What is the line between a legitimate religion and crackpots?, Also what makes one gr

#76
#76
droski said:
there are way too many inconsistencies in the new testament to argue that god had a hand in writing it (or at least a hand in writing the whole thing). a decent editor could have solved 90% of these problems. god i would imagine is a more than decent editor.
Click to expand...
Going back to Sunday school teachings here, but the way it was put to me the inconsistantcies are there because you don't read the Word like radio installation instructions. It's written in this manner that you pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit for revelations to be given to you...a primer if you will the invisible bridge that makes the inconsistancies fit and make sense. Written in this manner, causes you to have to rely on faith to be your guide, so that when you do receive a revelation it will be inspiring to you, food for the soul.
 
#77
#77
droski said:
the rate of radioactive decay is not a guess it is fact and it certainly is not off by billions of years.
Click to expand...

i do not agree that it is fact...it is a guess by the person that came up with the "rate"
 
#80
#80
therealUT said:
I am definitely not denying that the Bible is the word of God, in my belief. I am stating that when you restrict your followers from studying other religions, philosophies, etc. (even those that contradict with your own beliefs) you are taking steps towards a cult.
Click to expand...


I haven't read the whole thread yet, but will. I completely understand where TRUT is coming from. I have had extensive debates with him in the past on here about religions. Haven't been to this sector in a while. One thing i do agre with him here is studying outside your own religion. I am CoC, and grew up conservative, and by many standards probably still am. Just not to the extreme. Having said that and choosing to worship in a religion where the scripture is our only doctrine, i also find it quite ignorant to overlook the knowledge and teachings of others. If for nothing else than to re-affirm your beliefs by knowing a little something about others. I concede to the fact that therealUT is well read in many beliefs and I am not to his degree, but I understand his point. For a person to be studied in his faith, as we are told to be, should we not also know what others believe or don't believe as part of our own preparation.
 
#81
#81
dan4vols said:
I do not mean this as any kind of slight or attack. But many on this board are not only intelligent but seem to take pride in it. I wonder if in over thinking the issue, disecting all the tangents and possibilities we overlook the point. Meaning you should accept Christ as a little child, with simple faith...it is God's word, therefore it is fact...period.
Click to expand...


This is probably one of the more intelligent statements I've read. Something I was discussing after class tonight. We have a tendancy to over complicate religion as a whole. I view personally alot of what goes on as religion verses christianity. Whether it be the age of the world, or how long really was a day to God when he created the world, or pre-millenialism, or whatever. The simplists of truths is that it was never intended to be difficult for a person to read, undestand and believe. One of the human fallacies of religion is that you have to a theologin, or educated, or annointed to understand. If God and his word are for everyone, and he is indeed no respector of persons, then any and all that study with the right heart and mind can come to understand on their own.
 
#82
#82
droski said:
the fossils predate the creation of earth as described by the bible.
Click to expand...


A typical answer for evolution. However, scripture also states that to God a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years a day. And since he did not drop an equivilant of the modern calander in the bucket when he started creating, we really have no clue as to how old anything really is. Carbon dating is qualified/quantified by a calender that did not exist 50 million years ago. If God did not grant man the wisdom to predict his next coming, do you think he gave us hte wisdom to guess at how old the world is by using a modern scientific invention based on a modern calender. Or for that matter, evangelicals that think they can nit pick the bible and determine the time of rapture. A date they have to re calculate every time they miss it. In the end the only thing you can truly have is faith, or a lack of it. It's a persons choice.
 
#83
#83
rjd970 said:
It is not about the belief itself, it is about the reasons one has for the belief. There are good reasons and there are bad reasons. With religion, it always comes down to a matter of faith. Religion is the only area of our discourse where faith is a good reason, with anything else people talk or debate about, evidence is the winning driver.

This, BPV, is why ID is not taught in schools....at least not science classes. If it is to be brought up, it belongs in a philosophy, sociology, or theology class. It simply doesn't fit the criteria to be considered legitimate science. If it is, then we should make it free for students to study alchemy and astrology as real science.
Click to expand...

rjd970 said:
My point is that with any other area of debate, rational people will not accept anything on insufficient evidence...yet this is the lifeblood of religion. Otherwise, faith wouldn't be needed.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the arrogant, condescending, and short-sighted (to the extent of blindness) post.

For a person who is trying to make a stand as the "rational" voice of science, you are indeed overlooking a key ingredient to the advancement of science: faith.

Great scientists and innovators have shown, throughout history, a propensity to take great leaps of faith on little more than hunches. Those that are revered today in the scientific community happened to be correct in their initial beliefs. However, most of these started as little more than beliefs, prior to being accepted due to certain amounts of evidence.

Let's now talk about the faith in that evidence. As science evolves, more and more of that evidence remains unproven. On paper, most scientists will agree that certain theories should work, yet, they cannot prove that they do work. The majority of the public does not possess the mathematical or scientific skill set to understand the actual processes and implications behind such theories and/or laws. They accept them on account of faith in the institution of science.

Feel free to continue to belittle the institution of religion in favor of the institution of science. However, without having the numbers at hand, I would have to argue that more capital and effort has been put forth by religious institutions in the name of science and has been instrumental in the advancement of science, throughout history, than has been put forth by any such institutions until the late 20th century.
 
#84
#84
droski said:
completely agree. the definition of day according to the bible is very vague. on the other hand if you don't believe in evolution my guess is you don't think that a "day" meant a billion years in the bible.
Click to expand...


I'm hit or miss on that statement, but see your point. I do agree that the earth and all its inhabitants can be millions of years old based on the fact that I don't believe you can literally mean a day in creation is one of our days. I beieve the Bible uses certain terminologies because we as humans need that to "understand" things in the human mind. I don't however believe age has anything to do with evolution.
 
#85
#85
Time is a wacky thing anyway..I've given up trying to understand it. Perhaps a billion years is a small enough segment of time that you can assume that it hasn't changed all that much...but I don't know. Are we speeding up or slowing down? Is time slowing or speeding up? I can never keep it straight....
 
#86
#86
droski said:
the fossils predate the creation of earth as described by the bible.
Click to expand...

If you read literally yes, but I have a feeling the "days" mentioned in Genesis were actually better translated as ages or at least much longer periods of time.
 
#87
#87
KB5252 said:
If you read literally yes, but I have a feeling the "days" mentioned in Genesis were actually better translated as ages or at least much longer periods of time.
Click to expand...

much like this football season has been
 
#88
#88
dan4vols said:
Going back to Sunday school teachings here, but the way it was put to me the inconsistantcies are there because you don't read the Word like radio installation instructions. It's written in this manner that you pray for guidance by the Holy Spirit for revelations to be given to you...a primer if you will the invisible bridge that makes the inconsistancies fit and make sense. Written in this manner, causes you to have to rely on faith to be your guide, so that when you do receive a revelation it will be inspiring to you, food for the soul.
Click to expand...

The Bible is also a text that should be studied closely. There are many nuances there, remember that these men who put pen to paper as they say were trying to describe what man could not possibly understand fully.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top