Guest end3 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 And that is a good point, everyone talks of proving it scientifically or by means we can measure, so how can we measure in any other terms? I don't know that we can... Maybe not, but what gives the Bible a special authority? And the one verse....there is a verse that says God is true. What that means to me is there is "true" out there somewhere....I believe it to be objective. You may not see it that way, but look at your description of the qualities....jealous, holy, just, love......How do we measure these in an environment? No I don't see it as objective. It isn't my description, it is the Biblical authors' description. You don't measure that. You take it on faith if you are Christian. good night, End3 Thanks Ms. D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 What is your definition of faith? What is your definition of knowledge? I suppose that it might be said that one has "faith" that science will provide more reliable knowledge of what is real than religion. In this context faith means trust and knowledge means apprehending reality. I do not trust religion to deliver any knowledge of what is real. If one accepts as axiom that God is real and that Jesus is his incarnation, then certain things appear to follow giving one a feeling of knowing. I have found that feeling to be misleading if one wants to know what is real. However, one may not want to know what is real. For example one may hold comfort as a high value and reality is not very comforting. Therefore one may want to avoid contact with the real. Religion seems good for that sort of thing. Whether or not it is true, "Life sucks and then you go to heaven," appears more comforting than, "Life sucks and then you die." Personally I find M&Ms more comforting than Jesus. Do I know M&M's by faith? That depends on what you mean by faith. Right now I have no M&Ms so perhaps I only have faith that M&Ms supply comfort. Faith being sort of a place holder for the real thing until I allow myself to get more. If you do a job for me and it comes time for you to be paid and I don't have any cash, you may accept a check from me with the faith that there is real money in the account that the check can draw from. Faith in the check is a compensator for the real thing -- cash. Faith in Jesus is somewhat similar. You want eternal life without the hassles and frustrations of this life but that can't be had now, so you accept Jesus in lieu of what you want. Given your desire for eternal life, you must accept Jesus or some other god as a guarantee or token of what is to come. You will insist that Jesus is as good as cash, but I notice that Christians seldom take that directly to the bank. I remember a time when I was close to cashing the check, but truth be told I didn't quite trust the check to be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 End, your logic is rock solid and I am filled with the desire to worship the invisible sky spook forever. Or gas. Never mind, it was gas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 End, your logic is rock solid and I am filled with the desire to worship the invisible sky spook forever. Or gas.Never mind, it was gas. We have come a long way Par....I have come to look forward to your posts. Near always makes my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 What is your definition of faith? What is your definition of knowledge? I suppose that it might be said that one has "faith" that science will provide more reliable knowledge of what is real than religion. In this context faith means trust and knowledge means apprehending reality. I do not trust religion to deliver any knowledge of what is real. If one accepts as axiom that God is real and that Jesus is his incarnation, then certain things appear to follow giving one a feeling of knowing. I have found that feeling to be misleading if one wants to know what is real. However, one may not want to know what is real. For example one may hold comfort as a high value and reality is not very comforting. Therefore one may want to avoid contact with the real. Religion seems good for that sort of thing. Whether or not it is true, "Life sucks and then you go to heaven," appears more comforting than, "Life sucks and then you die." Personally I find M&Ms more comforting than Jesus. Do I know M&M's by faith? That depends on what you mean by faith. Right now I have no M&Ms so perhaps I only have faith that M&Ms supply comfort. Faith being sort of a place holder for the real thing until I allow myself to get more. If you do a job for me and it comes time for you to be paid and I don't have any cash, you may accept a check from me with the faith that there is real money in the account that the check can draw from. Faith in the check is a compensator for the real thing -- cash. Faith in Jesus is somewhat similar. You want eternal life without the hassles and frustrations of this life but that can't be had now, so you accept Jesus in lieu of what you want. Given your desire for eternal life, you must accept Jesus or some other god as a guarantee or token of what is to come. You will insist that Jesus is as good as cash, but I notice that Christians seldom take that directly to the bank. I remember a time when I was close to cashing the check, but truth be told I didn't quite trust the check to be good. Is this you Chef, or is this Andy Rooney? Well, I am thankful that you didn't cash your ticket. I find myself visiting with God when fear enters my life. And sometimes I find hope in "real" things as well as hope in spiritual things. If I were always to have to find hope in "reality", then I would probably be more foobarred than my current status. I got your point, but some of the spiritual still works for me.....although I will say that I went back to church last weekend and the conversations seemed parchingly dry... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 All it says is by faith...so do you believe this to be a trick by the writers? Not necessarily a trick (as that implies conscious deception). I would say they were trying to describe something they thought existed but was not accessible by the 5 senses. This doesn't mean they were correct, only that they didn't think they were lying. The trick with logic is that if you begin with a flawed premise you can create a logical chain afterwards where each step is logically sound. But since the initial premise was flawed, the rest is flawed as well. There initial premise was: God exists. The rest was based on questions against that which needed to be logically answered. So while the explanations may be logical they are based on a premise that doesn't have a logical basis. My 2 cents... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 2, 2009 Share Posted April 2, 2009 1. Is this you Chef, or is this Andy Rooney? 2. Well, I am thankful that you didn't cash your ticket. 3. I find myself visiting with God when fear enters my life. And sometimes I find hope in "real" things as well as hope in spiritual things. If I were always to have to find hope in "reality", then I would probably be more foobarred than my current status. 4. I got your point, but some of the spiritual still works for me.....although I will say that I went back to church last weekend and the conversations seemed parchingly dry... 1. Yes. 2. 3. Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens Brown paper packages tied up with strings These are a few of my favorite things Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings These are a few of my favorite things Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes Silver white winters that melt into springs These are a few of my favorite things When the dog bites When the bee stings When I'm feeling sad I simply remember my favorite things And then I don't feel so bad M&Ms should be in there too. 4. I used to believe that a black panther lived under my bed and would eat the monster in the closet if it came out. Is that a spiritual thing? Reality is knowing that there is nothing to eat the monster and that one day it will get you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 1. Is this you Chef, or is this Andy Rooney? 2. Well, I am thankful that you didn't cash your ticket. 3. I find myself visiting with God when fear enters my life. And sometimes I find hope in "real" things as well as hope in spiritual things. If I were always to have to find hope in "reality", then I would probably be more foobarred than my current status. 4. I got your point, but some of the spiritual still works for me.....although I will say that I went back to church last weekend and the conversations seemed parchingly dry... 1. Yes. 2. 3. Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens Bright copper kettles and warm woolen mittens Brown paper packages tied up with strings These are a few of my favorite things Cream colored ponies and crisp apple streudels Doorbells and sleigh bells and schnitzel with noodles Wild geese that fly with the moon on their wings These are a few of my favorite things Girls in white dresses with blue satin sashes Snowflakes that stay on my nose and eyelashes Silver white winters that melt into springs These are a few of my favorite things When the dog bites When the bee stings When I'm feeling sad I simply remember my favorite things And then I don't feel so bad M&Ms should be in there too. 4. I used to believe that a black panther lived under my bed and would eat the monster in the closet if it came out. Is that a spiritual thing? Reality is knowing that there is nothing to eat the monster and that one day it will get you. Believe it or not, The Sound of Music is one of my favorites....Patton, The Sting, The Natural.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babysealclubber Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 If we from science, "know" that any objective truth is only that instantaneously due to a dynamic environment, and therefore making it subject to that environment, then how can you claim knowing God's truth can be known by anything other than faith? Hey End, I'm going to try to clean this argument up a bit, hopefully keeping the original spirit. Let me know if this doesn't work for you. "If any objective truth is truthful only instantaneously due to it's subjectivity to a dynamic environment, how can we know God's Truth through anything other than faith?" Here's the first problem. A truth that is subject to it's environment isn't objective. By definition, an objective truth would be truthful independent of it's environment. The second problem is that this statement doesn't really connect with the next question. Even if these objective truths were constant, knowable and measurable, how would we attribute it to God? I think the question "How can we know God's truth through anything other than faith?" can stand on it's own. I'll wait for you to respond before