Science today
-
Oakman wrote:
I take it you also find the Illiad and the Odyssey without merit?
I never said that it was devoid of merit. But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
John Carson wrote:
Did Christian read it in the original Aramaic?
Dunno. Don't care. I would be surprised to discover that he isn't aware of the problem of taking the English translations as perfect, though. Usually it's the guys who think they are proving something who need do that - True Believers both pro and con.
John Carson wrote:
I am responding on the same playing field.
Not from where I sit. He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally. You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
John Carson wrote:
"Does Genesis not give an indication of the age of the earth?"
And the proper answer is: from my limited experience, the third-hand translations that I have read indicate that the world was created in 4004 BC. Obviously this is does not gibe with current archeological findings which demonstrates that the translations may be imperfect, my understanding of those translations may be imperfect, the scribes who set down the verbal histories of the Tribes of Judah may have not remembered the timespans correctly, or that God created the world then, but also created millions of years of prehistory at the same time. Since any and or all of these answers may be wholly, partially, or not at all true, the question is moot.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
He's saying that the Old testament is not to be taken literally.
Mm..."However, careful reading of the Bible makes this impossible." I would take this to mean that the Bible should be read carefully in order to understand it accurately. The position still seems fairly literalist, just a more sophisticated variant of it.
Oakman wrote:
You then find a contradiction in the OT that does what? Prove that the OT isn't to be taken literally?
Actually, I called it an "apparent" contradiction and was rather assuming that Christian wouldn't think it really was a contradiction. Thus I moved on to a literalist perspective. <edit> I see from Christian's later reply that he is not as literalist as I was assuming. </edit>
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
the trouble the young earth folks come into IMO is simply that the Bible is not meant to be about paleontology, archeology, or molecular physics.
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God. There was only one thing the Bible had to do to prove itself to the world, and that is to genuinely demonstrate knowledge ahead of its time, something that the authors couldn't possibly have known. If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Christian Graus wrote:
Just like if I read a cookbook and look for advice on how to decorate my kitchen. There may be the odd photo or comment in there, but I won't get a treatise on the subject. It's still a perfectly good cookbook.
The cookbook doesn't tell me to worship someone. OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God.
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But people don't kill each other over two ancient poems because they can't agree on certain aspects of them.
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
I just think that there's a simpler explanation than 'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Christian Graus wrote:
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament.
The question is, why would he need to change people? Why would he change people? If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded? Furthermore, do you believe in free will? If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.
-
John Carson wrote:
So an apparent logical inconsistency in the Biblical account means that the Bible doesn't imply that the world is 6,000 years old??!! That is strange reasoning indeed.
Actually, there's a lot more. For starters, Gen 1 repors God creating men and women. Gen 2 says he formed one man and one woman after that.
John Carson wrote:
As for Cain "finding" his wife, he didn't go out to find a wife, he was expelled for killing his brother.
*grin* I hope you realise that I knew that. But, he was expelled, and in his expelled state, he found a wife.
John Carson wrote:
The usual interpretation from the Biblical literalists is that Cain married an unnamed sister (or a niece --- but some son of Adam and Eve would have had to marry their sister).
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
I find this hybrid of the Bible and science very unsatisfactory intellectually. The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't. Instead, literalist interpretations of selected passages are abandoned ex post as and when scientific evidence dictates. But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
John Carson
-
Oakman wrote:
Make up your mind. You are now criticising the bible because there are people who are overly passionate about it, not because it contains some internal inconsistencies?
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
No, it doesn't. High priests may, but that's just job security. The strongest passion in the Old Testament is the Song of Soloman. The New Testament appears to think quite highly of the meek, the humble, and the peace-makers. Reading between the lines, one might also get the impression that Jesus wasn't too thrilled the Rome or their Jewish satraps, but it's muted enough that it would be hard to call it a passionate appeal for rebellion. There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path, but I haven't noticed too many people getting passionate over that course of action, or even taking him seriously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
But it could've been, at least in part, had the authors really been communicating with God.
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
I don't think that there's a difference.
Oakman wrote:
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Oakman wrote:
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
It might. Should all inquiry cease at the merest possibility of the answer not swaying me?
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I'm criticising it because it demands that people be overly passionate about it.
No, it doesn't. High priests may, but that's just job security. The strongest passion in the Old Testament is the Song of Soloman. The New Testament appears to think quite highly of the meek, the humble, and the peace-makers. Reading between the lines, one might also get the impression that Jesus wasn't too thrilled the Rome or their Jewish satraps, but it's muted enough that it would be hard to call it a passionate appeal for rebellion. There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path, but I haven't noticed too many people getting passionate over that course of action, or even taking him seriously.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path
Is that before or after he instructs his followers to sell their clothing to buy swords?
