| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
Chris, See #5 towards the bottom of the page at... http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=New sArticle&id=8088 Pretty cool. | ||
| Sifo |
I seldom get into these discussions, and looking at the debate videos that were posted (I also looked at numerous related videos to get a feel for both sides) points out the reason why. Dawkins points out that creationists have little to offer into debate other than emotional arguments (and rightly so IMO). The problem is that Dawkins has little to offer into the debate other than emotional arguments either. I can kind of understand the reluctance of Dawkins to get suckered into this type of debate. It takes him out of his comfort zone of science and puts him in a position where there is just no proof that anything was created without the input from God. The best he can hope for is to show that creation /i{could} happen without God, and science isn't even at that point yet IMO. So you really tend to be left with two sides making their emotional arguments with little proof for either side to point to. It's a debate that is designed to be a draw. So the only reason I jumped into this at all is because some were complaining about the lack of scientific evidence in the arguments from the creationist side. I provided a few paragraphs outlining a purely scientific argument that IMO leans toward the origins of life coming from design, not chance. I think only one person made any effort at all to discuss this and that only went as far as one post. I think this demonstrates that certain individuals get into these types of discussions not to have an honest exchange, but to try to simply demean the opposing side. BTW Tankhead, I don't think you necessarily fall into that category. I think you had your own reasons that probably aren't open minded, but you seem to have been fairly upfront about what you were doing. I do think that your asking for "proof" that lead to individuals beliefs is going to get you nowhere in a hurry. This is a matter of faith, even for the atheist. You seemed confused about when I said that earlier, but the atheist has to go on faith just as much as any believer in God. Only the true agnostic can really be lacking faith. As for me, I've found that there's more scientific evidence that points to a creator than there is pointing to chance. Then again, the deck just seems to be stacked that way. Make of that what you will. I solidified my faith long before I came to these conclusions about the scientific evidence. For what it's worth (true story), I was riding my Buell to work after lunch and the first turn from leaving my driveway the backend stepped out big time for no apparent reason. I've charged that corner much harder many times, even on cold tires. My first thought was "OMG... Don't crash". Did God save me from a crash or was it just my mad riding skills? Good day folk!    | ||
| Etennuly |
Tank, as a matter of fact I have been off base on your OP. I was not aware of the "Atheist" thread's content. Ironically I avoided THAT thread based on it's title  . I read some of that today and saw more clearly what you were aiming at. Sir, I apologize for my insouciance in this thread. Back to BB&D.....indeed!  | ||
| Tankhead |
Etennuly: No problem brother. Blake: Tried to view that but you have to be a member. Don't have time right now but will check in to it or if you could cut and paste it, great. Thanks for the offering. Sifo: Not quite sure how your post attempts to answer my post. I think you posted this on the wrong thread. I believe I was asking about the two very specific concepts and if people who are believers on this site could explain how THEY comprehend those concepts to share with me. I have been very clear that I will NOT debate their beliefs I am asking how they interpret those specific concepts. Now I know how you feel about the ID DNA RNA debate you would like to have. I don't think you could accuse me of being close minded now could you. But thanks for the dig. And one more thing, I absolutely disagree with this statement from you: Only the true agnostic can really be lacking faith. I understand what you said but I disagree and will not debate on here with you. This thread is not about atheists, debating atheists, right or wrong. Just for believers to halp me understand the concepts as they comprehend them. Thanks again. (Message edited by tankhead on September 19, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
I'd need to ask permission to reprint here. Registration is very simple, no hassle, no spam. He explains ontological logic well. Very interesting. Nothing of scripture, only formal logic and sound refutation of Dawkins' various lame attempts to attack the argument. | ||
| Alfau |
Faith is "believing in" what you can't see. Heb 11:1 | ||
| Blake |
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. | ||
| Whistler |
Tank, I hope this is not off subject, rather a continuation of thinking about faith this morning. It is on my mind. Thank you. James 1:2-8 Consider it pure joy, my brothers, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith develops perseverance. Perseverance must finish its work so that you may be mature and complete, not lacking anything. If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him. But when he asks, he must believe and not doubt, because he who doubts is like a wave of the sea, blown and tossed by the wind. That man should not think he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double minded man, unstable in all he does. | ||
| Tankhead |
Union Man: This video, which I would say I agree with 100% without some of the digs in the end or name calling, was not the purpose of this thread. Thanks for the video but that is not contributing to the discussion. thanks Ftbastard: Your statement: Why would Jesus want you to eat his body and drink his blood? It was symbolic not actual ingestion of flesh and blood. Not an accurate statement, at least not for the Catholics that taught me the Catholic religion. I was taught that it is literal and not symbolic. Whistler: Thanks again but if you could please explain YOUR understanding of the two concepts above and how you feel more accepting of those concepts if you understand them. Thanks | ||
| Blake |
Chris, >>> I absolutely do not believe in the bible. I think I'm echoing the inquiry from another participant here in asking, what do you mean by that? Do believe... It's wrong to murder? It's wrong to steal? It's wrong to be covetous? It's wrong to be adulterous? It's wrong to disrespect your parents? It is good to treat others well? Humans are born not only of flesh but also of spirit? Which of the Proverbs of King Soloman do you not believe are good advice? Which of the poems in Psalms are unbelievable? Are you contending that all the books of the bible are nothing but fraudulent fiction? Just trying to understand where you are coming from with such a bold statement as "I absolutely do not believe in the bible." Do you believe that Jesus was a real man? Do you not see validity of any of the parables that Jesus taught? | ||
| Blake |
>>> This video, which I would say I agree with 100%. How do you agree with questions?  I didn't watch it past the first one, so forgive me if there was more to it than that. | ||
| Tankhead |
Well, Blake, I haven't forgot about Etennuly's question. This thread is not about my beliefs. I really did not want to get into what I believe. Sorry if some of that slipped, I should have ignored that part of his question. Even if I did, I would not want it to turn into a pissing argument. If you would like to, you could read Ayn Rand's books "The Virtue of Selfishness" and also "The New Intellectual." They would be a great start into getting a flavor of what I do believe. About the bible, if you could view Union Man's video that he posted (don't take the words insanity and other words used to be a "put down" for believers.) I tried to answer honestly without going into a debate about the bible. Start a new thread if you don't mind and I will try and respond. Thanks. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
It's wrong to disrespect your parents? hmmm possibly... is it wrong to stone your child to death if he does? if so then it does not jive with the do not kill snippet you pulled... again you cannot pull 'nice' snippets from the bible and let the evil garbage go unnoticed... yes it may say things like do not murder BUT it's also intending do not murder within your own tribe. There's countless murder and bloodshed in the bible... real good morals taught there, yepper... don't kill... BUT if your kid gets lippy then stone 'em to death... great morals it teaches... wearing any mixed fabrics today? if so you're supposed to be killed as well... | ||
| Blake |
Chris, In the time it took to post the above, you could likely have registered and read William Craig's entire explanation of the ontological argument for god's existence. If you really are interested in the answer, there it is. I'll repost my questions to you in a subordinate thread here. You are correct about Catholicism's beliefs concerning communion. Most protestants don't share that belie; we view the statements attributed to Jesus, "do this in remembrance of me" and "do this in memory of me" (1 Cor 11:23 and Lk 22:19) as vital to understanding the meaning of his admonition concerning communion. | ||
| Tankhead |
Blake, how do you know I did not? I never try and ass-u-me anything. Just kidding) Actually I was trying to post a response to SIFO and research a possible answer for him. He has been asking for an answer for a coule days now. You may have to get in line for awhile. Also, what I do on my lunch hour is not your business. (Message edited by tankhead on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Tankhead |
I guess the questions that I posted will never be answered and I guess that is OK. Blake, so which is right, Catholics, Protestants in the eyes of the lord or religion. I was taught that if I did not believe that I was actually going to hell. A second grader hearing that , like I did, really does not need to be put in that position. If a second grader told another second grader that they were going to hell they would possibly be suspended from school or at least a detention. I had my school telling me I would if I did not actually believe that I was eating flesh from a man and drinking his blood. Also with that logic, how can the interpretation of the bible from one religion to the other not realize that with all of the different beliefs and interpretations the whole thing tends to sound extremely silly doesn't it. At least for me by the time I was a freshman in high school it did, I got out. | ||
| Whistler |
Tank, thanks. I wish we could speak face to face. Might make for a better conversation. Someday I hope. While difficult to express myself using a keyboard I will speak my heart as if we were face to face. I explained my belief/faith in my first post using scripture for the most part because it is part and parcel of my faith and the Word says it best. With and without scripture this is my answer, I have faith in God and that faith stemmed from God. I need God. Romans 3:23 - "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." I prayed for forgiveness of my sin and asked Christ to be Lord of me. Faith born. Proof? For me it is the personal relationship with Christ, the everyday living, the undeniable Spirit pervading this me. Scripture again, 1 John 4:13 - "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us his Spirit." So this present time is filled with not only the deposit of the Spirit but as 1 Corinthians 13:12 says - "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known. Thanks again Tank. I have enjoyed this thread. | ||
| Superdavetfft |
Since this is a gotquestions.org thread I have one question. Why does jesus mimic horus or egypt and other 'gods'? Horus predates jesus by about an eon. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIMFz5ZKDVo Here's another copy; "Correspondences between events in Jesus' and Krishna's life: Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Yeshua's and Krishna's life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christiana and Hindu writings. 1 That appears to be overwhelming evidence that incidents in Jesus' life were copied from Krishna's. However, many of Graves' points of similarity are a real stretch. He did report some amazing coincidences: #6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. 7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. 8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. 13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter. 18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father. 21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. 27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. 30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. 41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. 56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head." 58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." 60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." 64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. 66: Both were "without sin." 72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. ... " from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm | ||
| Tankhead |
BRAVO again Superdave  . But please post that on the subthread that Blake posted it would be consistent with that topic and doesn't answer the question. | ||
| Tankhead |
Whistler. I understand your need to quote scripture and how sometimes your feelings are so great that it is hard to clarify through a keyboard. I get that. I appreciate your time here and wish you the best on your Buell. Be safe my friend. (Message edited by tankhead on September 20, 2011) | ||
| Blake |
SDave, Seek truth. | ||
| Blake |
>>> Blake, so which is right, Catholics, Protestants in the eyes of the lord or religion. Of course I think my view is accurate. I'm not sure it matters in the big picture. >>>I was taught that if I did not believe (in transubstantiation) that I was actually going to hell. Evil men corrupting religion. Ask for the scriptural basis of such a belief. There is none. | ||
| Etennuly |
Evil men corrupting religion. Ask for the scriptural basis of such a belief. There is none. Maybe then he was right to leave, as these were his childhood teachers. so which is right, Catholics, Protestants in the eyes of the lord or religion. I was taught that if I did not believe that I was actually going to hell. A second grader hearing that , like I did, really does not need to be put in that position. If a second grader told another second grader that they were going to hell they would possibly be suspended from school or at least a detention. I had my school telling me I would if I did not actually believe that I was eating flesh from a man and drinking his blood. , how can the interpretation of the bible from one religion to the other not realize that with all of the different beliefs and interpretations the whole thing tends to sound extremely silly doesn't it. So much of this I have seen.....different railroad.....same tracks. Also with that logic Perhaps the "L" word doesn't apply. Over the centuries how many people were burned, tortured, shunned or what have you, by their own people because they attempted to interject logic into religious questions to their "Elders"? | ||
| Blake |
Vern, I would agree and I don't fault anyone for being put off by religious institutions for such problems. I share their ire. >>> Over the centuries how many people were burned, tortured, shunned or what have you, by their own people because they attempted to interject logic into religious questions to their "Elders"? I don't know of any. It's a common myth I think. The inquisition was less about the church, more about the government of Spain getting rid of its enemies. Not saying that the church was not corrupt. I think it still is. So did Martin Luther.  Seek truth. | ||
| Tankhead |
Well everyone, I do appreciate your time on this subject. I was hoping we could get some people to explain how they accept those concepts as arguments in their own head. Besides Whistler, there was not really anyone out there that felt like sharing. I guess I am done here. No one wins, no one loses, overall a civil discussion that unfortunately will not be answered by a bunch of Buell riding, motorcycle loving dudes who I hope agree to disagree. Let all of those who believe in whatever continue to believe in what they believe and be happy for having process of thought and communication. And again grateful for Blake for having this website for all of us to enjoy. Thanks Blake we appreciate it. | ||
| Tankhead |
Oh, Blake have you ever seen the Crucible. Daniel Day Lewis was incredible. Vern I think your point of the burnings and such apply hear. If you have seen it you understand my point. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Not an accurate statement, at least not for the Catholics that taught me the Catholic religion. I was taught that it is literal and not symbolic. A completely accurate statement for 100% of protestant beliefs. Only the left and right half of the Holy Roman Empire use the term transubstantiation. | ||
| Slaughter |
Baptists were burned as heretics by the English Catholic Church AND the formerly heretical Church of England. Good times were had by all. | ||
| Tankhead |
Yes I do remember that term transubstantiation growing up being drilled in my head. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Author Kersey Graves (1813-1883), a Quaker from Indiana, compared Yeshua's and Krishna's life. He found what he believed were 346 elements in common within Christiana and Hindu writings. 1 That appears to be overwhelming evidence that incidents in Jesus' life were copied from Krishna's. However, many of Graves' points of similarity are a real stretch. He did report some amazing coincidences: #6 & 45: Yeshua and Krishna were called both a God and the Son of God. 7: Both was sent from heaven to earth in the form of a man. 8 & 46: Both were called Savior, and the second person of the Trinity. 13, 15, 16 & 23: His adoptive human father was a carpenter. 18: A spirit or ghost was their actual father. 21: Krishna and Jesus were of royal descent. 27 & 28: Both were visited at birth by wise men and shepherds, guided by a star. 30 to 34: Angels in both cases issued a warning that the local dictator planned to kill the baby and had issued a decree for his assassination. The parents fled. Mary and Joseph stayed in Muturea; Krishna's parents stayed in Mathura. 41 & 42: Both Yeshua and Krishna withdrew to the wilderness as adults, and fasted. 56: Both were identified as "the seed of the woman bruising the serpent's head." 58: Jesus was called "the lion of the tribe of Judah." Krishna was called "the lion of the tribe of Saki." 60: Both claimed: "I am the Resurrection." 64: Both referred to themselves having existed before their birth on earth. 66: Both were "without sin." 72: Both were god-men: being considered both human and divine. Errors in Graves' book: Due either to carelessness, or the primitive knowledge of religious history in the late 19th century, it appears that Graves made some errors in his book. He reported that: Both Krishna and Yeshua were born on December 25. Actually, Krishna is traditionally believed to have been born during August. The festival Janmashtami is held in honor of this birth. The birth day of Jesus is unknown, but is believed by many to have also been about August during some year between 4 and 7 BCE. December 25th was chosen for Christmas to coincide with a pre-existent Pagan Roman holiday, Saturnalia. December 25th was also recognized in ancient times as the birth day of various other god-men such as Attis and Mithra. All were linked to the winter solstice, which occurs about DEC-21. Jesus' and Krishna's mothers were holy virgins: Actually, the virginal state of Mary when she conceived Jesus is a matter of debate. Paul and the author(s) of the Gospel of John appear to directly reject the concept. The author of the Gospel of Mark appears to have been unaware of it. The authors of Matthew and Luke accepted the belief. Christians today are divided. The virginal state of Devaki is also a matter of debate. One tradition states that Krishna was her eighth child. Another states that it was a virgin birth: "In the context of myth and religion, the virgin birth is applied to any miraculous conception and birth. In this sense, whether the mother is technically a virgin is of secondary importance to the fact that she conceives and gives birth by some means other than the ordinary....the divine Vishnu himself descended into the womb of Devaki and was born as her son Krishna." 11 Jesus' and Krishna's mothers had similar names: Miriam (Mary) and Maia In reality, Krishna's mother may have been referred to as Maia, but only because this is the Hindi word for "mother." His mother's actual name was Devaki; his foster mother's name was Yashoda. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm Here's another source: http://www.blackapologetics.com/bamanswerantiquity .html |
