100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: what Is The Truth About Dinosaurs | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Once again, Please keep the personal insults/attacks off the boards. Thanks, Mark |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldee wrote, it's the same as saying the origins of man are as man says and not the record given says, which is that things are as they are. But wouldee, what 'wouldee' be your answer to the overwhelming majority of christians, whom reconciliate perfectly in their CHRISTIAN faith, what the 'record given' by faith offers, and what science says about evolution, AS THINGS AS THEY ARE??? Never mind exchanging with people whom don't even borrow the bible as a means to construct their beliefs, and faith. Take it up with the overwhelming majority of some 2,0 billion christians, WHOM 'LIVE' THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH FULLY, AND 'UNDERSTAND' HOW EVOLUTION IS VERY MUCH 'A INTEGRAL PART' OF THE WHOLE EQUATION. It's like insisting for your chinese correspondent to speak english, because YOU claim that english is the only possible language for effective communications. As your mother tongue isn't the only language of ‘effective’ communication, your personal beliefs aren't the only beliefs of ‘effective’ faith, as it were. No personal belief, nor personal belief systems will ever amount to the RIGHT faith, AND MUCH LESS THE 'RIGHT' TRUTH, in spite of your claims to the contrary. When it comes to faith, beliefs are not the end of the road as you apply yourself to demonstrate with your particular blend of beliefs . Beliefs might be the road, or the gas to be on the road, but never the end state in itself, which we all 'SEEK' through our personal beliefs, and our personal faith. (I figured you might appreciate the automobile metaphor!) 'Record given' is a matter of belief to YOU wouldee!!! And that is irreproachable. But that is 'YOUR gas', NOT THE TRUTH (truth for you, but not THE TRUTH!). That is how you construct your personal faith, and faith is profoundly personal. In spite of apologetics and fundamentalist claims, MARKETING, AND MERCHANDIZING will never apply to faith. .’Record Given’ is possibly a vital belief for you, but don't confuse the gas with 'SEEKING the end state'. The gas one chooses in one's faith 'travel', is quite secondary, in spite of your insistence that beliefs are the end state, or that there is only a specific set of beliefs to 'SEEK' THE PROPER end state. Can you not see how incoherent that is. No one 'KNOWS' what the end state (the truth) is. That is why we are all on a 'seeking' journey!!! How can anyone claim to KNOW the right path, in 'SEEKING' that which he NO ONE KNOWS. To seek implies that we don't HAVE, as in THE TRUTH; thus FAITH! To 'seek', and yet assert that ‘you have’ at the same time, is a contradiction and a LIE. To assert that you are no longer 'seeking', because YOU ‘have’ the truth, is pure DELUSION, and is much beyond the competency and mandate of this forum. Again, beliefs, as in 'records given', are PERSONAL TRUTHS. As such, they are important to YOU, wouldee, but those same personal truths are of no value to anyone else, EVEN WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SEEM TO SHARE SIMILAR BELIEFS!!! Faith is not a numbers sport!!! There are no TEAMS in faith!!! There are no fights for the CUP of faith!!! If you insist on faith being a SPORT, then it is the ultimate individual SPORT where the only competition is YOUR 'SELF'!!! I am not in the know about 'THE' truth (and you and I share that as human beings wouldee), but I'm very clear about WHAT ISN'T TRUE!!! That is a matter of a clear conscience. Your clear conscience is none of my business my friend, and reciprocally my clear conscience, or the clear conscience of others is none of your business. However much some might want, sometimes without malice, to 'handle' other people’s conscience, it is a an OXYMORON. If your beliefs allow you to 'win' the individual 'match sport' against your 'SELF', such that it frees up the spirit to be fully accepting of others, than so be it!!! Mary was a virgin giving place to the Savior in favor and by the will of God and not the will of man. Same is true of the fossil record. Gaps between are gaps between thoise organisn=ms which God made just sa they are by His Word alone, and the gaps are not "fill in the blank" opportunities to imagine otherwise. Simple and far to advanced for temerity to suffer in patience. Faith is a personal sport against your own ‘self’ wouldee. Turn that statement around to ‘self’!!! Virtue, not audacity, is the value given the correct observation. I’ll take a wild stab at this one, and figure you meant ‘…Virtue, not audacity, is the value ‘given’ (which yields) the correct observation...' If my interpretation is incorrect, forgive me. Given my interpretation of your statement, I will say again, I don’t know THE TRUTH, and I share that with you wouldee, and with all other human beings of the planet. But my conscience supports me in distinguishing that your statement simply ISN’T TRUE!!! YOU don’t have the correct observation, virtuously so, or not. Neither do I, nor anyone else of human origin. How the heck can you seriously write such assertions?!?!? '... the correct observation...' Correct observation to YOU!!! Through virtue if YOU subscribe to it, no problem. But you have no dominion over mine or anyone else's subscription to virtue, and much less to 'OUR CORRECT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS'!!! It's this GROSSLY ERRONEOUS PERSPECTIVE of 'ABSOLUTISM', which confuses beliefs (MY relative TRUTHS) and ‘THE’ absolute TRUTH, over which no one has dominion, regardless of false claims to the contrary. Voila!!!!!!!!!! speaking for the masses or even yourself is not speaking for me. speak for yourself. Take the inspiration entering your heart from the context you give to my words from my heart and make your own point. You assume too much, as always, about me and the words I share. Whatever you were hoping to accomplish is lost in your confusion and guesswork. You may even believe your guesses, which is equitable for your guesses as beliefs, but you romp around imagining things, my friend. The man from La Mancha can do better than that. LOL So dig deeper, mon capitan. I will say this again, though, to humor you and all else that have a greater intellect and reason for being than I esteem for myself...... The gaps in the fossil record display the organisms given life by God, as God spoke them into existence. Clearly, by that record and those gaps on display, man is not long for inhabiting this planet. But all things are given their physical substance as vessels made uniquely perfect for whatever purpose God enjoined to the life within those vessels. There is no transition or intermediary between man and any other creature. Man is man, and that is all there is to it. The gap is a gap. That is all there is to it. This present garden is as it is by design and spoken into existence as intended without any hoo haw or help from nature. Man is subduing this garden to himself and doing what men have always done; coveting the environment and laying personal claim to that which can be dominated and secured for oneself for personal gain, advantage and privilege. It, the garden, is being systematically destroyed and decimated to the point of not repairing itself. It is fragile and recent and not an amalgamation of many changes over time yielding any variations of genus and speciation. It is being destroyed and it does not renew itself without man renewing it, in part, not in whole. Look around the world and see the strafing occuring and having had so occured in the past centuries and mellenia. The original habitats of this present garden are dying and disappearing because of man. They were not here before man in their present form, but are here for a reason; to sustain man. This is school. It is life 101. Sandbox 101. Most will never graduate. See it for what it is, not that which any imposes on it; It being this garden which includes man. simple. straightforward. it is what it is. everything else is guesses vaingloriously enhanced to be beliefs, and the whole of that nonsense is foolishness. Now you have some more words to machinate at your perusal. Do try to refrain yourself and posit some genuine contribution from your own heart. Please be pithy. Your deconstructions and plyable contrivances upon others words is a ludicrous endeavor born of imaginative guesswork and based on the same ; your own labeled beliefs.   
Wouldee, I wouldn't want to interfere with your new found 'preaching ministry', although I question your better judgment in choosing this dating site to practice it. But should you find in yourself the minimal courtesy to address the COMMENTS of my post above, which were in reply to COMMENTS you had made yourself on a previous post, it would be appreciated. It would also be in keeping with the spirit and the rules of this forum: offer comments, opinions, observations based on COMMENTS made by other posters, or points you wish to bring up yourself, that have nothing to do with comments of other posters, but are in keeping with topic of the thread. Preaching, through approximate and rather vague, and somewhat incoherent language, isn't contributing much to any debate. Although I don't mind 'debating' some of the statements, comments and observations you make on these threads, you most certainly are not a person whose advice, or counsel I would seek with regards to character, conscience, or faith. In that light, your preaching is profoundly lost on me, and thus makes it a waste of your time. Using someone's post to indirectly 'PREACH' to one's 'congragation-in-making' or 'church fan club' is not only rude, but it lacks intelligence and civility. Reply to the comments I made about your own comments, or don't reply. Those are the options we all have on this forum. Preaching and pontificating on the other hand, are not appropriate options. Voila!!!!!!!! mon capitan, I cannot address your questions with a dirtec answer. My reason is very simple, mon ami. The questions are hazarded guesses too far away from me and those things I am saying. I no longer will assume any obligation to answer anything I post that is morphed into something other than I say. Period. It is what it is. There is no point in assuming insight into my motives. There is no point in attempting to guess or believe that I am saying anything according to anothers belief, guesses, inclinations, motives, agendas or POV. So, if answers to these questions you raise need answers, then post them at large openly to whosoever will. They just do not speak to the things I am sayig, quite frankly. I have learned that most are not listening to anything but their own agendas. And applying those agendas to others is ludicrous. It is guesswork. Even as a belief, it remains the same as guesses. Of course you know you are guessing, or you wouldn't pose questions in the way you do. Take heart, mon capitan, you are not the only one building up a mirage of Wouldee's intents and purposes.  
peace. mi lago.......... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dont u people know wat a museum is??? thats where they have Dinosaur bones!!!! that means that they existed!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Wed 08/27/08 09:09 PM
|
|
I have learned that most are not listening to anything but their own agendas. You are most correct about that one sir! That is what comes to mind reading your posts. As for my question to you '... Reply to the comments, or don't reply...', NO I WON'T REPLY!!! Would have been honest. Would have indicated that you are not here for the dialogue. As you point out so accurately in the previous post, '... not here to listen to anything but your own agenda...' And '...NO I WON'T REPLY...', would have sufficed as a non-dialogue, and non-reply. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ouch... ouch... ouch... ouch... ouch...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Wed 08/27/08 10:06 PM
|
|
have learned that most are not listening to anything but their own agendas.
And applying those agendas to others is ludicrous. I am reminded of the words of my favorite philosopher. "The criminal inevitably accuses others of the crimes he himself is committing." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldee wrote, it's the same as saying the origins of man are as man says and not the record given says, which is that things are as they are. But wouldee, what 'wouldee' be your answer to the overwhelming majority of christians, whom reconciliate perfectly in their CHRISTIAN faith, what the 'record given' by faith offers, and what science says about evolution, AS THINGS AS THEY ARE??? Never mind exchanging with people whom don't even borrow the bible as a means to construct their beliefs, and faith. Take it up with the overwhelming majority of some 2,0 billion christians, WHOM 'LIVE' THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH FULLY, AND 'UNDERSTAND' HOW EVOLUTION IS VERY MUCH 'A INTEGRAL PART' OF THE WHOLE EQUATION. It's like insisting for your chinese correspondent to speak english, because YOU claim that english is the only possible language for effective communications. As your mother tongue isn't the only language of ‘effective’ communication, your personal beliefs aren't the only beliefs of ‘effective’ faith, as it were. No personal belief, nor personal belief systems will ever amount to the RIGHT faith, AND MUCH LESS THE 'RIGHT' TRUTH, in spite of your claims to the contrary. When it comes to faith, beliefs are not the end of the road as you apply yourself to demonstrate with your particular blend of beliefs . Beliefs might be the road, or the gas to be on the road, but never the end state in itself, which we all 'SEEK' through our personal beliefs, and our personal faith. (I figured you might appreciate the automobile metaphor!) 'Record given' is a matter of belief to YOU wouldee!!! And that is irreproachable. But that is 'YOUR gas', NOT THE TRUTH (truth for you, but not THE TRUTH!). That is how you construct your personal faith, and faith is profoundly personal. In spite of apologetics and fundamentalist claims, MARKETING, AND MERCHANDIZING will never apply to faith. .’Record Given’ is possibly a vital belief for you, but don't confuse the gas with 'SEEKING the end state'. The gas one chooses in one's faith 'travel', is quite secondary, in spite of your insistence that beliefs are the end state, or that there is only a specific set of beliefs to 'SEEK' THE PROPER end state. Can you not see how incoherent that is. No one 'KNOWS' what the end state (the truth) is. That is why we are all on a 'seeking' journey!!! How can anyone claim to KNOW the right path, in 'SEEKING' that which he NO ONE KNOWS. To seek implies that we don't HAVE, as in THE TRUTH; thus FAITH! To 'seek', and yet assert that ‘you have’ at the same time, is a contradiction and a LIE. To assert that you are no longer 'seeking', because YOU ‘have’ the truth, is pure DELUSION, and is much beyond the competency and mandate of this forum. Again, beliefs, as in 'records given', are PERSONAL TRUTHS. As such, they are important to YOU, wouldee, but those same personal truths are of no value to anyone else, EVEN WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SEEM TO SHARE SIMILAR BELIEFS!!! Faith is not a numbers sport!!! There are no TEAMS in faith!!! There are no fights for the CUP of faith!!! If you insist on faith being a SPORT, then it is the ultimate individual SPORT where the only competition is YOUR 'SELF'!!! I am not in the know about 'THE' truth (and you and I share that as human beings wouldee), but I'm very clear about WHAT ISN'T TRUE!!! That is a matter of a clear conscience. Your clear conscience is none of my business my friend, and reciprocally my clear conscience, or the clear conscience of others is none of your business. However much some might want, sometimes without malice, to 'handle' other people’s conscience, it is a an OXYMORON. If your beliefs allow you to 'win' the individual 'match sport' against your 'SELF', such that it frees up the spirit to be fully accepting of others, than so be it!!! Mary was a virgin giving place to the Savior in favor and by the will of God and not the will of man. Same is true of the fossil record. Gaps between are gaps between thoise organisn=ms which God made just sa they are by His Word alone, and the gaps are not "fill in the blank" opportunities to imagine otherwise. Simple and far to advanced for temerity to suffer in patience. Faith is a personal sport against your own ‘self’ wouldee. Turn that statement around to ‘self’!!! Virtue, not audacity, is the value given the correct observation. I’ll take a wild stab at this one, and figure you meant ‘…Virtue, not audacity, is the value ‘given’ (which yields) the correct observation...' If my interpretation is incorrect, forgive me. Given my interpretation of your statement, I will say again, I don’t know THE TRUTH, and I share that with you wouldee, and with all other human beings of the planet. But my conscience supports me in distinguishing that your statement simply ISN’T TRUE!!! YOU don’t have the correct observation, virtuously so, or not. Neither do I, nor anyone else of human origin. How the heck can you seriously write such assertions?!?!? '... the correct observation...' Correct observation to YOU!!! Through virtue if YOU subscribe to it, no problem. But you have no dominion over mine or anyone else's subscription to virtue, and much less to 'OUR CORRECT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS'!!! It's this GROSSLY ERRONEOUS PERSPECTIVE of 'ABSOLUTISM', which confuses beliefs (MY relative TRUTHS) and ‘THE’ absolute TRUTH, over which no one has dominion, regardless of false claims to the contrary. So - I would naturally conclude that this all stands equally true for Darwinism as an explination of he origin of the species, as well as the Bing Bang theory? That it remains as much a religion as does Islam and Pantheism. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 08/28/08 07:11 AM
|
|
wouldee wrote, it's the same as saying the origins of man are as man says and not the record given says, which is that things are as they are. But wouldee, what 'wouldee' be your answer to the overwhelming majority of christians, whom reconciliate perfectly in their CHRISTIAN faith, what the 'record given' by faith offers, and what science says about evolution, AS THINGS AS THEY ARE??? Never mind exchanging with people whom don't even borrow the bible as a means to construct their beliefs, and faith. Take it up with the overwhelming majority of some 2,0 billion christians, WHOM 'LIVE' THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH FULLY, AND 'UNDERSTAND' HOW EVOLUTION IS VERY MUCH 'A INTEGRAL PART' OF THE WHOLE EQUATION. It's like insisting for your chinese correspondent to speak english, because YOU claim that english is the only possible language for effective communications. As your mother tongue isn't the only language of ‘effective’ communication, your personal beliefs aren't the only beliefs of ‘effective’ faith, as it were. No personal belief, nor personal belief systems will ever amount to the RIGHT faith, AND MUCH LESS THE 'RIGHT' TRUTH, in spite of your claims to the contrary. When it comes to faith, beliefs are not the end of the road as you apply yourself to demonstrate with your particular blend of beliefs . Beliefs might be the road, or the gas to be on the road, but never the end state in itself, which we all 'SEEK' through our personal beliefs, and our personal faith. (I figured you might appreciate the automobile metaphor!) 'Record given' is a matter of belief to YOU wouldee!!! And that is irreproachable. But that is 'YOUR gas', NOT THE TRUTH (truth for you, but not THE TRUTH!). That is how you construct your personal faith, and faith is profoundly personal. In spite of apologetics and fundamentalist claims, MARKETING, AND MERCHANDIZING will never apply to faith. .’Record Given’ is possibly a vital belief for you, but don't confuse the gas with 'SEEKING the end state'. The gas one chooses in one's faith 'travel', is quite secondary, in spite of your insistence that beliefs are the end state, or that there is only a specific set of beliefs to 'SEEK' THE PROPER end state. Can you not see how incoherent that is. No one 'KNOWS' what the end state (the truth) is. That is why we are all on a 'seeking' journey!!! How can anyone claim to KNOW the right path, in 'SEEKING' that which he NO ONE KNOWS. To seek implies that we don't HAVE, as in THE TRUTH; thus FAITH! To 'seek', and yet assert that ‘you have’ at the same time, is a contradiction and a LIE. To assert that you are no longer 'seeking', because YOU ‘have’ the truth, is pure DELUSION, and is much beyond the competency and mandate of this forum. Again, beliefs, as in 'records given', are PERSONAL TRUTHS. As such, they are important to YOU, wouldee, but those same personal truths are of no value to anyone else, EVEN WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SEEM TO SHARE SIMILAR BELIEFS!!! Faith is not a numbers sport!!! There are no TEAMS in faith!!! There are no fights for the CUP of faith!!! If you insist on faith being a SPORT, then it is the ultimate individual SPORT where the only competition is YOUR 'SELF'!!! I am not in the know about 'THE' truth (and you and I share that as human beings wouldee), but I'm very clear about WHAT ISN'T TRUE!!! That is a matter of a clear conscience. Your clear conscience is none of my business my friend, and reciprocally my clear conscience, or the clear conscience of others is none of your business. However much some might want, sometimes without malice, to 'handle' other people’s conscience, it is a an OXYMORON. If your beliefs allow you to 'win' the individual 'match sport' against your 'SELF', such that it frees up the spirit to be fully accepting of others, than so be it!!! Mary was a virgin giving place to the Savior in favor and by the will of God and not the will of man. Same is true of the fossil record. Gaps between are gaps between thoise organisn=ms which God made just sa they are by His Word alone, and the gaps are not "fill in the blank" opportunities to imagine otherwise. Simple and far to advanced for temerity to suffer in patience. Faith is a personal sport against your own ‘self’ wouldee. Turn that statement around to ‘self’!!! Virtue, not audacity, is the value given the correct observation. I’ll take a wild stab at this one, and figure you meant ‘…Virtue, not audacity, is the value ‘given’ (which yields) the correct observation...' If my interpretation is incorrect, forgive me. Given my interpretation of your statement, I will say again, I don’t know THE TRUTH, and I share that with you wouldee, and with all other human beings of the planet. But my conscience supports me in distinguishing that your statement simply ISN’T TRUE!!! YOU don’t have the correct observation, virtuously so, or not. Neither do I, nor anyone else of human origin. How the heck can you seriously write such assertions?!?!? '... the correct observation...' Correct observation to YOU!!! Through virtue if YOU subscribe to it, no problem. But you have no dominion over mine or anyone else's subscription to virtue, and much less to 'OUR CORRECT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS'!!! It's this GROSSLY ERRONEOUS PERSPECTIVE of 'ABSOLUTISM', which confuses beliefs (MY relative TRUTHS) and ‘THE’ absolute TRUTH, over which no one has dominion, regardless of false claims to the contrary. So - I would naturally conclude that this all stands equally true for Darwinism as an explination of he origin of the species, as well as the Bing Bang theory? That it remains as much a religion as does Islam and Pantheism. Wouldn't you call that a (mis) leading question Eljay!?!?!?! If you are suggesting that 'absolutism' (absolute absolutism, as in THE ONE AND ONLY THRUTH) applies in no way to science, and that would include all matters scientific, you would be 'absolutely' correct (absolutely is used here in a limited and relative manner!). But I somehow doubt that this was your intent, given your 'leading' and confused mischaracterization of science, ... as a religion!?!?!? Let me remind you Eljay, quite to the contrary of faith: personal belief without evidence nor proof, that science is based on healthy scepticism, questioning the material or physical 'reality' of that which surrounds us. How will that ever make science a religion, when religion exists entirely on 'FREE ASSERTIONS' (not questions), which require no evidence nor proof, as do Islamism, Pantheism (OH! look at that!!! You omitted christianity and judaism!!! How convenient!), I'll never understand this rather disingeneous' opportunistic twist of rather simple facts. Science, last time I looked Eljay, had no stake in matters dealing with the spiritual, or dealing with faith. Science, contrary to faith, doesn't operate on the basis of PERSONAL BELIEFS WITHOUT EVIDENCE NOR PROOF. If science came out with a mythological 'book', offering legends and stories, and asked to treat it as if it were materialistically and physically 'word for word' REAL, it would be called 'charlatanism', not science!!! And that is the problem with those pushing 'bible inerrancy', the 'word for word' ABSOLUTE TRUTH of a book. They are pushing a falsehood, which obsessively twists faith and science. It is a profound disservice to both FAITH AND SCIENCE. So, while 'absolutism' in the sense of the absolute, final and only TRUTH, has never, and will never apply to science, it would appear that many religions, and their false dogmas will keep claiming the lies of 'absolutism' as their main foundation, and substitute for their lack of evidence and proof (which their faith doesn't require). Science is not based on faith, nor is it based on believing without proof, as faith and religions are, or should be!!! But I thought you already knew that!?!?!? Your question therefore seems opportunistic at best, or squarely misleading at worst. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Referring back to some earlier points of discussion:
Too find out about the pooping, you need to read through Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and there *might* be some of it in Exodus... don't remember exactly. It's in the same part as where God is telling the Israelites how to build a camp, and what they are and aren't allowed to do within the camp boundaries... its read-between-the-lines stuff. Krimsa- Don't you mean Church of Christ, Scientist? They are quite a bit different than Scientologists, and so far as I know that hack Sci-Fi writer L.R. Hubbard nothing to do with them either. I think anything either of them have to do with actual real science is that they share the same root-word in their name... and that Scientology uses goofy electromagnetic sensors too tell you how many alien parasites you have infesting your soul. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Welcome to the thread Skyhook - if you haven't been around this part of the forum much, it appears that this is really a tertiary discussion that is hammering out the nature of truth between the "born-agains" and the "rationalists".
Pick a side and poke a few jabs... its mostly all in good fun anyway. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wouldee wrote, it's the same as saying the origins of man are as man says and not the record given says, which is that things are as they are. But wouldee, what 'wouldee' be your answer to the overwhelming majority of christians, whom reconciliate perfectly in their CHRISTIAN faith, what the 'record given' by faith offers, and what science says about evolution, AS THINGS AS THEY ARE??? Never mind exchanging with people whom don't even borrow the bible as a means to construct their beliefs, and faith. Take it up with the overwhelming majority of some 2,0 billion christians, WHOM 'LIVE' THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH FULLY, AND 'UNDERSTAND' HOW EVOLUTION IS VERY MUCH 'A INTEGRAL PART' OF THE WHOLE EQUATION. It's like insisting for your chinese correspondent to speak english, because YOU claim that english is the only possible language for effective communications. As your mother tongue isn't the only language of ‘effective’ communication, your personal beliefs aren't the only beliefs of ‘effective’ faith, as it were. No personal belief, nor personal belief systems will ever amount to the RIGHT faith, AND MUCH LESS THE 'RIGHT' TRUTH, in spite of your claims to the contrary. When it comes to faith, beliefs are not the end of the road as you apply yourself to demonstrate with your particular blend of beliefs . Beliefs might be the road, or the gas to be on the road, but never the end state in itself, which we all 'SEEK' through our personal beliefs, and our personal faith. (I figured you might appreciate the automobile metaphor!) 'Record given' is a matter of belief to YOU wouldee!!! And that is irreproachable. But that is 'YOUR gas', NOT THE TRUTH (truth for you, but not THE TRUTH!). That is how you construct your personal faith, and faith is profoundly personal. In spite of apologetics and fundamentalist claims, MARKETING, AND MERCHANDIZING will never apply to faith. .’Record Given’ is possibly a vital belief for you, but don't confuse the gas with 'SEEKING the end state'. The gas one chooses in one's faith 'travel', is quite secondary, in spite of your insistence that beliefs are the end state, or that there is only a specific set of beliefs to 'SEEK' THE PROPER end state. Can you not see how incoherent that is. No one 'KNOWS' what the end state (the truth) is. That is why we are all on a 'seeking' journey!!! How can anyone claim to KNOW the right path, in 'SEEKING' that which he NO ONE KNOWS. To seek implies that we don't HAVE, as in THE TRUTH; thus FAITH! To 'seek', and yet assert that ‘you have’ at the same time, is a contradiction and a LIE. To assert that you are no longer 'seeking', because YOU ‘have’ the truth, is pure DELUSION, and is much beyond the competency and mandate of this forum. Again, beliefs, as in 'records given', are PERSONAL TRUTHS. As such, they are important to YOU, wouldee, but those same personal truths are of no value to anyone else, EVEN WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SEEM TO SHARE SIMILAR BELIEFS!!! Faith is not a numbers sport!!! There are no TEAMS in faith!!! There are no fights for the CUP of faith!!! If you insist on faith being a SPORT, then it is the ultimate individual SPORT where the only competition is YOUR 'SELF'!!! I am not in the know about 'THE' truth (and you and I share that as human beings wouldee), but I'm very clear about WHAT ISN'T TRUE!!! That is a matter of a clear conscience. Your clear conscience is none of my business my friend, and reciprocally my clear conscience, or the clear conscience of others is none of your business. However much some might want, sometimes without malice, to 'handle' other people’s conscience, it is a an OXYMORON. If your beliefs allow you to 'win' the individual 'match sport' against your 'SELF', such that it frees up the spirit to be fully accepting of others, than so be it!!! Mary was a virgin giving place to the Savior in favor and by the will of God and not the will of man. Same is true of the fossil record. Gaps between are gaps between thoise organisn=ms which God made just sa they are by His Word alone, and the gaps are not "fill in the blank" opportunities to imagine otherwise. Simple and far to advanced for temerity to suffer in patience. Faith is a personal sport against your own ‘self’ wouldee. Turn that statement around to ‘self’!!! Virtue, not audacity, is the value given the correct observation. I’ll take a wild stab at this one, and figure you meant ‘…Virtue, not audacity, is the value ‘given’ (which yields) the correct observation...' If my interpretation is incorrect, forgive me. Given my interpretation of your statement, I will say again, I don’t know THE TRUTH, and I share that with you wouldee, and with all other human beings of the planet. But my conscience supports me in distinguishing that your statement simply ISN’T TRUE!!! YOU don’t have the correct observation, virtuously so, or not. Neither do I, nor anyone else of human origin. How the heck can you seriously write such assertions?!?!? '... the correct observation...' Correct observation to YOU!!! Through virtue if YOU subscribe to it, no problem. But you have no dominion over mine or anyone else's subscription to virtue, and much less to 'OUR CORRECT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS'!!! It's this GROSSLY ERRONEOUS PERSPECTIVE of 'ABSOLUTISM', which confuses beliefs (MY relative TRUTHS) and ‘THE’ absolute TRUTH, over which no one has dominion, regardless of false claims to the contrary. So - I would naturally conclude that this all stands equally true for Darwinism as an explination of he origin of the species, as well as the Bing Bang theory? That it remains as much a religion as does Islam and Pantheism. Wouldn't you call that a (mis) leading question Eljay!?!?!?! Not at all. I'm just calling what I see from your post. If you are suggesting that 'absolutism' (absolute absolutism, as in THE ONE AND ONLY THRUTH) applies in no way to science, and that would include all matters scientific, you would be 'absolutely' correct (absolutely is used here in a limited and relative manner!). But I somehow doubt that this was your intent, given your 'leading' and confused mischaracterization of science, ... as a religion!?!?!? I said nothing about science. You did. Let's not have any strawmen here Voile - I referenced Darwinism and Panthism - neither of which has anything to do with science. Let me remind you Eljay, quite to the contrary of faith: personal belief without evidence nor proof, that science is based on healthy scepticism, questioning the material or physical 'reality' of that which surrounds us. Science is based on the facts found in a laboratory through experiments which lead to proving or disproving theories - what we would call - "true science". I hope you would think I don't need you to explain the difference between science and philosophy. How will that ever make science a religion, when religion exists entirely on 'FREE ASSERTIONS' (not questions), which require no evidence nor proof, as do Islamism, Pantheism (OH! look at that!!! You omitted christianity and judaism!!! How convenient!), I'll never understand this rather disingeneous' opportunistic twist of rather simple facts. I didn't say science is a religion. You did. And why should I bring up Christianity - it was what YOUR post centered on! I just brought to your attention the omission of such things as Darwinism and Pantheism in your post. Was this a mere oversight on your part? Or did you purposely do so? How disingenuous that you would imply this theory of yours only apply to Christianity. Rather opportunistic of you to assure your agenda get accross. Science, last time I looked Eljay, had no stake in matters dealing with the spiritual, or dealing with faith. Science, contrary to faith, doesn't operate on the basis of PERSONAL BELIEFS WITHOUT EVIDENCE NOR PROOF. If science came out with a mythological 'book', offering legends and stories, and asked to treat it as if it were materialistically and physically 'word for word' REAL, it would be called 'charlatanism', not science!!! And that is the problem with those pushing 'bible inerrancy', the 'word for word' ABSOLUTE TRUTH of a book. They are pushing a falsehood, which obsessively twists faith and science. It is a profound disservice to both FAITH AND SCIENCE. So, while 'absolutism' in the sense of the absolute, final and only TRUTH, has never, and will never apply to science, it would appear that many religions, and their false dogmas will keep claiming the lies of 'absolutism' as their main foundation, and substitute for their lack of evidence and proof (which their faith doesn't require). Science is not based on faith, nor is it based on believing without proof, as faith and religions are, or should be!!! But I thought you already knew that!?!?!? Your question therefore seems opportunistic at best, or squarely misleading at worst. Again Voile - WHAT HAS SCIENCE GOT TO DO WITH MY POST! Stick to the subject I introduced. Would your theory not apply to Darwinism and Pantheism as well. Surely your not expecting me to believe Darwinism is a SCIENCE!? Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other. What do you have to convince me Darwinism is a science - and not a faith based religion? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other.
Eljay, Tell me all about your eye witness testimony. What eye witness testimony do you have? Jeanniebean |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other.
Eljay, Tell me all about your eye witness testimony. What eye witness testimony do you have? Jeanniebean I didn't say it was my eye-witness testimony. I refered to the religion that is based on eye-witness testimony (scripture) and the one based on observing Nature (Pantheism). Where did I claim it was my witness? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 08/28/08 09:20 PM
|
|
Science is not based on faith, nor is it based on believing without proof, as faith and religions are, or should be!!!
The "theories" of science are no more, or less, provable than the "beliefs" of religion. As I see it, the difference is that science starts with observed phenomena and explains a theory in terms of that observed phenomenon. Religion, on the other hand, starts with a theory and explains the observed phenomenon in terms of that theory. I'm really not sure that the two are mutually exclusive, but it seems that the conflict arises only when the two explanations conflict. And since both "theory" and "belief" are unproven assumptions, the truth is that they could both be wrong - or right. (Hows that for Noncommittal?  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 08/28/08 09:24 PM
|
|
Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other.
Eljay, Tell me all about your eye witness testimony. What eye witness testimony do you have? Jeanniebean I didn't say it was my eye-witness testimony. I refered to the religion that is based on eye-witness testimony (scripture) and the one based on observing Nature (Pantheism). Where did I claim it was my witness? I called it "your" eyewitness testimony because YOU made the claim that you had eyewitness testimony for your religion. Tell me who these eye witnesses were please. What did they witness? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay,
You said you have eyewitness testimony for your religion. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on that. Who are the eye witnesses and what did they witness? JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other.
Eljay, Tell me all about your eye witness testimony. What eye witness testimony do you have? Jeanniebean I didn't say it was my eye-witness testimony. I refered to the religion that is based on eye-witness testimony (scripture) and the one based on observing Nature (Pantheism). Where did I claim it was my witness? I called it "your" eyewitness testimony because YOU made the claim that you had eyewitness testimony for your religion. Tell me who these eye witnesses were please. What did they witness? JB Jeannie; The new testament is claimed by the authors themselves to be the accounts of their eyewitness, or to be accounts of the testamonies of the eyewitness' of Jesus' ministry. Therefore - as the text itself claims - it is a religion based on eyewitness account. I know you do not believe in scripture - but your non-belief does not negate that to which it claims for itself. I made no statement about anything that I have personally witnessed, and did not intend to imply it. I also know that Voile is not unaware that Christianity claims this eyewitness account - nor did I think he would be confused about what I was refering to. I would have very likely chosen different words had I been responding to a post of yours. The eyewitness' were Matthew (one of the 12) Mark (the nephew of Barnabas - and a youth amoungst the believers, and the scribe for the sermons of Peter - who was one of the 12, and traveled with Mark. The gospel of Mark is an account of Peters sermons) John (again, one of the 12) Luke (an historian - who interviewed hundreds of people who were witness' to the acts and sermons of Jesus, as well as all of the apostles, and the woman who were part of Jesus' ministry.) Paul (who encountered Jesus on the road to Demascus, and as a Pharasee - quite aware of Jesus' ministry, and quite against it.) James (The half brother of Jesus - initially oppsed to his ministry.) Jude (though it is not sure if this was the apostle, or one of the brothers of Jesus - at any rate, both were witness' to Jesus' ministry.) These were the eyewitness. ALL of the authors of the New Testament - with the Exception of Luke - who was an historian, and a Doctor as well. Not to be facitious - but I thought you said you read the bible? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other.
Eljay, Tell me all about your eye witness testimony. What eye witness testimony do you have? Jeanniebean I didn't say it was my eye-witness testimony. I refered to the religion that is based on eye-witness testimony (scripture) and the one based on observing Nature (Pantheism). Where did I claim it was my witness? I called it "your" eyewitness testimony because YOU made the claim that you had eyewitness testimony for your religion. Tell me who these eye witnesses were please. What did they witness? JB Jeannie; The new testament is claimed by the authors themselves to be the accounts of their eyewitness, or to be accounts of the testamonies of the eyewitness' of Jesus' ministry. Therefore - as the text itself claims - it is a religion based on eyewitness account. I know you do not believe in scripture - but your non-belief does not negate that to which it claims for itself. I made no statement about anything that I have personally witnessed, and did not intend to imply it. I also know that Voile is not unaware that Christianity claims this eyewitness account - nor did I think he would be confused about what I was refering to. I would have very likely chosen different words had I been responding to a post of yours. The eyewitness' were Matthew (one of the 12) Mark (the nephew of Barnabas - and a youth amoungst the believers, and the scribe for the sermons of Peter - who was one of the 12, and traveled with Mark. The gospel of Mark is an account of Peters sermons) John (again, one of the 12) Luke (an historian - who interviewed hundreds of people who were witness' to the acts and sermons of Jesus, as well as all of the apostles, and the woman who were part of Jesus' ministry.) Paul (who encountered Jesus on the road to Demascus, and as a Pharasee - quite aware of Jesus' ministry, and quite against it.) James (The half brother of Jesus - initially oppsed to his ministry.) Jude (though it is not sure if this was the apostle, or one of the brothers of Jesus - at any rate, both were witness' to Jesus' ministry.) These were the eyewitness. ALL of the authors of the New Testament - with the Exception of Luke - who was an historian, and a Doctor as well. Not to be facitious - but I thought you said you read the bible? Thank you for the information. I would be willing to bet that there is no actual historical proof outside of the New Testament itself that these people that you claim are "eye witnesses" actually did exist. So I don't think your eye witness accounts hold any validity other than you choose to believe the story. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Thu 08/28/08 09:59 PM
|
|
wouldee wrote, it's the same as saying the origins of man are as man says and not the record given says, which is that things are as they are. But wouldee, what 'wouldee' be your answer to the overwhelming majority of christians, whom reconciliate perfectly in their CHRISTIAN faith, what the 'record given' by faith offers, and what science says about evolution, AS THINGS AS THEY ARE??? Never mind exchanging with people whom don't even borrow the bible as a means to construct their beliefs, and faith. Take it up with the overwhelming majority of some 2,0 billion christians, WHOM 'LIVE' THEIR CHRISTIAN FAITH FULLY, AND 'UNDERSTAND' HOW EVOLUTION IS VERY MUCH 'A INTEGRAL PART' OF THE WHOLE EQUATION. It's like insisting for your chinese correspondent to speak english, because YOU claim that english is the only possible language for effective communications. As your mother tongue isn't the only language of ‘effective’ communication, your personal beliefs aren't the only beliefs of ‘effective’ faith, as it were. No personal belief, nor personal belief systems will ever amount to the RIGHT faith, AND MUCH LESS THE 'RIGHT' TRUTH, in spite of your claims to the contrary. When it comes to faith, beliefs are not the end of the road as you apply yourself to demonstrate with your particular blend of beliefs . Beliefs might be the road, or the gas to be on the road, but never the end state in itself, which we all 'SEEK' through our personal beliefs, and our personal faith. (I figured you might appreciate the automobile metaphor!) 'Record given' is a matter of belief to YOU wouldee!!! And that is irreproachable. But that is 'YOUR gas', NOT THE TRUTH (truth for you, but not THE TRUTH!). That is how you construct your personal faith, and faith is profoundly personal. In spite of apologetics and fundamentalist claims, MARKETING, AND MERCHANDIZING will never apply to faith. .’Record Given’ is possibly a vital belief for you, but don't confuse the gas with 'SEEKING the end state'. The gas one chooses in one's faith 'travel', is quite secondary, in spite of your insistence that beliefs are the end state, or that there is only a specific set of beliefs to 'SEEK' THE PROPER end state. Can you not see how incoherent that is. No one 'KNOWS' what the end state (the truth) is. That is why we are all on a 'seeking' journey!!! How can anyone claim to KNOW the right path, in 'SEEKING' that which he NO ONE KNOWS. To seek implies that we don't HAVE, as in THE TRUTH; thus FAITH! To 'seek', and yet assert that ‘you have’ at the same time, is a contradiction and a LIE. To assert that you are no longer 'seeking', because YOU ‘have’ the truth, is pure DELUSION, and is much beyond the competency and mandate of this forum. Again, beliefs, as in 'records given', are PERSONAL TRUTHS. As such, they are important to YOU, wouldee, but those same personal truths are of no value to anyone else, EVEN WHEN TWO OR MORE PEOPLE SEEM TO SHARE SIMILAR BELIEFS!!! Faith is not a numbers sport!!! There are no TEAMS in faith!!! There are no fights for the CUP of faith!!! If you insist on faith being a SPORT, then it is the ultimate individual SPORT where the only competition is YOUR 'SELF'!!! I am not in the know about 'THE' truth (and you and I share that as human beings wouldee), but I'm very clear about WHAT ISN'T TRUE!!! That is a matter of a clear conscience. Your clear conscience is none of my business my friend, and reciprocally my clear conscience, or the clear conscience of others is none of your business. However much some might want, sometimes without malice, to 'handle' other people’s conscience, it is a an OXYMORON. If your beliefs allow you to 'win' the individual 'match sport' against your 'SELF', such that it frees up the spirit to be fully accepting of others, than so be it!!! Mary was a virgin giving place to the Savior in favor and by the will of God and not the will of man. Same is true of the fossil record. Gaps between are gaps between thoise organisn=ms which God made just sa they are by His Word alone, and the gaps are not "fill in the blank" opportunities to imagine otherwise. Simple and far to advanced for temerity to suffer in patience. Faith is a personal sport against your own ‘self’ wouldee. Turn that statement around to ‘self’!!! Virtue, not audacity, is the value given the correct observation. I’ll take a wild stab at this one, and figure you meant ‘…Virtue, not audacity, is the value ‘given’ (which yields) the correct observation...' If my interpretation is incorrect, forgive me. Given my interpretation of your statement, I will say again, I don’t know THE TRUTH, and I share that with you wouldee, and with all other human beings of the planet. But my conscience supports me in distinguishing that your statement simply ISN’T TRUE!!! YOU don’t have the correct observation, virtuously so, or not. Neither do I, nor anyone else of human origin. How the heck can you seriously write such assertions?!?!? '... the correct observation...' Correct observation to YOU!!! Through virtue if YOU subscribe to it, no problem. But you have no dominion over mine or anyone else's subscription to virtue, and much less to 'OUR CORRECT PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS'!!! It's this GROSSLY ERRONEOUS PERSPECTIVE of 'ABSOLUTISM', which confuses beliefs (MY relative TRUTHS) and ‘THE’ absolute TRUTH, over which no one has dominion, regardless of false claims to the contrary. So - I would naturally conclude that this all stands equally true for Darwinism as an explination of he origin of the species, as well as the Bing Bang theory? That it remains as much a religion as does Islam and Pantheism. Wouldn't you call that a (mis) leading question Eljay!?!?!?! Not at all. I'm just calling what I see from your post. If you are suggesting that 'absolutism' (absolute absolutism, as in THE ONE AND ONLY THRUTH) applies in no way to science, and that would include all matters scientific, you would be 'absolutely' correct (absolutely is used here in a limited and relative manner!). But I somehow doubt that this was your intent, given your 'leading' and confused mischaracterization of science, ... as a religion!?!?!? I said nothing about science. You did. Let's not have any strawmen here Voile - I referenced Darwinism and Panthism - neither of which has anything to do with science. Let me remind you Eljay, quite to the contrary of faith: personal belief without evidence nor proof, that science is based on healthy scepticism, questioning the material or physical 'reality' of that which surrounds us. Science is based on the facts found in a laboratory through experiments which lead to proving or disproving theories - what we would call - "true science". I hope you would think I don't need you to explain the difference between science and philosophy. How will that ever make science a religion, when religion exists entirely on 'FREE ASSERTIONS' (not questions), which require no evidence nor proof, as do Islamism, Pantheism (OH! look at that!!! You omitted christianity and judaism!!! How convenient!), I'll never understand this rather disingeneous' opportunistic twist of rather simple facts. I didn't say science is a religion. You did. And why should I bring up Christianity - it was what YOUR post centered on! I just brought to your attention the omission of such things as Darwinism and Pantheism in your post. Was this a mere oversight on your part? Or did you purposely do so? How disingenuous that you would imply this theory of yours only apply to Christianity. Rather opportunistic of you to assure your agenda get accross. Science, last time I looked Eljay, had no stake in matters dealing with the spiritual, or dealing with faith. Science, contrary to faith, doesn't operate on the basis of PERSONAL BELIEFS WITHOUT EVIDENCE NOR PROOF. If science came out with a mythological 'book', offering legends and stories, and asked to treat it as if it were materialistically and physically 'word for word' REAL, it would be called 'charlatanism', not science!!! And that is the problem with those pushing 'bible inerrancy', the 'word for word' ABSOLUTE TRUTH of a book. They are pushing a falsehood, which obsessively twists faith and science. It is a profound disservice to both FAITH AND SCIENCE. So, while 'absolutism' in the sense of the absolute, final and only TRUTH, has never, and will never apply to science, it would appear that many religions, and their false dogmas will keep claiming the lies of 'absolutism' as their main foundation, and substitute for their lack of evidence and proof (which their faith doesn't require). Science is not based on faith, nor is it based on believing without proof, as faith and religions are, or should be!!! But I thought you already knew that!?!?!? Your question therefore seems opportunistic at best, or squarely misleading at worst. Again Voile - WHAT HAS SCIENCE GOT TO DO WITH MY POST! Stick to the subject I introduced. Would your theory not apply to Darwinism and Pantheism as well. Surely your not expecting me to believe Darwinism is a SCIENCE!? Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other. What do you have to convince me Darwinism is a science - and not a faith based religion? Eljay, Are you perfecting your apologetics tactics here!?!?!? I tried to save you from having to wipe some egg off your face, but you leave me with no choice. You are misleading everyone with this 'Darwinism' contraption. Confusing 'Darwinism' with Pantheism, a religion, or set of belief, or philosophy, you attempt, quite ineptly so, to install the term 'Darwinism', as is often used in the United States by promoters of creationism, notably by leading members of the intelligent design movement to describe evolution. Installing the term in this convenient context of yours, and some other of your apologetics fundamentalist friends, the term has connotations of atheism. For example, in Charles Hodge's book '... What Is Darwinism?...', (Have you heard of that book??? A must read for apologetics soldiers) Hodge answers the question posed in the book's title by concluding: "It is Atheism." Well the secret is out!!! If evolution is declared to be confused with atheism by a 'guru' of the fundamentalist movement, the apologetics army must fight the 'evolution' virus to the death!!! Creationists use the term Darwinism, often pejoratively, to imply that the theory has been held as true only by Darwin and a core group of his 'followers', whom they cast as dogmatic and inflexible in their belief (just like a cult, or religion). But why??? Why would good 'christians' go to such extent to mischaracterize, and mislead??? Simply because, in falsely casting evolution as a doctrine or belief, it bolsters their 'religiously motivated political arguments' to mandate equal time for the teaching of creationism in public schools. In the meantime, considerable confusion is created around the term, which is also used neutrally within the scientific community to distinguish modern evolutionary theories from those first proposed by Darwin, as well as by historians to differentiate it from other evolutionary theories from around the same period. For example, Darwinism may be used to refer to Darwin's proposed mechanism of natural selection, in comparison to more recent mechanisms such as genetic drift and gene flow. It may also refer specifically to the role of Charles Darwin as opposed to others in the history of evolutionary thought — particularly contrasting Darwin's results with those of earlier theories such as Lamarckism or later ones such as the modern synthesis. A notable example of a modern scientist who has used the term in a positive sense is Richard Dawkins. Do you know about Richard Dawkins Eljay??? While he doesn't mischaracterize 'Darwinism' as you so ineptly do, you might find what he has to say on the subject, to be quite an 'eye-witness' opener!!! So 'darwinism' as this invention of Creationists, and spread irreponsibly by the apologetics army, just won't fly. If you don't consider evolution to belong to the domain of applied sciences, that is your RELIGIOUS privilege Eljay. But if your going to spread the lies of 'creationists', trying to twist and mischaracterize 'evolution' as some sort of cult, such that it better suits your personal agenda, and that of the creationists, DON'T BE SURPRISED IF WE CALL YOUR BLUFF!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Eljay
on
Thu 08/28/08 10:23 PM
|
|
Non-sense. One needs more faith to believe in Darwinism than they ever would for Christianity or Pantheism. At least we have eye-witness testimony for one, and nature for the other.
Eljay, Tell me all about your eye witness testimony. What eye witness testimony do you have? Jeanniebean I didn't say it was my eye-witness testimony. I refered to the religion that is based on eye-witness testimony (scripture) and the one based on observing Nature (Pantheism). Where did I claim it was my witness? I called it "your" eyewitness testimony because YOU made the claim that you had eyewitness testimony for your religion. Tell me who these eye witnesses were please. What did they witness? JB Jeannie; The new testament is claimed by the authors themselves to be the accounts of their eyewitness, or to be accounts of the testamonies of the eyewitness' of Jesus' ministry. Therefore - as the text itself claims - it is a religion based on eyewitness account. I know you do not believe in scripture - but your non-belief does not negate that to which it claims for itself. I made no statement about anything that I have personally witnessed, and did not intend to imply it. I also know that Voile is not unaware that Christianity claims this eyewitness account - nor did I think he would be confused about what I was refering to. I would have very likely chosen different words had I been responding to a post of yours. The eyewitness' were Matthew (one of the 12) Mark (the nephew of Barnabas - and a youth amoungst the believers, and the scribe for the sermons of Peter - who was one of the 12, and traveled with Mark. The gospel of Mark is an account of Peters sermons) John (again, one of the 12) Luke (an historian - who interviewed hundreds of people who were witness' to the acts and sermons of Jesus, as well as all of the apostles, and the woman who were part of Jesus' ministry.) Paul (who encountered Jesus on the road to Demascus, and as a Pharasee - quite aware of Jesus' ministry, and quite against it.) James (The half brother of Jesus - initially oppsed to his ministry.) Jude (though it is not sure if this was the apostle, or one of the brothers of Jesus - at any rate, both were witness' to Jesus' ministry.) These were the eyewitness. ALL of the authors of the New Testament - with the Exception of Luke - who was an historian, and a Doctor as well. Not to be facitious - but I thought you said you read the bible? Thank you for the information. I would be willing to bet that there is no actual historical proof outside of the New Testament itself that these people that you claim are "eye witnesses" actually did exist. So I don't think your eye witness accounts hold any validity other than you choose to believe the story. JB Actually there are a number of roman historians at the time who wrote of those who called themselves "eyewitness', so the testimonies are not self inclusive. At any rate. It is what the text describes of itself - which was my original reference. (I screwed this post up originally - sorry) |
|
|
|
|