Oakman wrote:
No, it doesn't.
Ah, haha, I'm pretty sure it does.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If, for example, it had mentioned unambiguously that oxygen is paramagnetic, or had a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, or had a diagram of haemoglobin somewhere in there, there would be no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion.
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
OK, if someone took every moral lesson from the Bible and fashioned a new book in which God and the supernatural make no appearance, would it be as good a book?
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament. And, obviously, Christianity promises life forever, not just how to live life here. But, the 'how to live life here' aspects, would be just as true if taken in isolation. In fact, that's what plenty of churches seem to do nowadays.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
No, but 1. Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim. 2. Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
I just think that there's a simpler explanation than 'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Christian Graus wrote:
Without the supernatural aspect, specifically, without God being able to change people to enable them to live up to the moral instructions of the Bible, it would be less effective. That's kind of the whole point of the old testament.
The question is, why would he need to change people? Why would he change people? If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded? Furthermore, do you believe in free will? If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
'there is a God who co-authored a book that's only vaguely trustworthy and who makes every effort to avoid being believable'.
Well, I agree. I don't think anyone is putting that theory forward except belligerent athiests who don't take the time to understand what they are attacking. Present company excepted, of course. :rose:
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The question is, why would he need to change people?
Because we need it ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Why would he change people?
Because we asked for it, and because we need it ?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If Heaven is the reward for being faithful even given the free-will to not do so, would someone he made faithful be rewarded?
I love atheistic word games. They are fun. Being changed by God means being empowered to live a good life. It doesn't mean not having a choice in the matter anymore. For example, I tried to quit drinking before I became a Christian. 20 years ago, when I became a Christian, I stopped wanting to drink. Drinking was a destructive force in my life, one I could not control on my own. I could still choose to drink if I wanted to.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Furthermore, do you believe in free will?
Yes. um... no. um.... Of course I do.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
If God can see into the future, then that means that the future is already determined, which means that we don't have the freedom to save ourselves from eternal damnation.
Given that our brains are basically a chemical stew, and that even the most random decision we make, is probably only random because we can't see the state of our brain influencing the decision, I tend to think that He knows what will happen, at least in part, because, while we appear to have free will, it's also true that our every action is a product of our brain chemistry. But, of course, the point is moot, and meaningless, it's just a word game that atheists love to play. It means pretty much nothing.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have
-
Christian Graus wrote:
And this is significantly more far fetched than assuming that there were other men and women on the earth, especially given that it's clear from the fossil record that this was the case.
I find this hybrid of the Bible and science very unsatisfactory intellectually. The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't. Instead, literalist interpretations of selected passages are abandoned ex post as and when scientific evidence dictates. But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
The problem is that, as far as I am aware, noone can say in advance what parts of the Bible should be taken at face value and what parts shouldn't.
I can. If a passage is telling you about the nature of God, or what God would like you to do, then that's the core message.
John Carson wrote:
But why then believe any of it, since much that was once believed has subsequently proved unreliable?
The Bible was written by people of the day. It is filtered through their understanding, when it comes to natural things. I am not saying it's not inspired by God, I am saying that if God told someone to write down the sort of science you're asking for, they would not have understood it, and others would have seen no value in keeping it around.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, sure. The basic issue here is that just because you think you can say 'if there is a God, He should have done this', doesn't mean there isn't a God who disagrees with you.
No, but 1. Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim. 2. Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim.
Absolutely. And God is in the business of giving proof to the individual, but not the collective. Why ? That's His business, really.
John Carson wrote:
Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
As I said, proof is there, on an individual level. Not on the 'let's make a TV documentary level'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Oakman wrote:
I see, now you are criticising the bible for what it isn't.
I don't think that there's a difference.
Oakman wrote:
There is no doubt. Many people are sure it is, many are sure it isn't. No doubt at all.
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Oakman wrote:
Do you actually think that question was worth asking? Will the answer change your mind about anything?
It might. Should all inquiry cease at the merest possibility of the answer not swaying me?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think that there's a difference
Really? What are they teaching over there in OZ? Obviously not formal logic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Nope, I mean that there's no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion. The person you describe is questioning their faith in God, not their espousal of a particular religion. Now you may not know enough about religion, or faith, to understand the difference, but rather than just telling me again that you think there's no difference - go do some studying.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't think that there's a difference
Really? What are they teaching over there in OZ? Obviously not formal logic.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You mean there isn't a single person in the world who's lost someone despite fervent prayer and is now questioning whether God simply refused to help this person, or was unable to?
Nope, I mean that there's no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion. The person you describe is questioning their faith in God, not their espousal of a particular religion. Now you may not know enough about religion, or faith, to understand the difference, but rather than just telling me again that you think there's no difference - go do some studying.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
Oakman wrote:
Really? What are they teaching over there in OZ? Obviously not formal logic.
Au contraire. Well, OK, they don't teach formal logic in high school, at least not the one I go to. But I still maintain that criticising something for what it is and for what it isn't is the same thing. What it is, is that it is not something else. Criticising it for being what it is, is equivalent to criticising it for not being something else, and vice versa. Simple. ;P
Oakman wrote:
Nope, I mean that there's no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion. The person you describe is questioning their faith in God, not their espousal of a particular religion. Now you may not know enough about religion, or faith, to understand the difference, but rather than just telling me again that you think there's no difference - go do some studying.
He could be questioning, you don't know that. You're splitting hairs, and I don't know why.
-
John Carson wrote:
Anyone who makes a claim and says "I could give you proof but I choose not to" invites scepticism regarding the truth of the claim.
Absolutely. And God is in the business of giving proof to the individual, but not the collective. Why ? That's His business, really.
John Carson wrote:
Anyone who claims to have the key to everlasting happiness but isn't willing to even provide potential recruits with clear evidence of his existence (belief in which is part of the aforementioned key) has a hard time credibly claiming to be a god of love.
As I said, proof is there, on an individual level. Not on the 'let's make a TV documentary level'.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
Christian Graus wrote:
Absolutely. And God is in the business of giving proof to the individual, but not the collective. Why ? That's His business, really.
Well, that version invites scepticism no less than the earlier one. Why should I believe that these private proofs have been provided or are indeed proofs at all? His business or not, scepticism is justified.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, proof is there, on an individual level. Not on the 'let's make a TV documentary level'.
So does everyone receive these proofs? If your answer is no, the inconsistency with love remains. If your answer is yes, then you are wrong. I, for one, have never received proof. Millions will testify that they haven't either.
John Carson
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Absolutely. And God is in the business of giving proof to the individual, but not the collective. Why ? That's His business, really.
Well, that version invites scepticism no less than the earlier one. Why should I believe that these private proofs have been provided or are indeed proofs at all? His business or not, scepticism is justified.
Christian Graus wrote:
As I said, proof is there, on an individual level. Not on the 'let's make a TV documentary level'.
So does everyone receive these proofs? If your answer is no, the inconsistency with love remains. If your answer is yes, then you are wrong. I, for one, have never received proof. Millions will testify that they haven't either.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
Why should I believe that these private proofs have been provided or are indeed proofs at all? His business or not, scepticism is justified.
Well, of course. I said as much, I did not criticise you for your point of view.
John Carson wrote:
So does everyone receive these proofs?
Do you mean every human, or every human that asks for them ?
John Carson wrote:
. If your answer is yes, then you are wrong. I, for one, have never received proof.
OK, then the answer is no. And, you're free to define love any way you like. But, the fundamental is free will. Everyone who asks, receives.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "I am new to programming world. I have been learning c# for about past four weeks. I am quite acquainted with the fundamentals of c#. Now I have to work on a project which converts given flat files to XML using the XML serialization method" - SK64 ( but the forums have stuff like this posted every day )
-
Oakman wrote:
There is the bit where Jesus says that one should give one's wealth to the poor if one wishes to follow in his path
Is that before or after he instructs his followers to sell their clothing to buy swords?
Oakman wrote:
No, it doesn't.
Ah, haha, I'm pretty sure it does.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Is that before or after he instructs his followers to sell their clothing to buy swords?
I hope you weren't "fairly sure" of the accuracy of your attribution. "Everyone therefore who acknowledges me before others, I also will acknowledge before my Father in heaven; but whoever denies me before others, I also will deny before my Father in heaven. Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own household." Pretty hard to make that into an exhortation to go buy weapons, let alone strip naked. Unless you are as nutty as Ilion
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Ah, haha, I'm pretty sure it does.
As sure as you were above?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin
-
Oakman wrote:
Really? What are they teaching over there in OZ? Obviously not formal logic.
Au contraire. Well, OK, they don't teach formal logic in high school, at least not the one I go to. But I still maintain that criticising something for what it is and for what it isn't is the same thing. What it is, is that it is not something else. Criticising it for being what it is, is equivalent to criticising it for not being something else, and vice versa. Simple. ;P
Oakman wrote:
Nope, I mean that there's no doubt about whether Christianity is the one true religion. The person you describe is questioning their faith in God, not their espousal of a particular religion. Now you may not know enough about religion, or faith, to understand the difference, but rather than just telling me again that you think there's no difference - go do some studying.
He could be questioning, you don't know that. You're splitting hairs, and I don't know why.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I don't know why
I told you you probably would not understand and suggested what you needed to do to correct your lack of knowledge.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Both democrats and republicans are playing for the same team and it's not us. - Chris Austin