| Hello, Rosa_McGee [ logout ] profile | register | faq | search | forum home (Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ) << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> Marilyn Manson BBS > Marilyn Manson > To all the openminded I say welcome. The great theology thread has returned! Author Message freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Thanks Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ While we do not agree on everything, I have come to appreciate your intellectual approach to what you believe (as well as many others on this thread). It does the people on this a great service to see your example and for that I commend you. Thanks for not letting our disagreements become personal but for always being encouraging with respect to your beliefs. I still think that your statement about atheism is the deepest I've read on this bbs. I am off now as you said. Hopefully I can get caught up in school now. As you know, these issues can become rather challenging. Later my friend, Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-27-200112:32 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Thanks Rictus ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I look forward to reading your comments. As I sat in my Greek class today I realized how far behind I am. The discussions are nice, but it is the people I really care about. My hope has been to overcome the stereotypes that are resident here, but mainly to let people know that a Christian loves them. It breaks my heart to read such sad poetry and so many suicide posts. I thought that by providing a place where people can ask questions, that I might be able to show people that Christianity is not as illogical as it is made out to be. Nevertheless, I have done this to the detriment of my school, family and ministry. Time management is not one of my strengths. I spend more time on here than I do studying. However, it has all been worth it. I have thoroughly enjoyed it but now I need to refocus on my school for a while. I'll still be around but maybe not as much. Thanks for understanding. You and Order have been my true inspiration for being here (although I also appreciate Devilmunchkin, Rosa, Sativa, La_Morte, Adolph, Mike Sorrow, Drivefaster, Shokan - yes, even you Shokan, Catholicgirl, Plastic Jesus and so many others for being so friendly). I'm going to take a break and get caught up on school so I can be a better preacher. Nevertheless, I'll still check in. With Love from Your friend, Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-27-200112:42 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 Glad to add support. For what you said on Jesus, I do have a response. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The inherent flaw in Christianity doesn't lie in proving the existence of Jesus. It lies in proving he was the son of God. The only evidence of such a claim lies in the Bible and Gospels. If that sounds familiar, it should. It is the same thing with the followers claiming the resurrection. They were just that, his followers. Legends arise around anyone who has followers. Look at King Arthur (I'm pretty sure that's the guy I'm thinking of). Perhaps, the alleged "darkening of the sky", is what caused these early myths to arise. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-27-200112:44 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Great point. You and Rosa have both raised it. Here is my response. First of all, some of the people mentioned in the article (e.g. Josephus) seemed to say some very extraordinary things about Jesus even though they were not followers. However, more than likely if someone believed that Jesus was the Son of God he would be a follower of Christ. Unlike the false claims made earlier, to follow Christ required a great sacrifice. It meant giving up your family, traditions and becoming an enemy of the state. Peter, John and many others were crucified for their faith (one of the reasons why I doubt that the resurrection was a hoax). What I am saying is that believing Jesus is the Son of God is prerequisite knowledge to being a Christian. Also to believe Jesus was the Son of God, if he wasn't, was blasphemy. Incidentally, I think that was the main point that Jesus was making regarding the Pharisees. Throughout the Old Testament, the largest persecuters of the prophets were the religious leaders. In many ways, the New Testament is a commentary on the Old Testament. The reason was that the prophets always challenged their leadership. Jesus did the same thing and paid the price (Rictus made a great point about Lamb of God and society's need to create martyrs on the other thread). Consequently, I can't forsee many Jewish historians of that time writing, "Jesus was the Son of God, but I don't believe Him." In my opinion, your point is like saying the only people who believe all of evolutionary biology are evolutionists (I'm not resurrecting the debate but using it as an example). Well, if you accept all of the assumptions of evolutionary science, then chances are good that you will be an evolutionist. In the same regard, during those times if people accepted the Bible (claims of Old Testament and New, although all of the New Testament was not written but I basically mean the teachings of it) as being true and Jesus as the Son of God, chances are they would not be writing from any other viewpoint. Some, like Paul, were not immediately his followers, but after Paul accepted these points he became one of the most ardent defenders of Christianity despite having once persecuted those of the faith. I realize that this argument is not a killer one, but I think that it is a valid point. I make no arguments about the necessity of accepting the divine inspiration of the Bible for belief in Christ. I hope this helps...freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-27-200106:39 PM devilmunchkin Member 3003 Posts Member since: 08-19-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ hi all, just a few short things..though you guys are getting into territory where i'm not familiar at all (damn that NT). ON the subject of Pharisee inquisitions and such..i would have to surmise theat they cannot quite be taken into account, because even during Jesus' lifetime they were against him, and this should not even be considered part of the Christian culture. But perhaps i'm completley off. ANd also, if you think about it, what religion isn't guilty of extreme violence? I've begun to believe Chrisitanity is attacked only because it is by far the most prevalent in today's culture...therefore it makes sense that a majority of violence will extend from it because it holds more people. It's all a mathematical question of probability..supported by free grace's argument that human's are inherently evil. I myself don't believe that...i believe man is inherently good BUT i also believe man's nature leaves him entirely susceptable to extreme corruption. And the thought of christ even exisiting at al has crossed my mind. what other proff is there other than the bible, which does seem to me rather a loose knit collection of myths and fables..but i guess we shouldn't go there. I've heard of the shroud and am wondering as to it's believability. Also, why hasn't a possible tomb for jesus been found? i understand a skeleton wouldn't have been found..culture wanting to beleive him god would have made sure of that..but...where is the cave that is discussed that he was placed in? Moving on to whether or not he was the son of god. Obviously Muslims believe that Jesus was not and Mohammed was? how do we justify this? ANd also, our society seems to brush off people in today's cults that have leaders claiming to be the next messiah..namely david Koresh. Notice that like jesus he became a monstrous enemy of the state (hello!! we forking torched his placed and killed all the children!!) and was isolated from society. His followers had to give up their lives as well. How then is he different? How do we know HE wasn't te recoming or that Jesus was even the son to begin with? How do we know that even IF Jesus existed that he wans't some nut? the end... and also, free grace: if you need help in mytholgy i am available..tho i don't know the greek language. THROUGH ME YOU GO INTO PAIN THAT IS ETERNAL, THROUGH ME YOU GO AMONG PEOPLE LOST. JUSTICE MOVED MY EXALTED CREATOR: THE DIVINE POWER MADE ME, THE SUPREME WISDOM AND THE PRIMA LOVE. BEFORE ME ALL CREATED THINGS WERE ETERNAL, AND ETERNAL WILL LAST. ABANDON EVERY HOPE YOU WHO ENTER HERE. Dante's Inferno, Canto III posted 01-27-200108:37 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Thanks Devilmunchkin ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some very good points you made. In my effort to spend less time here, I will not be able to give it all the response I would like: 1. Regarding whether Jesus existed, we talked a lot about this here: http://marilynmansonbbs.artistdirect.com/1/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=10019&f=371193081&m=999196553&p=7 I will say that the documentation of anybody during that time is difficult to substantiate, but there is more evidence about Jesus than most ancient icons. 2. Regarding the supposed burial sites, there are two possible locations. One is called the Garden tomb and the other is the traditional location that is at the end of the Via Dolorosa in Israel. Honestly, I have not studied the issue definitely to make a dogmatic statement but I have visited them both. Regarding the shroud, I am not that knowledgeable about that issue either. 3. Regarding Muhammend and King Arthur. I agree that others can claim to be something they're not (interesting to see the use of WE...you wacky Baylor people from Waco are taking credit for eliminating Koresh?...Just Kidding...LOL). However, that does not mean that the claims of Jesus should not be evaluated solely on their own merit irrespective of what others have claimed. Here's how I addressed this issue with Rictus in the past: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dear Rictus: I apologize for neglecting to respond to your thought provoking question. I commend you for your thoughtfulness and your investigation into the word of God. I am willing to accept people who have read the Bible, evaluated the Bible and then rejected it. However, it is often a tragedy when people reject a book they've never read extensively because of it's association with Christ. I am not sure if you accept it or reject it, but I commend you for reading it. I see a common error of logic that has appeared throughout this discussion that I would like to clarify now. The error is the error of false association. Here's how it works: 1. Elephants have ears 2. I have ears 3. Therefore, I am an elephant. In the same way, people make false conclusions off of similar associations. With no offense to anyone, I point them out to you now: 1. The Bible has a story about the flood. 2. Prior to the Bible other cultures had myths about the flood. 3. Therefore, the Bible is a myth. Interestingly enough, archeology tells us that pi was calculated by the Aztecs on the other side of the continent before the "western world" ever came up with it. Does this mean they were somehow transported to influence them? Keep in mind that knowledge does not travel today like it did then so myths could happen in one culture without another knowing about it. The associations do not inherently demonstrate influence. 1. Jesus did miracles 2. Other people like Rasputin did miracles but he was no god. 3. Therefore, Jesus is not a god. The irony is that this very same logic is justfully attacked by this group about the wrong conclusions that Christians have made about Brian Warner. Here's what Christians have erroneously concluded: 1. Brian Warner has songs with lyrics with the words "Get your gunn, get your gunn get your gunn, get your gunn" and "The prolife I will kill What you don't do I will" 2. The Columbine Students killed with a gun and they listened to Brian Warner 3. Therefore, the Columbine incident is Brian's fault. As you can see, under the rules of logic, this is an error that can not stand in an argument. That is how I separate Christ from Rasputin. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-27-200109:09 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ There is a difference between the biology/evolutionist example and the Bible/Christian example. Biology isn't a religious source. Biology, as a science, could just have easily proven evolution wrong. Biology only became "evolutionary biology" once it began offering proof for evolution. People from many varying religions accept biology as a non-partisan, secular source of experiments. The Bible, however, is a religious source. Unlike biology, the Bible, as Christian text, could not have proven its own Christian beliefs wrong. Christian text did not become Christian text because of the proof it offered. It was Christian text before any such "proof" was even offered. The opposite is true for "evolutionary biology". Also, while biology is widely accepted by many different religions as a non-partisan source of proof, the NT is not. Here is a simplified example of what I am getting at: If evolution is proven wrong, it is science that proved it wrong. If religion is proven wrong, it is science that proved it wrong. The first point is proven by your use of scientists' work earlier to try to disprove evolution. Science is accepted as non-partisan because it is the only thing that is willing and able to prove its own theories wrong. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-28-200103:25 AM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Mike Sorrow ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I understand your point and can see the difficulty. Here's how I would address it from a theological perspective: 1. If science is proven wrong, it is ultimately God who will prove it wrong. Here's what I mean: 1. Let's say that evolution is proven correct by science and the lack of proof for God is proven correct by science. Then the very day the scientist dies, he stands before the God that he used science to disprove. Was he ultimately proved wrong by science or by God? This is the issue, I can't prove God in the same way you might like. 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-29-200110:54 AM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Then the very day the scientist dies, he stands before the God that he used science to disprove. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If he actually disproved God, he wouldn't be standing before him. Plus, there is no evidence whatsoever of him standing before God. If science proves something wrong, whether it be scientific theory or religious text, there is evidence that it was proven wrong. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-29-200112:09 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 Here is my point Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The likelihood of science absolutely disproving the existence of God is slim (although it does not necessarily prove him either). As you have said in the past, science does not concern itself with religious matters. However, let's say that someone did "disprove God" yet be totally wrong about it. His hypothesis might not be disproven in this lifetime, but the next. In that case, God would disprove science. Not science disproving science. In fact, I believe that will ultimately happen. Do you believe in other things that are not necessarily scientific? Do you believe in love or do you only limit it to the realm of science? Do you believe in peace, hope, etc? Also, do you consider faith a bad thing? In response to my comment, you have vigorously attacked the notion that belief in science as much as faith in God. I don't want to rehash that point. However, let's say you are right for the sake of argument and because you are influenced by the blue pill . What is inherently wrong with faith that a system is better if it requires less faith than another? For instance, in my opinion falling in love requires a great deal of faith because you have no idea whether the relationship will work out for the best. Because the future is so uncertain, you must exercise faith that it will work out. Should love be eliminated because it requires too much faith? Queensryche would probably say so, but I think that is part of the beauty of life. I say this all to ask your opinions about the nature of faith. Rosa, if you see this thread, I would be curious to see your answer to my question about subjective reasons why you believe what you do. Shokan, Prarie and anyone else are welcomed to answer that as well. Have a great day! Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-29-200102:13 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Do you believe in other things that are not necessarily scientific? Do you believe in love or do you only limit it to the realm of science? Do you believe in peace, hope, etc? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ While people like to distance love and hope from science, science can give us a reason for their being. They are human emotions. Like other emotions (happiness, sadness, etc.), they are triggered by stimuli and cause electrical impulses in the brain. So, while it is nice to think we do things outside the realm of science, it is simply untrue. As for peace, it is different than love and hope. Peace is a concept. But, again, it is a concept based on fact. The fact that there is no war or fighting. Without these facts, there wouldn't even be a notion of peace. Because science is based on objectivity, peace can be included with science because of its reliance on fact. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Also, do you consider faith a bad thing? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Because there is no absolute proof of either belief system, faith is the only measurement for logic. It is only logical that one would choose a belief system that requires less faith. For example, I believe in gravity because the Earth has a larger mass than I. I could just as easily believe that I am being pushed down by an alien light beam a million miles away, but it requires less faith to believe in the former. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What is inherently wrong with faith that a system is better if it requires less faith than another? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Nothing is inherently wrong with a system that requires faith. The problem arises when a significant amount of faith is needed and it begins to cloud logic. My point is that between the two systems evolution and creationism (or even science and religion, for that matter), the one that requires the least amount of faith should be considered to be the most logical. Evolution (and/or science) takes that prize. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Should love be eliminated because it requires too much faith? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No. There is no alternative to love. There is love. That is it. There is no emotion to replace it. With religion, there IS something to replace it. And that something requires less faith and is, therefore, more logical. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-29-200102:36 PM ITYLT Member 903 Posts Member since: 08-09-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I apologize for not having read the previous posts but I am lazy i would just like to know your opinions on something i have been turning over in my mind for a while now my theory is that everyone lives to fufill one singular purpose and once that pupose is fufilled the person dies there is also a part of this theory that if a person has not yet fufilled their purpose that they will not die untill completing that goal, the person is in effect immortal until the time when the one thing they were put on this earth is fufilled. i would like to hear anyones thoughts on this matter In this world of worthless people Finding truth can be so hard Their diamonds can⤙t be broken But my heart is forever scarred:IGHYT AIM:ITYLT posted 01-29-200102:59 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is even less concrete than Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, which, at least, have text. There is no reason to believe it. There is no proof or evidence. It is not a theory or a hypothesis. It is mere conjecture. The extent of faith required to believe a thought like that is very large. It is not logical, and while serving your views of the world, it doesn't have anything to fall back on. What is your reason for believing? Did you just make that up or did someone tell you? Do you have anything to back up the claims? - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-29-200103:07 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 I understand your point Mike ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is well argued. First, is logic the key to life? Unfortunately, ours is a world that is at many times illogical. In fact, it is ironic to me that people that would base all of creation on chaos would look to a system that is so organized and "logical" than evolution. After talking to Order in Artificial Chaos, I recognize the whole point of the big bang theory revealing patterns. I really don't understand that principle but it seems to be an explanation for how order can exist in the midst of Chaos. On your point about gravity, I am not trying to rehash the argument, but isn't what the supposed "logical, impartial scientists" like Crick did when he proposed Panspermia theory? Your outlandish example may not apply to gravity but it seems to be an explanation for how the world was created. Considering that this theory is accepted by many scientists today, it seems hard for me to accept that the conclusions of scientists are always logical, impartial or based on evidence. My point is this Mike. If something is true, logic won't always identify it necessarily. To reduce love to emotional impulses sent to the brain is fine for science, but love in many ways tends to be illogical. As logical of a conclusion you might make about the existence of God, if you are wrong, you are wrong, no ifs ands or buts about it. Unfortunately, we may not ever know who was really right about this point (if we die and don't rise again I won't know any better). Or even worse, we may find out the hard way. On the point of the New Testament, I do not have time to get into this now, but there are over 300 prophecies that were validated in the person of Jesus. Your response will probably be that they New Testament writers wrote the stories of Jesus with an intention to prove prophecy. However, even internal to the Old Testament are many prophecies that have been proven correct by history, especially in the book of Daniel. Nevertheless, I'm at work so I don't have time to go into it now but I will try to remember to come out to it later. Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-29-200103:11 PM Rictus Member 3203 Posts Member since: 06-05-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ @ITYLT: This is very interesting, it's a theory I've also had an interest in. I think ultimately the answer is no, as I don't like the idea of fate or pre-destiny, I like the idea (some would say illution) of free will). But paridoxically, I believe every one has some talent or gift they can use to bring themselves and others happyness, and that that gift, whatever it may be (artistic, numeracy, scientifically minded, strength, compassion, whatever) should be used, for the good of the individual ad the group. In using that gift, you can achive happyness, and make the world a better place (because one without the other is knida pointless. Anyway, if one is not in a positive frame of mind, one is incapable of recognising a positive impact, even if one is being made). As to immortality... actually I could argue that untill you have discovered that gift and started to use it, you don't know what life is, and your not realy living, just existing/serviving. Many people, I believe, go through thier whole lives in this state. So actually, I'd say the secret of imortality is to start to do the thing that you are 'destined', 'chosen' or as I would have it have the talent or gift to do, because until you do, you're not living life, you're trying to servive it, a futile effort at best. Your theory sound in someways similar to pergotory. It also brings to mind the vampiric dramatic theme of living forever, yet not really living at all, living in death (lust without love, darkness without light.. etc). Wow, one excellent theory. You've really got me thinking. I'll bounce this back as an initial responce. Tell me what you think. @Freegrace & Mike Sorrow: Next your point. I haven't forgotten! Me. "All the drugs in this world Won't save her from herself..." "Kill The Cheese!!!" - Eliza (who I love) "No one is a nigger" - Order in an Artificial Chaos posted 01-29-200103:13 PM freegrace Member 945 Posts Member since: 10-31-2000 ITYLT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Very interesting theory From my perspective, man was created to bring glory to God. However, as a result of sin, we have not lived up to that initial purpose, which is the reason death entered into the world. Consequently, my theory would be the opposite, we die because we have not fulfilled the purpose we were designed to fulfill. On a personal nature, I do believe that God has a plan for our lives, and our obedience to Him determines our ability to meet the ideal that God has set before us to maximize our joy in this life and the next. Rictus, thanks for posting your picture! It is great to put a face with a name! Don't ask me why, but you look totally different than I expected. I've got to get back to work. Have a great day! Freegrace 2 Thes 2:16 "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, 17 comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word." "The reason true atheists (not your average "I-don't-like- what-mommy-and-daddy-say-so-I-hate-God" rebellious teen) are depressed is because atheism offers no hope, only proof. Proof of no hope." Mike Sorrow posted 01-29-200103:23 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ First, is logic the key to life? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No, but it is the key to belief. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Your outlandish example may not apply to gravity but it seems to be an explanation for how the world was created. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Irrelevant. I was only using it as an example for gravity. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Considering that this theory is accepted by many scientists today, it seems hard for me to accept that the conclusions of scientists are always logical, impartial or based on evidence. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is still more logical than religion, as it offers proof. It may not always seem logical, but we are talking about degrees of faith. It's all relative. As for Panspermia, I don't prescribe to that theory because there is less faith in the creation of life from the pre-existing factors on Earth. That covers logic, but scientists certainly do things impartially and based on evidence. By definition, science is done impartially and with evidence. If science was partial with vague evidence, it would be categorized as religion, which is what it seems you are trying to do. However, science is not religion. If it were, why would it be the only religion accepted by other religions? quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To reduce love to emotional impulses sent to the brain is fine for science, but love in many ways tends to be illogical. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ How? quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ As logical of a conclusion you might make about the existence of God, if you are wrong, you are wrong, no ifs ands or buts about it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's true, but as long as I'm here on Earth, I'll make my decisions based on the surrounding evidence. That decision being the most logical. I could say that you will turn into a blue rabbit when you die. Just because you'll never know, doesn't mean you should validate the statement. quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ If something is true, logic won't always identify it necessarily. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ That's true. My point is that logic should supersede faith. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-29-200103:31 PM devilmunchkin Member 3003 Posts Member since: 08-19-2000 ok..i'll try this again ------------------------------------------------------------------------ yesterday i had a beautiful message for the thread...but somehow it got deleted before i could post it..in disgust i quit for the day. but i'll try again. To interject something to freegrace and mike sorrow's circle of prove/disprove god.....Every scientist.biologist///...whatever says that the word PROVE is illegal in science. (Realize i say these things with an open mind too). Science cannot definitely prove or disprove anything...it can only give us a great probability of something being true. SCience can never disprove or prove God to the point where there will be no doubt. It can make inferences and theories on evidence and observations that SUGGEST it might be true..but never can it say definitely. I reside with science though, only because it gives more sound probability (when done CORRECTLY) than religion does. It gives me ...and much to your dissapointment i HAVE found why i like and support atheism......more evidence of the goings on in the earth...thus my life seems less chaotic..more controled, which i like. I don't like the idea of some supreme being playing marrionettes with my life....finding out what i can and can't control is much, much more comforting than any vision of a happy afterlife (seeing as how i don't want one anyway). Moving on, evidence of a flood has indeed been found...it seems to suggest that the Mediterranean and Black seas met for some reason or another for a period of time. This would support the idea of Noahs flood and Noah describing how the water "came from below" ..and if it rained..it would support how it came from above too. BUT...this is not evidence for a god. reason being that the hebrew culture was not the only culture to have a story like this. IN fact, the greeks and Canaanite cultures have one as well. AnD the Canaanite culture predates the hebrew (Abraham DID come from UR...whcih was well within canaan). this leads some scholars to sugesst that the hebrew religion is an offshoot of canaanite religion that evolved. Perhaps they were like ancient separatist Puritans ..which would explain any hostility the hebrews felt toward the Canaanite culture. I can and cannot see this point. Foremost...the god of the hebrews and gods of the canaanites acted completely different toward their people. the hebrew god controled history while the canaanite gods had the same occurances in their life every year (baal born and he controls weather, baal is murdered, baal is resurected). That baal could die suggests a weakness to the Canaanite gods, while the Hebrew god did not express any fault (except jeolously and anger [how imperfect] when these other gods were worshipped). ON the other hand, the hebrews NEVER stated that these gods didn't exist..some hebrews worshipped both at the same time. temples dedicated to both Asherah (or Astarte ..can't remember which) have been uncovered among the tells of Israel. When battling a Holy War, it was said that the PEOPLE did not fight..but the GODS were fighting. It was a test to see which sulture had the more powerful god. SO, in that sense, i could see an evolution of canaanite to Hebrew...but it's a stretch perhaps. But, my point is that many cultures had this story of the flood...none PROVING a god...because it can't be proven...nor can it be disproved. Just the idea that these cultures share the same stories gives less fortitude to the idea of the Christian god. AS you said the Flood could not be used to disprove the bible..it can't be proved to support it either. It's also false reasoning. ITYLT: i'm guessing this goes to "god has a plan for you" tho in this case it's possibly minus the god. I think parts of your theory (and i've heard it before) have validity. I think a plan is in order, tho i think it' spart of your subconscious mind. BUT...i do not think that whether or not it is carried out is relevant. I think that once that particular meaning is found or acted out, that new meaning can be found. But also, not completing the path is common...look at early deaths, men who died in battle. Perhaps their plan was to die that way...but i often see a plan as so much more. Perhaps i'm idealistic. THROUGH ME YOU GO INTO PAIN THAT IS ETERNAL, THROUGH ME YOU GO AMONG PEOPLE LOST. JUSTICE MOVED MY EXALTED CREATOR: THE DIVINE POWER MADE ME, THE SUPREME WISDOM AND THE PRIMA LOVE. BEFORE ME ALL CREATED THINGS WERE ETERNAL, AND ETERNAL WILL LAST. ABANDON EVERY HOPE YOU WHO ENTER HERE. Dante's Inferno, Canto III posted 01-29-200103:48 PM Rosa_McGee Member 841 Posts Member since: 08-16-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ still hopelessly behind... i shouldn't have spend that much time yesterday in a pointless discussion with that ******* baby 69 person...... however i picked up an interesting piece of information today... i know the discussion has progressed from the evolution topic, but somebody might be interested.... charles darwin originally studied theology & was actually very much influenced by william paley, a theologist with a very strong creationist point of view... ironically he originally set out to prove, not to disprove creation according to the bible..... posted 01-29-200103:52 PM Mike Sorrow Member 2179 Posts Member since: 10-08-2000 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Devilmunchkin, we did the whole "science doesn't give proof, only probability" thing earlier in the thread. Just so you know. - Mike Sorrow - posted 01-29-200103:56 PM All times are PST . << next newest topic | next oldest topic >> | Page:Next Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 |
 |