Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:30 am
you're a Wicca, Nurann? I didn't know that. So is my bro in law.
Yeah... we are saying the same thing. I simply used the word "matter" instead of energy. I meant the same thing. The point being, that our soul seems indestructable.Quote:
So Nurran, its because of the indestructabilty of matter? I could... almost see that as an evidence against simple non-exsistence after death, except for the fact, that we must know our soul exists and is bound by the same rules that physical laws are bound by.
But even granted that, the indestructability of a person's soul fits into the idea of an afterlife as much as it does the idea of multiple lives. I guess the question is... what evidence distincts the multiple lives idea over the afterlife idea?
Quote:
It's observation of nature. Cycle of seasons, cycle of the day, matter/energy can't be created/destroyed therefore is cycled, etc.
I'll assume you missed the "energy" part because you were distracted by your earlier research against Rakshash.
We're actually saying the same thing here; because energy can't be destroyed, something has to happen to our energy when we die. I'm just adding an extra step to your definition. And if you want to look back to page 9, I talk a little bit about the Summerland. Basically, you know it as Heaven. The difference is one may choose to stay in the Summerland temporarily or permanently. That's the extra step.
Aw'right, lemme dig out some reading material…. Be warned, I'm bad at picking what is the most relevant for quotes, so you're getting the good part of the chapter!
Why? Why are we reincarnated? In common with many other religions, Wicca teaches that that reincarnation is the instrument through which our souls are perfected. One lifetime isn't enough to attain this goal; hence, the consciousness (soul) is reborn many times, each life encompassing a different set of lessons, until perfection is achieved.
No one can say how many lives are required before this is accomplished. We are human and it's easy to fall into non-evolutionary behaviour. Greed, anger, jealousy, obsession and all our negative emotions inhibit our growth. …
The soul is ageless, sexless, non-physical, possessed of the diving spark of the Goddess and God. Each manifestation of the soul (i.e., each body it inhabits on Earth) is different. No two bodies or lives are the same. If this wasn't so, the soul would stagnate. The sex, place of birth, economic class and every other individuality of the soul is determined by its actions in past lives and the lessons necessary to the present.
…
What happens after death? Only the body dies. The soul lives on. Some Wiccans say that it journeys to a realm variously known as the Land of the Faerie, the Shining Land, and the Land of the Young [The footnote states that these are Celtic terms. "Summerland" is a commonly used Theosophical term]. This realm is neither in heaven nor the underworld. It simply is – a non-physical reality much less dense than ours. … Others see it vaguely as a realm without forms, where energy swirls coexist with the greatest energies – the Goddess and God in their celestial identities.
The soul is said to review the past life… . Lessons learned or ignored are brought to light.
After the proper time, when the conditions on Earth are correct, the soul is reincarnated and life begins again.
Source 1: Research out there. Granted.I did find a few articles for you:
Unfortunately, this is just an abstract, but at least it does show that there is research out there.
This set of case studies has some holes in the data collection methods, but it's an interesting read nonetheless.
In this report, one of the mentioned case studies is the same as one of the case studies from the above article. They compliment each other on a couple of details. It's also an interesting, yet sadly brief, read.
One more, then I've had enough searching for the night. This one concerns birth marks and birth defects corresponding to injuries in deceased individuals. http://www.scientificexploration.org/js ... sricha.pdf
And while admittedly there is also research against, it comes back to the fact everything has research for and against. Read it and take what you will from it.
Interesting- we just had a lesson on this like... two Wednesday nights ago at church.Coming back to that fascinating law of physics and energy never dying again:
Every motion and act undertaken by man counts as a good or a bad deed, and at the same time it represents a kind of deposit in the body that is expended in the form of energy. The acts and even the speech in which a person engages are, therefore, differing forms or manifestations of energy, either auditory or mechanical energy, or, in some cases, a mixture of the two.
It can therefore be said that our actions and words, dissolved in the atmosphere in the form of energy, are not annihilated, and that whatever we do in the course of our lifetimes is stored up in the archive of nature, an archive which the powerful hand of God has established and the permanence of which He has assured. The day will come on which nature will return to its true Owner all the trusts that have been deposited in it, and all the energies that have been accumulated in it will display themselves.
Certain Islamic traditions regard obedience to divine command without any fear of punishment or hope of reward as the special characteristic of those who consider themselves always protected and favored by God. It is they who attain the highest degree of sincere devotion to God and knowledge of Him; they think of nothing but earning God's favor and worshipping Him in obedience. This is indeed the way in which God wishes to be worshipped.
Imam `Ali, upon whom be peace, describes this group of men, in a profound and eloquent expression, as "free men." He says:
"Some men worship God in order to attain reward, and this is the worship of traders. Others worship Him out of fear of punishment, and this is the worship of slaves. But there are others again who worship Him out of gratitude and recognition that He is fit to be worshipped, and this is the worship of free men." (Nahj al-Balagha, ed. Fayd, p. 1182)
- Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari
Do you agree with this? I would think not, since you seem to be saying that good and bad deeds (or perhaps, intentions) get measured, and then a decision is made. But that quote explains my dislike for the idea of judging our good with our bad. Our bad is in ultimate contrast to God. Our good... is nothing compared to Him.But… since all of us obviously have our faults (which is also, completely logically true- don’t we always say nobody’s perfect? So why are people afraid to accept that when they get into a theological discussion? Haven’t we all wrongfully offended someone in our lives?), doesn’t that mean we have all offended whichever God is real in an irrevocable way? If we sin against someone so high above us, we have committed an ultimate defiance. And our good acts could never make up for that, not only because we sin more than we do good, but nobody that powerful could be impressed by our good deeds in and of themselves, because God is perfect. Righteousness in itself is not impressive to God, because since He is completely righteous, we’ll never come close to Him anyways. Sin however is an ultimate defiance, because God is perfect, and because He is so high above us. Think about it- what if I was to disobey my parent? Defiance right? Relatively unlikable consequences. What if I were to disobey President Bush (Well, I am an American), or national law in general? It's an even larger defiance right? I am in much less of a position to threaten him than a parent, and there would be *severe* consequences right? So take that up even more. How about if I sin against God, Who is all-powerful? Considering His eternal position above us, there is actually no limit to the consequences.
Well, I see a verse 2:62 which says [2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.[2:62]
Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the Sabians; anyone who (1) believes in GOD, and (2) believes in the Last Day, and (3) leads a righteous life, will receive their recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.
As for the myth you presented, I don't know that anybody said that Allah would through you in hell if your good outweighed your bad. I don't think... anybody thinks that. The closest person to asserting that was me, and what I did say was that our good deeds, in and of themselves would never outweigh our bad deeds.Myth: Allah weighs your good and bad deeds on a scale when you die, and if your good outweighs the bad, even then he might just end up saying, “I don’t feel like letting you in,” and throw you into hell anyway.
Fact: No. In fact, the opposite!
Muslims believe their deeds will be counted “on a scale” for or against them. This is what is called justice. But there’s another component of Allah’s dealing with humanity called ‘mercy.’ The idea is if the bad deeds outweigh the good, Allah will have mercy and call it off. ‘The foundation of all deeds is on your intentions.’ If you have intended good, even if you mess up you’ll get into Heaven. That means any Muslim with a good heart, a compassionate nature, who does good deeds for others etc can and will wind up in Heaven.
Um... we kinda need gravity for a planet... and an atmosphere... and tons of other things that give rise to complex forms like us. I'm not seeing the "laughable" quality of this article anywhere, despite your odd claims that complexity is not an argument for design, etc. It's quite a great read, which is why I made an exception in this case.Razor One wrote:We can strike out gravity and the weak electromagnetic force from our universe entirely and this would not preclude any function of biology.
Unless your argument is a physical or mental part of you, I am not insulting you.Beastbot wrote:Um... we kinda need gravity for a planet... and an atmosphere... and tons of other things that give rise to complex forms like us. I'm not seeing the "laughable" quality of this article anywhere, despite your odd claims that complexity is not an argument for design, etc. It's quite a great read, which is why I made an exception in this case.Razor One wrote:We can strike out gravity and the weak electromagnetic force from our universe entirely and this would not preclude any function of biology.
And I thought one of the rules was no insulting others?
This is failure and laughability rolled up in one. Lets say I sleep in 4 days in a row by accident. Do all the "Coincidences" of sleeping in reveal some insidious plot on my part where I in fact intended to sleep in from the get go, or am I simply a heavy sleeper for whom the alarm no longer even disturbs my sleep?
Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.
It turns out that the atmosphere of the Earth seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our lives, but also all aerobic oxygen life forms. Does that mean our atmosphere was precisely engineered from the get go? No. Nature struck a balance spontaneously and on its own and it tends to alter when that balance is disrupted. The earth's history of ice ages and hot spells is evidence of this.
It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.
Out of curiosity, why don’t you capitalize proper names? Jesus is a proper name, no matter how you come across it. God is as well, when you refer to the Christian God (who is technically known as Jehovah, “God our Savior.”) That’s just one thing I’d like to know, because I know that if I didn’t capitalize “Allah,” for example, that would be considered highly disrespectful to a Muslim. Therefore, chew on this: I find it disrespectful that you do not capitalize the names of God.The biblical god asks that you have faith in him and in jesus.
Proof of god means knowledge of god.
Belief in god based on knowledge of god is not faith in god.
Faith requires little to no proof whatsoever. It's called the leap of faith.
Searching for proof of god destroys faith in god. Once you prove god exists, you damn all humanity forever, since faith in god cannot co exist with the knowledge that god exists.
Well, I don't take that quite the same way-- particularly when you said that "Any clear minded thinker can spot [the fallacies] a mile off." But if you insist that those weren't back-handed insults, then I'm inclined to believe you.Razor One wrote:Unless your argument is a physical or mental part of you, I am not insulting you.
Saying "Your argument is laughable" Is not quite the same as stating "I'm laughing at you" in the vindictive manner.
How do we know this? We haven't formed the simplest life under the most ideal conditions, much less in zero gravity. Observing life doing okay in zero gravity isn't the same thing as creating life in zero gravity.The argument that the universe is fine tuned for life for the formation of any life whatsoever. Life does not require gravity to exist. We may need it for planets but striking gravity from the equation does not outright destroy life. The universe will of course look vastly different but it does not preclude the formation of proteins, DNA, cell division, and the other assorted erratta that is requisite of life.
You're comparing apples to oranges here. You're using one personal experience and comparing it to (as far as we know) the unbendable rules of the universe. Also, notice how the word "implies" is used. The author does not say that this, by itself, proves God exists, but it certainly puts the burden of proof on the other side. I'd say a more apt comparison would be coin flips, since the "laws of the coin" state that you get either heads and tails. Let's say you get 200 heads in a row. Now, are you more apt then to say that this was pure coincidence, as you are when a person flips 5 heads in a row, or that there was something else going on-- a weighted coin, a person doing the flip a certain way to always get heads, etc.? Yes, it's possible that 200 heads in a row can happen by pure coincidence, but it's so unlikely you'd best consider other explanations first.Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.
This is failure and laughability rolled up in one. Lets say I sleep in 4 days in a row by accident. Do all the "Coincidences" of sleeping in reveal some insidious plot on my part where I in fact intended to sleep in from the get go, or am I simply a heavy sleeper for whom the alarm no longer even disturbs my sleep?
The statement makes a massive assumption based upon very little or at best circumstantial evidence.
You'll get no argument from me there.Scientific fact and religious belief do not need to be placed at loggerheads with each other.
Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?
Lets see...artemis-lady-warrior wrote:No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?
Usage of the "lol" smiley indicates laughter.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:well that's getting a bit off topic. I thought this was about beast wars... incidently the Bible says man was created in God's own image. If people think God created the monkeys and they became humans then they practically believe that God was some kind of ape. >.<
Getting back on topic. Yeah there is those two episodes at the end of season 3 with all the revolation stuff in them... I wonder if it was from like The Holy Book of Primus or something. XD
7Knight basically stated that theistic evolutionists had no sense of logic or sensibility. Basically, he called them insane.7Knight-Wolf wrote:
Oh man, I know! Theistic evolutions have no sense of logic! I don't see how they can believe in evolution AND trust God at the same time... it makes no sense.
Oh, and sorry about getting off topic. I get carried away when I talk about God, and I could keep going! I mean, he's so cool. But I know this is a Beast Wars forum and not a religious debate.
Anyway, I believe that in season three, Optimus says that the book is the Covenant Primus, of which there are only two copies left.
Sinead called my arguments Ridiculous, which not only means laughable but also worthy of ridicule, derision and scorn.Sinead wrote:To Razor & General Statement
Just to let you know: I am using the New King James Version text for whatever I quote the Bible. However, I am also a seminary student. If you want to quote what the Bible says back to me, remember one thing: I'm also using Lexicons and Dictionaries on what the words mean. That means that I'm researching the words to give you a better explanation of the Bible's words. The tool I use is a free program called e-Sword.
I will post later upon the inaccuracies regarding scriptural references later tonight, once I cool off from the ridiculousness that I just read.
Seriously.
Count how many Christians are in this thread, then count out the Islamics, Pagans and Buddhists. Now, from what vector am I seeing the most points being raised up against things I percieve to be true? Are all these arguments logical?Sinead wrote:To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.
29 Hours without sleep and striking while the iron is hot can do that to a person. I apologise if you found it insulting and disrespectful but such was never my intent. I will endeavour to attempt to capitilise their proper names from now on but you will have to forgive the odd error as there are times when I am typing feverishly and fast and there are the odd punctuation and spelling errors that get by as I try to funnel my raging ideas through my hands and into the computer as fast as my mind can think, which can be a difficult process at times even at 200 WPM =\Out of curiosity, why don’t you capitalize proper names? Jesus is a proper name, no matter how you come across it. God is as well, when you refer to the Christian God (who is technically known as Jehovah, “God our Savior.”) That’s just one thing I’d like to know, because I know that if I didn’t capitalize “Allah,” for example, that would be considered highly disrespectful to a Muslim. Therefore, chew on this: I find it disrespectful that you do not capitalize the names of God.The biblical god asks that you have faith in him and in jesus.
Proof of god means knowledge of god.
Belief in god based on knowledge of god is not faith in god.
Faith requires little to no proof whatsoever. It's called the leap of faith.
Searching for proof of god destroys faith in god. Once you prove god exists, you damn all humanity forever, since faith in god cannot co exist with the knowledge that god exists.
This is why Scientists can go into the lab, do a test and go "Aha! God!" Hrrm? It's not proof, it's religious belief. For Scientific proof of god, he must be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, must subscribe to Occams Razor and tests for his prescence must be repeatable.
Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.
I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.
I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.
I think you are mincing the words a bit here. There is the common definition of faith, such as "I have faith in my fellow man" and then there is the religious aspect of faith such as "I have Faith in God".
How do you know that it’s day on the other side of the world when it’s night on your side? Knowledge of the spin of the Earth upon its axis, and faith that it will continue to spin. How do you know that your house is still standing when you come home from work or school? You know how the structure is built, you’ve walked inside it, and it really is solid to your understanding. You furthermore have faith that it will continue to stand, since it has always been there when you left, and been there when you returned.
If you think that I’m fetching a bit too far on this, reconsider my words carefully.
And you wouldnt be wrong in any way to believe that, it is personal knowledge and I will not dispute ones personal knowledge.
My understanding and my knowledge of God is just like that analogy to that house. I have felt His presence, I have searched Him out, I have asked Him questions, had them answered, and furthermore, I know that he is always with me. How? I can stop at any moment and seek out His Presence. I can listen to any conversation, be part of any conversation, and ask God, “What do you want me to say?” And you know what? He gives me what I need to say. I cannot claim that some of the things that have come out of my mouth are from me. I can see that they’re words that are specific, mean something very pertinent to someone. Often, in Christianity, we call these “Words of Confirmation.” They come from God, who has heard the prayers of someone who needs Him to help in a certain situation. They are echoes of the specific words spoken in private prayer, affirming, encouraging those who need to know something unambiguous from God Himself, given through us who are His children and His earthly mouthpieces.
God exists. I have had proof after proof after proof of knowledge of God, coming to understand Him more and more, understanding how His Spirit moves. Granted, nobody can really fully understand God. Not while we’re alive, anyway.
And in context:
So I say this: Searching for proof of God strengthens faith in God.
Why? Because there’s scripture that says “Seek and you shall find.” Jetstorm in Beast Machines actually quoted it. When you seek God, and when you seek to find proof that He exists (and if you think about C.S. Lewis, proof that He doesn’t exist), then you will find that proof. Reason backs the simplicity of faith that God exists. The world loses some of the shades of grey, but just like when you lose some of the extra grey or extra noise from a photograph, you get a clearer vision of what that picture is of, and what the world really looks like.
"Seek and you shall find", when placed in context, does not appear to my reasoning to be stating "Go forth and find god" but seems more to me as a method for finding, or returning, to faith.
7"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
The final part, Do to Others what you would have them do to you, is an absolute gem of wisdom that I try to subscribe to as best I can. I cant always adhere to it and the failing is mine but it is a wise and good passage which would make the world a better place if everyone subscribed to it.
9"Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Ah, I see how that can be insulting now, such was not at all my intention and for that I apologise. I'm a fairly straight up kind of guy when it comes down to it, so if I were to insult you, I would do so directly and unequivocally. I dislike underhandedness and veiled words. In some way their usage I feel is dishonorable, strange as it may seem.Beastbot wrote:Well, I don't take that quite the same way-- particularly when you said that "Any clear minded thinker can spot [the fallacies] a mile off." But if you insist that those weren't back-handed insults, then I'm inclined to believe you.Razor One wrote:Unless your argument is a physical or mental part of you, I am not insulting you.
Saying "Your argument is laughable" Is not quite the same as stating "I'm laughing at you" in the vindictive manner.
The problem here is ones definition of Finely Tuned. If the universe is finely tuned then life cannot possibly exist without gravity at all and is easily refutable.How do we know this? We haven't formed the simplest life under the most ideal conditions, much less in zero gravity. Observing life doing okay in zero gravity isn't the same thing as creating life in zero gravity.The argument that the universe is fine tuned for life for the formation of any life whatsoever. Life does not require gravity to exist. We may need it for planets but striking gravity from the equation does not outright destroy life. The universe will of course look vastly different but it does not preclude the formation of proteins, DNA, cell division, and the other assorted erratta that is requisite of life.
I kept this seperate as to make my response a little less meandering, but essentially, you'd have to verify whether or not the coin was tampered with. If the coin was not tampered with, as it was in my 84 tails coin toss experiment, that leaves only the improbability of what occurred. You can go forth and seek proof that the coin has been tampered with; you can also disprove the coin has been tampered with by studying the coin carefully and looking for evidence for or against such a notion.You're comparing apples to oranges here. You're using one personal experience and comparing it to (as far as we know) the unbendable rules of the universe. Also, notice how the word "implies" is used. The author does not say that this, by itself, proves God exists, but it certainly puts the burden of proof on the other side. I'd say a more apt comparison would be coin flips, since the "laws of the coin" state that you get either heads and tails. Let's say you get 200 heads in a row. Now, are you more apt then to say that this was pure coincidence, as you are when a person flips 5 heads in a row, or that there was something else going on-- a weighted coin, a person doing the flip a certain way to always get heads, etc.? Yes, it's possible that 200 heads in a row can happen by pure coincidence, but it's so unlikely you'd best consider other explanations first.Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot.
This is failure and laughability rolled up in one. Lets say I sleep in 4 days in a row by accident. Do all the "Coincidences" of sleeping in reveal some insidious plot on my part where I in fact intended to sleep in from the get go, or am I simply a heavy sleeper for whom the alarm no longer even disturbs my sleep?
The statement makes a massive assumption based upon very little or at best circumstantial evidence.
Are you perhaps referring to the Lady Hope incident? It's my understanding that's a widely believed myth, but if you're not then I'd like to hear more.Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?
Yeah That's what I'm referring to. Did you read me wrong? I said if I read something that sounds laughable I'm gonna laugh. If it does not make me laugh I don't term is laughable. I term it "something to argue about"Razor One wrote:Lets see...artemis-lady-warrior wrote:No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?
Usage of the "lol" smiley indicates laughter.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:well that's getting a bit off topic. I thought this was about beast wars... incidently the Bible says man was created in God's own image. If people think God created the monkeys and they became humans then they practically believe that God was some kind of ape. >.<
Getting back on topic. Yeah there is those two episodes at the end of season 3 with all the revolation stuff in them... I wonder if it was from like The Holy Book of Primus or something. XD
you are bringing up an older topic here. Why did you do that? How long ago was that posted? October? Or are you trying to make a point?7Knight basically stated that theistic evolutionists had no sense of logic or sensibility. Basically, he called them insane.7Knight-Wolf wrote:
Oh man, I know! Theistic evolutions have no sense of logic! I don't see how they can believe in evolution AND trust God at the same time... it makes no sense.
Oh, and sorry about getting off topic. I get carried away when I talk about God, and I could keep going! I mean, he's so cool. But I know this is a Beast Wars forum and not a religious debate.
Anyway, I believe that in season three, Optimus says that the book is the Covenant Primus, of which there are only two copies left.
who else used that term? lat time I checked te word/term 'Laughable" meantSinead called my arguments Ridiculous, which not only means laughable but also worthy of ridicule, derision and scorn.Sinead wrote:To Razor & General Statement
Just to let you know: I am using the New King James Version text for whatever I quote the Bible. However, I am also a seminary student. If you want to quote what the Bible says back to me, remember one thing: I'm also using Lexicons and Dictionaries on what the words mean. That means that I'm researching the words to give you a better explanation of the Bible's words. The tool I use is a free program called e-Sword.
I will post later upon the inaccuracies regarding scriptural references later tonight, once I cool off from the ridiculousness that I just read.
Seriously.
If I am incorrect to use the term laughable then so too are you, Sinead and 7Knight.
Strange then is it not that when I use the term that I am the first to be called out on it.
of a kind to provoke laughter or sometimes derision : amusingly ridiculous
To be fair it did seem that way. Just pointing that out.Count how many Christians are in this thread, then count out the Islamics, Pagans and Buddhists. Now, from what vector am I seeing the most points being raised up against things I percieve to be true? Are all these arguments logical?Sinead wrote:To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.
You say I'm attacking Christianity, how so? From my perception I'm attacking logically fallacious argumentation. If an Atheist came on this forum right now and argued that Christianity is a bloody religion that has a history bloodshed ranging from the Spanish Inquisition to the Crusades and that we should abolish it's barbarity, you would find me arguing just as vigoursly with him as I am with the Christians in this thread.
To state that I'm targetting Christians alone is fallacious. I challenged Nurann when she stated the moon does not rotate.
I was going to jump on Blazemane earlier on quoting out of context and leave it out of my Big Post but Rakshash beat me to the punch.
Reread my previous post in this thread if you will. I never said Christians were stupid.
For the most part I was attacking the argument that something complex and apparently (to our senses) fine tuned must be the product of an intelligent being was a fallacious one.
I cannot think of a single instance where I point blank called belief in Christianity "Stupid".
This is why Scientists can go into the lab, do a test and go "Aha! God!" Hrrm? It's not proof, it's religious belief. For Scientific proof of god, he must be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, must subscribe to Occams Razor and tests for his prescence must be repeatable.
Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.
Would any of these faith healers in the tent revivals be able to repeat their miracles of healing through faith under lab conditions with skeptics watching? Why isnt the medical community ecstatic that they can now use faith healers to help terminally ill patients?
Razor, you say that people who believe in God should not try to prove he exists and it should just be faith. While that might be all well and good it isn't always useful. People have to have some knowledge of the existence of God to explain it to people who don't believe. Like you. You are asking "How can you prove God exists?" and many posters are giving you that proof. So then you say to them. 'You should not be trying to prove he exosts because it will be the fall of humanity" (i'm paraphrasing, I know you didn't say it like that). No offense but make up your mind.I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.
I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.
Knowing that God Exists, as incontrevertibly as this chair or this desk is what destroys faith in my argument. You seem to be stating that knowledge ABOUT God, who he is, as opposed to whether or not he exists.
That kind of knowledge is worthy of pursuing if you are theologically inclined, but is not the argument I'm making.
Are you perhaps referring to the Lady Hope incident? It's my understanding that's a widely believed myth, but if you're not then I'd like to hear more.Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?
Darwin believed in God and had faith whilst also accepting evolution as a fact.
You laughed at Theistic Evolutionists in such a way that could be interpreted as demeaning or insulting to them.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:No I'm NOT going to quote everything you said, Razor. because soem things I don't intend to get into.
Yeah That's what I'm referring to. Did you read me wrong? I said if I read something that sounds laughable I'm gonna laugh. If it does not make me laugh I don't term is laughable. I term it "something to argue about"Razor One wrote:Lets see...artemis-lady-warrior wrote:No offense but saying something is "laughable" is almost like saying "I'm laughing at you". when I read, see, or hear something termed "laughable" I find myself laughing at it. Couldn't you have used a different term?
Usage of the "lol" smiley indicates laughter.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:well that's getting a bit off topic. I thought this was about beast wars... incidently the Bible says man was created in God's own image. If people think God created the monkeys and they became humans then they practically believe that God was some kind of ape. >.<
Getting back on topic. Yeah there is those two episodes at the end of season 3 with all the revolation stuff in them... I wonder if it was from like The Holy Book of Primus or something. XD
I'm bringing it up as an example. Yes, I am trying to make a point. Read on.you are bringing up an older topic here. Why did you do that? How long ago was that posted? October? Or are you trying to make a point?7Knight basically stated that theistic evolutionists had no sense of logic or sensibility. Basically, he called them insane.7Knight-Wolf wrote:
Oh man, I know! Theistic evolutions have no sense of logic! I don't see how they can believe in evolution AND trust God at the same time... it makes no sense.
Oh, and sorry about getting off topic. I get carried away when I talk about God, and I could keep going! I mean, he's so cool. But I know this is a Beast Wars forum and not a religious debate.
Anyway, I believe that in season three, Optimus says that the book is the Covenant Primus, of which there are only two copies left.
I termed a point laughable. You laughed at an entire belief system earlier on in this thread. 7Knight called theistic evolutionists insane and Sinead called my points of argument ridiculous.who else used that term? lat time I checked te word/term 'Laughable" meantSinead called my arguments Ridiculous, which not only means laughable but also worthy of ridicule, derision and scorn.Sinead wrote:To Razor & General Statement
Just to let you know: I am using the New King James Version text for whatever I quote the Bible. However, I am also a seminary student. If you want to quote what the Bible says back to me, remember one thing: I'm also using Lexicons and Dictionaries on what the words mean. That means that I'm researching the words to give you a better explanation of the Bible's words. The tool I use is a free program called e-Sword.
I will post later upon the inaccuracies regarding scriptural references later tonight, once I cool off from the ridiculousness that I just read.
Seriously.
If I am incorrect to use the term laughable then so too are you, Sinead and 7Knight.
Strange then is it not that when I use the term that I am the first to be called out on it.
of a kind to provoke laughter or sometimes derision : amusingly ridiculous
maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong, but I do belive you're the only one who used the term.
To be fair, it was not intended that way. Put yourself in my shoes and think from my perspective.To be fair it did seem that way. Just pointing that out.Count how many Christians are in this thread, then count out the Islamics, Pagans and Buddhists. Now, from what vector am I seeing the most points being raised up against things I percieve to be true? Are all these arguments logical?Sinead wrote:To just briefly touch upon something, Razor, I am getting really annoyed that you continually shoot down Christianity. You didn’t wait to address Beastbot in your “huge post,” but you jumped onto his argument like a bad habit, all but saying, in my interpretation of your “argument,” that Christians are wrong, believe in “nothing” and therefore are stupid for believing in something that “doesn’t exist.” Yet I have yet to see you shoot down Islam, Paganism, Buddhism, or any other faith on this forum. Why focus so hard upon attacking Christianity? It's not a rhetorical question. I genuinely wish to know the answer.
You say I'm attacking Christianity, how so? From my perception I'm attacking logically fallacious argumentation. If an Atheist came on this forum right now and argued that Christianity is a bloody religion that has a history bloodshed ranging from the Spanish Inquisition to the Crusades and that we should abolish it's barbarity, you would find me arguing just as vigoursly with him as I am with the Christians in this thread.
To state that I'm targetting Christians alone is fallacious. I challenged Nurann when she stated the moon does not rotate.
I was going to jump on Blazemane earlier on quoting out of context and leave it out of my Big Post but Rakshash beat me to the punch.
Reread my previous post in this thread if you will. I never said Christians were stupid.
For the most part I was attacking the argument that something complex and apparently (to our senses) fine tuned must be the product of an intelligent being was a fallacious one.
I cannot think of a single instance where I point blank called belief in Christianity "Stupid".
Sounds like an effect I've heard of before.This is why Scientists can go into the lab, do a test and go "Aha! God!" Hrrm? It's not proof, it's religious belief. For Scientific proof of god, he must be testable, verifiable, falsifiable, must subscribe to Occams Razor and tests for his prescence must be repeatable.
Furthermore, there is indeed proof of God existing. Have you looked into the early and mid 20th century, and the tent-revivals that happened? Do you know what happened IN those tent revivals, that continue to happen today? Miracles of healing. Proof of God existing. Furthermore, I have spoken with people who were there, and who currently work at my seminary as the archival directors. The particular line of revivals that I would ask you to look into would be “The Voice of Healing.” They have documented all healings. Even more so, there is one case that has made it to Ripley’s Believe It Or Not. Dare ya to look into that. It’s got to do with a man being able to see without an eyeball. No lie, no joke, and it’s recorded. There are pictures of a young boy who had one leg that was shorter than the other. In one of the revival meetings, it grew out to full length. I don’t know his name, but I see his picture every day at work.
Would any of these faith healers in the tent revivals be able to repeat their miracles of healing through faith under lab conditions with skeptics watching? Why isnt the medical community ecstatic that they can now use faith healers to help terminally ill patients?
to the second part I have no clue, but it might have something to do wit the spirit moving. I've gone to church my entire life and people I know with medical problems go up for prayer all the time like for cancer and stuff and the next day they go to the doctor and it's gone. How can you explain that?
I've yet to see convincing objective and conclusive proof of God appear in this thread.Razor, you say that people who believe in God should not try to prove he exists and it should just be faith. While that might be all well and good it isn't always useful. People have to have some knowledge of the existence of God to explain it to people who don't believe. Like you. You are asking "How can you prove God exists?" and many posters are giving you that proof. So then you say to them. 'You should not be trying to prove he exosts because it will be the fall of humanity" (i'm paraphrasing, I know you didn't say it like that). No offense but make up your mind.I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.
I have to refute your claim that searching for proof of God destroys my faith God and damns humanity. We are more than encouraged to find proof of God here at the seminary that I attend, to try to find out who God is, what He’s done, where He has supernaturally guided our lives. Faith and knowledge in God do more than co-exist. Just like reason and faith do more than co-exist. They aren’t any more than two words defining opposite sides of one concept.
Knowing that God Exists, as incontrevertibly as this chair or this desk is what destroys faith in my argument. You seem to be stating that knowledge ABOUT God, who he is, as opposed to whether or not he exists.
That kind of knowledge is worthy of pursuing if you are theologically inclined, but is not the argument I'm making.
(I won't quote the rest of what you said. it will take too long, but you get the jist.
You misread me. I was asking about the reluctancy part of Beastbots post, not about the belief in god section.YOU'RE the one who said Darwin belived in God, Razor, not me! you said and I quoteAre you perhaps referring to the Lady Hope incident? It's my understanding that's a widely believed myth, but if you're not then I'd like to hear more.Actually, that's true. Darwin did believe in God, and he was reluctant to bring his theory forward because of it. Justly or not, he regretted doing so much of the rest of his life.artemis-lady-warrior wrote:Darwin believed in God? When did that happen?
Okay, 2 AM, time for dinnerDarwin believed in God and had faith whilst also accepting evolution as a fact.
because from everything I've read about him he did not. Make up ypour mind.