continuing. ----- Interesting some-what-related theological side-note; Descartes philosophized he couldn't trust anything at all, other than his own existence, because his senses could potentially be tricked by an evil spirit (or, more modernly, by an innate fallibility in our senses.) Taking the idea that he couldn't trust his senses because of this potential corruption by evil spirits, he reasoned that the only way to trust his senses was to trust that God would protect his senses from these evil influences. Kind of cool. Deeply flawed thinking, but a cool bit of history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 Hey End, I'm going to try to clean this argument up a bit, hopefully keeping the original spirit. Let me know if this doesn't work for you. "If any objective truth is truthful only instantaneously due to it's subjectivity to a dynamic environment, how can we know God's Truth through anything other than faith?" Yeah, AM has offered to charge me for re-working my prose. I need to take a hint and re-visit my writing skills. Here's the first problem. A truth that is subject to it's environment isn't objective. By definition, an objective truth would be truthful independent of it's environment. The second problem is that this statement doesn't really connect with the next question. Even if these objective truths were constant, knowable and measurable, how would we attribute it to God? I think the question "How can we know God's truth through anything other than faith?" can stand on it's own. I'll wait for you to respond before continuing. Yes, I think I had the definition wrong to begin with. I think we cleared that up in the discussion. Perhaps if we could know objective truth, we would attribute it to God....maybe not. To the stand alone question....I really don't know within our environment if an objective truth can exist other than you have to shut your eyes to sneeze. Interesting some-what-related theological side-note; Descartes philosophized he couldn't trust anything at all, other than his own existence, because his senses could potentially be tricked by an evil spirit (or, more modernly, by an innate fallibility in our senses.) Taking the idea that he couldn't trust his senses because of this potential corruption by evil spirits, he reasoned that the only way to trust his senses was to trust that God would protect his senses from these evil influences. Kind of cool. Deeply flawed thinking, but a cool bit of history. That is cool....I have never read Descartes. Thanks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babysealclubber Posted April 3, 2009 Share Posted April 3, 2009 I need to take a hint and re-visit my writing skills. Eh, I word things funny too. Besides, if everyone wrote perfectly, then I couldn't have fun copy-editing Yes, I think I had the definition wrong to begin with. I think we cleared that up in the discussion. Perhaps if we could know objective truth, we would attribute it to God....maybe not. To the stand alone question....I really don't know within our environment if an objective truth can exist other than you have to shut your eyes to sneeze. Yeah, I don't believe we are capable of knowing anything objectively. There may be an objective truth out there, but there would be no way for us subjective beings to know whether we found it. So I think I understand your original point. If we want to know the objective truth, then it would have to be revealed to us somehow. But if that happened, how would we know that we weren't being tricked by a demon during the revelation? We really couldn't trust any of it, unless we had some sort of faith. I don't have faith in the Bible's objectivity anymore because I see no reason to have faith, and because I see many reasons to not have faith in the book. I am sure you've read it, and I'm sure you've heard the arguments a thousand times why most of us here don't believe the Bible is true. But faith is what you have, and what many others from lots of different religions have, so it kind of ends the debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted April 4, 2009 Share Posted April 4, 2009 Just thinking outloud....would an environment without the push and pull of electrons be defined? Is spiritual defined? We can see that it is in defintion...emotions, but we also think that emotions come from the push and pull of electrons.... Crap, I can't even think of a "thing" that isn't subject to another thing.....sub-atomic particles??? Do they stand alone without help? Is death undefined? Is death 0? Life is defined by relationships.... ahh, who give a shit...where's the beer.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathlene Posted April 5, 2009 Share Posted April 5, 2009 Just thinking outloud....would an environment without the push and pull of electrons be defined? Is spiritual defined? We can see that it is in defintion...emotions, but we also think that emotions come from the push and pull of electrons.... Crap, I can't even think of a "thing" that isn't subject to another thing.....sub-atomic particles??? Do they stand alone without help? Is death undefined? Is death 0? Life is defined by relationships.... ahh, who give a shit...where's the beer.... spoken like a real christian Just messing with you end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chefranden Posted April 6, 2009 Share Posted April 6, 2009 ahh, who give a shit...where's the beer.... Amen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts