I'm wondering what other people think. [Archive]

Ladyberg

08-20-2006, 08:10 PM

If you do think I.D. should be taught in a Biology classroom next to the Theory of Evolution then you probably think that Flying Spaghettin Monsterism should taught as well.

This is nothing but a giant red herring used to divert the issue. It is funny how you only use sarcastic banter in an attempt to make a point, instead of trying to carry on an actual conversation. Evolution is far from fact, and is full of holes. For example, Evolutionists cannot prove decent outside of relying on the fallacy of similarity equals relationship, as well as there are no transitional life forms to support the theory. Another hole with the theory of Evolution is how it cannot explain origins, or as Evolutionists call it, abiogenesis. The common theories for abiogenesis, such as the Stanley Miller Experiment, require specific environmental conditions in order for them to work. One question I have for such experiments is how does anyone know what the composition of the prehistoric atmosphere was? All anyone can do is speculate an answer, and evolution is full of speculations similar to this one.

The guiding force behind evolution is Naturalism. Naturalism is the belief that everything has a natural cause. The main problem with this philosophy is that it is impossible to prove this core belief. But Evolutionists take the physical evidence and superimpose this belief onto the evidence anyway, instead of letting the evidence speak for itself.

These are only a few examples of the problems with evolution, and there are many more. The bottom line is that there are too many problems to treat evolution as a fact. It is a theory, nothing more.

CoreIssue

08-20-2006, 08:23 PM

Hi, Ladyberg!

Good points.

Don't be a stranger. :hug:

eahaddix

08-21-2006, 02:01 AM

If you do think I.D. should be taught in a Biology classroom next to the Theory of Evolution then you probably think that Flying Spaghettin Monsterism should taught as well.

If you need more info about The Flying Spaghetti Monster you can always check Wikipedia, or http://www.venganza.org/

God is love.

:shrug: So? If you support "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism," then you should support Intelligent Design. After all, Intelligent Design (ID) does not automatically presuppose any identity of the designer.

As a result, the intention behind "Flying Spaghetti Monsterism" unwittingly backfires. ;)

DaimyoMateo

09-21-2006, 09:01 PM

Hi all:)

The question is about Evolution and Intelligent design and how they should be taught? I think it would be wise to have them in different courses and not to join them. If you study for example history it is important to include such religions like Buddhism to get a better understanding of how East Asia became the way it did. So religion does have a place in a classroom but Evolution could be in a course of its own. Even if you do not agree with it that really does not matter. You are being graded on your knowledge of it not your opinion on it. You can study communism in a politcal science course and not be a communist. Just understand the concepts and theories and move on. Evolution should only be taught as a theory and nothing more just like how a phyiscs teacher would teach about theory of gravity to thier students.
"An educated mind in one that can entertain an idea even without accepting it"
-Aristole

eahaddix

09-25-2006, 04:03 AM

Greetings in the name of Christ Jesus, DaimyoMateo.:tiphat:

I think it would be wise to have them in different courses and not to join them. If you study for example history it is important to include such religions like Buddhism to get a better understanding of how East Asia became the way it did. So religion does have a place in a classroom but Evolution could be in a course of its own.

So, in other words, you wish to segregate Intelligent Design (ID) as "religious material," yet keep Evolutionary theory as "scientific material"?

Contrary to your presuppositions, Evolutionary theory contains philosophical metaphysics as well. Specifically, Evolutionary theory is epistemologically constructed with Methodological Naturalism (MN), a methodology which logically concludes with Metaphysical or Ontological Naturalism. To illustrate how Methodological Naturalism logically concludes with Metaphysical or Ontological Naturalism, consider the following line of thinking:
P1. Since Science cannot test for, examine, and/or falsify supernatural explanations of physical phenomena, Evolutionists believe that Science must employ methodologically naturalistic investigation for all physical phenomena. Otherwise, Evolutionists claim that Science exceeds its own limitations and violates its own nature.
P2A. Methodologically naturalistic investigation must yield naturalistic observations and explanations. Otherwise, methodologically naturalistic investigation contradicts its own parameters.
P2B. A naturalistic explanation of a physical phenomenon must presuppose a naturalistic chain of events. However, if a supernatural cause breaks a chain of causation in any way, then the physical phenomenon in question ceases to be naturalistic in nature.
P3. If methodologically naturalistic investigation does not postulate any supernatural explanations for any physical phenomena, then Science inherently presupposes Metaphysical or Ontological Naturalism.

For further reading, see "Naturalism: Is it Necessary?" by John S. Wilkons @ TalkOrigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/naturalism.html).

As a result, Evolutionists create a self-contradictory Philosophy of Science. Specifically, they use the limitations of Science as a basis for Naturalism, yet Naturalism violates the limitations of Science.

Evolution should only be taught as a theory and nothing more[...]

Hold on a second. This assertion depends on how one defines "a theory."

One should not equivocate the scientific definition of "theory" with the slang definition of "theory." In Science, a formal "theory" does not refer to guesswork, hunches, or conjecture. To the contrary, a formal "theory" refers to an explanation of certain physical phenomena which is supported by observation, experimentation, and peer review. As a result, your seemingly dismissive label actually elevates Evolutionary theory.

Even if you do not agree with it that really does not matter. You are being graded on your knowledge of it not your opinion on it. You can study communism in a politcal science course and not be a communist. Just understand the concepts and theories and move on.[...]
"An educated mind in one that can entertain an idea even without accepting it"
-Aristole

;) Hmm. The same reasoning applies to opponents of Intelligent Design (ID) as well.

DaimyoMateo

09-25-2006, 01:47 PM

Actually I am very proud of you to hear that:)

Yes theory is not hunches and explanations made from beliefs made out of thin air.
Hunches are in the realm of superstition with a whole lot of creative imagination.

I am not against schools having classes on religion and I think it is very important to have students exposed to cultures and their beliefs from all over the world past & present. I do have a problem when religious dogma is mixed in with scienific theory. The two are different because both come to their conclusions in two very different methods. Concern here should be that a child may not be able to separte the two with regard to how it became known.

CoreIssue

09-25-2006, 02:13 PM

Actually, evolution was a theory coming out of thin air.

There is, and never has been, any observable evolution going on.

Darwin came up with it as a theory because he had no use for creation beliefs.

There is plenty of science that shows evolution is impossible. There is testable historical and other evidence that gives a foundation for accepting creation.

Yes. Being the Biblical God as creator is a leap of faith. But so is evolution.

Sid

09-25-2006, 04:06 PM

Yes. Being the Biblical God as creator is a leap of faith. But so is evolution.

Modern Science, especially the growth of our understanding of DNA and the Human Genome [sp] Project, has made evolution a hard sell, especially among scientists.

It takes a bigger leap of faith to believe in evolution than creationism.

DaimyoMateo

09-25-2006, 06:31 PM

CoreIssue
Please give me a link to where I can see this evidence for religion. If it is something from the Bible, well I have plenty of evidence from many other books for support in evolution so of course you could highlight a passage for me but I could just highlight a passage from my book for you.
If you told me that, well evolution does have a great explanation and seems sound I really still cannot agree with it. No matter what I still have this faith inside me for God. Then I could actually believe you may know a thing or two about evolution but to so instantly shut it down as completely lack of proof only makes it clear to me that you really are misinformed about it.
For all the people who go out and dig in the dirt and back breaking work only to bring the evidence back to centers where experts test and have logical discussions about it are completely ignorant and you know better? You can't even admit that there is a shred of evidence for support for evolution. Sounds like it is you that cannot stomach the possiblity.

CoreIssue

09-25-2006, 07:54 PM

The evidence for the Bible is the statistics of the prophecies of Christ (http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm), they are ruled beyond chance (http://www.ericbarger.com/emailers/2006/resurrectionpower4-2006.htm) and being based on foreknowledge, the research done on Jericho shows it was not destroyed naturally, the attesting to Christ's miracles and such by his enemies, the miraculous issues around his resurrection, as in Roman guards placed there to stop anyone from taking his body could not stop him from resurrecting and more.

I have read the tons of attempts to 'prove' evolution. They fall flat on their faces, because the are all theoretical.

There are no transitional life forms, fossil or livng, which destroys any and all attempts to theoriize around it.

It is statistically impossible, as I posted to you before.

There is nothing but theory for evolution. After centuries, they cannot get out of the theorical stage.

Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy and all the other proof finds have ALL proven false.

The problem you have with me is I began as an evolutionist, have followed the so-called findings for the last 45 years and nothing but nothing has been found that advances it. Everything denies it.

Oh, they created a simple cell in a lab. Then one looks at how it was conducted and it was a joke. They totally manufactured the results they wanted, which turned out to not actually be the results they wanted.

If they cannot get it right when they control everything chance isn't going to work, as the statistics demonstrate.

They finally admitted the Big Bang could not work as theorized. So, they added a plasma helix to the formula. Instead of making it simpler they made it far more complex. And now have to explain where the helix came from.

They cannot explain where the matter of the Universe came from. They cannot explain away the fact the Universe is far bigger than it should be and cannot collapse, as the theory demands.

They cannot explain away gas law preventing the formation of more complex materials, such as planets.

They cannot explain how an explosion, which projects the debris out linear could end up in complex multiple rotatary patterns.

They cannot explain how, with the stats of that simple cell, life forms millions of times more complex could exist.

They cannot explain how a platypus could possbile exist. Or how the cacoon stage of moths and butterlies could exist.

They can explain nothing. After centuries they can explain nothing.

They try to get around stats by breaking down the process compartmentally and running stats on each. But it don't work that way. All issues have to occur together, not separately.

And on and one and on. They have no answers, they strictly have faith statements.

One of the world's most devout evolutionists, on a science show on TV, when asked what the proof was, said there is none. But he just knows it is true.

That is a religious statement.

eahaddix

09-25-2006, 08:55 PM

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/images/smiles/cartonrouge.gif Core, you answered (Post #12 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14812&postcount=12)) DaimyoMateo's reply (Post #11 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14811&postcount=11)) to my post, thereby hijacking this thread. I do not appreciate this.

Common courtesy dictates that the person receiving the reply has primary claim to the said reply, unless the person receiving the reply does not desire to answer.

DaimyoMateo

09-25-2006, 09:00 PM

I don't understand what just happened? Explain so I never do anything improper here.

CoreIssue

09-25-2006, 10:06 PM

eahaddix

09-25-2006, 11:46 PM

Welcome back, DaimyoMateo.:):

Actually I am very proud of you to hear that:)

[Post #11 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14811&postcount=11)]

"Proud of me"? This phraseology comes across as condescending.

Yes theory is not hunches and explanations made from beliefs made out of thin air.
Hunches are in the realm of superstition with a whole lot of creative imagination.

[Post #11 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14811&postcount=11)]

Evolution should only be taught as a theory and nothing more[...]

[Post #9 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14671&postcount=9)]

So, as a logical result, you agree that the phraseology "just a theory, nothing more" is misleading, since the term "theory" does not communicate scientific skepticism?

I do have a problem when religious dogma is mixed in with scienific theory. The two are different because both come to their conclusions in two very different methods.

[Post #11 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14811&postcount=11)]

As I demonstrated in my last post (Post #10 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14798&postcount=10)), Methodological Naturalism logically concludes with Metaphysical or Ontological Naturalism, thereby violating the limitations of Science. As a result, Methodological Naturalism epistemologically crosses the line between Science and religion, thereby qualifying as a religion (def. #4) (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/religion).

Concern here should be that a child may not be able to separte the two with regard to how it became known.

[Post #11 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14811&postcount=11)]

While I see your point behind your concern, I believe that your concern should apply to your classification bias as well. Specifically, if you classify Evolutionary theory as "Science," but classify Intelligent Design (ID) as "religion," then are you not making a value statement?

DaimyoMateo

09-26-2006, 10:32 AM

I am trying my best to understand, truly I want to see it how I think most of you see it. I honesty just don't and I do not want to just pretend I do. I see science (whether wrong or right) as a careful process trying to make sense of the world around us. They find objects and can use multipule dating techniques to try to piece together our understanding of history. I just don't see the same kind of action on the religious side and why should they when they already have most of the answers from the bible. I will continue reading these sites you offer me and I do notice that they all come from a similar source which is the christian community. That may be why the things I have read are so completely different. I have become obsessed with trying to figure out how these differences could come to exist together in opposing manners. I guess the answer may be that when you have two people with two different mind sets they will see two different things from viewing only one thing.
I came across this site recently and am curious on what people here think of it.

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm

Sid

09-26-2006, 01:20 PM

I am trying my best to understand, truly I want to see it how I think most of you see it. I honesty just don't and I do not want to just pretend I do.

DaimyoMateo:

In the past 50 years or so, the explosion of knowledge has pushed science to realize that creationism and a belief in intelligent design has become a more compelling explanation to the big questions than evolution.

Unfortunately, so much of what you will find on this website won't make much sense to you until you find yourself looking for the answers outside of yourself.

What is Truth?:

How does a person know that the color red is real? Because they see it. How does a person know that God is real?

Romans 10:17; Faith comes from hearing the Word of Christ.

John 18:37; Everyone that is of the truth, heareth my voice.

Mark 7:16; If any man has ears to hear, let him hear.

1Corinthians 2:14; The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

This reminds me of the Harley-Davidson motto: If I have to explain, you wouldn't understand.

Why Am I Not Hearing The Truth?:

The world makes people either too big to fit through the narrow gate, or too small and weak to push it open. I was of the former variety, having made myself too big-headed to see God's truth. These verses probably won't apply to anyone of the latter condition.

1Corinthians 1:19 I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.

1Corinthians 3:18-19; Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a fool so that he may become wise...He catches the wise in their craftiness.

An intelligent person can comprehend and disassemble meaning in the written word. But the message of salvation is written in the living word, which can't be torn down by the logic of men.

More. . . (http://www.ex-atheist.com/an-ex-atheists-gospel.html)

eahaddix

09-26-2006, 09:45 PM

I see science (whether wrong or right) as a careful process trying to make sense of the world around us.

[Post #20 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14835&postcount=20)]

Agreed. Science is supposed to make observations, then draw reasonable conclusions through the Scientific Method.

However, Methodological Naturalism (MN) turns this basic process backwards. Specifically:
1) Methodological Naturalism starts with naturalistic presuppositions.
2) Methodological Naturalism superimposes naturalistic presuppositions onto the available raw physical evidence.
3) Methodological Naturalism renders conclusions based on the unified subset of raw physical evidence and naturalistic superimpositions, as if this unified subset is raw physical evidence.

I just don't see the same kind of action on the religious side and why should they when they already have most of the answers from the bible.

[Post #20 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14835&postcount=20)]

You are engaging in a hasty generalization. Can you demonstrate that all Christians do not care about Science?

I guess the answer may be that when you have two people with two different mind sets they will see two different things from viewing only one thing.

[Post #20 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14835&postcount=20)]

Agreed. The key issue is that Evolutionists, Biblical Creationists, and Intelligent Designists interpret the physical evidence differently.

For instance, consider how these different groups exercise basic logic differently. Evolutionists, Theistic or Atheistic, believe that certain physiological similarities between different organisms equal evolutionary relationships. However, Biblical Creationists, plus many Intelligent Designists, believe that physiological similarities between different organisms are simply physiological similarities, nothing more.

I came across this site recently and am curious on what people here think of it.

http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/De..._Arguments.htm (http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm)

[Post #20 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14835&postcount=20)]

This website contains a lot of material, which I cannot address in its entirety. Do you wish to discuss something in particular?

DaimyoMateo

09-27-2006, 11:24 AM

Yeah I agree with you that it does contain alot. I hate sitting in front of a computer and reading alot of material. I am a bit old fashion and just like a book in my hand. So I actually printed out that site so I could read comfortably, well 95 pages later I finally got it:)
My question (at least just one of them) should someone take the bible's accounts as literal or is it considered something else? The bible viewed as word of god or not?
This guy was a former evangelical christian and he does bring to light some interesting issues.

eahaddix

09-27-2006, 10:33 PM

My question (at least just one of them) should someone take the bible's accounts as literal or is it considered something else?

Yes. I believe that the Biblical Scriptures, as in the 66 book canon of Jewish and Christian texts, is completely literal, unless the text indicates otherwise.

The bible viewed as word of god or not?

Yes. I believe the Biblical Scriptures are the Word (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=4487) of (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1223) God (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2316) (Matthew 4:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%204:4;&version=31;) [Greek] (http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=Matthew+4%3A4&section=0&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na)), as in being verbally communicated and/or internally inspired by God (http://www.studylight.org/lex/heb/view.cgi?number=0430)
(http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv).

This guy was a former evangelical christian and he does bring to light some interesting issues.

Well, sotierologically speaking, I do not believe "ex-Christians (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5546)" exist, for a Christian's "new birth" (ref. John 1:12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:12-13;&version=31;), John 3:5-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:5-7;&version=31;), John 7:38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%207:38-39;&version=31;)) is irrevocable (Ephesians 2:8-9 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%202:8-9;&version=31;), Ephesians 4:30 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%204:30;&version=31;), John 14:16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014:16-17;&version=31;), Romans 8:29-30, 38-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%208:29-30,%2038-39;&version=31;), etc.). As a result, I believe that there are two possibilities:
(1) Mr. Wu is a "born again" Christian in apostasy (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=646).
(2) Mr. Wu never became a "born again" Christian.

Hence, Mr. Wu's self-professed label is disputable.

DaimyoMateo

09-27-2006, 11:20 PM

Well I will just add that he did say that those that fall away "deconvert" have a label "backslider" on page 14. Kind of interesting to note that you only gave him two possible things to describe his change of faith. I think "enlightened" could equally could of been added.
Is it bad to question or even disagree with something in the bible. Could I have a disagreement with God and he would still not toss me aside into hell?

eahaddix

09-28-2006, 01:14 AM

Kind of interesting to note that you only gave him two possible things to describe his change of faith. I think "enlightened" could equally could of been added.

You are confusing different contexts. I am speaking about ontological sotierological issues, not intellectual dispositions.

Well I will just add that he did say that those that fall away "deconvert" have a label "backslider" on page 14.

Let us consider this point, as stated under its original context.

Christians try to portray those who deconvert from the faith as similar to a Jedi Knight in the Star Wars movies converting to the Dark Side of the Force! Like Yoda and Ben Kenobi, they try to equate turning away from the Christian faith with the path to darkness and evil! The nerve of them!

Here’s an interesting contrast in perspectives. From the Christian view, the term for a deconvert or former Christian is called a “backslider”. So when someone they know deconverts or falls away, they say that he/she is “backslidden” which implies a fall downward from somewhere higher. However, many former Christians will term their deconversion as becoming more “enlightened” or “evolved” implying that they moved to a higher level not a lower one. It’s such an interesting contrast of perspectives.

These above reasons are why the deconversion process for the Christian who wants to turn away from his/her extreme beliefs or feels they are no longer true or necessary, is so slow and difficult. They do not suddenly decide to deconvert and announce it to their peers. It doesn’t work that way at all. For me, the deconversion process took about two years before I was finally rid of the psychological baggage and brainwashing instilled into me. After you decide that Christian doctrine and theology is not true or not right for you, you usually are afraid to not tell anyone about it at first, for the reasons mentioned above. For me, I was afraid to tell anyone about it for almost a year because there was too much fear and guilt attached to my former beliefs. It was only after much research, did the confidence about my decision increase gradually to the point where I could confidently declare it to others without fear or guilt or the sense that I was joining “the dark side”.
Source: "Debunking Every Argument of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists," by Winston Wu @ Winston's Writings and Adventures, Geocities.com (http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm)

Mr. Wu is engaging in two logical fallacies. First, by using his personal experiences to assert that all Christians utilize the term "backslider" as a tool for social manipulation, Mr. Wu is engaging in a hasty generalization (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Hasty Generalization). Second, by defining the term "backslider" solely by situational derogatory usage, Mr. Wu is engaging in an argument of outrage (http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacy.htm#Argument from Outrage). Yet, despite these logically fallacious arguments, Mr. Wu fails to address the Biblical meaning surrounding the term "backslider."

:hmm: I wonder, did Mr. Wu genuinely believe in Christ Jesus before?

Instead, if someone has fallen away, they are considered “backsliders” and presumed to be lovers of sin and pleasure, or else were deceived by false religion, secular passions, or Satan.
Source: "Debunking Every Argument of Christian Fundamentalists and Evangelists," by Winston Wu @ Winston's Writings and Adventures, Geocities.com (http://www.geocities.com/wwu777us/Debunking_Christian_Arguments.htm)

Hold on a second. How does Mr. Wu know that he is not "deceived," but rather "enlightened"?

DaimyoMateo

09-28-2006, 11:04 PM

eahaddix

09-29-2006, 01:33 AM

I'll email him and ask him:)

maybe we should just leave it along because I feel little funny talking about him when he is not here to defend himself and I don't even know him so maybe I should not have brought it up.

:shrug: :): Do as you wish.

So do you think God feels emotion or is it just for life that is not godlike?

Well, if you do not believe in God (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=2316&version=kjv)
(http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=0430&version=kjv), then why do you ask?

DaimyoMateo

09-29-2006, 02:18 AM

I am here because I am curious. Want to hear other points of view.

DaimyoMateo

09-29-2006, 02:19 AM

I asked if you think.

eahaddix

09-29-2006, 05:03 AM

So do you think God feels emotion or is it just for life that is not godlike?

[Post #27 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14870&postcount=27)]

My friend, you can answer this question yourself.

Christ Jesus loves you. He desires a personal relationship with you, regardless of your past. You can turn away from the cold, empty philosophies and attitudes of worldly academia, and to Christ Jesus.

:investig: All lines of thinking logically conclude with this realization: every belief system requires faith. You can reach out to the different "gods" of different religions, yet none of these "gods" will answer you. You can try New Age or Occult techniques to reach "higher levels of consciousness," yet you will experience nothing, except self-induced perceptual confusion. And you can appeal to materialistic philosophies for "empirical data," yet you will not learn anything, except skepticism.

There is only one living God, who is Christ Jesus of Nazareth. If you turn away from these worldly attitudes and philosophies and reach out to him, he will answer. And you will know his love for you.

DaimyoMateo

09-29-2006, 12:28 PM

Well to disbelieve is only half the issue. What about disagreeing with God? Even if he is his the supreme creator he will accept me into heaven even if I disagree with his methods? See even if you could produce evidence for this Judeo-Christian God does not mean I would just automatcally fall to my knees and convert to the christian way of life. You can't steer my behavior with concepts of Heaven and Hell.

eahaddix

09-29-2006, 08:45 PM

What about disagreeing with God? Even if he is his the supreme creator he will accept me into heaven even if I disagree with his methods?

Why would you "disagree with God"?

You can't steer my behavior with concepts of Heaven and Hell.

Well, consider this: You depend on the local police for your protection. You expect the local police to keep the peace, stop people from violating your rights, and to assist you in times of personal need, such as in managing vehicular accidents and providing roadway directions. However, if the local police did not provide such protection, then social chaos would prevail.

Likewise, you would expect God to enforce his divine law. You would expect God to restrain evil in general, punish evil people, and provide public access to The Truth. Otherwise, moral, social, and spiritual chaos would prevail.

DaimyoMateo

09-29-2006, 09:37 PM

Well when I say disagree I mean can God tolerate disagreement among people. He did give us freewill and a brain to rationalize. I think if God is so wise then I believe he must be an intellectual an enjoys good conversation with his children. He is gonna spend eternity with a certain group of people so I would think he would want to surround himself with creative & stimulating souls. Eternity with a bunch of yes men and women would be intellectual hell for any creator of superb knowledge. Having a good sense of humor is a sign of higher intelligence and God must have one so I think he would be entertained with all the silly imaginations his children come up with to describe the world he made. Like a parent who witnesses their child saying a funny comment that usually ends with a thought of how adorable in the minds of father and mother. God is smart and he may be using reverse pschology sense he is the greatest psychologist of them all. He could be weeding out the ones who are to quick to agree with him and the ones who simply obey and those are really the ones who go to hell while the ones you would normally think would go to hell are really saved. Of course bad people would still go but even that sometimes is based on perspective. I really don't know one person in history that deserves to be tortured for eternity. It is a bit much especially for a "just" God.

eahaddix

09-30-2006, 12:28 AM

God is smart and he may be using reverse pschology sense he is the greatest psychologist of them all. He could be weeding out the ones who are to quick to agree with him and the ones who simply obey and those are really the ones who go to hell while the ones you would normally think would go to hell are really saved.

This is why God gave us his Word. God does not want us to be swept around by such idle notions.

I really don't know one person in history that deserves to be tortured for eternity.

In the American civil justice system, convicted criminals are placed in jail for the benefit of society. Specifically, criminals, such as murderers, rapists, and thieves, are a danger to society, for they may unpredictably repeat their crimes. As a result, according to the severity of their crimes, they observe judicial sentences in jail, where society hopes such criminals will change their ways.

Likewise, God sentences unrepentant sinners to eternal imprisonment within Hell. Unrepentant sinners are "repeat offenders," who unceasingly commit different sins according to their situational ethics. Anyone will consider doing any self-serving or horrible act, if their circumstances are just right. As a result, unrepentant sinners serve an eternal sentence within Hell, for these sinners represent an unending threat to others.

Now, do you agree that the Ten Commandments (ref. Exodus 20:1-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:1-17%20;&version=31;)) are good moral rules? Well, aside from disobeying God, you cannot break any commandment of the Ten Commandments without harming others.

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 12:43 AM

I am here because I am curious. Want to hear other points of view.
On the issue of believing in versus agreeing with God.

Many do not understand the Greek word does not simply mean to acknowledge or confirm God is there.

Think about it, Satan, fallen angels, demons and those in Hell are all shown to know God is there.

Believe also means to accept and follow. To obey.

So, yes, one can know God is there while not following or committing to him. And yes, they will go to Hell.

It is a relationship with God. Not merely and issue of, "Hey! I know you are there!"

Those in the eternal Lake are there with various degrees of punishment attached to each, in accordance to what they have done.

Rejection of God gets you there. What you have done determines of the severity of how you spend you time.

Now, you may not like that idea. But who are you, or anyone else, to question God? He is God.

And a God that is very generous to those who belong to him.

Why the Lake? Not just some pleasant place?

Because God is the source of all that is good. Reject God and you reject all that is good.

What does that leave? All that is bad.

Those who reject put themselves there. God did not. And they reject for eternity. They will never get over it, so to speak.

Why should the get anything good when they reject what is good?

Jessie

09-30-2006, 01:42 AM

very well put, they reject God they put themselves there.

time for people to take responsiblity for themselves instead of whining it was all Gods fault.

InTheWind

09-30-2006, 10:04 AM

There will not be a single person there that doesn`t belong there. There meaning both places.:nod:

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 12:33 PM

Why doesn't God provide salvation for satan and fallen angels? Does Satan not have freewill? Do only christians go to Heaven?

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 12:40 PM

Why doesn't God provide salvation for satan and fallen angels? Does Satan not have freewill? Do only christians go to Heaven?
Because Satan and the fallen angels were created with full knowledge of good and evil. They were in the very presence of God.

They have chosen to reject God. They do not want God.

So there is no salvation to provide for them.

The angels who did not rebel have always been in Heaven.

We start in a sinful condition and move to a saved one, via Christ's blood. We never go back to fallen.

There is no bouncing back and forth. The Bible clearly shows that once a being makes a decision about God, it is eternal.

We all enter existence in a predetermined condtion. Angels were perfect and humans are sinful. But that condition is not a freewill one. It is premade.

Our freewill decision locks us in. We make it, and it is not subject to change. It become us, literally.

God has made his choices and the Bible says he cannot change. The same applies to us once we make ours.

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 01:17 PM

Angels are perfect so Satan is a angel so evil is a type of perfection?
Why would God invest in this creation that leads to the majority of his creations being tortured for something most of them had no idea about anyways.
Maybe Satan had the right idea to rebel (if he had in choice in the matter)
Actually this brings up some new questions.

I looked up satanism and by the definition (this may be an older traditional definition) It stated that anyone following God (I am assuming it is refering to the Judeo-Christian God) is not Satanic and those that dont are.
Two types of Satanic groups of people in the world, those that believe in Satan and those that don't.
Seems strange that how can someone be satanic if they don't even believe he exists? Well you are either with God or under the influence of Satan so that is how you can rationalize it.
By this definition I guess it would be appropiate for me to introduce myself to people and if asked about faith I should add that I am satanic.

Well this is just the beginning of my question and I think many of you will find it a good question I hope at least a slight thought provoking question.

Ok so I may be wrong it is a very simplified description.
Jews are people who not believe Jesus was the son of god and are people still waitng for him? During times before Jesus there must of been satanic people maybe?
So you have Jews following their god and satanic people following Satan at the time.

Now Christians are Jews that do believe Jesus was the son of God?

Muslims are jewish-christians that also believe Mohammed was a prophet?
Its a big family tree sort of speak.
Now do you think satanists have their splits too?
I mean could some be called Christian satanic people and others just jewish satanic people. A person who is satanic could believe that yes Jesus was the son of god and he did die for everyones sins but I still follow Satan. So there must be islamic satanists who don't believe Mohammed was a prophet.
many of you may think this is all silly to talk about but I never even thought about it and sounds like it could happen with all the divisions of God following people.

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 02:15 PM

Angels are perfect so Satan is a angel so evil is a type of perfection?
No. He corrupted his perfection.

Not a complete example, but a person born complete deliberately cuts off a finger. He is no longer complete.

Why would God invest in this creation that leads to the majority of his creations being tortured for something most of them had no idea about anyways.

Bad assumption on your part. Everyone has an innate knowledge God is there. How they deal with the knowledge is the issue.

God does not expect perfection from us. But he sure expects us to seek him and be guided by him as best we can. He will guide us.

In example, you approach here. It is based continually in looking for reasons to dismiss God. It is not neurtral.

You have allowed your human pride and ego to be in every aspect of what you said. That is exactly what Satan did.

Maybe Satan had the right idea to rebel (if he had in choice in the matter)

And this statment proves my point.

You, looking only at you, refuses to see you are not so hot or good. As none of us are. You start from the premise that you have a lot going for you in your natural state, when you don't have anything going for you that comes from only you.

Actually this brings up some new questions.

I looked up satanism and by the definition (this may be an older traditional definition) It stated that anyone following God (I am assuming it is refering to the Judeo-Christian God) is not Satanic and those that dont are.

Poorly worded. But accurate.

What it means is we are either going to follow God's thinking and values or Satan's, whether we worship Satan or not.

Satan's values are ego, pride, self elevation, self importance, self centered. In otherwords, it s always looking inward for value and meaning. Even when doing something for others it is actually done for self.

That is abspolutely true. I have never seen a non-Christian do anything that you could not see being done for self in the action in some manner.

Two types of Satanic groups of people in the world, those that believe in Satan and those that don't.
Seems strange that how can someone be satanic if they don't even believe he exists? Well you are either with God or under the influence of Satan so that is how you can rationalize it.

Yep. Humans are not as freewilled or self foundational as they think.
By this definition I guess it would be appropiate for me to introduce myself to people and if asked about faith I should add that I am satanic.
Hmmmm. That would require you defining the meaning carefully for many.

Well this is just the beginning of my question and I think many of you will find it a good question I hope at least a slight thought provoking question.

A very old question and issue.

Ok so I may be wrong it is a very simplified description.

You need to get the distinction between Satantic and Satanism clear. Satanic does not require acknowledging Satan in any way. Satanism does.
Jews are people who not believe Jesus was the son of god and are people still waitng for him?
There are those who are waiting for their Messiah, not Christ. Others are very mystic is beleive Jews, as a people, are a gestalt Messiah to the world.

During times before Jesus there must of been satanic people maybe?

Has been since Adam and Eve.

So you have Jews following their god and satanic people following Satan at the time.

In the OT? Yes.
Now Christians are Jews that do believe Jesus was the son of God?
Some Christians are Jews. Many are not Christian.
Muslims are jewish-christians that also believe Mohammed was a prophet?
Muslims most assuredly are not Christians. They are another religion.

There are Jews who are Christians. There is no such thing as a hyphenated Christian.
Its a big family tree sort of speak.
Being Christian transcends race or nationality. When one is Christian, they are just Christian.

The Bible is against divisions, such as denominations.
Now do you think satanists have their splits too?
In the denominational sense, most assuredly. Many.
I mean could some be called Christian satanic people and others just jewish satanic people.
No. It is impossible for someone to be Christian and into Satanism at the same time.

And being Jewish does not make one Christian. Jewish is a genetic heritage. Judaism is a religion.
A person who is satanic could believe that yes Jesus was the son of god and he did die for everyones sins but I still follow Satan.
Yes. They reject Christ's offer, fully know what it means, and follow Satan. They are not Christian.
So there must be islamic satanists who don't believe Mohammed was a prophet.
No. You cannot be Islamic rejecting Mohammed. It is inherent to the meaning.
many of you may think this is all silly to talk about but I never even thought about it and sounds like it could happen with all the divisions of God following people.
Not silly.

One cannot hope to get it all straight if they have the basics wrong. Or do not understand them in any manner.

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 02:45 PM

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 03:25 PM

Yes I agree with you it would be contradiction to be christian and satanic. I was trying to suggest a person who fully believes that Christ was a savior for mankind but instead continues to be a follower of Satan thus being a Satanist who believes christians are right in their beliefs just the opposite of the same coin.
That describes one narrow slice of Satanists. They know who Christ is but don't want what he offers.

Where as maybe there is a person out there that is Satanist who does not believe Jesus was the savior or even was a historical figure at all. Wouldnt that be considered a Jewish Satanist sort of speak.

Only if they are Jews.

Many Jews accept Christ came from God but reject he was God incarnate or the Messiah. They see him as having become prideful or that Christians rewrote him historically.

I guess I am basically agreeing with you here.
I have a friend who is Islamic and she believes Jesus was a Prophet so it is not as if she is putting Jesus out of the equation.
She actually is.

That is called having another Christ. Is it the true Christ if you just use the name but define him as someone else than who he really was?
Hindus Don't believe in Jesus christ so I can see who it is a complete different religion but Jew, Christianity and Islam are within the same faith with same origins.
Absolutely not. They are not of the same faith.

Jews and Islam do not accept the whole Christian Bible. The 3 gods of these 3 religions bear no resemblance to each other.

To escape what the Bible says they spiritualize and allogorize the Bible to be able to be able read it non literally.

The Bible literally teaches a triune God. Jews and Islam reject that strongly.

Islam will not and does not use the Bible. Judaism rejects all of the NT and adds their own other books, created by men, as if they are Bible.

No. They are far cry from being the same. Judaism and Islam abandoned the writings of the prophets and Apostles long ago.
If Hong's Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was able to defend itself from the Ching Dynasty and continued on I am sure today we had have another to add to the list.
I disagree. And even if it did happen that does not give it any relationship to God or the Bible, in fact.

Your creating subjective tests here that have nothing to do with actual facts. They do not water down God or his revelations. They just make it clear the demands to test and learn.
Difference between Islam and Taipings is one simply survived to teach the next generation.

Just as a side note I mean no offense but may be of some interest. Jesus died as a martyr would you say? He died for a cause and many people began to hold on to its importance and symbol?

They held to him before he died.

He had a foundation in the OT, added miracles and more to prove who he was, died in a miraculous way many saw and so on.

Then there is the changes that take place within the believer that are profound, but can only be understood by the born-again.

He still heals, I was healed of an untreatable lung condition, in example. He gives knowledge and guidance that get people through where they should not get through. The Bible is testable, where no other religions are.

It is more than just faith. But faith is important.
Well in the communist community many think Ernesto Guevara is like the Marxist Jesus. A martyr for anti-rightest movements around the world. He already has a growing aura around him and I would be interested to see in the next 50 years if some kind of religion is spawned out from it.
Then it would not be communist, would it?

The fruit of those who follow him is self evident to his value. Nothing good comes out of it.

The fruit of those who follow Christ, in fact, has been good, in spite of the abuses done in his name.

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 03:49 PM

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 03:57 PM

"That is called having another Christ. Is it the true Christ if you just use the name but define him as someone else than who he really was?"

She only believes in one Christ so it really boils down to your perspective and hers.
You are making the assumption that you are right by default.
She could just say the same thing and we get no where. That is why it is all faith.
That evades the point.

If I describe a you as a blond woman 5'8" to one person and to another a fully accurate description of how you know you look, have I described you, in fact, both times?

Or, is one you and the other a lie?

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 03:57 PM

"If Hong's Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was able to defend itself from the Ching Dynasty and continued on I am sure today we had have another to add to the list."

"I disagree. And even if it did happen that does not give it any relationship to God or the Bible, in fact."

You don't have to agree with it but you would agree that there are other groups out there that claim to be true followers of the bible's teachings and they are wide spread.
All I am saying is it is possible that Hong's legacy with the Taiping Heavenly kingdom would become a distinct religion like Islam etc.
Like Mao had his version of socialism and Khrushchev had his but they both were inspired by Marx's Manifesto.

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 04:01 PM

You are still assuming that you have the right answer which of course you must absolutly feel you do just like every other does too.

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 04:04 PM

Using the http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/images/editor/quote.gif button makes quotes easier to see. Just highlight the text and click it.

"If Hong's Taiping Heavenly Kingdom was able to defend itself from the Ching Dynasty and continued on I am sure today we had have another to add to the list."

"I disagree. And even if it did happen that does not give it any relationship to God or the Bible, in fact."

You don't have to agree with it but you would agree that there are other groups out there that claim to be true followers of the bible's teachings and they are wide spread.

Agree. But a claim that is false remains false.
All I am saying is it is possible that Hong's legacy with the Taiping Heavenly kingdom would become a distinct religion like Islam etc.

Maybe. We cannot know now.

Like Mao had his version of socialism and Khrushchev had his but they both were inspired by Marx's Manifesto.

Agree.

Humanism, atheism and such are indeed religions.

DaimyoMateo

09-30-2006, 07:02 PM

Thanks was wondering how you make such fancy quotes :)

CoreIssue

09-30-2006, 10:00 PM

Thanks was wondering how you make such fancy quotes :)
Just ask on anything. Someone will help you. ;)

eahaddix

09-30-2006, 11:26 PM

[...]Christianity and Islam are within the same faith with same origins.

[Post #43 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14925&postcount=43)]

This assertion is incorrect. Have you studied the theological differences between Islam and Biblical Christianity?

For instance, the Biblical Scriptures state that Christ Jesus is God incarnate . . .

John 5:18 [NIV (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:18;&version=31;)]
For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

*See also: Isaiah 9:6 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%209:6;&version=31;), Zechariah 12:1, 10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2012:1,%2010;&version=31;), John 1:1-2, 14 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%201:1-2,%2014;&version=31;), John 8:56-58 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%208:56-58;&version=31;) [cross ref. John 18:4-8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2018:4-8;&version=31;)], John 10:30-33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010:30-33;&version=31;), Mark 14:61-63 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2014:61-63;&version=31;), Luke 5:17-24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%205:17-24;&version=31;), Titus 2:13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202:13;&version=31;), Revelation 22:12-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2022:12-13;&version=31;) [cross ref. Revelation 1:8 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%201:8;&version=31;)], etc.

. . . while the Qur'an denies that 'Isa, or Jesus, is Allah incarnate.

Surah 5 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html), "The Dinner Table"
[5.72] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah, He is the Messiah, son of Marium; and the Messiah said: O Children of Israel! serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Surely whoever associates (others) with Allah, then Allah has forbidden to him the garden, and his abode is the fire; and there shall be no helpers for the unjust.
[5.73] Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third (person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those among them who disbelieve.
[5.74] Will they not then turn to Allah and ask His forgiveness? And Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
[5.75] The Messiah, son of Marium is but an apostle; apostles before him have indeed passed away; and his mother was a truthful woman; they both used to eat food. See how We make the communications clear to them, then behold, how they are turned away.

*See also: Sura 4:171-172 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html), Sura 5:17-18, 116-117 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html), Sura 6:100 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/006.qmt.html), Sura 9:30 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html), Sura 10:68 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/010.qmt.html), Sura 23:91 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/023.qmt.html), Sura 112:1-4 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/112.qmt.html), etc.

As a result, Islam and Biblical Christianity follow a "different Jesus."

Jews and Islam do not accept the whole Christian Bible. The 3 gods of these 3 religions bear no resemblance to each other.

[Post #44 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14926&postcount=44)]

This assertion is incorrect. Judaism and Islam does not teach "3 gods." Specifically:
(a) Judaist Jews, such as "Jews for Judaism" (ref. (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html)), interpret Deuteronomy 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:4;&version=31;), or the Shema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael), as referencing the numerical oneness of God.
(b) Muslims teach the numerical oneness of Allah, as stated in the Qur'an (i.e. Sura 4:171 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html), Sura 112:1, 3 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/112.qmt.html).)

"That is called having another Christ. Is it the true Christ if you just use the name but define him as someone else than who he really was?"

She only believes in one Christ so it really boils down to your perspective and hers.
You are making the assumption that you are right by default.
She could just say the same thing and we get no where. That is why it is all faith.

That evades the point.

If I describe a you as a blond woman 5'8" to one person and to another a fully accurate description of how you know you look, have I described you, in fact, both times?

Or, is one you and the other a lie?

[Post #46 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14928&postcount=46)]

CoreIssue's point is the key point (ref. Matthew 16:13-18 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2016:13-18;&version=31;)). Specifically, personal identity is defined as the following formula:

"Who you are is what you are."

Pursuant to this formula, if different belief systems define or describe Jesus of Nazareth and God differently, then the said belief systems give Jesus of Nazareth and God different identities.

DaimyoMateo

10-01-2006, 12:17 AM

ok I follow you in that explanation. One thing and two see it differently. Yeah I agree with this. I don't doubt your faith in your view and I don't doubt my friend's either.

DaimyoMateo

10-01-2006, 12:21 AM

I mean some people want to celebrate Columbus day but I see it as a holiday for a villian and for someone who was the last to discover the americas. He did do good depending on which side you you see it.

eahaddix

10-01-2006, 12:38 AM

ok I follow you in that explanation. One thing and two see it differently. Yeah I agree with this. I don't doubt your faith in your view and I don't doubt my friend's either.

[Post #53 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14940&postcount=53)]

While I understand your respect for your friend's beliefs, I believe that your relativistic position is illogical. According to the Law of Non-Contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction), our opposing viewpoints, as described in my previous post (Post #52 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14939&postcount=52)), cannot be equally correct.

I have a friend who is Islamic and she believes Jesus was a Prophet so it is not as if she is putting Jesus out of the equation.

[Post #43 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14925&postcount=43)]

You are implicitly engaging in non-sequitur reasoning. Specifically, similarity does not equal relationship, in and of itself. The fact that the Qur'anic Jesus and the Biblical Jesus functioned as prophets does not demonstrate that these two versions of Jesus are the same.

DaimyoMateo

10-01-2006, 02:29 AM

[quote=LuckyStrike;14942]While I understand your respect for your friend's beliefs, I believe that your relativistic position is illogical. According to the Law of Non-Contradiction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_non-contradiction), our opposing viewpoints, as described in my previous post (Post #52 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14939&postcount=52)), cannot be equally correct.

I do not think you are understanding me and you are quick to make a defense here. I am not a christian nor am I Islamic. I have friends who are christian and also I have a few that are Muslim. From an athiest point of view I see one person with very strong beliefs with faith at such a magnitude it is pulsating from out of my computer screen. With out a doubt you truly believe in what you believe. Now my muslim friend I know has a very strong belief and has the same intensity of faith as you. I certainly not saying one is right or the other is wrong. Saying that I am taking a illogical postion only makes clear to me that you have a problem seeing how other people in this world share the same conviction for their beliefs as you. They are not lazy worshippers even if you think they are wrong that is not the issue at the moment. Again from an athiest view point I may think both of you (christians and Muslims) are wasting your time fighting and arguing. It seems futile for me to go now and try to explain this. Ancient Greeks did not half-heartly believe in Zeus. People went to war and were very serious about their beliefs. I study history and I know alot of historians consider D-day to be the turning point in WW2. I tend to side more on Stalingrad as the turning point as other historians believe. There may be one true answer or may be a series of answers that lead to the result we all know. Until more data comes to light I will not make absolute claims as what the turning point is in WW2 but if I was teaching someone I would provide the evidence for each argument. Bottom line is that people have the beliefs they have for the same reasons as everyone else.

eahaddix

10-01-2006, 05:05 AM

Saying that I am taking a illogical postion only makes clear to me that you have a problem seeing how other people in this world share the same conviction for their beliefs as you. They are not lazy worshippers even if you think they are wrong that is not the issue at the moment.

:stop: I respect every person's right to choose their own beliefs. Such a personal right is synonymous with free will itself, which God gave all men for various purposes.

However, there is a difference between respecting personal beliefs and respecting personal convictions. Personal beliefs (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/belief) are basic intellectual choices, where an individual places faith-based confidence in certain people, things, or ideas. However, personal convictions (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/conviction) are strong beliefs of compulsion, where an individual's beliefs compel the individual to do certain things, interpersonally or intrapersonally.

To illustrate, consider any public setting. When a person publicly and unceasingly advocates their viewpoint, the public audience collectively labels the said person as a "person of conviction." However, if a person within the said public audience expresses silent disagreement, then the public audience simply views the said person as a "person with different beliefs."

Likewise, the same illustration applies to silent and activist Muslims, respectively.

Now, I cannot respect personal convictions without inherently respecting interpersonal attacks on the truth of my beliefs. Specifically, by their very nature, the interpersonal expression of personal convictions is an attempt to compel a change of belief in others, since such an expression invokes compulsory forces surrounding the said intellectual beliefs. Hence, the expression of personal convictions inevitably concludes with proselytization (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proselytization), unless someone ends or diverts the conversation in question.

However, any belief worth having is worth defending, within reason. Hence, if I encounter any such public attacks against Biblical Christianity, I will exercise my free speech rights, under the Constitutional First Amendment, by publicly debating against the person involved. Likewise, you have exercised your free speech rights by defending Evolutionary theory against the personal convictions of certain CTZ membership.

eahaddix

10-01-2006, 10:00 AM

[...]since such an expression invokes compulsory forces surrounding the said intellectual beliefs.

After much reflection, I believe that this point needs some clarification. Pursuant to this need, consider these illustrative examples:

[Personal Belief] "I believe in Islamic submission to God."
[Personal Conviction] "If you believe that God deserves our obedient submission, then you should convert to Islam."

[Personal Belief] "I believe that all Americans should exercise their right to vote."
[Personal Conviction] "Voting is the civic duty of all Americans."

[Personal Belief] "I believe that Christians can experience spiritual growth through attending a church."
[Personal Conviction] "Christians must attend a church to experience spiritual growth."

Notice that the former statements express a simple personal belief, while the latter statements express a compulsory personal conviction.

eahaddix

10-01-2006, 12:36 PM

:gah:

[Personal Belief] "I believe that Christians can experience spiritual growth through attending a church."
[Personal Conviction] "Christians must attend a church to experience spiritual growth."

Correction:
[Personal Belief] "I believe that Christians should experience spiritual growth through attending a church."
[Personal Conviction] "Christians must attend a church to experience spiritual growth."

DaimyoMateo

10-01-2006, 12:58 PM

I made an error in my usage of words.
Change conviction for belief.

From my point of view I see many people believeing strongly as any other and they all claim to have the right way to God or Gods. It is a crazy wilderness to be in for an athiest:)
Well maybe the difference with what I defend and what somneone else will defend is this. I to a point will not defend my view. If I realize that what I amdefending is incorrect then I will be gladly change my mind to the side that is defending the truth. I am not stubborn I only want to study and defend the truth because it deserves to be defended agaisnt ignorance. If I have in the past here made any absolute claims on evolution then I want to take them back only because I feel anything is not 100% proven. I am not totally sure that the sun really is there but only my senses feel the warmth and I see a big shiny thing in the sky. So based on my senses and can only go by them I will believe it is there until it is proven it is not.

I am glad to hear that you are tolerant with different peoples faiths.

DaimyoMateo

10-01-2006, 01:14 PM

Hey just as a quick note I thought of this.

"You are implicitly engaging in non-sequitur reasoning. Specifically, similarity does not equal relationship, in and of itself. The fact that the Qur'anic Jesus and the Biblical Jesus functioned as prophets does not demonstrate that these two versions of Jesus are the same."

(the fancy quote making mechnism is not working for me)

Having two versions of the same thing may indicate that one must be wrong. This seems logical until I just remembered my astronomy professor discussing light, heat, magnetics etc. He used a anaolgy to describe his point:
Three blind men in a room with an elephant. All three men wanted to know what an elephant because they have never known of one before. So the first man walks forward and and reaches out and grabs the trunk. After a moment he walks back and says "this elephant is kind of like a big snake daggling in the air". The second blind man walks up and reaches out and grabs the elephants ear and after a moment walks back and says "This elephant is like a big fan type of thing" The third man walks up reaches out and runs into the elephant's side. After a moment he walks back and says "whats wrong with you two it is truly like a massive wall of muslce and hair"

My professor was using this to describe how light, heat, magnetics (think there may have been something else) were really the all from the same thing.

Just an interesting way of illustrating of one thing could be thought of as many other things.

CoreIssue

10-01-2006, 05:58 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoreIssue
Jews and Islam do not accept the whole Christian Bible. The 3 gods of these 3 religions bear no resemblance to each other.

[Post #44 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14926&postcount=44)]

This assertion is incorrect. Judaism and Islam does not teach "3 gods." Specifically:
(a) Judaist Jews, such as "Jews for Judaism" (ref. (http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq-tr.html)), interpret Deuteronomy 6:4 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%206:4;&version=31;), or the Shema (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_Yisrael), as referencing the numerical oneness of God.
(b) Muslims teach the numerical oneness of Allah, as stated in the Qur'an (i.e. Sura 4:171 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html), Sura 112:1, 3 (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/112.qmt.html).)

You misread.

Three gods as in three different gods, one for each religion. Note the plural.

You know very well I know better. :tiphat:

eahaddix

10-06-2006, 07:39 AM

Having two versions of the same thing may indicate that one must be wrong. This seems logical until I just remembered my astronomy professor discussing light, heat, magnetics etc. He used a anaolgy to describe his point:
Three blind men in a room with an elephant. All three men wanted to know what an elephant because they have never known of one before. So the first man walks forward and and reaches out and grabs the trunk. After a moment he walks back and says "this elephant is kind of like a big snake daggling in the air". The second blind man walks up and reaches out and grabs the elephants ear and after a moment walks back and says "This elephant is like a big fan type of thing" The third man walks up reaches out and runs into the elephant's side. After a moment he walks back and says "whats wrong with you two it is truly like a massive wall of muslce and hair"

My professor was using this to describe how light, heat, magnetics (think there may have been something else) were really the all from the same thing.

Just an interesting way of illustrating of one thing could be thought of as many other things.

[Post #61 (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showpost.php?p=14949&postcount=61)]

Yes, all three blind men know different pieces of The Truth, which they incorporate into their individual belief system. Yet, at the same time, all three blind men deny different pieces of The Truth, which they inevitably replace with other erroneous beliefs. As a result, each man's beliefs contradict the others' beliefs, all of which cannot be equally correct.

So what should the three blind men do? Unify their beliefs through combining the mutually desirable elements of each belief system? Absolutely not, for such a course of action would compound their original errors.

Now, why do the three blind men not search for a caretaker of the elephant, who could completely describe the elephant to them? Are the three blind men simply presupposing that an accessible caretaker does not exist? After all, if the three blind men pridefully insist on such self-reliance, then the three blind men will eventually lead each other into trouble or death (ref. Luke 6:39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%206:39;&version=31;)).

eahaddix

10-06-2006, 07:47 AM