What Defines And Drives A Relationship

[Guest end3]

 

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

Prove it.

 

I think the evidence is life itself. Basically one point of theses verses demonstrates that life is derived from outside of the kozmos...not of this world. Given that we can not "prove" life to my knowledge, we are limited to the availability of resources within the kozmos.

 

kozmos, Strong's G2889.

[directionless]

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

Are you saying life emerges from physical systems (like the human body), so our impact on other physical systems allows our life to continue after the death and recycling of our human body?

[Roz]

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

 

• The christian wants us to accept that life is eternal, without proving that it is.  
• Life (temporal life) on earth for most humans does involve relationships with people.  No divine shit needed.  

What are you trying to get ex-christians to debunk?  Same as all your other threads.  You presuppose your christian religion on the subject and then ask us to debunk your religious tenets.  

We've debunked your religion again and again.

[mymistake]

Generally speaking Christian believers see the Bible as evidence that the words in the Bible are the truth.  While non-believers tend to see the words of the Bible as unfounded claims.  There are exceptions of course as some people are struggling with their faith and fall somewhere in between.  But usually when the religion is working the victim sees the Bible as evidence and when they don't the spell fades.

[Orbit]

I don't know, this has an opening for some pantheistic ideas, but it really shouldn't be in Den if it's meant to be a serious philosophical discussion.

[Roz]

Point taken, the bible proves the bible in End's mind.

[Guest end3]

 

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

Are you saying life emerges from physical systems (like the human body), so our impact on other physical systems allows our life to continue after the death and recycling of our human body?

 

That certainly is one decent thought....except I think the key thought is perpetuation instead of emergence.

[sdelsolray]

Relationship morphs into Communion.

 

Bait and Switch.

[Roz]

Let me predict where this thread is going to go.

 

• End3 will say John 17 must be true because it somewhat depicts christian communion.  I suspect I'm not the only one familiar with John 17, and it's all rubbish when viewed from outside the religion.
• End3 will then say "look, you can't debunk that humans practice communion because they have relationships with one another!"
• He will then substitute that fact of humanity to claim that the bible is true.

Hamster logic 101.

[moanareina]

In a relationship with my toilet paper because it touches my butt collecting whatever is there and carrying all those bacterias that used once to live within my colon but now got on that paper all the way to the purification plant where they will be in relationship with all the bacterias who meet there and finally go wherever they will go carrying my spirit and the spirit of many others who live or work or visit in my area into all the earth and we are all one and relate to each other. Cheers!

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

Prove it.

 

I think the evidence is life itself. Basically one point of theses verses demonstrates that life is derived from outside of the kozmos...not of this world. Given that we can not "prove" life to my knowledge, we are limited to the availability of resources within the kozmos.

 

kozmos, Strong's G2889.

 

To which definition of kosmos are you referring?

 

1. an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

2. ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

3. the world, the universe

4. the circle of the earth, the earth

5. the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

6. the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

7. world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

   1. the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

8. any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

   1. the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)  https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2889

[bornagainathiest]

If this is any help, End...

 

The Bible really isn't the place to start when making any kind of logical argument.

That's because no part of a valid argument can be accepted on faith.  All parts of an argument should be demonstrable as valid - without any recourse to faith.  Believing (having faith) that an argument is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Likewise, believing (having faith) that the Bible is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Also, since almost all of scripture is required to be accepted by faith, I respectfully submit that the Bible is the wrong tool for the job.

.

.

.

I therefore recommend that you re-think your argument and try to construct it without using scripture and without relying on faith of any kind.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

Prove it.

 

I think the evidence is life itself. Basically one point of theses verses demonstrates that life is derived from outside of the kozmos...not of this world. Given that we can not "prove" life to my knowledge, we are limited to the availability of resources within the kozmos.

 

kozmos, Strong's G2889.

 

To which definition of kosmos are you referring?

• an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

• ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

• the world, the universe

• the circle of the earth, the earth

• the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

• the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

• world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

  • the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

• any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

  • the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)  https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2889

#3 Prof

 

sorry, #4

[mymistake]

Is it me or is this becoming less clear over time?

[Guest end3]

If this is any help, End...

 

The Bible really isn't the place to start when making any kind of logical argument.

That's because no part of a valid argument can be accepted on faith.  All parts of an argument should be demonstrable as valid - without any recourse to faith.  Believing (having faith) that an argument is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Likewise, believing (having faith) that the Bible is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Also, since almost all of scripture is required to be accepted by faith, I respectfully submit that the Bible is the wrong tool for the job.

.

.

.

I therefore recommend that you re-think your argument and try to construct it without using scripture and without relying on faith of any kind.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Respectfully BAA, I'm not attempting to prove anything. Just am making an argument for that premise. Basically, "proof" by enough arrows that point to a reasonable conclusion. I can't prove God outside of the universe with our means of measure.

[mymistake]

 

If this is any help, End...

 

The Bible really isn't the place to start when making any kind of logical argument.

That's because no part of a valid argument can be accepted on faith.  All parts of an argument should be demonstrable as valid - without any recourse to faith.  Believing (having faith) that an argument is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Likewise, believing (having faith) that the Bible is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Also, since almost all of scripture is required to be accepted by faith, I respectfully submit that the Bible is the wrong tool for the job.

.

.

.

I therefore recommend that you re-think your argument and try to construct it without using scripture and without relying on faith of any kind.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Respectfully BAA, I'm not attempting to prove anything. Just am making an argument for that premise. Basically, "proof" by enough arrows that point to a reasonable conclusion. I can't prove God outside of the universe with our means of measure.

 

 

 

What premise?  What conclusion?

[Guest end3]

So I am going to make a list of things we know and will potentially keep adding to the list. If anyone has facts to disprove each fact on the list, let them forevermore speak up.

 

1) Humanity doesn't know the origin of life.

[bornagainathiest]

 

If this is any help, End...

 

The Bible really isn't the place to start when making any kind of logical argument.

That's because no part of a valid argument can be accepted on faith.  All parts of an argument should be demonstrable as valid - without any recourse to faith.  Believing (having faith) that an argument is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Likewise, believing (having faith) that the Bible is valid is not a demonstration that it is.  Also, since almost all of scripture is required to be accepted by faith, I respectfully submit that the Bible is the wrong tool for the job.

.

.

.

I therefore recommend that you re-think your argument and try to construct it without using scripture and without relying on faith of any kind.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Respectfully BAA, I'm not attempting to prove anything. Just am making an argument for that premise. Basically, "proof" by enough arrows that point to a reasonable conclusion. I can't prove God outside of the universe with our means of measure.

 

 

In the same tone of respect End...

 

Surely this thread is about you constructing a valid argument for the importance of relationships in this forum?  

 

The first step in doing that requires you to define what you mean by relationships.

 

You need to do this in a way that we can (generally) understand and (generally) agree on.

.

.

.

This is what I meant about not relying on faith or scripture.

 

Define what you mean by the word 'relationship' in a way that doesn't require any leaps of faith.

 

Facts are good, but you'll run into trouble if you insist on going for proofs and proving things.

 

Most people can agree on facts, so why not start there?

.

.

.

Hope that helps.

 

BAA 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

Basically, life(eternal), is derived literally and figuratively through a series of relationships, the premise of this discussion.

Prove it.

 

I think the evidence is life itself. Basically one point of theses verses demonstrates that life is derived from outside of the kozmos...not of this world. Given that we can not "prove" life to my knowledge, we are limited to the availability of resources within the kozmos.

 

kozmos, Strong's G2889.

 

To which definition of kosmos are you referring?

•  

• an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government

• ornament, decoration, adornment, i.e. the arrangement of the stars, 'the heavenly hosts', as the ornament of the heavens. 1 Pet. 3:3

• the world, the universe

• the circle of the earth, the earth

• the inhabitants of the earth, men, the human family

• the ungodly multitude; the whole mass of men alienated from God, and therefore hostile to the cause of Christ

• world affairs, the aggregate of things earthly

  •  

  • the whole circle of earthly goods, endowments riches, advantages, pleasures, etc, which although hollow and frail and fleeting, stir desire, seduce from God and are obstacles to the cause of Christ

• any aggregate or general collection of particulars of any sort

  •  

  • the Gentiles as contrasted to the Jews (Rom. 11:12 etc)  https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=G2889

#3 Prof

 

sorry, #4

 

Well, then already you are debunking your own argument.  The claim that life began somewhere outside the world, the universe (#4) is simply not supported by Cosmology.  

[Guest end3]

Well, then already you are debunking your own argument.  The claim that life began somewhere outside the world, the universe (#4) is simply not supported by Cosmology.  Life, as we know it, began on earth.

That appears inconsequential imo, if we don't have some level of certainty to contradict. I understand that given our resources, certainty is limited to some specific perimeter. Again, this far from excludes the possibility.

[sdelsolray]

I see an obtuse god of the gaps fallacy in End3's near future.

[Guest end3]

In the same tone of respect End...

 

Surely this thread is about you constructing a valid argument for the importance of relationships in this forum?  

 

The first step in doing that requires you to define what you mean by relationships.

 

You need to do this in a way that we can (generally) understand and (generally) agree on.

.

.

.

This is what I meant about not relying on faith or scripture.

 

Define what you mean by the word 'relationship' in a way that doesn't require any leaps of faith.

 

Facts are good, but you'll run into trouble if you insist on going for proofs and proving things.

 

Most people can agree on facts, so why not start there?

.

.

.

Hope that helps.

 

BAA

I believe all of these to apply to the discussion BAA. Thx.

 

 

Full Definition of RELATIONSHIP

 

 

1

 

: the state of being related or interrelated <studied the relationship between the variables>

 

 

2

 

: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as

 

a : kinship

 

b : a specific instance or type of kinship

 

3

 

a : a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings <had a good relationship with his family>

 

b : a romantic or passionate attachment

[Roz]

Is it me or is this becoming less clear over time?

 

"You must believe in the spirit in order to see its logic." -any christian out there.

[bornagainathiest]

Hmmm...

 

 

 

In the same tone of respect End...
 
Surely this thread is about you constructing a valid argument for the importance of relationships in this forum?  
 
The first step in doing that requires you to define what you mean by relationships.
 
You need to do this in a way that we can (generally) understand and (generally) agree on.
.
.
.
This is what I meant about not relying on faith or scripture.
 
Define what you mean by the word 'relationship' in a way that doesn't require any leaps of faith.
 
Facts are good, but you'll run into trouble if you insist on going for proofs and proving things.
 
Most people can agree on facts, so why not start there?
.
.
.
Hope that helps.
 
BAA

I believe all of these to apply to the discussion BAA. Thx.


Full Definition of RELATIONSHIP


1

: the state of being related or interrelated <studied the relationship between the variables>


2

: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as

a : kinship

b : a specific instance or type of kinship

3

a : a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings <had a good relationship with his family>

b : a romantic or passionate attachment

 

 

Ok.

.

.

.

But here's a thought that's just occurred to me.

I've suggested that you construct your argument without resorting to faith, right?  

But that won't be possible if your understanding of relationships requires faith.

Then your faith-based understanding will prevent you from making a faith-free argument 

 

So, can you define what relationships are without making a leap of faith... or can you define what relationships are, using only the facts?

[Guest end3]

Hmmm...

 

 

 

 

In the same tone of respect End...

 

Surely this thread is about you constructing a valid argument for the importance of relationships in this forum?  

 

The first step in doing that requires you to define what you mean by relationships.

 

You need to do this in a way that we can (generally) understand and (generally) agree on.

.

.

.

This is what I meant about not relying on faith or scripture.

 

Define what you mean by the word 'relationship' in a way that doesn't require any leaps of faith.

 

Facts are good, but you'll run into trouble if you insist on going for proofs and proving things.

 

Most people can agree on facts, so why not start there?

.

.

.

Hope that helps.

 

BAA

I believe all of these to apply to the discussion BAA. Thx.

 

 

Full Definition of RELATIONSHIP

 

 

1

 

: the state of being related or interrelated <studied the relationship between the variables>

 

 

2

 

: the relation connecting or binding participants in a relationship: as

 

a : kinship

 

b : a specific instance or type of kinship

 

3

 

a : a state of affairs existing between those having relations or dealings <had a good relationship with his family>

 

b : a romantic or passionate attachment

 

 

Ok.

.

.

.

But here's a thought that's just occurred to me.

I've suggested that you construct your argument without resorting to faith, right?  

But that won't be possible if your understanding of relationships requires faith.

Then your faith-based understanding will prevent you from making a faith-free argument 

 

So, can you define what relationships are without making a leap of faith... or can you define what relationships are, using only the facts?

 

Ok, sorry. I am including the physical definitions BAA as I am thinking about suggesting the same "mechanism" that guides faithful relationships guides the physical as well. May never get there, but...