Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
What religion are you?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
kiffer said:
No need - I was just making the point that you cannot logically say you know that one cannot know the truth about God.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
OK, that is your opinion about what can and can't be known. How you know that one can't know is beyond me.
Yes, yes it is my opinion.
How do you know that I don't know what one can't know... we could go on like this in a big circle over and over...
Yes, that is my point - if one dismisses divine revelation (or telepathy or some other supposed device), then one cannot know what the other person may have had revealed to him.but instead I would draw your attention to your posts in the Homosexuality thread where I believe you may have expressed the idea that one can not know what someone else knows, I could be wrong...
Or we can continue in circles.
My point was again to show that if you are working on opinions, then you cannot know the other fellow is wrong, no matter how wrong he may seem to you.Quote:
Ok, that is your opinion as to what is the sensible/just course. But how can you say the Muslims are wrong to work toward enforcing Islam on all the world? Seems like you mean it is only your opinion, and theirs would be equally valid.
You can tell I'm expressing my opinion because I said "I don't care what others believe ..." this makes it pretty clear that it is my opinion... I think we can agree that some opinions are worth more to us than others, I'm sure in your opinion, my opinion is not held in as high a regard as say that of PDN... :-)
We agree on that.Muslims are free to preach Islam thanks to the same laws that give you the right to preach Christianity, and I believe you should have the right to worship and preach, just as we both have the right to refute and complain about the specifics of what others claim.
There is a spectrum in Islam - but I'm referring to those who follow its founding ideology. That involved the enforcement of Islam where possible.If however you mean those Muslims that would bring Islam to others by force then I'd ask you to be slightly clearer with you comments... lets not tar them all with the same brush eh?
Or you could be referring to Muslims trying to push Sharia Law on others?
That would be covered under the part where I said "not passing religious laws".
Ah, that is much more friendly.Quote:
Interesting to learn I am in a group worse than Islam, the Nazis or Communists - in your opinion.
Well now... what I said might not have been too clear, I know that sometimes people can put the emphasis on the wrong part of what they are reading and I should have been more careful ...
To make it clearer please allow me to just make a small addendum...
... and as long as they are not creationists (Creationists beliefs are directly contradictory to the actual physical evidence gathered from around the world by a huge number of scientists, in order for you to be a creationist you must believe something like one of the following: that there is a massive conspiracy of lies with in the scientific community, or believe that all these scientists are incompetent/don't know what they are talking about, or believe that the evidence is real but has been planted by the devil to trick us or God to test us. Young earth creationists are the worst type of creationist in my opinion because the others are more likely to except more realistic longer time frames and so on... but if you would like to discuss this further I'd be happy to put some points forward in the BC&P thread as to how and why I can consider Young Earth Creationists worse than Old Earth Creationist, ID proponents and people who believe in Guided Evolution). Yes, we YE Creationists are indeed 'worse' than the other sorts.
Correct, there is a spectrum. Some admire Hitler and seek to finish what he started. Others are happy for the Jews to exist as second class citizens. Others are pretty tolerant.Also, I think it's pretty clear that I'm not the sort of person that is going to start comparing people to Nazis... unless of course they begin to express views along the lines of "lets force all our opponents into forced labour, concentration or death camps" or other such ideas.
I'm happy to give you the benefit of doubt and assume you didn't mean to group all of Islam directly with Nazis...
I take it you mean this:Do you have any response to the parts of my post that was between the points addressed so far?
Quite so.Atheists might say your feelings in this are causing you to form a silly opinion, theists might say that their feelings validate their opinions.
However! Some theists will go on to say that their feelings are true and that members of other religions feelings are delusions, "not honest" or "can't be true feelings because my feelings are the truth".
Their conscience. But that is a big problem, for they are not impartial seekers after truth. They are rebels against God in their heart and Satan holds them captive in a fog of delusion. They naturally suppress conscience when it tells them something they don't want to hear.To the outsiders this looks a bit confusing...
Whom should they believe...
But God is calling to you and all men. His Spirit says to all sinners:
“ Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
Conscience. You will insist your conscience cannot know if this is the true God speaking, but God says otherwise. And the blessed truth is that if you are one of His sheep, chosen in eternity, you will hear His voice and follow Him.Atheists that say "ignore your feelings, look at the (lack of) evidence!"
Various (conflicting) Theists that say, "this feels right to us, we've got a book full of ancient truths, and various interpretations thereof!"
Also...
How should (could?) the outsider with no preformed opinion on the topic ( a rare enough thing I'll admit ) pick between your heart felt feelings and the heart felt feelings of the equally fervent proponent of another religion (or even a different Christian denomination)?
So you choose to accept the possibility the NT is true when it speaks of God's love, but not when it speaks of His wrath against sin. Seems a bit foolish to me - if it is mistaken about anything, never mind so big a part, then why give it any credibility?Quote:
You obviously haven't read the NT, especially the words of Jesus:
John 3:18 “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
No (or rather to be clear I've not read the whole of the new testament, it's beside my bed and I read sections every now and then, a lot of it's very dull), but we've already established that I don't hold the bible as inerrant.
I doubt they can quote any Scripture to show that anyone is saved on their merits. I think they might just be expressing a (misguided) wish.Please see the part of my post that you didn't respond to...
Also... What of those Christians on these boards that have argued that those heathens that have been so unlucky as to have not heard of Jesus are in fact judged on there own merits...
I'm sure they can happily quote some scripture that you can claim they have misunderstood... whilst your understanding and feelings are correct.
Your confusion arises from the Bible referring to the idols men worship. The idols themselves are not gods - just wood, stone, whatever. But there is a god behind each idol, accepting and encouraging this false worship. These are the demons, the fallen angels.Quote:
All the other gods are demons, who will end in hell just like all who contnue to believe in them.
Old Testament refers to the existence of other gods. Yes it calls them lesser gods then God, but it does say they exist as gods... it also says they don't exist... which is fine as far as I'm concerned, it's just another contradiction, and another nail in the inerrant bible.
My authority is the Bible:It is easy for you to dismiss them as demons, you can't claim they don't exist but you rob them of their godhood as quickly and as easily as an atheist would, with as much authority.
1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?
Oh, I most certainly do. Your mistake is in describing the majority of mankind as in some way innocent, or at least not seriously guilty. That is not how God describes them:Nope... I would only need to be more powerful than God if there are no other gods, no other options, which may or may not be the case...
OR time for you to read more carefully^H^H^H^H for me to clarify what I said... this time, first I'll requote what I said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiffer
If hell is a lake of fire, eternal torture then I'll go else where ( ;-) ).
I'm pretty sure God is not such a bad parent as to actually do that to his "kids" for the minor infraction of not believing things without evidence espeically in this sea of conflicting views.
Now if you read this together as I intended and give me a modicum of credit then you should see that what I meant was that if hell was a lake of eternal fire (an unending torturous pain riddled wailing and gnashing of teeth and so on...) then God, being a loving forgiving and morally sound entity (?), would not force the majority of otherwise normal human souls to endure such Lovecraftian and diabolical terrors which presumably would be horrible beyond our imagining just as heaven is glorious and joyous beyond what we, as simple humans, could imagine.
I don't think you can really disagree with this point...
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
You must be confusing me with someone else. The JW lad, maybe?I know you consider hell to be a state of true death, oblivion, non-existence or what have you,
I believe hell to be the place of conscious eternal punishment. And that is the historic Christian view.
A false picture. In the eternal hell, Satan is a prisoner under punishment, not a rebellious prince as he is today.but if you are willing to slip in to some hypothetical thinking for a moment or two, IF hell was eternal torture at the hands of Satan,
His beloved children are in heaven with Him; the inhabitants of hell are the children of the devil.more horrible than imaginable by the most twisted human could devise, would a just and moral god allow his beloved children
They are in hell for their sins, one of them being unbelief. They have no excuse even for unbelief, for had they followed conscience as it pointed to God in creation, they would have sought after Him and He would have been found by them. Much worse is the state of those who hear the gospel and reject it - they had to overcome much more light than nature supplied. They will be judged more severely.to suffer that fate for eternity simply because they don't believe (either because they had the misfortune to be born in the wrong place, e.g. middle of China, where they could grow up and die with out ever hearing the Word of Christ, or the obviously worse mistake of hearing but needing proof and not getting any)?
As above - the critical error is in mildly bold. The opposite of God's assessment of human wickedness.I know this is not the sort of hell in which you believe but I am as I said asking you to step into hypothetical speculation... a loving god would not allow his mildly bold children to suffer so? Gah... this has been done to death.
We can't - but God can. It is He who says all mankind is guilty before Him, having rejected His revelation in nature, conscience or the gospel.Although they knew God... again, we've both said it is impossible to know what another does or does not feel.
We can test for knowledge, but how could we test if someone feels something is true or not true?
We've both said, in various forms, that we can't know these things about other people.
Now you are seeing something of what Romans 1 speaks of: His eternal power and Godhead.Looking at the broader nature of your selection of scripture...
Gods invisible nature is made visible by the glory of creation, His creation, the world, the universe is the evidence of his existence, basically we need to but look at the vast beautiful majesty of our world, systems with-in systems, all working together perfectly complimenting each other... The light of the sun, provided by atomic fusion ultimately powering the flapping of a butterfly's wing through the interplay of intermolecular forces, which seem perfectly tuned to allow for life, electrons dancing, magnetic fields singing, building up to a vast and amazing dance of the galaxies, swinging each other in a magnificent waltz through the curvature of space-time itself...
Look on these things and see the Lord...
How can you look on this and deny God?
How can you look on this and not hunger to know all you can about it?
I am humbled by the vast perfection of universe, from the uncertain dance of sub atomic particles, through the beautiful mesoscopic and microscopic scales, through the macroscopic scale, the amazing diversity of animal and plant life, all built on complex chemistry built on physics, and on, out in to the vast cosmos, knowing that we will never see more than an insanely tiny fraction of all space and time.
This moment has been some what of an epiphany for me... :-D:):)
Yes, kiffer, He is. It's not all an amazing coincidence and purposeless.I'm in an amazingly good mood now, uplifted...
With or with out God the reality is pretty damn Glorious!
Is a god necessary for all this?
Keep searching.I'm now an even stronger maybe :-D
Logically, that is one possibility. The one the Bible presents is quite different - God who made the universe and all in it, has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. He sent this word by His servants, the prophets and apostles.I still think you're wrong, the fine details of all religions should be, as far as I'm concerned, considered inherently flawed human constructs, regardless of feelings of truth that might be purported adherents... Religions merge and schism, grow and die, change and borrow bits from each other.
A good point, nevertheless. Yes, tampering with the Bible account gives rise to many things that directly would undermine the whole thing. The Bible is totally true or it is not the word of God.Part of me thinks Creationists are so dead set against deep time, not because of evolution, not because of the adding up of ages and begats give them a figure that they feel is reliable... but rather if they admitted that the world was as old as the evidence would indicate then they would also have to account for the fact that the Abrahamic religions are built on and from earlier religions... but again I'm getting away from myself, wrong thread and all that...
I'm sympathetic with state toleration of all sorts of things I don't agree with. I just want state toleration for me to disagree with those things and be able to teach my children accordingly.I still stand by my opinion that governments should be as secular as possible, without laws that discriminate based on religion, race, sexual orientation, gender (have I missed anything? apart from the fact this is the wrong thread for most of this). If you wish to subject yourself to additional rules then that's up to you and other believers...0 -
-
kiffer said:
No need - I was just making the point that you cannot logically say you know that one cannot know the truth about God.
Yes, that is my point - if one dismisses divine revelation (or telepathy or some other supposed device), then one cannot know what the other person may have had revealed to him.
My point was again to show that if you are working on opinions, then you cannot know the other fellow is wrong, no matter how wrong he may seem to you.
Exactly. No matter how wrong I seem to you you can't know that I am...
I think we'll have to stop this little dance act... We're basically saying the same thing over and over...
The only difference is that you try to pull the God card every now and then and claim that you can know what others feel based on the grounds that God does, and you've got a directline to God via the inerrant bible, which I've said I don't except as trump card in the argument.There is a spectrum in Islam - but I'm referring to those who follow its founding ideology. That involved the enforcement of Islam where possible.
Enforcement of Islam by the sword would be wrong AFAIC... Just as enforcement of Christianity by similar means would be wrong.
I am not well enough versed in Islam to even begin to say what is or is not part of it's founding ideology.
(Yes, I feel much more comfortable discussing Christian issues even though my knowledge of scripture is far less than complete...)Ah, that is much more friendly. Yes, we YE Creationists are indeed 'worse' than the other sorts.
Huzzah!Correct, there is a spectrum. Some admire Hitler and seek to finish what he started. Others are happy for the Jews to exist as second class citizens. Others are pretty tolerant.
ok... but there is also a spectrum of "Christians", Some white supremacist Neo-Nazis would often claim to be Christians... are they? I think we might both agree that they are pretty poor Christians ... Does the same not apply to this end of the spectrum of Islam?
"Some people are just Jerks"I take it you mean this:
Quite so.
Their conscience. But that is a big problem, for they are not impartial seekers after truth. They are rebels against God in their heart and Satan holds them captive in a fog of delusion. They naturally suppress conscience when it tells them something they don't want to hear.
But God is calling to you and all men. His Spirit says to all sinners:
“ Today, if you will hear His voice,
Do not harden your hearts.”
Conscience. You will insist your conscience cannot know if this is the true God speaking, but God says otherwise. And the blessed truth is that if you are one of His sheep, chosen in eternity, you will hear His voice and follow Him.
...So you choose to accept the possibility the NT is true when it speaks of God's love, but not when it speaks of His wrath against sin. Seems a bit foolish to me - if it is mistaken about anything, never mind so big a part, then why give it any credibility?
This is a very good point. Why give any of it any credibility...
It nicely polarizes the issues...
It was this argument in a different form that pushed me from agnostic to atheist a few years ago... I've wandered back to strong agnostic awhile ago...I doubt they can quote any Scripture to show that anyone is saved on their merits. I think they might just be expressing a (misguided) wish.
Your confusion arises from the Bible referring to the idols men worship. The idols themselves are not gods - just wood, stone, whatever. But there is a god behind each idol, accepting and encouraging this false worship. These are the demons, the fallen angels.
I'm aware of the idea that the god is behind the idol, picking up worship and sacrifices through the body of the idol... they like God enjoy the smell of the burnt offerings.
Fair enough... gods = demons, all though they are clearly referred to as gods in the OT.My authority is the Bible:
1 Corinthians 10:14 Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15 I speak as to wise men; judge for yourselves what I say. 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we, though many, are one bread and one body; for we all partake of that one bread.
18 Observe Israel after the flesh: Are not those who eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord’s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He? God is a jealous god, we know this because it is reported by Moses (EDIT: slight mistake, I meant Deuteronomy 5:9, not the Exodus text). It is one of the many emotions he displays in the Bible.
Jealousy is a pretty petty emotion even for imperfect humans.
Again, you claim authority from the bible, which is fine, you know it is true because God makes that clear in your heart... great.
From outside this is untestable, as is someone that claims the same authority to state different interpretations...
I as the external party can not use your claimed feelings over those of another...
Yes, sorry... too many differing christian opinions.
Oh, I most certainly do. Your mistake is in describing the majority of mankind as in some way innocent, or at least not seriously guilty. That is not how God describes them:
Revelation 21:8 But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
You must be confusing me with someone else. The JW lad, maybe?I believe hell to be the place of conscious eternal punishment. And that is the historic Christian view.
A false picture. In the eternal hell, Satan is a prisoner under punishment, not a rebellious prince as he is today.
Ok, I've no problem with that... this was my understanding (as a child) of what hell is considered to be... I just don't believe it exists ... I was actually quite surprised to see people claiming it was ~just~ separation from God, or oblivion the first few time I saw it... I thought you'd all gone soft.His beloved children are in heaven with Him; the inhabitants of hell are the children of the devil.
Here we encounter again the love issue.
God loves everyone. Including sinners, excluding sinners...
They are in hell for their sins, one of them being unbelief. They have no excuse even for unbelief, for had they followed conscience as it pointed to God in creation, they would have sought after Him and He would have been found by them. Much worse is the state of those who hear the gospel and reject it - they had to overcome much more light than nature supplied. They will be judged more severely.
Ok, hearing and rejecting, I can see how that would upset God, no one likes to be ignored.
But to be blunt... I can not at any level in all honesty except the suggestion that a loving god could damn people for not seeking out something that they know nothing about...
And I don't except that a villager in the middle of no where that has no exposure to Christianity could possibly be expected to spontaneously decide to leave home and go looking for a religion that he or she has never heard of...
AND then should they not do so... have to suffer unending torment because of it.As above - the critical error is in mildly bold. The opposite of God's assessment of human wickedness.
We can't - but God can. It is He who says all mankind is guilty before Him, having rejected His revelation in nature, conscience or the gospel.
Punishment does not fit the crime... mildly bold might be a bit weak
but I don't think that all crimes or sins are equal... so why should the punishment be same, unimaginable horror?
I still maintain that we can't know what God knows. So telling me that God knows something neither of us can know, and then following it with you know it because you believe God had shown you the truth is, to me, no different than Islams claim that it is revealed knowledge.Now you are seeing something of what Romans 1 speaks of: His eternal power and Godhead.:):)
Yes, kiffer, He is. It's not all an amazing coincidence and purposeless.
Keep searching.
Well... there in lies the rub...
I can see there is the possible need of a god to start the whole mess off... but everything after the basic laws of physics are established then everything else can come to be via emergent properties.
This can sound like a bit of a cop out, especially if you misunderstand some details... People start to ask things about entropy and how you can get order out of disorder...
How "blind chance" can create interesting and complex things... which is why I don't get upset by guided evolution proponents as apposed to YE creationists.
(ie beliefs that remains with in the demonstrable time frame, as apposed to the less than 10,000 year time frame of Young Earth Creationism)Logically, that is one possibility. The one the Bible presents is quite different - God who made the universe and all in it, has revealed Himself to us in the Bible. He sent this word by His servants, the prophets and apostles.
A good point, nevertheless. Yes, tampering with the Bible account gives rise to many things that directly would undermine the whole thing. The Bible is totally true or it is not the word of God.
Yes... and this a major sticking point... and some of it stems from the question of what parts are metaphors and what parts are literal...
That the Bible must be completely true or else the whole thing collapses makes it seem that you are over invested in the parts that might be metaphor... 6 day Creation, Talking/Walking Snakes, Global flood, Tower of Babel and so on.
BUT if it's revealed knowledge which is inerrant at the initial time of writing then it doesn't matter when in human history it actually arrived does it?
There would be little point in revealing information about complex physics and chemistry to people wandering in the middle east thousands of years before the ground work that allows us to understand it was carried out...
And it's not information that they need either.
I'm sympathetic with state toleration of all sorts of things I don't agree with. I just want state toleration for me to disagree with those things and be able to teach my children accordingly.
Yes, I think that's something we all want.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
Aha - but it was an English census form and that would still qualify you to be their monarch under their Act of Sucession whereas being RC would not.
Thats not delusional thats a fact.
I think you mean the Act of Settlement. And our Jedi Knight would still have to convert to Anglicanism to qualify as monarch. The Act of Settlement, while particularly mentioning Roman Catholicism, also specifies that the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England.
The Act of Settlement is an interesting piece of archaic gobbledygook. It also forbids the monarch to travel outside the UK without consent of parliament. So the Queen needs to ask Gordon Brown's permission if she wants to go to Ibiza for a week. 0 -
And our Jedi Knight would still have to convert to Anglicanism to qualify as monarch.
I'm happy enough been Jedi Knight, though King of Britian does have a ring to it.
Though I've always wanted to create my own religion. ...
God is a gorilla.
The world is banana shaped.
Every God/after life fearing person give me all their trust,money and possessions and i will tell you you'll enter the pearly gates.
A win win situation 0 -
-
kiffer said:
I won't keep on then, but leave you with this: it is a given in your argument that one cannot know what has occurred in another's heart/mind. You therefore cannot know if God has revealed His truth to Christians. It is a given in my argument that God can reveal truth to man. If my God exists, then logically I can know His truth, which includes how man thinks.Exactly. No matter how wrong I seem to you you can't know that I am...
I think we'll have to stop this little dance act... We're basically saying the same thing over and over...
The only difference is that you try to pull the God card every now and then and claim that you can know what others feel based on the grounds that God does, and you've got a directline to God via the inerrant bible, which I've said I don't except as trump card in the argument.
Agreed.Enforcement of Islam by the sword would be wrong AFAIC... Just as enforcement of Christianity by similar means would be wrong.
True. Only those who follow the Founder's teaching are true Christians - that obviously applies to Muslims also.Quote:
Correct, there is a spectrum. Some admire Hitler and seek to finish what he started. Others are happy for the Jews to exist as second class citizens. Others are pretty tolerant.
ok... but there is also a spectrum of "Christians",
They are not Christians at all.Some white supremacist Neo-Nazis would often claim to be Christians... are they? I think we might both agree that they are pretty poor Christians ...
You would have to see what the Koran teaches and compare that to the various groups that claim to be Muslims.Does the same not apply to this end of the spectrum of Islam?
Agreed."Some people are just Jerks"
It is an issue that will not go away. It must be faced, for how foolish it would be to base one's life on a self-contradictory, errant old book. But if it is God-breathed inerrant revelation, then how foolish to ignore it or pick and choose which parts to accept.Quote:
So you choose to accept the possibility the NT is true when it speaks of God's love, but not when it speaks of His wrath against sin. Seems a bit foolish to me - if it is mistaken about anything, never mind so big a part, then why give it any credibility?
This is a very good point. Why give any of it any credibility...
It nicely polarizes the issues...
It was this argument in a different form that pushed me from agnostic to atheist a few years ago... I've wandered back to strong agnostic awhile ago...
I've never saw the sense of this disparaging of jealousy. But I early on did see the reason - the abuse of the term to cover unjustified jealousy. The husband/wife who suspects their spouse of flirting or worse every time they speak to another man/woman.God is a jealous god, we know this because it is reported by Moses (EDIT: slight mistake, I meant Deuteronomy 5:9, not the Exodus text). It is one of the many emotions he displays in the Bible.
Jealousy is a pretty petty emotion even for imperfect humans.
Would we disparage love because many abuse the term to describe adulterous love? No, jealousy is a good and proper response to real threats to our love relationships.
I don't want you to. I want you to seek and find for yourself.Again, you claim authority from the bible, which is fine, you know it is true because God makes that clear in your heart... great.
From outside this is untestable, as is someone that claims the same authority to state different interpretations...
I as the external party can not use your claimed feelings over those of another...Quote:
I believe hell to be the place of conscious eternal punishment. And that is the historic Christian view.
A false picture. In the eternal hell, Satan is a prisoner under punishment, not a rebellious prince as he is today.
Ok, I've no problem with that... this was my understanding (as a child) of what hell is considered to be... I just don't believe it exists ... I was actually quite surprised to see people claiming it was ~just~ separation from God, or oblivion the first few time I saw it... I thought you'd all gone soft.
As I pointed out, not in the same sense. If you are married, I hope you do not love your wife in the same sense as you do your next door neighbour.Quote:
His beloved children are in heaven with Him; the inhabitants of hell are the children of the devil.
Here we encounter again the love issue.
God loves everyone. Including sinners, excluding sinners...
They do know God exists, so it is their duty to seek after Him until they find Him. All who do so will find Him, if they do so with all their heart. God will bring them into contact with the gospel - as He did with Cornelius, for example:Quote:
They are in hell for their sins, one of them being unbelief. They have no excuse even for unbelief, for had they followed conscience as it pointed to God in creation, they would have sought after Him and He would have been found by them. Much worse is the state of those who hear the gospel and reject it - they had to overcome much more light than nature supplied. They will be judged more severely.
Ok, hearing and rejecting, I can see how that would upset God, no one likes to be ignored.
But to be blunt... I can not at any level in all honesty except the suggestion that a loving god could damn people for not seeking out something that they know nothing about...
And I don't except that a villager in the middle of no where that has no exposure to Christianity could possibly be expected to spontaneously decide to leave home and go looking for a religion that he or she has never heard of...
AND then should they not do so... have to suffer unending torment because of it.
Acts 11:13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’
Or as Paul pointed out:
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”
The punishment is not the same - there are degrees. But it is all unspeakably awful - just as all sin is unspeakably awful before God.Punishment does not fit the crime... mildly bold might be a bit weak but I don't think that all crimes or sins are equal... so why should the punishment be same, unimaginable horror?
To you it may be unknown - but if it is true, that does not make it any less true. You think we can't know - but as I've pointed out, you cannot know that. The bottom line is this: has God revealed Himself or not? If He has, then we'd better listen and heed. You task is to discover this. You subvert that search by insisting we can't know. You are putting your eternal happiness at stake based on an assumption.I still maintain that we can't know what God knows. So telling me that God knows something neither of us can know, and then following it with you know it because you believe God had shown you the truth is, to me, no different than Islams claim that it is revealed knowledge.
OK, God could have done it that way - but did He? The Bible answers that.Well... there in lies the rub...
I can see there is the possible need of a god to start the whole mess off... but everything after the basic laws of physics are established then everything else can come to be via emergent properties.
Yes, excellent questions God puts in our hearts, to get us thinking about Him.This can sound like a bit of a cop out, especially if you misunderstand some details... People start to ask things about entropy and how you can get order out of disorder...
How "blind chance" can create interesting and complex things...
OK, I understand your unwillingness to leave your trust in the received scientific wisdom. Listen for God's voice first and follow where He leads. You don't need to solve the creation/evolution puzzle first, unless it is the main reason keeping you from listening to God.which is why I don't get upset by guided evolution proponents as apposed to YE creationists.
(ie beliefs that remains with in the demonstrable time frame, as apposed to the less than 10,000 year time frame of Young Earth Creationism)
No, I accept that the Bible has the same literary devices as the rest of literature. It is a matter of finding out what is historical narrative and what metaphor, etc. that has led many astray. I don't think it honest to let our prejudices decide the interpretation, but rather we should let normal principles of hermeneutics give us the interpretation and then face up to what the Bible is actually saying.A good point, nevertheless. Yes, tampering with the Bible account gives rise to many things that directly would undermine the whole thing. The Bible is totally true or it is not the word of God.
Yes... and this a major sticking point... and some of it stems from the question of what parts are metaphors and what parts are literal...
That the Bible must be completely true or else the whole thing collapses makes it seem that you are over invested in the parts that might be metaphor... 6 day Creation, Talking/Walking Snakes, Global flood, Tower of Babel and so on.
Indeed. The truth is always the truth.BUT if it's revealed knowledge which is inerrant at the initial time of writing then it doesn't matter when in human history it actually arrived does it?
Quite so. Which is why complex physics and chemistry were not discussed. But that does not mean basic facts were not. I mean, what was to hinder them being told they originally came from the sea/earth via countless generation and forms, until Adam and Eve emerged? Was the account that said all life was formed from the ground in six days any easier? No, a simple evolutionary tale was just as suitable to them as a simple creationist tale.There would be little point in revealing information about complex physics and chemistry to people wandering in the middle east thousands of years before the ground work that allows us to understand it was carried out...
And it's not information that they need either.
But we know the one that God told. I have no difficulty in taking it as the real story.0 -
-
-
kiffer said:
I won't keep on then, but leave you with this: it is a given in your argument that one cannot know what has occurred in another's heart/mind.
Yes. That is a given in *the* argument... which in my opinion you actually invoked first, perhaps in another thread (I think it was the homosexuality thread).You therefore cannot know if God has revealed His truth to Christians.
Perhaps but I would also not be able to know if Hindus, Muslims and oh lets say Zoroastrian (apparently one of the oldest monothiestic traditions)...It is a given in my argument that God can reveal truth to man. If my God exists, then logically I can know His truth, which includes how man thinks.
Ah right... your argument is I'm right and you are wrong... because God told you.
The last refuge in any debate. You've made up your mind and it doesn't matter what anyone ever says after that because you have convinced yourself that God has told you that "people that claim feel in their hearts that XYZism is the truth, don't really actually feel this they are just being dishonest to them selves and deep down know that they should go looking for a god that they may never have heard of with their ears..."
Fine! You think they are wrong and that you are right, That's fine...
But to claim that they don't feel the same way about their religion as you is pretty weird...Agreed.
True. Only those who follow the Founder's teaching are true Christians - that obviously applies to Muslims also.
They are not Christians at all.
Well, I said they were poor Christians but I'd also be willing to say that they aren't Christians at all, even if they pay lip service and believe that they are Christians.You would have to see what the Koran teaches and compare that to the various groups that claim to be Muslims.
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
No compulsion... but still a mistake if you don't chose correctly...
18:29 Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!
Let people believe what they want, nonbelievers will go to hell (when read in context, it's not saying you should dump molten lead on people)... non-believers go to hell, you can't complain about that as apart from who actually is an unbeliever you believe the same thing...
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Aggressive but fair enough... if someone attacks you, you fight back.
It's a bit strong after that, kill them where you find them sort of stuff, but also says if they stop, you stop because Allah is merciful...
I'm sure as many varied interpretations of Islamic texts as Christian texts are made...
More reading would be required but I'm willing to say at this point that, "Bold Muslims are as Muslim as previously discussed Bold Christians are Christian."Agreed.
It is an issue that will not go away. It must be faced, for how foolish it would be to base one's life on a self-contradictory, errant old book. But if it is God-breathed inerrant revelation, then how foolish to ignore it or pick and choose which parts to accept.
It would be foolish... and of course rather than feel like a fool the over invested (insert non-christian denomination here) would of course dig in their heels and refuse to change their minds...
No way to tell the difference from the outside so...I've never saw the sense of this disparaging of jealousy. But I early on did see the reason - the abuse of the term to cover unjustified jealousy. The husband/wife who suspects their spouse of flirting or worse every time they speak to another man/woman.
Would we disparage love because many abuse the term to describe adulterous love? No, jealousy is a good and proper response to real threats to our love relationships.
Jealousy as a good thing... hmmm maybe (ignoring the bad things that it causes one to do)
No sorry I don't see it... I used to be a Jealous fellow, it's a sickening feeling looking back...
Suspecting and being upset/angry/saddened by infidelity are ok and understandable...
Jealousy really is a whole other ball game.I don't want you to. I want you to seek and find for yourself.
Different answers found by different people, they don't agree with you, they must be dishonest(:eek:)As I pointed out, not in the same sense. If you are married, I hope you do not love your wife in the same sense as you do your next door neighbour.
Well that's an interesting point.
How about like a parent loves the well behaved child more than the disobedient one... and then leaves the disobedient one in the basement while the house burns down. a very poor hell analogue I know, as God loves us and Hell is a lot worse than being caught in a brief temporary state of burning to death, I wouldn't force my worst enemy to burn to death in a fire... not that I have a worst enemy.They do know God exists, so it is their duty to seek after Him until they find Him. All who do so will find Him, if they do so with all their heart. God will bring them into contact with the gospel - as He did with Cornelius, for example:
Acts 11:13 And he told us how he had seen an angel standing in his house, who said to him, ‘Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon whose surname is Peter, 14 who will tell you words by which you and all your household will be saved.’
((when I first read the above passage I read 'in' as 'on' which explains why I go on about the roof so much in the next bit, Still my point is the same))
Angels on roofs are in shockingly short supply, a report that one person saw one once does little to prove that people somehow know that they should be out looking for God.
I'm sure you need to think that they some how know these things to justify your other beliefs regarding hell and punishment, but again wishing doesn't make it so.
Question: Where is my angel? Seriously, lots of agnostics would change their tune if a 7 foot tall winged man appeared in the sky and wrote "Read Genesis 1:1 through to Revelations 22:21, it's all true, also stop fighting about pointless things, you've got a lovely planet here don't mess the place up..." in fire yet legible, and seen by everyone at the same time, and importantly in their own language at the same time, (cause if it was just in say English it could just be a fancy sky writer, then came down and talked to people for awhile before flying on to another city, this might need to happen every generation or so
This could happen with out revoking free will as we would still be free to ignore the large glowing flying person writing fire in the sky, but it would certainly do a lot of good to promote belief.
There is no point claiming that some people at some point in the past got some evidence... it makes you sound like a very long complicated chain letter... Don't break the chain, Joe Johnson broke the chain and two days later his cat exploded, but Sarah Kellton sent it on to 15 people and the next day she got a promotion in work!
Anecdotal evidence of angels appearing does not remove the requirement of actual evidence... it's a handy place to start, I'll just check the roof of the house right now...
I went out, looked at the roof... and now my feet are wet and cold cause I didn't bother to put shoes on, I was in a hurry in case I changed my mind. I stood at the end of my drive way, in the rain, ignored the cold damp creeping into my socks, opened my heart and asked for an angle to appear... and there in the corner by the aerial I saw one! a right one and some acute and obtuse ones on the tiles... wait! Angels not angles... I saw none...
not a feather, not a glow, not a faint outline of a Messenger of God...
what did I feel? I'm not sure... no great epiphany... no more than the usual gentle nagging feeling that I don't know everything plus some slight confusion... which keeps me out of the deep depths of atheism and theism, and in my happy agnostic state.Or as Paul pointed out:
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. ...
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, ... but now commands all men everywhere to repent, ...”
Nothing in there says that people born in areas were the teachings of Christ are unknown should magically know to go and find about about him...The punishment is not the same - there are degrees. But it is all unspeakably awful - just as all sin is unspeakably awful before God.
Could I get a ref on the different levels of punishment for different sins?
unspeakably awfull for ever and ever, or twice as unspeakably awful for ever and ever, still a pretty nasty for a parent to inflict on a child.To you it may be unknown - but if it is true, that does not make it any less true. You think we can't know - but as I've pointed out, you cannot know that. The bottom line is this: has God revealed Himself or not? If He has, then we'd better listen and heed. You task is to discover this. You subvert that search by insisting we can't know. You are putting your eternal happiness at stake based on an assumption.
Yes, wishing does not make it true... this applies to everything that is not demonstratably true.
Almost everyone is basing almost every thing regarding religion on assumptions. You are assuming that God has shown you the truth and that others that claim the same thing have not been shown the truth, or rather willingly ignoring the truth.OK, God could have done it that way - but did He? The Bible answers that.
He either did it that way, or did it in such as way as to deliberately make it look that way... or he didn't do it at all.
I suppose I could except that one might think that he made it look old to mislead as there are a few places in the bible which make it look like he is ... dissembling but why would he want to do that?Yes, excellent questions God puts in our hearts, to get us thinking about Him.
I wouldn't call it an excellent question... it shows a basic misunderstanding of the processes involved, it's a good starting point, but until you figure out why blind chance was in inverted commas you're not going to spot the problem...OK, I understand your unwillingness to leave your trust in the received scientific wisdom. Listen for God's voice first and follow where He leads. You don't need to solve the creation/evolution puzzle first, unless it is the main reason keeping you from listening to God.
First the old, Knowledge is not Wisdom chestnut, next the newer, Information is not Knowledge... You can have piles and piles of data and not have any idea what any of it means... Just as knowing how to, say, make an explosion does not automatically give you the wisdom to know when to correctly use it (e.g. fine when mining, not when arguing with your neighbor).
Received wisdom is what you claim to have... I'd be hesitant to claim such for myself. I would say that I have derived knowledge, from received information as well as having received knowledge from people I trust have gone through a similarly rigorous process, and whose ideas/work have been examined and tested by others.
Scientists like to prove others (scientists or otherwise) wrong.
For example, I've carried out the experiment to measure the half life of a radioactive sample, it's on the leaving cert. curriculum, it's something you could test too... ok you'd need equipment that you probably don't have easy access to... but the experiment is pretty straight forward... the maths involved isn't too hard either.
I understand the maths behind geochron concordia used to date zircons... the received part is the information regarding the amount of various isotopes in someones samples ... you could try to tell me that the people that produced the data are presenting false data (either deliberately false or otherwise)... but at that point you need to draw a line where the false data becomes the real data that underlies our modern technology.No, I accept that the Bible has the same literary devices as the rest of literature. It is a matter of finding out what is historical narrative and what metaphor, etc. that has led many astray. I don't think it honest to let our prejudices decide the interpretation, but rather we should let normal principles of hermeneutics give us the interpretation and then face up to what the Bible is actually saying.
Yes... a lot of people need to face up to what the Bible is actually saying, it says a some things which are metaphor and some things which historical in nature, the parts which are demonstratably not historical must be metaphor(*)... and things which can not be tested could go either way...
*assuming that they are not just wrong.wolfsbane wrote:
Indeed. The truth is always the truth.kiffer wrote:BUT if it's revealed knowledge which is inerrant at the initial time of writing then it doesn't matter when in human history it actually arrived does it?
[/qoute]
Right... so if you believe it is divinely delivered into the hearts, minds and books of man, then it doesn't invalidate it if there were pre-Abrahamic religions?
It can be delivered once people have reached a point that they can understand it.
I really think your backing the wrong horse in the whole which parts are metaphor situation... build your house on rock, not on sand... don't build it on sand then claim it's actually rock while the ocean is washing away the beach.Quite so. Which is why complex physics and chemistry were not discussed. But that does not mean basic facts were not. I mean, what was to hinder them being told they originally came from the sea/earth via countless generation and forms, until Adam and Eve emerged? Was the account that said all life was formed from the ground in six days any easier? No, a simple evolutionary tale was just as suitable to them as a simple creationist tale.
But we know the one that God told. I have no difficulty in taking it as the real story.
Maybe a "simple" story would have raised to many questions... maybe 4000 years ago while Abraham was wandering out of Ur, people would have argued over the details too much. *shrug*.
My guess is that the genesis author was asked, where do we come from ... and all he had to go on was "God made it all at some point" so he just did what many people do in the situation... made up a just so story.
If you're professing a position of divine authority saying "I don't know" when asked a question really makes you look bad.
So there you are a wise elder sitting around the fire talking about things... and someone asks you about were the rain comes from... you don't know anything about the water cycle but you know the sky is blue and those cloud things might have something to do with it... they show up before the rain after all... so you make some thing up... because if you say "I don't know" about that why would the villagers believe you when you tell them about more important issues... like how much food they should give you to be "burnt" in offering if they stop listening to you you wont have anything to eat... (and on a less cynical note, they also might not listen to wise and important rulings for the good of the village/tribe what ever... when to plant crops, what to do about that trouble maker that keeps annoying everyone by trying to get in to the unmarried girls pants and so on.)0 -
kiffer said:
The difference between your knowledge and mine is this: you have no access to my mind to know what I think like. I, on the other hand, have God’s word on man’s mind. He knows all that motivates our behaviour.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
kiffer said:
I won't keep on then, but leave you with this: it is a given in your argument that one cannot know what has occurred in another's heart/mind.
Yes. That is a given in *the* argument... which in my opinion you actually invoked first, perhaps in another thread (I think it was the homosexuality thread).
Yes, you would not know. God, however, does - and He has revealed that to us in His word.Quote:
You therefore cannot know if God has revealed His truth to Christians.
Perhaps but I would also not be able to know if Hindus, Muslims and oh lets say Zoroastrian (apparently one of the oldest monothiestic traditions)...
Correct.Quote:
It is a given in my argument that God can reveal truth to man. If my God exists, then logically I can know His truth, which includes how man thinks.
Ah right... your argument is I'm right and you are wrong... because God told you.
I’m sure they may well feel that about their religion - self-delusion is a big part of human nature.The last refuge in any debate. You've made up your mind and it doesn't matter what anyone ever says after that because you have convinced yourself that God has told you that "people that claim feel in their hearts that XYZism is the truth, don't really actually feel this they are just being dishonest to them selves and deep down know that they should go looking for a god that they may never have heard of with their ears..."
Fine! You think they are wrong and that you are right, That's fine...
But to claim that they don't feel the same way about their religion as you is pretty weird...
Indeed there are varied interpretations in both - but the central thrust of the teaching of their foundation scripture is discoverable by any honest enquirer.Quote:
You would have to see what the Koran teaches and compare that to the various groups that claim to be Muslims.
2:256 There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
No compulsion... but still a mistake if you don't chose correctly...
18:29 Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!
Let people believe what they want, nonbelievers will go to hell (when read in context, it's not saying you should dump molten lead on people)... non-believers go to hell, you can't complain about that as apart from who actually is an unbeliever you believe the same thing...
2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
Aggressive but fair enough... if someone attacks you, you fight back.
It's a bit strong after that, kill them where you find them sort of stuff, but also says if they stop, you stop because Allah is merciful...
I'm sure as many varied interpretations of Islamic texts as Christian texts are made...
More reading would be required but I'm willing to say at this point that, "Bold Muslims are as Muslim as previously discussed Bold Christians are Christian."
Christianity cannot justy use the Bible to justify use of the sword to spread the faith; Islam can do so from the Koran. And the outworking of it's faith can be seen:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
The way to tell is to ask God and be willing to heed what He says.Quote:
It is an issue that will not go away. It must be faced, for how foolish it would be to base one's life on a self-contradictory, errant old book. But if it is God-breathed inerrant revelation, then how foolish to ignore it or pick and choose which parts to accept.
It would be foolish... and of course rather than feel like a fool the over invested (insert non-christian denomination here) would of course dig in their heels and refuse to change their minds...
No way to tell the difference from the outside so...
The former is my definition of jealousy. The irrational stuff is not.Jealousy as a good thing... hmmm maybe (ignoring the bad things that it causes one to do)
No sorry I don't see it... I used to be a Jealous fellow, it's a sickening feeling looking back...
Suspecting and being upset/angry/saddened by infidelity are ok and understandable...
Jealousy really is a whole other ball game.
Or deluded.Different answers found by different people, they don't agree with you, they must be dishonest()
As I pointed out, God’s love for the wicked is not the same as for the elect. The former are children of the devil, the latter His children.Well that's an interesting point.
How about like a parent loves the well behaved child more than the disobedient one... and then leaves the disobedient one in the basement while the house burns down. a very poor hell analogue I know, as God loves us and Hell is a lot worse than being caught in a brief temporary state of burning to death, I wouldn't force my worst enemy to burn to death in a fire... not that I have a worst enemy.
My point was that God will be found of those who genuinely seek Him. Not that an angel must appear to everyone.Quote:
They do know God exists, so it is their duty to seek after Him until they find Him. All who do so will find Him, if they do so with all their heart. God will bring them into contact with the gospel - as He did with Cornelius, for example:
Angels on roofs are in shockingly short supply, a report that one person saw one once does little to prove that people somehow know that they should be out looking for God.
I'm sure you need to think that they some how know these things to justify your other beliefs regarding hell and punishment, but again wishing doesn't make it so.
No it wouldn’t. At best it would bring a temporary repentance based on fear. No real change of heart:Question: Where is my angel? Seriously, lots of agnostics would change their tune if a 7 foot tall winged man appeared in the sky and wrote "Read Genesis 1:1 through to Revelations 22:21, it's all true, also stop fighting about pointless things, you've got a lovely planet here don't mess the place up..." in fire yet legible, and seen by everyone at the same time, and importantly in their own language at the same time, (cause if it was just in say English it could just be a fancy sky writer, then came down and talked to people for awhile before flying on to another city, this might need to happen every generation or so
This could happen with out revoking free will as we would still be free to ignore the large glowing flying person writing fire in the sky, but it would certainly do a lot of good to promote belief.
Luke 16:30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
Again, my point is not that other’s accounts are proof. You must engage with God personally. The gospel is a call to you to do so, not just intellectually accept what it says.There is no point claiming that some people at some point in the past got some evidence... it makes you sound like a very long complicated chain letter... Don't break the chain, Joe Johnson broke the chain and two days later his cat exploded, but Sarah Kellton sent it on to 15 people and the next day she got a promotion in work!
Anecdotal evidence of angels appearing does not remove the requirement of actual evidence...
Yes it does. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us...but now commands all men everywhere to repent Every nation.Quote:
Or as Paul pointed out:
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. ...
27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, ... but now commands all men everywhere to repent, ...”
Nothing in there says that people born in areas were the teachings of Christ are unknown should magically know to go and find about about him...
All men every where.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.Could I get a ref on the different levels of punishment for different sins?
But not on a child of the devil.unspeakably awfull for ever and ever, or twice as unspeakably awful for ever and ever, still a pretty nasty for a parent to inflict on a child.
Agreed. The not demonstrably true may or may not be true. Only revelation can tell.Quote:
To you it may be unknown - but if it is true, that does not make it any less true. You think we can't know - but as I've pointed out, you cannot know that. The bottom line is this: has God revealed Himself or not? If He has, then we'd better listen and heed. You task is to discover this. You subvert that search by insisting we can't know. You are putting your eternal happiness at stake based on an assumption.
Yes, wishing does not make it true... this applies to everything that is not demonstratably true.
Not assuming - knowing, by revelation.Almost everyone is basing almost every thing regarding religion on assumptions. You are assuming that God has shown you the truth and that others that claim the same thing have not been shown the truth, or rather willingly ignoring the truth.
He didn’t make it look older than He says it is. The asserted age is an interpretation of the evidence, not the fact behind the evidence.He either did it that way, or did it in such as way as to deliberately make it look that way... or he didn't do it at all.
I suppose I could except that one might think that he made it look old to mislead as there are a few places in the bible which make it look like he is ... dissembling but why would he want to do that?
I appreciate why it was in inverted commas. We've discussed this at length on the Creation thread. So I agree, a good starting point.I wouldn't call it an excellent question... it shows a basic misunderstanding of the processes involved, it's a good starting point, but until you figure out why blind chance was in inverted commas you're not going to spot the problem...
OK, then I'll use the term received knowledge for that in which you trust. Same advice.Quote:
OK, I understand your unwillingness to leave your trust in the received scientific wisdom. Listen for God's voice first and follow where He leads. You don't need to solve the creation/evolution puzzle first, unless it is the main reason keeping you from listening to God.
First the old, Knowledge is not Wisdom chestnut, next the newer, Information is not Knowledge... You can have piles and piles of data and not have any idea what any of it means... Just as knowing how to, say, make an explosion does not automatically give you the wisdom to know when to correctly use it (e.g. fine when mining, not when arguing with your neighbor).
Received wisdom is what you claim to have... I'd be hesitant to claim such for myself. I would say that I have derived knowledge, from received information as well as having received knowledge from people I trust have gone through a similarly rigorous process, and whose ideas/work have been examined and tested by others.
No, the received part I'm speaking about is the interpretation of that information about the isotopes, not the information itself. The information is fine.Scientists like to prove others (scientists or otherwise) wrong.
For example, I've carried out the experiment to measure the half life of a radioactive sample, it's on the leaving cert. curriculum, it's something you could test too... ok you'd need equipment that you probably don't have easy access to... but the experiment is pretty straight forward... the maths involved isn't too hard either.
I understand the maths behind geochron concordia used to date zircons... the received part is the information regarding the amount of various isotopes in someones samples ... you could try to tell me that the people that produced the data are presenting false data (either deliberately false or otherwise)... but at that point you need to draw a line where the false data becomes the real data that underlies our modern technology.
It’s the assumptions behind the process that bring the problem. Assuming how much parent material was there at the start, or how constant the rate of decay has always been.
Agreed. The problem comes with determining what is demonstrably not historical.Yes... a lot of people need to face up to what the Bible is actually saying, it says a some things which are metaphor and some things which historical in nature, the parts which are demonstratably not historical must be metaphor(*)... and things which can not be tested could go either way...
*assuming that they are not just wrong.
I’m not sure what you are saying, but if you mean Abraham got his religion from pre-Abrahamic religions, then No. Abraham got it directly from God.Right... so if you believe it is divinely delivered into the hearts, minds and books of man, then it doesn't invalidate it if there were pre-Abrahamic religions?
It can be delivered once people have reached a point that they can understand it.
I really think your backing the wrong horse in the whole which parts are metaphor situation... build your house on rock, not on sand... don't build it on sand then claim it's actually rock while the ocean is washing away the beach.
Not that there was no knowledge of God before that - Noah would have passed on the truth to his sons and so on. But that knowledge became corrupted, just as it had before Noah. So God selected Abram (Abraham) to be the father of the nation through whom He would reveal His salvation.
Indeed - so why not tell them the muck-to-man fable commonly accepted today? Especially as they did not know the amazing complexity of life, as we do now. Muck-to-man would have been as credible as the 6 Day Creation. Today evolution has to be believed in the face of the difficulties posed by complexity.Quote:
Quite so. Which is why complex physics and chemistry were not discussed. But that does not mean basic facts were not. I mean, what was to hinder them being told they originally came from the sea/earth via countless generation and forms, until Adam and Eve emerged? Was the account that said all life was formed from the ground in six days any easier? No, a simple evolutionary tale was just as suitable to them as a simple creationist tale.
But we know the one that God told. I have no difficulty in taking it as the real story. Maybe a "simple" story would have raised to many questions... maybe 4000 years ago while Abraham was wandering out of Ur, people would have argued over the details too much. *shrug*.
My guess is that the genesis author was asked, where do we come from ... and all he had to go on was "God made it all at some point" so he just did what many people do in the situation... made up a just so story.
If you're professing a position of divine authority saying "I don't know" when asked a question really makes you look bad.
Yes, there are always alternative motives possible for the recording of any history. It could all be to suit an agenda - or it could all be just the truth.So there you are a wise elder sitting around the fire talking about things... and someone asks you about were the rain comes from... you don't know anything about the water cycle but you know the sky is blue and those cloud things might have something to do with it... they show up before the rain after all... so you make some thing up... because if you say "I don't know" about that why would the villagers believe you when you tell them about more important issues... like how much food they should give you to be "burnt" in offering if they stop listening to you you wont have anything to eat... (and on a less cynical note, they also might not listen to wise and important rulings for the good of the village/tribe what ever... when to plant crops, what to do about that trouble maker that keeps annoying everyone by trying to get in to the unmarried girls pants and so on.)0 -
kiffer said:
The difference between your knowledge and mine is this: you have no access to my mind to know what I think like. I, on the other hand, have God’s word on man’s mind. He knows all that motivates our behaviour.
There is of course the chance that you are one of the deluded... which does indeed seem to be the case from where I stand.
Not necessarily because of your stance on issues directly regarding God, but due to your stance on more mundane matters...Yes, you would not know. God, however, does - and He has revealed that to us in His word.
Yes, of course He has. And all the others just made up their own books.Correct.
I’m sure they may well feel that about their religion - self-delusion is a big part of human nature. it is, isn't it.
What's interesting is that you now say that you think they can feel the same way about their religion as you do about yours ...
This is progress, before you seemed to suggest that they couldn't really believe in their hearts as you did...Indeed there are varied interpretations in both - but the central thrust of the teaching of their foundation scripture is discoverable by any honest enquirer.
Christianity cannot justy use the Bible to justify use of the sword to spread the faith; Islam can do so from the Koran. And the outworking of it's faith can be seen:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Interesting... very interesting...
So what your saying is the cops knew that Internal Affairs were setting them up?
But seriously ... you originally said "You would have to see what the Koran teaches and compare that to the various groups that claim to be Muslims. "
I posted a few quotes from the Koran which back up the idea that Islam should not be pushed on people by violent means...
What the heck is the honesty quip?
Is it meant to undermine my reputation?
Is it some sort of ad hominem thing? Any one that disagrees with you is dishonest?
Every so often you make some sort of appeal to honesty... If only the heathens were honest about their feelings, they don't/can't really believe that... any honest Muslim must admit that Islam "should" be spread by the sword...
Honest geologists would admit that the world is younger than evidence would indicate.
Well if you were being honest in this situation you would have also pointed out that the ideologies of Jihad and Dhimmitude (dhimma), which you linked to are in fact not the teaching of Mohammad but were brought in to being after his death.
It is, to be frank, like me attacking Christianity by posting links to the Inquisition and it's justifications.The way to tell is to ask God and be willing to heed what He says.
The former is my definition of jealousy. The irrational stuff is not.
Ah... what we have here is a failure of communication, another situation where a word means different things to different people... to me jealousy is inherently irrational and petty...Or deluded.
OR both deluded and dishonest
We'll only find out when we get our score card at the end of days...As I pointed out, God’s love for the wicked is not the same as for the elect. The former are children of the devil, the latter His children.
To be honest here... your version of God doesn't seem to love them in any way...
I would not allow a child of an enemy to burn to death... as I said I would not wish such suffering on my worst enemy... to think that God both loves them (in any way) and allows such a state of unimaginable suffering to exist is frankly doublethink.
I would hold that the idea of allowing a person to burn to death (or suffer the far more unpleasant state of being in your version of hell) as absolutely morally repugnant...
A loving god might disown its creation for turning against it but a loving god would probably simply allow their existence to end rather than create such a foul place of torture and suffering.
You can't claim that God is both loving/forgiving and the creator of the place were billions of souls will suffer for ever, with out some feat of doublethinking.My point was that God will be found of those who genuinely seek Him. Not that an angel must appear to everyone.
I'm sure that's the point you thought you were making... how ever you where supposed to be showing how people that had never even heard of Him SHOULD know that he exists and go looking for him.
So some guy claims to have seen an angel... that just shows that God is willing to send angels... where are all the angels appearing across china/jungle villages/whereever...No it wouldn’t. At best it would bring a temporary repentance based on fear. No real change of heart:
Luke 16:30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
I don't know about that... it's an interesting question... if the existence of God was irrefutable (due to the regular appearance of angels) would people worship out of fear or for the same reasons they worship now but with more people worshiping?Again, my point is not that other’s accounts are proof. You must engage with God personally. The gospel is a call to you to do so, not just intellectually accept what it says.
Yes it does. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us...but now commands all men everywhere to repent Every nation.
All men every where.
So it says that they should search for him...
but it does not say that they know that he exists with out being told about him.Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Thanks. That covers people being judged by there deeds... anything that pins downs the severity of Hell for those judgments?
In the interest of honesty and completeness here are the next two verses
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Anyone not in the book of life goes into the fire... nothing about different levels of punishment for different sinners.But not on a child of the devil.
Agreed. The not demonstrably true may or may not be true. Only revelation can tell.
Sadly there is no way to tell revelation from delusion. You can try to apply the circular logic that usually appears at this point...
but circular logic doesn't really cut the mustard.Not assuming - knowing, by revelation.
He didn’t make it look older than He says it is. The asserted age is an interpretation of the evidence, not the fact behind the evidence.
The series of begats is not evidence... and making up things about changes in rates of radioactive decay aren't either...
The physical evidence points to an old earth, regardless of who or what created it.I appreciate why it was in inverted commas. We've discussed this at length on the Creation thread. So I agree, a good starting point.
OK, then I'll use the term received knowledge for that in which you trust. Same advice.
Some of it is received, some is derived...
I'm very careful about the sorts of sources that I trust.No, the received part I'm speaking about is the interpretation of that information about the isotopes, not the information itself. The information is fine.
You seem to have miss read my post. I suggest you go back and read it again.
I've looked at the information, and the maths behind the dating methods...
The information is fine, the interpretation is sound.It’s the assumptions behind the process that bring the problem. Assuming how much parent material was there at the start, or how constant the rate of decay has always been.
The problem here is that you assume that these things have not been thought of...
I suggest you pick up a chemistry book, a book on crystal growth and igneous petrology... read up on the differentiation of magma and the formation of... ah bah... forget about it... I'll simplify it all to one line...
Crystal composition/formation is dependent on melt composition and rate of cooling, the chemistry and structure of crystals of specific minerals allow different incompatible elements to remain only once the temperature of the mineral drops below the closure temperature for that element for that mineral.
This is of course a gross over simplification... needless to say crystal composition is well understood.
As for changing the rate of radioactive decay... I have to say, in all honesty, if the rate of radioactive decay has changed then radioactive dating would have a lot of problems.
But... the creationists that suggest this say that in order for radio-isotope dating to fit into the creationist timeframe the rate of decay for the first 4 days of creation would have to be amazingly high (they don't present any evidence that it happened just that it needs to have happened for them to be right)... HOWEVER this would produce a massive amount of heat... raising the temperature of many crystals above their closure temperatures and certainly destroying any of the fission tracks generated in zircons and apatites...
In fact it could possibly melt high uranium minerals which would be fairly obvious...Agreed. The problem comes with determining what is demonstrably not historical.
The creation myth and associated short timeline demonstrably not historical.I’m not sure what you are saying, but if you mean Abraham got his religion from pre-Abrahamic religions, then No. Abraham got it directly from God.
Not that there was no knowledge of God before that - Noah would have passed on the truth to his sons and so on. But that knowledge became corrupted, just as it had before Noah. So God selected Abram (Abraham) to be the father of the nation through whom He would reveal His salvation.
I think my point may have been something along the lines of... "the age of the Earth is independent of the Truthfulness or Falseness of Abraham's revelation".
The Flood story is basically taken directly from Babylonian myth and is not part of Abraham's revelation... I read a very interesting article about Abraham once... but I can't remember much about it.Indeed - so why not tell them the muck-to-man fable commonly accepted today? Especially as they did not know the amazing complexity of life, as we do now. Muck-to-man would have been as credible as the 6 Day Creation. Today evolution has to be believed in the face of the difficulties posed by complexity.
They didn't tell it because they didn't know it... The just made up stories to 1. pass the time, 2. maintain their authority...
They made up things to fill in the gaps in their knowledge... or if you prefer... they made up bits because the revelation they received may have been along the lines of "I am God, all those gods you're worshiping in Ur are false... I'm your creator", without any details of how he actually did it... leaving them to make up the rest.
A prophet that says "I don't know" when asked a question will not be taken seriously at all, so if it's not part of his revelation then he will have to dissemble to some degree.
People want answers, simple answers that they can understand... if you don't supply them they'll just swing back to burning offal for their god instead of your god...
You even see this today, even in aspects of science that don't challenge people religious ideas... The press often over simplify what a scientist says and if a scientist says "I'm not sure about the next step" people often start to think he is talking out his behind about everything even unrelated topics.Yes, there are always alternative motives possible for the recording of any history. It could all be to suit an agenda - or it could all be just the truth. I'm glad to see you're open to the idea that the stories told by any ancient holy man could be designed to suit an agenda. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
kiffer said:
Apologies for the delay in reply.Quote:
Correct.
I’m sure they may well feel that about their religion - self-delusion is a big part of human nature.
it is, isn't it.
What's interesting is that you now say that you think they can feel the same way about their religion as you do about yours ...
This is progress, before you seemed to suggest that they couldn't really believe in their hearts as you did...
You mistake the nature of self-delusion. All people know in their deepest heart that God is real and that they are estranged from Him. Self-delusion occurs when they seek to blank out that uncomfortable truth. They invent other gods to take His place, and persuade themselves this is reality.
I meant no slur on your honesty in this matter. I assume you had not read up on the Koran's teaching sufficiently.Quote:
Indeed there are varied interpretations in both - but the central thrust of the teaching of their foundation scripture is discoverable by any honest enquirer.
Christianity cannot justy use the Bible to justify use of the sword to spread the faith; Islam can do so from the Koran. And the outworking of it's faith can be seen:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/
Interesting... very interesting...
So what your saying is the cops knew that Internal Affairs were setting them up?
But seriously ... you originally said "You would have to see what the Koran teaches and compare that to the various groups that claim to be Muslims. "
I posted a few quotes from the Koran which back up the idea that Islam should not be pushed on people by violent means...
What the heck is the honesty quip?
Is it meant to undermine my reputation?
Is it some sort of ad hominem thing? Any one that disagrees with you is dishonest?
Every so often you make some sort of appeal to honesty... If only the heathens were honest about their feelings, they don't/can't really believe that... any honest Muslim must admit that Islam "should" be spread by the sword...
Honest geologists would admit that the world is younger than evidence would indicate.
Well if you were being honest in this situation you would have also pointed out that the ideologies of Jihad and Dhimmitude (dhimma), which you linked to are in fact not the teaching of Mohammad but were brought in to being after his death.
It is, to be frank, like me attacking Christianity by posting links to the Inquisition and it's justifications.
Your analogy with Christianity and the Inquisition breaks down because it is not later practice that we are discussing, but the teaching of the foundation scriptures - the Bible for Christians, the Koran for Muslims. As far as I can find out from the Koran, your selection was not all that was said on the subject of force - for example:
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
If we don't find out before that, it will be too late. We can know God now - every true Christian does:OR both deluded and dishonest
We'll only find out when we get our score card at the end of days...
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
Not instantly destroying the wicked, and sending them rain and sun for their crops, etc. - all acts of kindness to the undeserving. That is what I meant by His love to the wicked.Quote:
As I pointed out, God’s love for the wicked is not the same as for the elect. The former are children of the devil, the latter His children.
To be honest here... your version of God doesn't seem to love them in any way...
No doublethink required - just sober thinking. I'm sure you consider yourself compassionate and moral - but you would, I assume, lock some people up in prison for the rest of their lives. That is a dreadful experience for them, so much so that many commit suicide to end it. You justify life imprisonment on the basis of punishment for wickedness.I would not allow a child of an enemy to burn to death... as I said I would not wish such suffering on my worst enemy... to think that God both loves them (in any way) and allows such a state of unimaginable suffering to exist is frankly doublethink.
I would hold that the idea of allowing a person to burn to death (or suffer the far more unpleasant state of being in your version of hell) as absolutely morally repugnant...
A loving god might disown its creation for turning against it but a loving god would probably simply allow their existence to end rather than create such a foul place of torture and suffering.
You can't claim that God is both loving/forgiving and the creator of the place were billions of souls will suffer for ever, with out some feat of doublethinking.
Your problem then is not about the rightness of severe punishment, but about whether God is going too far in His retribution. You see man's sin against God as much less grave than God does.
One of you is mistaken.
No, that was not my purpose. I assert that fact - that people know He exists. The truth of it is known in your heart as it was known in mine, so I don't need to prove it. You may deny it if you wish, but it will still be so.Quote:
My point was that God will be found of those who genuinely seek Him. Not that an angel must appear to everyone.
I'm sure that's the point you thought you were making... how ever you where supposed to be showing how people that had never even heard of Him SHOULD know that he exists and go looking for him.
What I was doing in giving the angelic reference was showing that God responds to all who seek Him. That was one example. Most of us don't see angels, but He makes Himself clear to us nevertheless.
Indeed - if He thinks fit.So some guy claims to have seen an angel... that just shows that God is willing to send angels...
There are many testimonies to heathens/pagans receiving visions from God to prepare them for salvation. But it is not the norm.where are all the angels appearing across china/jungle villages/whereever...
True worship must be in spirit and truth - a loving obedience to God, not just from fear of the consequences.Quote:
No it wouldn’t. At best it would bring a temporary repentance based on fear. No real change of heart:
Luke 16:30 And he said, ‘No, father Abraham; but if one goes to them from the dead, they will repent.’ 31 But he said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead.’”
I don't know about that... it's an interesting question... if the existence of God was irrefutable (due to the regular appearance of angels) would people worship out of fear or for the same reasons they worship now but with more people worshiping?
Romans tells us that:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us...but now commands all men everywhere to repent Every nation.
All men every where. So it says that they should search for him...
but it does not say that they know that he exists with out being told about him.
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Being judged by our works at least implies a gradation of punishment, as our works will vary in wickedness. But explicit teaching on gradated punishment is found here:Quote:
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
Thanks. That covers people being judged by there deeds... anything that pins downs the severity of Hell for those judgments?
Matthew 11:20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”
Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
Not every doctrine is found in every place. We take the whole of Scripture to get the whole picture.In the interest of honesty and completeness here are the next two verses
20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Anyone not in the book of life goes into the fire... nothing about different levels of punishment for different sinners.
Not so. A blind man may doubt our description of multicoloured nature, may even claim we cannot know or are deluded. But that does not change the reality of those experiencing it.Sadly there is no way to tell revelation from delusion. You can try to apply the circular logic that usually appears at this point...
but circular logic doesn't really cut the mustard.
This should be on the Creation thread - but let me agree that the begats are not part of the scientific evidence. The research into rates of radioactive decay are and the creationist research into it is not 'made up'.He didn’t make it look older than He says it is. The asserted age is an interpretation of the evidence, not the fact behind the evidence.
The series of begats is not evidence... and making up things about changes in rates of radioactive decay aren't either...
The physical evidence points to an old earth, regardless of who or what created it.
Same here.I'm very careful about the sorts of sources that I trust.
Other scientists disagree about the interpretation.Quote:
No, the received part I'm speaking about is the interpretation of that information about the isotopes, not the information itself. The information is fine.
You seem to have miss read my post. I suggest you go back and read it again.
I've looked at the information, and the maths behind the dating methods...
The information is fine, the interpretation is sound.
Yes, they discuss all this in their papers. Not that they have all the solutions, but they make a case.Quote:
It’s the assumptions behind the process that bring the problem. Assuming how much parent material was there at the start, or how constant the rate of decay has always been.
The problem here is that you assume that these things have not been thought of...
I suggest you pick up a chemistry book, a book on crystal growth and igneous petrology... read up on the differentiation of magma and the formation of... ah bah... forget about it... I'll simplify it all to one line...
Crystal composition/formation is dependent on melt composition and rate of cooling, the chemistry and structure of crystals of specific minerals allow different incompatible elements to remain only once the temperature of the mineral drops below the closure temperature for that element for that mineral.
This is of course a gross over simplification... needless to say crystal composition is well understood.
As for changing the rate of radioactive decay... I have to say, in all honesty, if the rate of radioactive decay has changed then radioactive dating would have a lot of problems.
But... the creationists that suggest this say that in order for radio-isotope dating to fit into the creationist timeframe the rate of decay for the first 4 days of creation would have to be amazingly high (they don't present any evidence that it happened just that it needs to have happened for them to be right)... HOWEVER this would produce a massive amount of heat... raising the temperature of many crystals above their closure temperatures and certainly destroying any of the fission tracks generated in zircons and apatites...
In fact it could possibly melt high uranium minerals which would be fairly obvious...
That is where the creation scientists disagree with you. They make a contrary case.Quote:
Agreed. The problem comes with determining what is demonstrably not historical.
The creation myth and associated short timeline demonstrably not historical.
Yes, just as any truth is true. It cannot be otherwise.I think my point may have been something along the lines of... "the age of the Earth is independent of the Truthfulness or Falseness of Abraham's revelation".
What you read was just a story made up by someone seeking an alternative explanation - they could not possibly know which account came from what source. Were both corruptions of an original? Is one an accurate account from an earlier source? Was the original just a fairy story, or was it factual?The Flood story is basically taken directly from Babylonian myth and is not part of Abraham's revelation... I read a very interesting article about Abraham once... but I can't remember much about it.
Amazing how people can be sure about such things without claiming Divine revelation.
What is so complex about saying we all came from one original lifeform? You think the ancients were incapable of imagining that? No, the option was there. Indeed, many different 'creation' accounts were developed, some in respectable Greek philosophy.Quote:
Indeed - so why not tell them the muck-to-man fable commonly accepted today? Especially as they did not know the amazing complexity of life, as we do now. Muck-to-man would have been as credible as the 6 Day Creation. Today evolution has to be believed in the face of the difficulties posed by complexity.
They didn't tell it because they didn't know it... The just made up stories to 1. pass the time, 2. maintain their authority...
They made up things to fill in the gaps in their knowledge... or if you prefer... they made up bits because the revelation they received may have been along the lines of "I am God, all those gods you're worshiping in Ur are false... I'm your creator", without any details of how he actually did it... leaving them to make up the rest.
A prophet that says "I don't know" when asked a question will not be taken seriously at all, so if it's not part of his revelation then he will have to dissemble to some degree.
People want answers, simple answers that they can understand... if you don't supply them they'll just swing back to burning offal for their god instead of your god...
I certainly am. That accounts for most religions. But as I said - it doesn't rule out a true religion, one actually delivered by the Creator.Quote:
Yes, there are always alternative motives possible for the recording of any history. It could all be to suit an agenda - or it could all be just the truth.
I'm glad to see you're open to the idea that the stories told by any ancient holy man could be designed to suit an agenda.
That's the one I'm bringing to you. 0 -
kiffer said:
Apologies for the delay in reply.
Not a bother. Everyone needs a break now and then.You mistake the nature of self-delusion. All people know in their deepest heart that God is real and that they are estranged from Him. Self-delusion occurs when they seek to blank out that uncomfortable truth. They invent other gods to take His place, and persuade themselves this is reality.
I feel you are slightly going back on yourself here. Either they feel the same way about their religion as you do about yours or they don't...
If they feel in their deepest heart that their religion is not true (i.e. "[they know] they are estranged from Him.") then they don't feel the same way about their religion as you do. Where as previously you've said "I’m sure they may well feel that about their religion" in response to my suggestion that they felt the same way about their religion as you did about yours...
Obviously you don't actually think that they feel the same way about their faith as you do about yours. If that is the case say so, don't dance around it.
I understand you think that they are deluded but I'm talking about how they feel, compared to how you feel.I meant no slur on your honesty in this matter. I assume you had not read up on the Koran's teaching sufficiently.
"...in this matter", subtle.
Maybe too subtle... so I'm probably being over sensitive/defensive there, sorry.
I'm willing to say I'm not well read on the Koran's teachings. You suggested that I'd have to check what the Koran said on a particular topic so I looked it up...Your analogy with Christianity and the Inquisition breaks down because it is not later practice that we are discussing, but the teaching of the foundation scriptures - the Bible for Christians, the Koran for Muslims.
Just to be clear I wasn't making any sort of slur on Christ's teachings by mentioning the Inquisition... just in case any one is taking it that way... but rather that in the same way Christ would not like the inquisition, Mohammad did not teach J'had that doctrine came after his death. (although I'm willing to concede that I'm not well enough read to actually decide if it's 'legitimately' derived from the Koran, or if it's illegitimately derived from the Koran in the same way that I would consider the Inquisition's justifications to be...As far as I can find out from the Koran, your selection was not all that was said on the subject of force
I'm sure it's not... lets have a look at what you've found.- for example:
009.029
YUSUFALI: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.
PICKTHAL: Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.
SHAKIR: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html
Just for the record that's three different translations of the same verse, correct?
Yeah that's pretty damning... no big argument from me here...
All I'll say on it is perhaps moderate Islamic scholars can explain it away into something more tolerable using exegesis... but I acknowledge that this is a pretty weak argument from me.
I can't remember how the heck we got into talking about Islam... I imagine that it was my bad... I'll have to go back and check.If we don't find out before that, it will be too late. We can know God now - every true Christian does:
1 John 5:13 These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
hmm... maybe it's a bit of a gamble
Although...
If a killer right monster of a killer can be forgiven (for legitimately repenting) right up until he dies then I'm of the general opinion that an mere agnostic, atheist or well behaved heathen can get at least a few words off in their favour after death
Of course that's not based off any scripture that I'm aware of... just off the idea that this Jesus/God chap is meant to be a nice reasonable compassionate forgiving person.Not instantly destroying the wicked, and sending them rain and sun for their crops, etc. - all acts of kindness to the undeserving. That is what I meant by His love to the wicked.
No I think I've got to disagree with this on moral principles.
Not killing someone instantly is what I would consider to be the default state of neutral indifference, not an act of kindness or love.
Following on from not killing them instantly, he does eventually kill them, (no one lives to be more than 120, by divine decree), and then he lets them burn in the most horrible state... not an act of love, kindness or mercy.
An argument for mercy could be given if he just destroyed their souls rater than allowed them to exist in such a terrible state ... or allowed them to exist in some lesser realm... Eternal torture is pretty unkind...No doublethink required - just sober thinking. I'm sure you consider yourself compassionate and moral - but you would, I assume, lock some people up in prison for the rest of their lives. That is a dreadful experience for them, so much so that many commit suicide to end it. You justify life imprisonment on the basis of punishment for wickedness.
Yes, I do consider myself compassionate and moral... and yes I would imprison people for crimes... although ideally I would continue to attempt rehabilitate them, the punishment would have to fit the crime, and they would be held in as humane a prison as possible, although a prison is still prison.
I would expect a loving compassionate God to be more compassionate than me, not less.Your problem then is not about the rightness of severe punishment, but about whether God is going too far in His retribution. You see man's sin against God as much less grave than God does.
Well... I hesitate to say you are right there... My problem is not about the rightness of punishment... but about the rightness of SEVERE punishment.
The hell you consider to be the expected final destination of all non-Christians is indeed going to far.
I see mans sin against God as less much less grave than you do.One of you is mistaken.
One of us is mistaken...
I don't claim to speak for God (how could I with out being a hypocrite)... I don't really think you can either.No, that was not my purpose. I assert that fact - that people know He exists. The truth of it is known in your heart as it was known in mine, so I don't need to prove it. You may deny it if you wish, but it will still be so.
You may make that assertion but that that doesn't make it so.
1, What is/was/may have been in your heart doesn't prove anything about anyone else's heart...
2, You were preconditioned with the idea of Christianity, whereas someone form a different culture is not. (although that doesn't get me off the hook)What I was doing in giving the angelic reference was showing that God responds to all who seek Him. That was one example. Most of us don't see angels, but He makes Himself clear to us nevertheless.
So the man in whos house the angel appeared was seeking God before the angle appeared? I'll have to go back and re-read that and check that out... I thought it was a spontaneous visitation.Indeed - if He thinks fit.
There are many testimonies to heathens/pagans receiving visions from God to prepare them for salvation. But it is not the norm.
True worship must be in spirit and truth - a loving obedience to God, not just from fear of the consequences.
So... If people knew for definite that God existed they would only worship out of fear?
Actual physical proof would make them worship but it would be hollow worthless lip service?Romans tells us that:
Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Matthew 5:21-22
21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
Better to be an unknowing atheist (Tyre and Sidon) than a knowing one(Chorazin and Bethsaida, having seen miracles and not believing)?Being judged by our works at least implies a gradation of punishment, as our works will vary in wickedness. But explicit teaching on gradated punishment is found here:
Matthew 11:20 Then He began to rebuke the cities in which most of His mighty works had been done, because they did not repent: 21 “Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes. 22 But I say to you, it will be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment than for you. 23 And you, Capernaum, who are exalted to heaven, will be brought down to Hades; for if the mighty works which were done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. 24 But I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment than for you.”
Better to be a sodomite than a willing atheists eh?
Does show different levels of Woe for those poor souls that are left to endure unending torture.
Well done.Luke 12:47 And that servant who knew his master’s will, and did not prepare himself or do according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48 But he who did not know, yet committed things deserving of stripes, shall be beaten with few. For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required; and to whom much has been committed, of him they will ask the more.
It's never right for a master to beat a servant.Not every doctrine is found in every place. We take the whole of Scripture to get the whole picture.
Well showed with the levels of punishments for the cities... 'grats.Not so. A blind man may doubt our description of multicoloured nature, may even claim we cannot know or are deluded. But that does not change the reality of those experiencing it.
Well... we're both blind repeating second hand information about possibility of colours that we can not even begin to describe... even if one of us can claim to have possibly spoken briefly to a sighted person, neither of us is in fact sighted.
The best we can do is weak analogy, like substituting a spectrum of rough textures for the spectrum of colours...
We would still be left with a problem... Has one of us actually spoken to the sighted person... we've read a book written by people that may have met him and ever so often one of us might get the feeling that they're on the right track.
Agreed, copying everything after this to the right thread.This should be on the Creation thread0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
kiffer said:
I am talking about my and their 'feelings' at the conscious level - we both believe and defend our beliefs as true. If you want to apply feelings to the deeper level, then of course you are right - they and I do not feel the same way about our deepest beliefs. But it is the conscious level that presents the argument and enters the debates, makes the claims.
Right so they don't feel the same as you do, at a fundamental subconscious level, about their religion.My fault for using ambiguous phrasology. Let me try again: I meant no slur on your honesty.
Yeah. I was pretty sure that I was overreacting... Thanks for the clarification though and sorry for the accusation.No, I understood you.
That's why I checked with what I think is a non-partisan site. I was looking for something Mohammad said, and something unambigious at that.
Yes. Thought it was especially helpful to avoid prejudice.
Not a bad idea.If it's anything like liberalism in Christian interpretation, it will indeed be explaining it away. Dishonest interpretation to remove uncomfortable facts characterises it. Better to be an honest unbelieving scholar who reads it as it is and says it is ignorance from an unenlightened age, than one who seeks to change the message to accommodate modern beliefs. yeah, I guess I agree.Your idea is mistaken when it continues God's mercy into the after-life. Now is the day of salvation:
Isaiah 55:6 Seek the LORD while He may be found,
Call upon Him while He is near.
7 Let the wicked forsake his way,
And the unrighteous man his thoughts;
Let him return to the LORD,
And He will have mercy on him;
And to our God,
For He will abundantly pardon.
I'm well aware that that is Christianity's stand point on the issue... Forgiveness/mercy and so on is only for the living...Why would God be neutrally indifferent to wickedness? Being holy, He is incensed by it. Yet in mercy He gives men time to repent. Mercy is undeserved kindness.
I think you may have missed my point...Agreed. The time for love, kindness or mercy passes with our final breath.
Eternal torture is terrible to think of - but it is the just judgment for sin against the infinitely holy God. We are not qualified to question Him about what is just.
We are qualified to question each other.
And I think maybe we are qualified to question him about what is just... at the very least we are qualified to question each other about our interpretations.Yes, that is the issue. As I pointed out above, God alone knows how black sin really is, and we can rely on His judgment.
I let Him speak for Himself when I point to His word.
Yes, my assertion is no proof. It is true or it is not, regardless of who believes it.
Yes, he was seeking after God before God sent the angel.
Interesting... I shall have to read through Acts to respondSome will respond with true worship, some with reluctant worship and others with denial and rebellion.
Yes, without God changing their heart, reluctant and insincere worship is the only religious response.
God's anger is not without cause, and He alone is able to judge man's heart.
Absolutely.
Well at least that's somethingwolfsbane wrote:
It is when He is God.kiffer wrote:It's never right for a master to beat a servant.
I absolutely utterly and totally disagree.No, that is not the metaphor. Christians are not blind folks who have spoken to a sighted person (God). We have been given sight by God and are now reporting to you what we see.
Hum... I think we both could work on that metaphor a bit...
If Christians are the sighted ones in the metaphor they are all in different rooms staring out the window at the sun... so bright that all you can say about it is that it's beautiful and blinding, and in their peripheral vision they all see different things?
Hum... needs work.
Shorter response than I normally make...0 -
-
kiffer said:
Correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I am talking about my and their 'feelings' at the conscious level - we both believe and defend our beliefs as true. If you want to apply feelings to the deeper level, then of course you are right - they and I do not feel the same way about our deepest beliefs. But it is the conscious level that presents the argument and enters the debates, makes the claims.
Right so they don't feel the same as you do, at a fundamental subconscious level, about their religion.
No bother, my friend.Yeah. I was pretty sure that I was overreacting... Thanks for the clarification though and sorry for the accusation.
Excellent.Quote:
If it's anything like liberalism in Christian interpretation, it will indeed be explaining it away. Dishonest interpretation to remove uncomfortable facts characterises it. Better to be an honest unbelieving scholar who reads it as it is and says it is ignorance from an unenlightened age, than one who seeks to change the message to accommodate modern beliefs.
yeah, I guess I agree. You'd be surprised at how many dodge the issue.
Maybe. How can sparing a wicked person for a time not be an act of mercy/kindness?Quote:
Why would God be neutrally indifferent to wickedness? Being holy, He is incensed by it. Yet in mercy He gives men time to repent. Mercy is undeserved kindness.
I think you may have missed my point...
Agreed.Quote:
Eternal torture is terrible to think of - but it is the just judgment for sin against the infinitely holy God. We are not qualified to question Him about what is just.
We are qualified to question each other.
Even if he is our infinitely wise and holy Creator, and we not-very bright/not very moral sinners?And I think maybe we are qualified to question him about what is just...
Sure.at the very least we are qualified to question each other about our interpretations.
Noted.Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiffer
It's never right for a master to beat a servant.
It is when He is God.
I absolutely utterly and totally disagree.
Can't disagree with that.Quote:
No, that is not the metaphor. Christians are not blind folks who have spoken to a sighted person (God). We have been given sight by God and are now reporting to you what we see.
Hum... I think we both could work on that metaphor a bit...
No, that's pretty good. Christians do not see God in all His glory or detail. The Spirit reveals enough for us to know Him. And if by peripheral sight you mean our understanding of His word, then we do indeed see imperfectly.If Christians are the sighted ones in the metaphor they are all in different rooms staring out the window at the sun... so bright that all you can say about it is that it's beautiful and blinding, and in their peripheral vision they all see different things?
Hum... needs work.0 -
Actually, the term "god" does not always denote a being equivalent to the Creator of the Universe, the Alpha and Omega.Old Testament refers to the existence of other gods. Yes it calls them lesser gods then God, but it does say they exist as gods... it also says they don't exist... which is fine as far as I'm concerned, it's just another contradiction, and another nail in the inerrant bible.
It is easy for you to dismiss them as demons, you can't claim they don't exist but you rob them of their godhood as quickly and as easily as an atheist would, with as much authority.
The term "god" can be applied to anyone who wishes to follow what they think is best, as opposed to the perfect truth of the One True Heavenly Father.
Satan made himself to be a god, and was removed from heaven. Satan (Ye shall be as gods) tempted Eve into becoming her own god, by convincing her to use her own judgement of what is right and wrong as opposed to her Holy Creator's command. Our Lord God Jesus Christ created us along with everything else, and knows infinitely more than any created being. He asks us to obey because it is always in our best interest. If we choose to second guess what He has commanded, we are saying, "I know what you said, but I'm going to put myself, your creation, on the same level as YOU, my creator, and decide what I think is best, because I'm as high and great as you are......I am a god too."
Being a "god" doesn't make you a deity. There can be only one.
0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement