Feralcatlady, you say that evolution is "still theory" but all you have is a book of fables, not facts. You have belief, not proof. Theory beats that hands down. Granted, there are probably holes in the evidence, but at least there is evidence. The Bible has none. Just because a story is written and a few real places and people are tossed in to make it look good, does not validate that the stories are true. Just because someone says its true, does not make it true. There may even be some stories based on events that happened, but I am sure they are not factual in every detail as some people believe. I don't care what people want to believe or who they worship, but the thing I don't understand is why you and others want to insist that you have the truth and the Bible is history and the word of God and that it is infallible. It is just not a reasonable statement. Therefore, no matter how smart, intelligent, kind and wonder you are, many people won't take you seriously. I believe your wrong Jeaniebean. I believe there is good evidence to believe the bible is true. What kind of church is it that your a priestess at. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Atheism Weak or Strong
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sat 01/31/09 10:54 AM
|
|
You are right Billy, I should not have commented, I dont know enough about it, I thought my post was a satisfactory answer.
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Atheism Weak or Strong
|
|
Truth is not non-contradictory, for example: light is a wave. light is a particle. Both statements are true and yet appear to contradict each other. Law of Non-Contradiction: (a) Not (p and not p) or (b) (for all x) not (x is P and x is not P). It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context. I think the notion of time is more inherent in the Law as we normally understand it , but that the notion of context is equally important. Example: A table can not be both made entirely of wood and not made entirely of wood. Possible Counter Example : Light (l) is both a particle (P) and a wave (W). It makes sense to then say that (for all l) not (l is P and l is not P) and this statement is true because light is both a particle and not a particle. Problem: Both notions of context and time were lost. For physicists light is only considered to be a wave or a particle depending on the nature (i.e. context) of the problem to be solved. Light is not considered to be both a particle and a wave at the same time. More Counter Examples ? P = mostly empty space and x = a table. Or perhaps, P = is free and x = Paul. In both these case it seems we still need to be both temporally and contextually sensitive. Nubby you would do well with a formal education. ______________________________________ Oh man just ran across this one its so great. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pusSNjBd8do Are you denying the law of non contradiction Billy? |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
This is biblical faith. So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for including God's existence yes which means "Nubby" ... you can only hope that God exist but you having faith doesn't mean that he does Actually it did happen to me at bible college. I had a genuine encounter with spirit of God. His word declares he does. so..er.."Nubby" ...when was the first and last time God spoke his word to you Actually it happened to me at bible college. It was absolutly random. I had a genuine encounter with the Holy Spirit. "Nubby".....why you tring to pull the trinity hustle on me I asked when was the first and last time God "SPOKE" his word to you ... the holy spirit never spoke a word in the entire bible ..."Nubby"...you really are a deceptive chap ...did God the father speak to you ...yes or no Yes I truly believe God spoke to me, and it was the only time God spoke. "Nubby" ..you truly believe????????? ...hell I truly believe I'm Batman to believe is to doubt..... funches 3:16 come on "Nubby" ...you're jerking around now ...ok ...so what new unknown knowledge did God tell you? "new unknown knowledge" in this case would be...what did God tell you that your neighbors talking dog couldn't have told you I have never experienced anything like it in my life. I don't believe its for you to know what He told me. I am being 100% honest. I would not joke or lie about this. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
Your a funny guy funches. how rude I didnt mean it that way. You said I pulled the "trinity hustle" I thought that was funny. Please forgive me if I offended you. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sat 01/31/09 06:44 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
Edited by
Nubby
on
Sat 01/31/09 06:02 AM
|
|
This is biblical faith. So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for including God's existence yes which means "Nubby" ... you can only hope that God exist but you having faith doesn't mean that he does Actually it did happen to me at bible college. I had a genuine encounter with spirit of God. His word declares he does. so..er.."Nubby" ...when was the first and last time God spoke his word to you Actually it happened to me at bible college. It was absolutly random. I had a genuine encounter with the Holy Spirit. "Nubby".....why you tring to pull the trinity hustle on me I asked when was the first and last time God "SPOKE" his word to you ... the holy spirit never spoke a word in the entire bible ..."Nubby"...you really are a deceptive chap ...did God the father speak to you ...yes or no Yes I truly believe God spoke to me, and it was the only time God spoke. |
|
|
|
I will not quote the cut and paste here but historical validity of the bible is questionable at best. Just like old folk stories, which the bible actually is, there is always a remnant of some place or event that may have actually happened in the story line but it does not make the folk tale historically valid at any point. Faith is just that believing blindly in something someone told you is truth without any proof of any kind. Science is the process of verifying facts to correspond with other facts and then draw a conclusion. No similarity there at all other than they both will be written by man How is the historical validity of the bible questionable? What folklore are you referring to? Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. Oh but it is a large leap of faith if you do not believe that the bible is true, right? Just like all scientific theories, it has to be true on more than one plane of facts in order to be considered a fact or true so where else does the bible ring true? Is Jesus part of history in any other town histories? How about birth records and such? Are any of these so called prophets documented anywhere? If not then they are part of folk lore. Folk lore like I said before usually has a smidgeon of something real in it be it a real location or maybe a real person but the rest of the story is someone's imagination, in the case of the bible it is many people's imagination, the original writers of the individual stories, the people who edited these stories to fit what they wanted them to say and the people in power who chose what actually made it into the bible and what was not of the "right" mindset to be included. If you take the TAUGHT reverence out of your thought process and read the bible as a story book, like it should have been done, then you can see the parables and lessons of the writers but you can also see the lack of fact. This comes from a debate btw. William Land Craig and Bart Erhman. Craig argues for the affirmative position. Take the time to read. This is why I treat the ressurection as highly probable. Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources. We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early. 2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources. Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb. 2. The tomb was discovered empty by women. In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons: 1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends. 2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. 2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." This is religious rhetoric nothing concrete there at all. Check the scholarship, read the whole debate. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
This is biblical faith. So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for including God's existence yes which means "Nubby" ... you can only hope that God exist but you having faith doesn't mean that he does Actually it did happen to me at bible college. I had a genuine encounter with spirit of God. His word declares he does. so..er.."Nubby" ...when was the first and last time God spoke his word to you Actually it happened to me at bible college. It was absolutly random. I had a genuine encounter with the Holy Spirit. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
This is biblical faith. So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for including God's existence yes which means "Nubby" ... you can only hope that God exist but you having faith doesn't mean that he does Actually it did happen to me at bible college. I had a genuine encounter with spirit of God. His word declares he does. so..er.."Nubby" ...when was the first and last time God spoke his word to you |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
This is biblical faith. So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for including God's existence yes which means "Nubby" ... you can only hope that God exist but you having faith doesn't mean that he does His word declares he does. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
if one get on a bike, and has not ridden, then there is doubt, which then riding improve or increase the faith, until the first falling off, then one doubt again, ride again, increase faith again, "DavidBen" ...maybe the person need training wheels instead of faith come on ...since faith refers to religion ...then can you give an example of faith using a religious example and not a science example... Biblical faith is different from the definition of faith. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
This is biblical faith. So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for including God's existence yes |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
if one get on a bike, and has not ridden, then there is doubt, which then riding improve or increase the faith, until the first falling off, then one doubt again, ride again, increase faith again, then the process keep repeating until the wheels of the bike leave the ground, then a new set of doubt - faith - evidence, doubt - faith - evidence, doubt - faith - evidence, keep going until riding into infinfity, none of the simple pro cess ever changing??? really happening all times second in human existence??? attempts to DEFINE and dicest into definitions only create smokes and hazes which hide only simple pro cess, and even turn to mountains of complex??? I agree. |
|
|
|
Topic:
Tell me what you think
|
|
This is biblical faith.
So what is the right definition of faith? "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," writes the author of Hebrews. A few verses later faith is similarly defined as knowing that God exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him. Perhaps the best word we can use to translate the Greek word “pistis” (usually translated faith) is the word "trust" or "trustworthy." Suppose you tell a friend that you have faith in her. What does that mean? It means two things. First, you are sure the person you are talking to actually exists. And second, you are convinced she is trustworthy; you can believe what she says and trust in her character. It is in this way that the writer of Hebrews talks about faith in God. Faith is knowing that God is real and that you can trust in his promises. You cannot trust someone who isn't there, nor can you rely on someone whose promises are not reliable. This is why faith is talked about as the substance of things hoped for and as the evidence of things not seen. Both words carry with them a sense of reality. Our hope is not wishful thinking. Faith does not make God real. On the contrary, faith is the response to a real God who has made Himself known to us: "I am the LORD, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting men may know there is none besides me" (Isaiah 45:5-6). Ever since the Church began, the refrain has always been the same: Come, believe, follow the light of the world. It has never appealed for people to leap into the dark; no such invitation is found anywhere in Scripture. Instead, we are called to step into the light. The Christian gospel is not a message that revels in ignorance. It is the revelation of God in the person of Christ, so that we might know there is none besides Him. The Christian is called to see things as they really are, and not as he would simply like them to be. We trust in a God who has revealed Himself. We believe because God is real. The Christian gospel invites you to delve into reality. It commands you to be honest in your commitment to know that which is true. Is Jesus real? Who did he claim to be? Is he really alive today? Faith comes in response to knowing the answers to these questions, even as Christ is calling you near. But don’t stop after the initial introductions! Just as you are able to put more trust in someone as you grow to know him, so faith increases as you grow in your relationship with Christ. There is a God who is real and true, and He is calling you unto Himself. The great joy of the Christian faith is found in the person who invites us to trust and believe. |
|
|
|
No offense smiles
|
|
|
|
My cat has cabin fever. Can you do anything for my cat? Bahahahhaaahahahahaah |
|
|
|
Edited by
Nubby
on
Fri 01/30/09 01:55 PM
|
|
I will not quote the cut and paste here but historical validity of the bible is questionable at best. Just like old folk stories, which the bible actually is, there is always a remnant of some place or event that may have actually happened in the story line but it does not make the folk tale historically valid at any point. Faith is just that believing blindly in something someone told you is truth without any proof of any kind. Science is the process of verifying facts to correspond with other facts and then draw a conclusion. No similarity there at all other than they both will be written by man How is the historical validity of the bible questionable? What folklore are you referring to? Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. Oh but it is a large leap of faith if you do not believe that the bible is true, right? Just like all scientific theories, it has to be true on more than one plane of facts in order to be considered a fact or true so where else does the bible ring true? Is Jesus part of history in any other town histories? How about birth records and such? Are any of these so called prophets documented anywhere? If not then they are part of folk lore. Folk lore like I said before usually has a smidgeon of something real in it be it a real location or maybe a real person but the rest of the story is someone's imagination, in the case of the bible it is many people's imagination, the original writers of the individual stories, the people who edited these stories to fit what they wanted them to say and the people in power who chose what actually made it into the bible and what was not of the "right" mindset to be included. If you take the TAUGHT reverence out of your thought process and read the bible as a story book, like it should have been done, then you can see the parables and lessons of the writers but you can also see the lack of fact. This comes from a debate btw. William Land Craig and Bart Erhman. Craig argues for the affirmative position. Take the time to read. This is why I treat the ressurection as highly probable. Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following: 1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources. We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early. 2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus. For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.” Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources. Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb. 2. The tomb was discovered empty by women. In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.” Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons: 1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred. Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends. 2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.” Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. 2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him." |
|
|
|
Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. But that is exactly what it has become, with the scientific advances that have been made, that prove point after biblical point wrong. Hardly, I would argue that science in no way contradicts the bible. As far as evidence goes, I will give you one example. The ressurection of Jesus Christ. The Bible says the earth is THOUSANDS of years old Science has come up with methods that place the actual age at BILLIONS of years old. The Bible does not say the earth is a thousand years old. |
|
|
|
Biblical faith is not meant to be a vacuous leap as it were. But that is exactly what it has become, with the scientific advances that have been made, that prove point after biblical point wrong. Hardly, I would argue that science in no way contradicts the bible. As far as evidence goes, I will give you one example. The ressurection of Jesus Christ. The Bible says the earth is THOUSANDS of years old Science has come up with methods that place the actual age at BILLIONS of years old. The days in Genesis are not necessarily twenty four hour days. The word yom in Hebrew means both a twenty four hour period and a period of undetermined time. So the length of creative days in Genesis is not specified. |
|
|