Deep theological question

[Momof3]

Then, if you don't want to mock, you don't bring it up in conjunction with belief systems if you don't want to seem mocking, and don't use obvious "I'm not going to insult it openly" techniques.

 

Though I should point out that modern day Catholics certainly do believe in saints such as Saint Nicolas.

 

 

The difference is that when well-meaning adults tell kids about Santa, they know he's not real, but when they tell their kids about their religion they generally believe it is. Children tend to believe both uncritically, because they don't think their parents are out to lie to them.

 

Those three groups (Incan religion, ancient Greek religion, Santa Claus) were the three I remember seeing in this thread. They were each presented to promote the same argument...Christian beliefs parallel this line of thinking, Christians reject this line of thinking as obviously fantastical, therefore Christians should recognize their own beliefs as fantastical. I brought it up only to say that I think this belongs to another thread. Not sure what you mean by techniques... If you read back through the thread, I think you'll find that the posters who brought up each of these groups were not questioning the sincerity of the Incans or ancient Greeks. They were attempting to show Christianity to be fantastical.

 

Okay. Not sure why the mention of pagans then. In context of the original post about Santa, I don't think anyone was thinking about St. Nick. 

 

What I said before about a different thread.

[Joanne]

Yes, there are parallels between any belief systems. My point is that this is not a thread about the parallels between any belief systems. 

 

You are definitely entitled to your own opinion. Do you want to start a thread about the unbelievability (not a word) of Christianity as it parallels other fantastical belief systems? 

 

I'm not mocking here, either. Just trying to stay on topic. 

 

I am not talking about parallels. That IS a fascinating topic to me, and I did a paper on that in college (omg) 30 years ago. :)

 

I'm talking about the nature of the stories being framed as myths. Norse Myths, Greek Myths, Roman Myths, Christian Myths.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

If you read back through the thread, I think you'll find that the posters who brought up each of these groups were not questioning the sincerity of the Incans or ancient Greeks. They were attempting to show Christianity to be fantastical.

 

Obviously. But they didn't do it in the same comment as accusing others of mocking their own beliefs. You did. I said in my own comment that it was the hypocrisy that bothered me.

 

Again, this is where we're talking over/past each other. You want to presuppose that there is no god.

 

Do you intend to reply to what albeto actually said, which was on the subject of sin and why your idea that sin even exists and is innate colors your worldview?

 

Yes, there are parallels between any belief systems. My point is that this is not a thread about the parallels between any belief systems.

 

Are you reading the replies you get? Because that comment wasn't about "parallels between belief systems", ie, many people have a flood legend or lots of folks think the ethic of reciprocity is a good idea. It's about "how can you accept the impossible things in your religion, and not the impossible things in other people's religions?"

 

[albeto.]

Again, this is where we're talking over/past each other. You want to presuppose that there is no god.

 

What makes you say this is a presupposition on my part?

 

The point of the thread is to address why God does not speak to us today in the way(s) that He used to. To address this question, I need to presuppose that there is a God.

 

What happens if you don't? What happens if you instead take the evidence on face value and go from there?

 

Yes, that involves faith. Not blind faith (I disagree with your dismissal of any reason to believe in the existence of a perfect standard), but again, this is for another thread. This thread was not about the existence of God. It's about radio silence.

 

Cognitive bias. Yes, we all have that to some measure. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm discussing. :)

 

The blinders, the ignoring evidence, is what you call "faith." You don't see it as blind but you see that you must start with a particular belief? How do you differentiate the two? The faith, as I see it, is wilful ignoring of the evidence, it is the presupposition that the god hypothesis is accurate and reflects reality. It is to believe the claims are true without reason, based only on the trust that it is true. In any other context would you see that as not having blinders? Let me offer some examples to help illustrate my point:

Captain, there's artillery fire at the front line.

Oh. Let's start with the presupposition that the enemy is miles away.

 

Mom, I can't seem to get my crush off my mind and this worries me because we're both boys.

Hmm, well let's start with the presupposition that there exists a perfect standard of human behavior in the form of Jesus, and that if you genuinely seek him and pray in earnest, he'll repair or replenish what you need to be "whole, at least more than you are now.

 

Doctor, I have a lump in my breast.

I see. Let's start with the presupposition that the lump isn't anything to be concerned with and check your thyroid instead.

 

This all plays into the radio silence of the god of the bible. As Tanaqui says, children tend to believe what their parents tell them (and model for them) uncritically. It's a natural instinct. If the OP is like the majority of people in the United States, she grew up in a home that at least recognized the possibility of the existence of the god as represented in some way in the bible. Certainly she grew up on a society that does. If I recall correctly, she grew up going to church, participating in the sacraments and rituals of her religious community, accepted the claims of the faith as generally true, even if certain details were tweaked here and there along the way. Lately she's been questioning these claims. She's starting to see the logical blind spots and asking herself (and us) what presuppositions have been taken for granted as being reliable? Prayer, miracles, God watching out for her, are some of those presuppositions she no longer trusts on face value. You do. Why do you not consider the possibility God is silent? Why do you not accept that events can be explained more reasonably in the line of cause and effect? Why do you assume that your emotions, your feelings, your faith is indicative of reality in this aspect of life, but not others? Why do you not apply the same skepticism towards your own religious beliefs as you do towards others? kwim? These are the blinders I see, and others who are not invested in a similar belief system will see.

 

Now you've got me curious. Why do you disagree with the idea of a perfect standard of human behavior? Upon what do you base this idea? Is there an objective, unbiased source for identifying this perfect standard, or is it simply a part of your belief system, another presupposition to be applied uncritically?

[Momof3]

I am not talking about parallels. That IS a fascinating topic to me, and I did a paper on that in college (omg) 30 years ago. :)

 

I'm talking about the nature of the stories being framed as myths. Norse Myths, Greek Myths, Roman Myths, Christian Myths.

 

Yes. This is why I suggested another thread. 

[Momof3]

Obviously. But they didn't do it in the same comment as accusing others of mocking their own beliefs. You did. I said in my own comment that it was the hypocrisy that bothered me.

 

 

Do you intend to reply to what albeto actually said, which was on the subject of sin and why your idea that sin even exists and is innate colors your worldview?

 

 

Are you reading the replies you get? Because that comment wasn't about "parallels between belief systems", ie, many people have a flood legend or lots of folks think the ethic of reciprocity is a good idea. It's about "how can you accept the impossible things in your religion, and not the impossible things in other people's religions?"

 

Yes, you said that. But I wasn't mocking. I was addressing all three together, bc they have been used together in this thread (not in the same post, but to express the same argument). 

 

*Sigh* If you (or albeto, or anyone else) want to start a thread about whether sin exists, and if the convo is going in an intelligent & civil direction...I might engage. :) 

 

This is the parallel: Greek myths are fantastical. Bible stories are fantastical. Greek myths are not true. Bible stories are not true. 

[albeto.]

*Sigh* If you (or albeto, or anyone else) want to start a thread about whether sin exists, and if the convo is going in an intelligent & civil direction...I might engage. :)

 

You don't see the connection between sin and miracles and whether or not God is still active, less active, hiding, or an illusion - as it pertains to the OP?

 

I see a direct correlation. Without sin, redemption is not necessary. If redemption is unnecessary, a redeemer is unnecessary. If the identified redeemer is in actuality a synchronization of Jewish and Roman mythological stories and characters, rather than a historical god-man sent to offer redemption, it explains why the stories in the bible aren't repeated today. If today's miracles are really events that escape the comprehension or understanding of the individual, it explains why the stories in the bible aren't repeated today. Perhaps there are other explanations. The ones offered so far are not logical or reasonable, and are not even universally acknowledged by Christians themselves. This leaves the explanation, no true scotsman, the only option. As that is a known logical fallacy, it doesn't actually explain anything, it simply rationalizes another blind spot. Exposing and dissecting these blind spots may feel like mockery or disrespectful jabs, but they're not.

 

However, I don't mind ignoring this point (for now or at all). It's my opinion, my observations, and admittedly does jump to the end of the train of thinking. I would start a new thread but people seem to think I'm pulling a bait and switch, or somehow luring them in for some nefarious purpose. People tend to ignore the threads I start, so I won't start one, but I would join one. The concept of sin, what it is understood to be, what it is understood to do, how it impacts our interpretation and reaction of certain events is a fascinating topic for me.

[TranquilMind]

I do believe God is still is at work and speaks/leads us today -- through His Church.  He came to earth to start a church, did so, has kept and keeps it going (it never became apostate, how could it?), and it is His earthly presence as it is, after all, called His Body.  It's what He speaks through -- we do hear His voice today.This is coming from a pre-denominational perspective; believing that the original church still exists today, in an unbroken line from the time of Pentecost, even though some groups have, yes, split off into what has become known as denominations. 

 

With that as the background of where I'm coming from, I "hear" God through the prayers we pray at church, through the holy writings that have been handed down throughout time, through learning about the lives of the saints and martyrs, through the liturgical and seasonal cycles, through the songs we sing, through the homilies we hear, through the icons we see and the Bible we read, through the communion we have with the believers we're worshiping with even if we're very, very unlike each other in every day life -- through it all, really.  It's all unified, everything, teaching the same thing, throughout both time and space -- nothing new added, nothing taken away, the same from the beginning. This unbroken unity that speaks to me and it's very loud and clear and even tangible -- if this church is still united like this after 2000 years, having developed its practices and worship in different locations throughout times, that's pretty amazing (I'd say miraculous) and that speaks to me both intellectually and spiritually. It allows me to "cleave unto Him for the hope of my salvation" (according to one of our pre-communion prayers).

 

Speaking from my experience; not speaking to anyone else's. 

He does speak through his Church, but He also "speaks" to us, but it is more like that nagging thought to go give that woman $100, or don't say anything when your child says (some crazy thing).   He "speaks" through His Word.  He "speaks" through someone else to you sometimes, giving you an answer to something, though that person doesn't know it usually, but you do. 

 

Just so many ways, but all in alignment with His Word.  So if someone shows up and says, "Hey, I'm Jesus...back to lead you", you know better. 

[TranquilMind]

What makes you say this is a presupposition on my part?

 

What happens if you don't? What happens if you instead take the evidence on face value and go from there?

 

The blinders, the ignoring evidence, is what you call "faith." You don't see it as blind but you see that you must start with a particular belief? How do you differentiate the two? The faith, as I see it, is wilful ignoring of the evidence, it is the presupposition that the god hypothesis is accurate and reflects reality. It is to believe the claims are true without reason, based only on the trust that it is true. In any other context would you see that as not having blinders? Let me offer some examples to help illustrate my point:

Captain, there's artillery fire at the front line.

Oh. Let's start with the presupposition that the enemy is miles away.

 

Mom, I can't seem to get my crush off my mind and this worries me because we're both boys.

Hmm, well let's start with the presupposition that there exists a perfect standard of human behavior in the form of Jesus, and that if you genuinely seek him and pray in earnest, he'll repair or replenish what you need to be "whole, at least more than you are now.

 

Doctor, I have a lump in my breast.

I see. Let's start with the presupposition that the lump isn't anything to be concerned with and check your thyroid instead.

 

This all plays into the radio silence of the god of the bible. As Tanaqui says, children tend to believe what their parents tell them (and model for them) uncritically. It's a natural instinct. If the OP is like the majority of people in the United States, she grew up in a home that at least recognized the possibility of the existence of the god as represented in some way in the bible. Certainly she grew up on a society that does. If I recall correctly, she grew up going to church, participating in the sacraments and rituals of her religious community, accepted the claims of the faith as generally true, even if certain details were tweaked here and there along the way. Lately she's been questioning these claims. She's starting to see the logical blind spots and asking herself (and us) what presuppositions have been taken for granted as being reliable? Prayer, miracles, God watching out for her, are some of those presuppositions she no longer trusts on face value. You do. Why do you not consider the possibility God is silent? Why do you not accept that events can be explained more reasonably in the line of cause and effect? Why do you assume that your emotions, your feelings, your faith is indicative of reality in this aspect of life, but not others? Why do you not apply the same skepticism towards your own religious beliefs as you do towards others? kwim? These are the blinders I see, and others who are not invested in a similar belief system will see.

