Recommended Posts
Quote>This is illogical. But then relativism always is.
We are all relativists.
>How can all paths (religions) be equally valid when they contradict each other . . .
The Bible contradicts _itself._ That doesn't mean it's not valid.
The validity of a religion is akin to the validity of a country. Is there only one "true" country? After all, they all have slightly different governing/economic/military policies. Does that mean that they are all wrong except for one?
I don't think so. I think a country with policies that work is as valid as a country with another set of policies that work.
A very poor analogy, Bill.
And as for the old canard about the bible contradicting itself, baloney. Maybe you just need help in reading it.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
QuoteQuoteBe we aren't talking about mountains. We're talking about truth-- the truth about God, who he is or isn't, life, death, etc.
It's a metaphor. The summit represents God. The different paths represent different religions or spiritual philosophies.
Well then, it's not a fitting metaphor. How do you know that your summit represents the same God for all religions? If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be "right paths."
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
billvon 2,435
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>Do you really believe this?
Not at all. The statement "christians have no innate morality" is as silly as saying "atheists have no reason to have a morality."
>We do not follow the letter, we follow the spirit of Gods Love.
I think if more people followed such a path there would be far less strife on this planet.
Not at all. The statement "christians have no innate morality" is as silly as saying "atheists have no reason to have a morality."
>We do not follow the letter, we follow the spirit of Gods Love.
I think if more people followed such a path there would be far less strife on this planet.
billvon 2,435
>How do you know that your summit represents the same God for all
>religions?
I have this image of two people standing on the summit of Everest, one saying "you're not on the REAL summit, I am."
>If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be "right paths."
The Bible directly contradicts itself, but you believe it is part of the "right path."
>religions?
I have this image of two people standing on the summit of Everest, one saying "you're not on the REAL summit, I am."
>If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be "right paths."
The Bible directly contradicts itself, but you believe it is part of the "right path."
Quote>How do you know that your summit represents the same God for all
>religions?
I have this image of two people standing on the summit of Everest, one saying "you're not on the REAL summit, I am."
>If they directly contradict one another, they can't all be "right paths."
The Bible directly contradicts itself, but you believe it is part of the "right path."
That's good, Bill. I hope it made you smile.
You're right, I do believe the Bible is part of the right path. It shows us the right path. As David wrote: "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path."
There's nothing wrong with the Bible. The problem is with people who treat it like it's not literature but who hold it to unreasonable standards; for example, not allowing it to contain literary devices like figures of speech. That's a terribly amateur strategy for trying to make it look untrustworthy.
But yes, I do believe it is an integral part of the right path, Bill.
Blue skies & happy jitters ~Mockingbird
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
jakee 1,259
Quotebut isnt it true that...
No. seriously, everytime you use that phrase, the answer is going to be no.
QuoteAre we to assume, (this is a serious question) that life will be completely destroyed when the earth is gone? Is that sciences stance?
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what's out there? 'Science' hasn't seen what's on the surface of every planet circling every sun in every galaxy, so why would 'science' know whether other life exists or not?
QuoteBecause it seems to me that if life has the wisdom to evolve, doesnt that mean that life has wisdom? And what scientist can believe that wisdom does not have purpose, that statement would contradict almost every scientist I have met.
What?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
DannHuff 0
QuoteThere is no evidence that the story of Jesus being resurrected is true.
This is an important point.
The Gospels are eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. They record that Jesus:
- Claimed to be God
- Supported he was God by performing miracles
- Called on all who have done wrong (that would be all of us) to turn away from wrong doing
- Proclaimed the only way to the Father is by belief in him
- Lived a sinless life
- Offered his life as a sacrifice for others
- Died & rose again before ascending to heaven
- Announced he is returning again
Today, on the basis of eye witness accounts, people are found guilty and sent to the electric chair. This is classed as evidence.
The evidence of eye witness accounts in the Bible you can accept, or not accept, for yourself. But to say there is no evidence to me is not correct.
JackC 0
QuoteThe evidence of eye witness accounts in the Bible you can accept, or not accept, for yourself. But to say there is no evidence to me is not correct.
This is incorrect. The accounts presented in the Bible are generally considered to have been written several decades after the fact. In some cases, hundreds of years after the fact so there is no way the author could have witnessed the event. But since no original examples of the text exist, we must assume that they are faithful reproductions of the original. Further than that, all extant copies are translations of the originals, so we have to assume that they are faithful translations.
So we have:
1) not written at the time
2) not written by an eye witness
3) no original copies exist
4) all extant copies are translations
This is not evidence, it's hearsay and conjecture. Neither of those things would get you convicted of so much as a parking ticket.
DannHuff 0
QuoteThis is incorrect. The accounts presented in the Bible are generally considered to have been written several decades after the fact. In some cases, hundreds of years after the fact so there is no way the author could have witnessed the event. But since no original examples of the text exist, we must assume that they are faithful reproductions of the original. Further than that, all extant copies are translations of the originals, so we have to assume that they are faithful translations.
So we have:
1) not written at the time
2) not written by an eye witness
3) no original copies exist
4) all extant copies are translations
This is not evidence, it's hearsay and conjecture. Neither of those things would get you convicted of so much as a parking ticket.
If you read what I wrote, I said the Gospels record eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. I did not go into whether or not the writers were the eye witnesses themselves.
What is important is are the accounts faithful? Did people actually see a risen Christ? Who wrote the Gospels and when can be subject to endless debates, and in some ways a distraction. Your points 1-4 do not disprove the eye witness accounts as presented by the writers are not faithful. This being the case the life of Christ bears further investigation for oneself, and you never know, you may hear the voice of God by doing so.
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteAs soon as someone, anyone produces evidence of any deity then yes you would have a valid argument. To date that has never happened. The "evidence" that you and others have pointed to does not qualify as evidence by anyones definition of the word evidence.
How about Simon Greenleaf's definition?
Why can't you guys just say, "I don't accept what you point to as evidence--- even the eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers-- because I have a philosphical bias against the existence of a supernatural being"?
Why??? Becuase what you point out as being eyewitness testimony does not in any way shape or form qualify as eyewitness testimony. You don't have any evidence. If you were to take a book into court and try to submit it as eyewitness testimony the judge would dismiss the book and ask you where your eyewitness is. An eyewitness is a person not a book. You can't question a book and get an answer.
beowulf 1
QuoteQuoteThis is incorrect. The accounts presented in the Bible are generally considered to have been written several decades after the fact. In some cases, hundreds of years after the fact so there is no way the author could have witnessed the event. But since no original examples of the text exist, we must assume that they are faithful reproductions of the original. Further than that, all extant copies are translations of the originals, so we have to assume that they are faithful translations.
So we have:
1) not written at the time
2) not written by an eye witness
3) no original copies exist
4) all extant copies are translations
This is not evidence, it's hearsay and conjecture. Neither of those things would get you convicted of so much as a parking ticket.
If you read what I wrote, I said the Gospels record eye witness accounts of the life of Jesus. I did not go into whether or not the writers were the eye witnesses themselves.
What is important is are the accounts faithful? Did people actually see a risen Christ? Who wrote the Gospels and when can be subject to endless debates, and in some ways a distraction. Your points 1-4 do not disprove the eye witness accounts as presented by the writers are not faithful. This being the case the life of Christ bears further investigation for oneself, and you never know, you may hear the voice of God by doing so.
He did read what you wrote and what you claim are eyewitness accounts are not. Read what JackC wrote and you will find a list showing why they are not eyewitness accounts.
There is absolutely no way for you to know if the accounts are faithul or not.
QuoteDid people actually see a risen Christ?
You can't answer this question with a yes. You don't know if anyone saw Jesus rise from the dead. All you know is what is written in the Bible. There is nothing else written anywere that supports the accounts of Jesus rising from the dead.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteHow does a living cell indicate design?
VR/Marg
Im not an educated man. I deeply respect all those who follow their desire in them, but isnt it true that eveything created has a purpose, even if its just expression? I really am not aware of anything that does not have purpose, especially a cell.
What do you mean by "purpose"?
What do you mean by "expression"?
What is the purpose of Hemorrhagic fever filoviruses, like Ebola & Marburg?
By "purpose" do you mean shift down a proton gradient to a more favorable energy state? Or more favorable pH?
Or by "purpose" do you mean hydrophobicity, i.e., the spontaneous process that drives liposomes (like cell walls) to form in water?
When I look at cells -- from genetic though protein through structural levels -- there's lots of evidence for evolution and zero repeatable, public evidence of intentional design. If you [or Mockingbird] can provide some that would be fantastic!
Evidence of evolution includes similarities & differences in DNA sequences across species, examples of gene regulation (including at least one in humans) by DNA derived from an endogenous retrovirus (ERV), mutation rates, protein structures, and larger cellular structures (such as mitochondria).
VR/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
kallend 1,649
Quote
And as for the old canard about the bible contradicting itself, baloney. Maybe you just need help in reading it.
Translation: we can redefine words and manipulate context in such a way so that the embarrassing contradictions in the Bible can be explained away.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
How about Simon Greenleaf's definition?
Why can't you guys just say, "I don't accept what you point to as evidence--- even the eyewitness testimony of the gospel writers-- because I have a philosphical bias against the existence of a supernatural being"?
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites