Christians vs. nonChristians on issues
-
Christian Graus wrote: Hell, yes. Then please do so and save a soul from eternal damnation :) Christian Graus wrote: God plainly inspired the writing of the Bible, no-one is claiming that He dropped the manuscript on someones head already written. "Plainly". Surely you are joking. Its a history book and a collection of myths and tales ( the Old Testament). And as ambigious as heck to boot. If taken literally the age of the universe is what - some 6000 years old. There were no proto humans - we jumped into the evolutionary tree at the top. The earth is the same age as the Sun. And the Dinos never existed since they are not mentioned. Oh well I guess this is where the "faith" part starts. Christian Graus wrote: Our body is just a machine, it would not surprise me at all if we found a way to make it persist almost indefinately. Created in Gods imiage ( but its funny how the anatomy worked out ) according to the Bible. And yes we will. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: Then please do so and save a soul from eternal damnation What the Bible *actually* says is that when someone becomes a Christian, they have an experience which proves God exists to them personally, and includes, but is not limited to, recieving the ability to pray in a language that God gives. Like anything, this is something that folks can choose to make fun of without looking into it properly, but my church contains members who became Christians because they submitted to baptism and prayer in order to prove that there was no God. I certainly recieved this experience despite the fact that I was convinced I would not, and was largely going through the motions. My own experience and that of people I know is enough to convince me that my 'conversion' was not based on convincing myself that something I was expecting to happen, did. Additionally, prior to this, I 'gave my heart to Jesus' sincerely in many churches, and the changes I hoped to see in my life never occured. I had plenty of blind faith then, but it did not benefit me at all. In contrast, when I became a Christian, I became a totally different person overnight. Richard Stringer wrote: Surely you are joking. Its a history book and a collection of myths and tales ( the Old Testament). And as ambigious as heck to boot. If taken literally the age of the universe is what - some 6000 years old. There were no proto humans - we jumped into the evolutionary tree at the top. The earth is the same age as the Sun. And the Dinos never existed since they are not mentioned. Oh well I guess this is where the "faith" part starts. Where to start..... 1. Plainly in the sense that the promises it makes, it keeps, it prophecied things many years before they happened and in some cases even establishes a time line which is met to the year. 2. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Adam was the first man. Genesis 1 records the creation of the world, and men. Genesis 2 records the forming of the first man and woman that God dealt with. The word translated 'day' in Gen 1 simply means a period of time. In fact, scientists agree that the world came into being in the order that Genesis gives. The rest is just how we chose to interpret things because we didn't know any better. 3. You believe in evolution ? I'm afraid that is a religious choice just as much as creation is. 4. Just because the Bible does not mention it, does not mean it did not
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: Where does the Bible say love is wrong? Leviticus says that a man who lays with another man should be put to death. Ditto for adultery. Now, you can either believe that is a good thing (making you a non-hypocritical Christian) or you can lie to yourself and say "Oh, the bible really tells us to love your neighbor and just live a good life". That would make you typical of the majority of hypocritical christians.
Glano perictu com sahni delorin!
I don't deny what the Bible says, in fact the Bible says that ALL sin is punishable by death...Eternal Death. However, you need to read the rest of the Bible not just the bits and peices that support your point. If you read the new testament, then you find out that Jesus came to set us free from the Laws you quoted and all the rest you didn't quote. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
Just curious, where do you think the extra entropy went to? Is there another universe "catching" our universe's entropy? Stating that the universe is closed implies there is a system larger than it. But I thought the universe was a term used to describe everything that exists. I'm sure I'm probably confused on this, and will welcome elightenment.
-
Wjousts wrote: vastness of the universe, the vastness of time and the laws of statistics Sorry, but last I heard, neither of the above can overcome a little thing they call Second Law of Thermodynamics, otherwise know as, "ever increasing entropy". The vastness of time would do the exact opposite of what is being claimed. Things would spead out and become more disorderly, not orderly. When they disprove that Law, I'll re-think at least this one argument.
I've been going over that very derivation over the past week. Classical thermodynamics treats everything at a level where it is uniform and considers any state that isn't uniform to be outside it's realm. They then make statements like, if you wait long enough the system will settle down into equilibrium and the entropy of the entire system will have increased which is true. During the transition phase entropy is undefined.
However in more modern theories, thermodynamic entities are modeled as local properties and so you can have flows of entropy and temperature through time and space.
BTW. entropy will eventually win and everyting will turn into a uniform mess of particles or a black hole or something, we just have a pretty sweet thing going on right now. Or at least it has been for the 5 seconds that the universe has existed. -Andy Brummer -
Richard Stringer wrote: Then please do so and save a soul from eternal damnation What the Bible *actually* says is that when someone becomes a Christian, they have an experience which proves God exists to them personally, and includes, but is not limited to, recieving the ability to pray in a language that God gives. Like anything, this is something that folks can choose to make fun of without looking into it properly, but my church contains members who became Christians because they submitted to baptism and prayer in order to prove that there was no God. I certainly recieved this experience despite the fact that I was convinced I would not, and was largely going through the motions. My own experience and that of people I know is enough to convince me that my 'conversion' was not based on convincing myself that something I was expecting to happen, did. Additionally, prior to this, I 'gave my heart to Jesus' sincerely in many churches, and the changes I hoped to see in my life never occured. I had plenty of blind faith then, but it did not benefit me at all. In contrast, when I became a Christian, I became a totally different person overnight. Richard Stringer wrote: Surely you are joking. Its a history book and a collection of myths and tales ( the Old Testament). And as ambigious as heck to boot. If taken literally the age of the universe is what - some 6000 years old. There were no proto humans - we jumped into the evolutionary tree at the top. The earth is the same age as the Sun. And the Dinos never existed since they are not mentioned. Oh well I guess this is where the "faith" part starts. Where to start..... 1. Plainly in the sense that the promises it makes, it keeps, it prophecied things many years before they happened and in some cases even establishes a time line which is met to the year. 2. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Adam was the first man. Genesis 1 records the creation of the world, and men. Genesis 2 records the forming of the first man and woman that God dealt with. The word translated 'day' in Gen 1 simply means a period of time. In fact, scientists agree that the world came into being in the order that Genesis gives. The rest is just how we chose to interpret things because we didn't know any better. 3. You believe in evolution ? I'm afraid that is a religious choice just as much as creation is. 4. Just because the Bible does not mention it, does not mean it did not
Christian Graus wrote: What the Bible *actually* says is that when someone becomes a Christian, they have an experience which proves God exists to them personally, and includes, but is not limited to, recieving the ability to pray in a language that God gives Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Do we do a lot of Devil casting also. Taken literally ( as do so many belivers ) this can also mean that you are gonna learn a new language or possibly invent one. Christian Graus wrote: 1. Plainly in the sense that the promises it makes, it keeps, it prophecied things many years before they happened and in some cases even establishes a time line which is met to the year. So did Nostradamus. Do we accept his works as Devine ? Christian Graus wrote: 2. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Adam was the first man. Genesis 1 records the creation of the world, and men. Genesis 2 records the forming of the first man and woman that God dealt with. The word translated 'day' in Gen 1 simply means a period of time. In fact, scientists agree that the world came into being in the order that Genesis gives. The rest is just how we chose to interpret things because we didn't know any better. I knew that one was coming. Its laughable but hey when dealing with "faith".... Christian Graus wrote: 3. You believe in evolution ? I'm afraid that is a religious choice just as much as creation is. Not so. I belive that 1+1=2. That is not a religion it is simply a demonstratable fact. I believe in evolution for the same reason. If you can show me one instance where 1+1 does not equal 2 or that evolution ( as defined by Darwin et al ) is incorrect then I will not suffer thru a belief crisis but simply look for another theory that works. No attachments. Christian Graus wrote: 4. Just because the Bible does not mention it, does not mean it did not exist. The Bible is not a natural history book, or a scientific manual, it's a history of what God did. "And God created the heavens and the Earth". Kinda includes everything does it not. Christian Graus wrote: That does not mean God looks like us, it means we are able to judge good and bad and make our own choices, as He does If God is omnipotent as the Bible declare
-
Heh... this has been a very interesting thread. I am not a developer, but I take it that the first 3 lines in your code are conditional statements. How does one arrive at the second one? The one that says that God wrote the Bible. I think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, but how do you manage the second conditional that God wrote or inspired the Bible?
John McIlroy wrote: think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, I contend that it is impossible to prove the existance of a superior being using logic without redefining "logic". Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Christian Graus wrote: What the Bible *actually* says is that when someone becomes a Christian, they have an experience which proves God exists to them personally, and includes, but is not limited to, recieving the ability to pray in a language that God gives Mark 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; Do we do a lot of Devil casting also. Taken literally ( as do so many belivers ) this can also mean that you are gonna learn a new language or possibly invent one. Christian Graus wrote: 1. Plainly in the sense that the promises it makes, it keeps, it prophecied things many years before they happened and in some cases even establishes a time line which is met to the year. So did Nostradamus. Do we accept his works as Devine ? Christian Graus wrote: 2. The Bible does not say that the earth is 6,000 years old, or that Adam was the first man. Genesis 1 records the creation of the world, and men. Genesis 2 records the forming of the first man and woman that God dealt with. The word translated 'day' in Gen 1 simply means a period of time. In fact, scientists agree that the world came into being in the order that Genesis gives. The rest is just how we chose to interpret things because we didn't know any better. I knew that one was coming. Its laughable but hey when dealing with "faith".... Christian Graus wrote: 3. You believe in evolution ? I'm afraid that is a religious choice just as much as creation is. Not so. I belive that 1+1=2. That is not a religion it is simply a demonstratable fact. I believe in evolution for the same reason. If you can show me one instance where 1+1 does not equal 2 or that evolution ( as defined by Darwin et al ) is incorrect then I will not suffer thru a belief crisis but simply look for another theory that works. No attachments. Christian Graus wrote: 4. Just because the Bible does not mention it, does not mean it did not exist. The Bible is not a natural history book, or a scientific manual, it's a history of what God did. "And God created the heavens and the Earth". Kinda includes everything does it not. Christian Graus wrote: That does not mean God looks like us, it means we are able to judge good and bad and make our own choices, as He does If God is omnipotent as the Bible declare
Richard Stringer wrote: Do we do a lot of Devil casting also. It's not possible for a 'devil' to attack a Christian, nor is there any way to cast anything out permanently except by a person becoming a Christian. Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover :-) Richard Stringer wrote: Taken literally ( as do so many belivers ) this can also mean that you are gonna learn a new language or possibly invent one. You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. The Bible says that a person who 'speaks in tongues' speaks only to God, because no man can understand it. I can still invent words if I want to or speak gibberish. This is totally different. Richard Stringer wrote: So did Nostradamus. Do we accept his works as Devine ? No, he didn't. A lot of what he had to say actually came from the Bible, and the rest is rubbish. It plainly does not set any specific time lines, or even name nations the way the Bible does. Richard Stringer wrote: that evolution ( as defined by Darwin et al ) is incorrect then I will not suffer thru a belief crisis but simply look for another theory that works. No attachments. There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Richard Stringer wrote: And God created the heavens and the Earth". Kinda includes everything does it not. Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Richard Stringer wrote: If God is omnipotent as the Bible declares then there is no such thing as choice - only the illusion of such. No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
-
jhwurmbach wrote: To be precise, historical research is not concerned with questions of truth at all. All history is about is interpretation of sources and sorting out what the sources tell us. If the goal isn't to find out what really happened (the truth), then why research it in the first place? Is it just fun to come up with fanciful explanations of stuff we find lying around? jhwurmbach wrote: Archeology, OTOH is making testable claims (like "Troy was a city in a backwater province of the hethite empire.") and then tests them against the evidence found. And as I meant to indicate, living researchers did not observe it being placed there. Neither does anyone have a repeatable way of showing that said evidence arrived in said location in whatever way is assumed. Instead, they are speculating based upon logical reasoning about the way things work. This is the distinction between observational science and historical science. One allows us to observe things happenening, while the other forces us to make guesses based on logic and assumptions. However, both are used when trying to determine the correct or truthful answer to a given question. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: If the goal isn't to find out what really happened (the truth), then why research it in the first place? Is it just fun to come up with fanciful explanations of stuff we find lying around? The way social science works is not trying to come up with the one true reason for the result you got. This is futile in a discipline like Laws, as the dscipline is not distinct from its subject: The very same peaople who make (or clarify) the laws are those who do the reasearch. It is impossible in a discipline like history, where we only ever get a subjective, incomplete picture of the events. From Julius Cesars "De bello gallico" we would never be able to read the 'truth' about that war. That is lost forever. Bur we can get quite a lot about the political context it was written in, and how it is power politics, fantasy story and travel account in one.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
-
I've been reading the message boards for a good while now without getting too involved. Certain subject seem to come up over and over and we have conservative "Bible-thumpers" arguing with liberal "go-what-feels-gooders" over morality issues. It seems that everyone is missing the point. :sigh: Noone will ever win the argument if we focus on just the issues. It's worldviews that have to be discussed and fought. I'm a conservative Christian. I hear a lot about how "close-minded" Christians are. Well, yeah, in a sense they are. But in the same way non-Christians are. You're convinced you're right and Christians are convinced they are right. What we have here is a failure to communicate.... Here's how the Christian's worldview affects his view on, say, homosexuality:
if ( DoesGodExist() )
{
if ( GodWroteTheBible() )
{
if ( TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() )
{
bHomosexualityIsWrong = true;
}
}
}Once the Christian gets inside he can't get a different answer. You can make all types of statements about "love knows no bounds", blah, blah, blah, but to the Christian this function still returns true To change a Christian's mind you have to get the the first three conditionals to fail, before you can ever convince him that homosexuality is OK. So the Christin's "close-mindedness" is only inside the inner if loop. I'm not afraid of studying the if statements to see if they return true or not. So far, I've put a lot of study into it and I'm conviced that they do. You will have to do a lot of convincing to get my answers to change, but as an honest truth seeker, I'm willing to study and even admit weaknesses in my own arguments, and ultimately change my mind if the truth demands it. And Christians are hard-pressed to convince anybody that anything is wrong without first proving that the 1st three conditional return true. Once they accept those, they'll be no more argument. This is why I avoid arguments about these types of issues. All you do is get frustrated and go nowhere. We're missing the point. Sorry for such a long post. :-O Had to get this of my chest. :) There.. I feel better now...
Why are you judging other people (Homosexuals) anyway -- that's God's job and not yours.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Why are you judging other people (Homosexuals) anyway -- that's God's job and not yours.
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
He didn't judge anyone. If God says, through the Bible, that homosexuality is wrong (sin), then a Christian, or anyone else for that matter, can say that "Based on the Bible, homosexuality is wrong". It is simply a statement of God's truth, not a judgement. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
jhwurmbach wrote: You are forcing the rather lengthy string returned by TheBibleStatesHomosexualityIsWrong() into a bool Incorrect, the function returns a boolean and its value is TRUE. The Bible clearly states that the act of homosexuality is wrong (old and new testament). Where many Christians fall down is the same Bible also says that we should love everyone, including homosexuals. That, however, doesn't mean Christians should condone the act. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
Gary Kirkham wrote: Incorrect, the function returns a boolean and its value is TRUE. ;P If it returns a boolean, you did it again: force a int value (that's what TRUE is) into a bool. But maybe that is just what the documentation says? And it worked all the time up to now? But just last week some intern had to change the prototype? Just look at your .sig: "A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs" ;) OK. the C++ metaphor is not leading anywhere. IF god has made the earth, then he did also made the homosexuals. She must have had her reasons. Even though we might not now them. All we know is that some semitic goat herders a dozen centorys before christ had a society were homosexuality was viewed as evil. But so was porc and creamy sauces. Today we know better for all of it.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Do we do a lot of Devil casting also. It's not possible for a 'devil' to attack a Christian, nor is there any way to cast anything out permanently except by a person becoming a Christian. Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover :-) Richard Stringer wrote: Taken literally ( as do so many belivers ) this can also mean that you are gonna learn a new language or possibly invent one. You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. The Bible says that a person who 'speaks in tongues' speaks only to God, because no man can understand it. I can still invent words if I want to or speak gibberish. This is totally different. Richard Stringer wrote: So did Nostradamus. Do we accept his works as Devine ? No, he didn't. A lot of what he had to say actually came from the Bible, and the rest is rubbish. It plainly does not set any specific time lines, or even name nations the way the Bible does. Richard Stringer wrote: that evolution ( as defined by Darwin et al ) is incorrect then I will not suffer thru a belief crisis but simply look for another theory that works. No attachments. There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Richard Stringer wrote: And God created the heavens and the Earth". Kinda includes everything does it not. Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Richard Stringer wrote: If God is omnipotent as the Bible declares then there is no such thing as choice - only the illusion of such. No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover Do you also pray for the sick and see them die ? Christian Graus wrote: You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. And to understand recursion you must first understand recursion. That won't fly. Christian Graus wrote: There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Surely you jest !!! Without getting involved in an area not in the pervue of my expertise I would suggest that the fact that almost 60% of the genes in a fruitfly has corresponding genes in Homo Sapiens gives eloquent proof of evolution of species - not some devine creation. Christian Graus wrote: Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Right !! Please explain then thos elements beyond the end of the "natural" periodic table like plutonium, einstienium etc that do not exist in the universe until man created them. Christian Graus wrote: No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make Recursion again. Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor sucker is fried no matter WHAT HE DOES. No need for prayer - no need to ask God for anything as it is PREORDAINED. Circular logic will bite you every time. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
-
Heh... this has been a very interesting thread. I am not a developer, but I take it that the first 3 lines in your code are conditional statements. How does one arrive at the second one? The one that says that God wrote the Bible. I think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, but how do you manage the second conditional that God wrote or inspired the Bible?
John McIlroy wrote: I think it is relatively easy from logic to prove that a superior being being (that some call God) exists, Well, yes - it's me, being obviously superior :-D Oh, you meant $DEITY exists? Please present the logic. Arguments from Design, Incredulity, Nature, The Bible (and so forth) don't count, being either faulty or inadequate.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Gary Kirkham wrote: Incorrect, the function returns a boolean and its value is TRUE. ;P If it returns a boolean, you did it again: force a int value (that's what TRUE is) into a bool. But maybe that is just what the documentation says? And it worked all the time up to now? But just last week some intern had to change the prototype? Just look at your .sig: "A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs" ;) OK. the C++ metaphor is not leading anywhere. IF god has made the earth, then he did also made the homosexuals. She must have had her reasons. Even though we might not now them. All we know is that some semitic goat herders a dozen centorys before christ had a society were homosexuality was viewed as evil. But so was porc and creamy sauces. Today we know better for all of it.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
jhwurmbach wrote: force a int value (that's what TRUE is) into a bool Habit I guess...I don't think that bool is supported in serialization :) jhwurmbach wrote: But just last week some intern had to change the prototype? Intern? I am a one man show. :( jhwurmbach wrote: then he did also made the homosexuals Nope...At the risk of opening another can of worms, homosexuality is a choice. It is not something you are born with no matter what a few activist Doctors and Judges might have to say. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
-
jhwurmbach wrote: Fundamental Christians are narrowing the world down to bool decisions of 'Bible' or 'evil'. I'd be more inclined to say that modern religionists worry about trying to fit the Bible into what society accepts and is politically correct, instead of taking God at what He said. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: modern religionists worry about trying to fit the Bible into what society accepts and is politically correct Funny. That is the exact opposite of my experience with what evangelical fundamentalists want. instead of taking God at what He said That is so extremly hard to find out, after all those centuries during which everyone had the chance to write in and pull out what he liked. How many wars have been fought about minor details of how one half sentence of the bible has to be understood.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
-
Richard Stringer wrote: Do we do a lot of Devil casting also. It's not possible for a 'devil' to attack a Christian, nor is there any way to cast anything out permanently except by a person becoming a Christian. Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover :-) Richard Stringer wrote: Taken literally ( as do so many belivers ) this can also mean that you are gonna learn a new language or possibly invent one. You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. The Bible says that a person who 'speaks in tongues' speaks only to God, because no man can understand it. I can still invent words if I want to or speak gibberish. This is totally different. Richard Stringer wrote: So did Nostradamus. Do we accept his works as Devine ? No, he didn't. A lot of what he had to say actually came from the Bible, and the rest is rubbish. It plainly does not set any specific time lines, or even name nations the way the Bible does. Richard Stringer wrote: that evolution ( as defined by Darwin et al ) is incorrect then I will not suffer thru a belief crisis but simply look for another theory that works. No attachments. There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Richard Stringer wrote: And God created the heavens and the Earth". Kinda includes everything does it not. Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Richard Stringer wrote: If God is omnipotent as the Bible declares then there is no such thing as choice - only the illusion of such. No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make. Christian I have drunk the cool-aid and found it wan and bitter. - Chris Maunder
Christian Graus wrote: There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. I presume by "Big E" evolution you refer to what is more commonly known as "macroevolution", and "Little e" evolution refers to "microevolution"? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/[^] This link also provides references to critiques (and critiques of critiques) of the document. The talk.origins archive site is probably one of the most balanced set of documents on the internet - it takes the base view of mainstream science, but provides links to sites covering just about every viewpoint.
Ian Darling "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
-
Christian Graus wrote: Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover Do you also pray for the sick and see them die ? Christian Graus wrote: You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. And to understand recursion you must first understand recursion. That won't fly. Christian Graus wrote: There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Surely you jest !!! Without getting involved in an area not in the pervue of my expertise I would suggest that the fact that almost 60% of the genes in a fruitfly has corresponding genes in Homo Sapiens gives eloquent proof of evolution of species - not some devine creation. Christian Graus wrote: Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Right !! Please explain then thos elements beyond the end of the "natural" periodic table like plutonium, einstienium etc that do not exist in the universe until man created them. Christian Graus wrote: No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make Recursion again. Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor sucker is fried no matter WHAT HE DOES. No need for prayer - no need to ask God for anything as it is PREORDAINED. Circular logic will bite you every time. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Richard Stringer wrote: Do you also pray for the sick and see them die ? Of course, not everyone we pray for is healed, if they were, we would never die. However, that doesn't change the fact. Example - a woman I know became a Christian because she had cancer, visibly protruding out of her body. She knew her sister had prayed for her, but did not believe in it. She was in the shower and she started to bleed. When she cleaned herself up, the cancer was visibly gone, as evidenced by xrays, and it never came back. She obviously responded to this by becoming a Christian. There is no explanation I can think of for an incident like that which does not involve God healing her. If someone else died when I prayed for them, how does it change the facts in this case ? Richard Stringer wrote: And to understand recursion you must first understand recursion. That won't fly. Rubbish. The Bible defines the term 'speaking in tongues'. All I am saying is that we need to let the Bible define what it means instead of taking one verse and running off with the fairies to create our own interpretation of it. Surely when you read Stroustrup, his statements on, say, std::vector, are not allowed to negate other statements he has made in regards to namespace std or namespaces in general ? I'm suggesting you give the Bible the same right any other reference work has, that of building on statements previously made to work to a conclusion. Richard Stringer wrote: Without getting involved in an area not in the pervue of my expertise I would suggest that the fact that almost 60% of the genes in a fruitfly has corresponding genes in Homo Sapiens gives eloquent proof of evolution of species - not some devine creation. I'd suggest that proves that God invented OO and code reuse. In reality, it proves nothing really. Richard Stringer wrote: Right !! Please explain then thos elements beyond the end of the "natural" periodic table like plutonium, einstienium etc that do not exist in the universe until man created them. They always existed in theory, just like motor cars and computers. All we did was shuffle around the bits God made. Richard Stringer wrote: Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor su
-
Richard Stringer wrote: It would prove that you don't need God to create life No it doesn't. You've shown that intelligence can create life. That's far from proving that life can be created by unintelligent material randomly bumping against each other. Richard Stringer wrote: B is almost a mathamatical certainity Cool! I honestly look forward to finding life elsewhere. It fascinates me completely. It doesn't scare my faith. I would be excited to know there are other being out there. There are so many technical diffculties in contacting/visiting them, but I think it would be great to see how God has dealt with them through time. Richard Stringer wrote: God , if he/she does exist , is rapidly losing his/her power to amaze. I'm truly sorry... :((
J. Eric Vaughan wrote: That's far from proving that life can be created by unintelligent material randomly bumping against each other. No one ever did say that. Creationist keep putting that strawman up, so I have to point you to www.talkorigins.org here.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.
-
He didn't judge anyone. If God says, through the Bible, that homosexuality is wrong (sin), then a Christian, or anyone else for that matter, can say that "Based on the Bible, homosexuality is wrong". It is simply a statement of God's truth, not a judgement. Gary Kirkham A working Program is one that has only unobserved bugs I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted paychecks
Gary Kirkham wrote: It is simply a statement of God's truth, not a judgement. Indeed he didn't explicitly judge anyone else, but since he's not homosexual and he's not talking about his own life, the obvious point is that he's talking about how "god's truth" applies to other people. In a larger context: sure, there's probably a small group of religious folk who believe strongly and live their lives that way without trying to force their beliefs on everyone around them, but there's enough other religious zealots out there to make up for that and it's hypocritical because Jesus said "love thy neighbour as thyself" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone".
I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ~Stephen Roberts
« eikonoklastes »
-
Christian Graus wrote: Ask me if we pray for the sick and see them recover Do you also pray for the sick and see them die ? Christian Graus wrote: You need to use the Bible to interpret the Bible. And to understand recursion you must first understand recursion. That won't fly. Christian Graus wrote: There is no evidence from the fossil record that big E evolution is true. Little e evolution ( change in what features present in a species dominate due to circumstances changing ) is a different issue. Surely you jest !!! Without getting involved in an area not in the pervue of my expertise I would suggest that the fact that almost 60% of the genes in a fruitfly has corresponding genes in Homo Sapiens gives eloquent proof of evolution of species - not some devine creation. Christian Graus wrote: Yes, broadly and in the sense that it comes under the brief of the book. Different to an itemised list, is my only point. Right !! Please explain then thos elements beyond the end of the "natural" periodic table like plutonium, einstienium etc that do not exist in the universe until man created them. Christian Graus wrote: No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make Recursion again. Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor sucker is fried no matter WHAT HE DOES. No need for prayer - no need to ask God for anything as it is PREORDAINED. Circular logic will bite you every time. Richard "The man that hath not music in himself and is not moved with concord of sweet sounds is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils; Let no man trust him." Shakespeare
Christian Graus wrote: No, it just means that God knows what choices we will make Then Richard Stringer wrote: Recursion again. Then does God not do evil by allowing someone to be born that he knows is going to hell. He knows the choice in advance and so the individual has NO OTHER CHOICE unless God is wrong - but Hes NEVER wrong - so the poor sucker is fried no matter WHAT HE DOES. No need for prayer - no need to ask God for anything as it is PREORDAINED. The good old theodicee (sp?): God has either no power or is utterly merciless. In the first case he about as meaningless as ay otherguy I have never met before. In the second case he is best not bothered with anything.
"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams we would be reorganised. I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganising: and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress, while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralisation." -- Caius Petronius, Roman Consul, 66 A.D.