| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/11/2004 02:59:16 PM · #426 |
Originally posted by RonB:
As if scientists were more credible than the scriptures.
Ron |
You are of course, right. Both are esentially based upon words in a book, and require some faith to accept. Science at least has the virtue of being slightly more tangible and based mostly upon observable fact or at worst logical or mathematical theory.
Put another way, I don't believe in Gravity, I just stand up and notice its effect.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:12:18 PM · #427 |
anyway, what alot of people miss is that science isnt a belief, as much as it is an approach.
even if science has current 'conclusions' those conclusions are open to being updated by better info. science is about explaining things with more than a 'just because xxxxx said so'
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:26:30 PM · #428 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
anyway, what alot of people miss is that science isnt a belief, as much as it is an approach.
even if science has current 'conclusions' those conclusions are open to being updated by better info. science is about explaining things with more than a 'just because xxxxx said so' |
The Bible hasn't had to "update" ANYTHING because of "better info" since the texts were laid down.
And, try as they may, scientists have not yet been able to PROVE that ANYTHING in scripture is not true. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Bible is constantly being shown to have described scientific phenonoma BEFORE the scientists discover it. Like ocean currents, and "dark" matter.
Ron
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:32:10 PM · #429 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Pure placebo effect.
it's really not that different from saying 'i believe that the is filling my heart with happiness', and then getting a warm fuzzy for that reason.
Pure self-delusion. |
I can see why you would say that because I do know dozens of people whom live that way, that being said, the physical act of being born again in the blood of Christ [being saved] is an actual event that will happen to anyone who readily believes in CHrist and gives their heart and soul to He who died on the cross. It's a real thing, it's a real moment when the Holy Spirit enters your body. I know you are burning with rage at my naivety [sp], if anything, people who truly know and see the error in your statements should pray that the Truth will be revealed to you without anyone saying "I told you so". |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:32:54 PM · #430 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, try as they may, scientists have not yet been able to PROVE that ANYTHING in scripture is not true. In fact, just the opposite is true.
Ron |
Absolutely, the bible can be used to prove just about anything.
So try as they might, people have been able to PROVE just about anything in scripture as true or false. Very convenient really.
But aside from that, lack of proof, if you understood logic at all, is not actually considered a proof of anything.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:34:06 PM · #431 |
Originally posted by RonB:
And, try as they may, scientists have not yet been able to PROVE that ANYTHING in scripture is not true. |
I'm sorry, that's a daft argument.
I could assert that I have just turned this glass of water into wine. There's no way, in a thousand years time, that science could PROVE that I didn't do it. That doesn't, however, make it true.
Historical facts can be (and have been) verified but the "significant" chunks of the bible (and other religious texts) revolve around faith, individual statements and actions that are simply not going to be proveable one way or the other from hundreds of years away.
"I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing" |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:34:56 PM · #432 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I can see why you would say that because I do know dozens of people whom live that way, that being said, the physical act of being born again in the blood of Christ [being saved] is an actual event that will happen to anyone who readily believes in CHrist and gives their heart and soul to He who died on the cross. It's a real thing, it's a real moment when the Holy Spirit enters your body. I know you are burning with rage at my naivety [sp], if anything, people who truly know and see the error in your statements should pray that the Truth will be revealed to you without anyone saying "I told you so". |
so I assume from this that you'd think that every other religion on the planet has it wrong ?
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:35:48 PM · #433 |
hon. i dont feel rage. i have no emotions invested in this convo whatsover. this is merely a diversion while my computer finishes rendering some video :).
but to me, it just sounds alot like cult phenomena. the fact that millions subscribe to it doesn't change that :) ..
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
Pure placebo effect.
it's really not that different from saying 'i believe that the is filling my heart with happiness', and then getting a warm fuzzy for that reason.
Pure self-delusion. |
I can see why you would say that because I do know dozens of people whom live that way, that being said, the physical act of being born again in the blood of Christ [being saved] is an actual event that will happen to anyone who readily believes in CHrist and gives their heart and soul to He who died on the cross. It's a real thing, it's a real moment when the Holy Spirit enters your body. I know you are burning with rage at my naivety [sp], if anything, people who truly know and see the error in your statements should pray that the Truth will be revealed to you without anyone saying "I told you so". |
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:36:43 PM · #434 |
To put it another way, science is always about being unsatisfied with what we currently hold as being true, but having faith in that process. Religion is also about faith in a process. In either case, we can always question it - otherwise there wouldn't be need for faith in the first place. The science behind something is only as good as the methodology. Myself, as an agnostic, I can see that there is a possibility of a God existing, but I haven't seen any infallible evidence. However, I do find it difficult to believe that such a thing as the King James verison of the bible is word-for-word accurate given that it was edited by, amongst other people, poets.
The translators expressed that they were "poor instruments to make GOD'S holy Truth to be yet more and more known" while at the same time recognizing that "Popish persons" sought to keep the people "in ignorance and darkness."
from A Brief History of the King James Bible
Remember that game called 'Pass It On' where you were given a sentence by the teacher and everyone sat in a circle and whispered the sentence into each others' ears and the last person said the sentence and it was completely different than the first sentence? Imagine 2000 years of that...
Anyways...I find it all a bit laughable that a religion that goes from preaching eye for eye stuff to preaching tolerance and acceptance cannot find space for gay marriage. Religion has changed tremendously and in my opinion is only viable if it represents the will and values of the population.
Anyways, I'm living life always questioning things, and then for good measure I'm repenting on my deathbed to cover my bases.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 15:38:27. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:39:45 PM · #435 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
anyway, what alot of people miss is that science isnt a belief, as much as it is an approach.
even if science has current 'conclusions' those conclusions are open to being updated by better info. science is about explaining things with more than a 'just because xxxxx said so' |
The Bible hasn't had to "update" ANYTHING because of "better info" since the texts were laid down.
And, try as they may, scientists have not yet been able to PROVE that ANYTHING in scripture is not true. In fact, just the opposite is true. The Bible is constantly being shown to have described scientific phenonoma BEFORE the scientists discover it. Like ocean currents, and "dark" matter.
Ron |
well there are updates to the bible, not updates actually, just information that was not included long ago, or scriptures that were left out all together....why were they left out??
the bible and scriptures are very well written to give an answer that in some ways does not actually give an answer, very simmilar to a corporations response to employees asking if there will be company wide lay offs next year.
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 03:46:54 PM · #436 |
Originally posted by magnetic9999:
hon. i dont feel rage. i have no emotions invested in this convo whatsover. this is merely a diversion while my computer finishes rendering some video :).
but to me, it just sounds alot like cult phenomena. the fact that millions subscribe to it doesn't change that :) ..
|
The burning with rage part wasn't serious :-)
Anything to do with religion can be construde as occult, occult is everywhere, so yeah, I understand the need to be sinicle. Walk your own path, make your own journey and hopefully at the end you'll have made the right decisions. But come on, you have no emotions invested in this convo? You make it sound like I'm just another dupe who isn't worthy of your efforts or time and if you could only find a piece of gum to pick off your shoe your time would be better spent. If you don't care, maybe someone else who doesn't care will read this and it will peak their interest and make them think....so I'll keep posting just in case. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:06:05 PM · #437 |
well, i wasnt saying that it wasn't interesting. just that it wasnt making me angry or anything ;) ..
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:09:23 PM · #438 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I know what you're saying, the initial thread post was asking why it's such a big deal, so that's basically why so many 'religious' posts. To the 'religious' persons it's a big deal biblically and that's what's being stated. No one has to like it, but everyone was asked their opinions and reasoning why..and that's the reasoning why. |
Actually, my religious boss's church is planning to file an amicus breif in support of gay marriage, since his church has been marrying gays for years, marriage license or not. He feels strongly that the *Christian* church is trying to force *his* church to adhere to *Christian* standards, not religious standards. There have also been numerous posts by 'religious' people here in support of gay marriage.
In the future, I would appreciate it if there was not am implicit assumption that all religious people have the same beliefs, and are against gay marriage. The word 'some' goes a long way in this regard, for example:
"To *some* 'religious' persons it's a big deal biblically and that's what's being stated."
I would be *much* more comfortable with that position, and I would agree.
- Mousie, a stickler |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:15:05 PM · #439 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
In the future, I would appreciate it if there was not am implicit assumption that all religious people have the same beliefs, and are against gay marriage. The word 'some' goes a long way in this regard, for example:
"To *some* 'religious' persons it's a big deal biblically and that's what's being stated."
I would be *much* more comfortable with that position, and I would agree.
- Mousie, a stickler |
Right you are, Mousie - and the Supreme Court of the United States agrees with you. In the case of Torasco vs. Watkins the Supreme Court cited that "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." We should, therefore, respect your religion, by qualifying the statements we make about our own.
Ron |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:18:06 PM · #440 |
so, what about them homosexuals, then
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:21:39 PM · #441 |
RobB,
I am still awaiting your rebuttal of my rebuttal of your assertion that there were only two rebuttals to the Scandanavian marriage article.
Once again, I assert that there is a major point you are missing: that concurrent events do not imply causality in either direction, and that the article made little effort to elucidate the *inferred* causality with any facts.
- Mousie, using way too many multi-syllable words |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:26:15 PM · #442 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I know what you're saying, the initial thread post was asking why it's such a big deal, so that's basically why so many 'religious' posts. To the 'religious' persons it's a big deal biblically and that's what's being stated. No one has to like it, but everyone was asked their opinions and reasoning why..and that's the reasoning why. |
Actually, my religious boss's church is planning to file an amicus breif in support of gay marriage, since his church has been marrying gays for years, marriage license or not. He feels strongly that the *Christian* church is trying to force *his* church to adhere to *Christian* standards, not religious standards. There have also been numerous posts by 'religious' people here in support of gay marriage.
In the future, I would appreciate it if there was not am implicit assumption that all religious people have the same beliefs, and are against gay marriage. The word 'some' goes a long way in this regard, for example:
"To *some* 'religious' persons it's a big deal biblically and that's what's being stated."
I would be *much* more comfortable with that position, and I would agree.
- Mousie, a stickler |
You knew what I meant. As for the church doing their own thing, they are free as a body to do as they will. Doing anything in the name of God, as we've established, doesn't make it God's will. Just as many crusades in the name of God have been wrong in the past. Many commentors here have stated that and you've agreed, this instance is no different.
P.S. the term 'religious' could mean just about anyone or anything, I don't call myself 'religious' it's entirely too ambiguous.
P.P.S. the officials presiding over the church you're talking about will be judged by God accordingly.. yes we all sin, but the book of James specifically sites teachers of scripture as being punished more severely for their actions in the name of Christ.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 16:34:11. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:27:23 PM · #443 |
A scene at City Hall in San Francisco
"Next."
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?"
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers? You can't get married."
"Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
. . . . . .
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
..................
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Deets."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"
|
|
|
|
03/11/2004 04:41:19 PM · #444 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
RobB,
I am still awaiting your rebuttal of my rebuttal of your assertion that there were only two rebuttals to the Scandanavian marriage article.
Once again, I assert that there is a major point you are missing: that concurrent events do not imply causality in either direction, and that the article made little effort to elucidate the *inferred* causality with any facts.
- Mousie, using way too many multi-syllable words |
With regard to your first charge: I have no rebuttal - I agree with you - please refer to my post dated 3/11/2004 at 07:31:50 a.m. in which I apologized to sylandrix for overlooking the fact that he posted a rebuttal in one of his posts.
With regard to your second charge: I understand the difference between concurrency and causality. In simple terms it says that just because a carton of milk is found in the refrigerators of 99.2% of all mass murderers, that milk causes people to become mass murderers. In the case of gay marriage in Scandinavia, however, I think that there is a greater likelihood of causal interference though not full causality, because, as you pointed out, there are other mitigating factors which must be considered. But I can appreciate your perspective and for your willingness to finally comment on the content as well as the source.
Ron
(edited to correct spelling error)
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 16:42:47. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:15:02 PM · #445 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
P.P.S. the officials presiding over the church you're talking about will be judged by God accordingly.. yes we all sin, but the book of James specifically sites teachers of scripture as being punished more severely for their actions in the name of Christ. |
So, if the next Pope declares that, where the Bible says "man" it should interpreted as the gender-neutral term "person," and that Leviticus (among others) had gotten just a wee bit carried away in voicing intolerant exhortations, then Pat Robertson will go to Hell?
Sorry, but I've been feeling especially intolerant today .... ;)
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 17:15:38. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:18:13 PM · #446 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
P.P.S. the officials presiding over the church you're talking about will be judged by God accordingly.. yes we all sin, but the book of James specifically sites teachers of scripture as being punished more severely for their actions in the name of Christ. |
So, if the next Pope declares that, where the Bible says "man" it should interpreted as the gender-neutral term "person," and that Leviticus (among others) had gotten just a wee bit carried away in voicing intolerant exhortations, then Pat Robertson will go to Hell?
Sorry, but I've been feeling especially intolerant today .... ;) |
LOL being judged doesn't equate going to hell. Back to the Bible, it says we'll all be judged, even those who are saved..we'll all stand before Christ and have our turn hashing out our own sin and shame before Him. I've read TONS Of misconceptions here, GeneralE, please don't misconstrude what you've been taught to be what I [and other Christians] believe. Cheers!
P.S. Don't get me started on the Pope, he's wrong on so many levels I'd pass out from all the typing.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 17:19:21. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:30:49 PM · #447 |
The range of beliefs held is one of the things which makes me intolerant of those people who insist theirs is the only valid system. I appreciate you having a sense of humor -- religion without it is a truly depressing affair.
But, I thought that by definition, the Pope was infallible ... |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:38:38 PM · #448 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But, I thought that by definition, the Pope was infallible ... |
*searches through dictionary for infallible* Ah yes, and NO, he is SOOOO NOT infallible. That's why so many people who believe in the Bible and the teachings of Christ, who follow His word and not the word of one so pompous as to accredit himself with the forgiveness of sin, really do not like nor pay any attention to the Vatican. Christ said with great passion that we shall call no man Father [other than our given fathers] and that no one should ever under any circumstances be held in the same light as Christ. .. and what has this world done? We've essentially replaced Christ with the Pope and the Vatican. It's a shame really, so many people with so many good intentions looking for guidance and compassion choose to follow the Pope instead of the one true leader, God.
And I should apologize out right for offending those who do follow the Pope and his teachings. I do believe history speaks for itself in regards to the Vatican.
Message edited by author 2004-03-11 17:39:37. |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:45:20 PM · #449 |
| I suppose that is the basis of Protestantism ... |
|
|
|
03/11/2004 05:47:17 PM · #450 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I suppose that is the basis of Protestantism ... |
Sorry, I really can't say since I'm not well versed in the beliefs of most Christian religions. I even studied religion in University, but it was mostly on world religions as opposed to Christianity.
Can you elaborate on what you mean? |
|
