple in Jerusalem.
The main theme of the Bible is the sanctification of God's name, just as Jesus himself taught.
John 12:27 Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? Father, save me out of this hour. Nevertheless, this is why I have come to this hour. 28 Father, glorify your name.” Therefore a voice came out of heaven: “I both glorified [it] and will glorify [it] again.”
Jesus is the primary means by which God's name will be sanctified, and mediates between us and his Father, so that in the fulfillment of Jehovah's purpose we will not have to die for all our mistakes.