 

Now you've got me curious. Why do you disagree with the idea of a perfect standard of human behavior? Upon what do you base this idea? Is there an objective, unbiased source for identifying this perfect standard, or is it simply a part of your belief system, another presupposition to be applied uncritically?

Using ridiculously inappropriate examples at the far extremes does not help you here. 

[Tanaqui]

 

He does speak through his Church, but He also "speaks" to us, but it is more like that nagging thought to go give that woman $100, or don't say anything when your child says (some crazy thing).   He "speaks" through His Word.  He "speaks" through someone else to you sometimes, giving you an answer to something, though that person doesn't know it usually, but you do. 

 

Just so many ways, but all in alignment with His Word.  So if someone shows up and says, "Hey, I'm Jesus...back to lead you", you know better.

 

That's a conveniently unprovable argument, given that it's completely indistinguishable from ones own thoughts.

[DragonFaerie]

He does speak through his Church, but He also "speaks" to us, but it is more like that nagging thought to go give that woman $100, or don't say anything when your child says (some crazy thing).   He "speaks" through His Word.  He "speaks" through someone else to you sometimes, giving you an answer to something, though that person doesn't know it usually, but you do. 

 

Just so many ways, but all in alignment with His Word.  So if someone shows up and says, "Hey, I'm Jesus...back to lead you", you know better. 

 

And all of this seems to completely discount that much-touted notion of free will.  If we have free will, why would you attribute your actions to God's telling you to do something rather than you exercising your own free will in deciding to donate that money or not to argue with your child or whatever?

This is another point for me about why I dislike Christianity.  These kinds of ideas completely discount the notion of personal responsibility.  If a person does something good, it's because God told him to do it.  If he does something bad, it's because the Devil was influencing him. But then, where is free will in all of this?  Yes, you could say that you are still choosing whether to do or not to do, but then if you are making the choice, why would you say it was God or the Devil and not yourself?

 

I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility myself.  If I screw up, it's not because the Devil made me do it.  It's because I screwed up.  I made a bad decision or didn't follow my own better judgement.  I'm not going to blame the Devil.  Likewise, if I do something nice, donate money or buy someone groceries or whatever, I attribute that to my better, more generous side.  Good for me.  I did something right today.  I don't need God or the Devil to blame for my actions, be they good or bad.  That, to me, is free will, not this God/Devil told me to do it business.

[albeto.]

Using ridiculously inappropriate examples at the far extremes does not help you here. 

 

They're only ridiculous because you wouldn't employ them there. But the same logic is employed with regard to sin. So, not inappropriate at all. They are quite directly related.

[Momof3]

What makes you say this is a presupposition on my part?

 

What happens if you don't? What happens if you instead take the evidence on face value and go from there?

 

The blinders, the ignoring evidence, is what you call "faith." You don't see it as blind but you see that you must start with a particular belief? How do you differentiate the two? The faith, as I see it, is wilful ignoring of the evidence, it is the presupposition that the god hypothesis is accurate and reflects reality. It is to believe the claims are true without reason, based only on the trust that it is true. In any other context would you see that as not having blinders? Let me offer some examples to help illustrate my point:

Captain, there's artillery fire at the front line.

Oh. Let's start with the presupposition that the enemy is miles away.

 

Mom, I can't seem to get my crush off my mind and this worries me because we're both boys.

Hmm, well let's start with the presupposition that there exists a perfect standard of human behavior in the form of Jesus, and that if you genuinely seek him and pray in earnest, he'll repair or replenish what you need to be "whole, at least more than you are now.

 

Doctor, I have a lump in my breast.

I see. Let's start with the presupposition that the lump isn't anything to be concerned with and check your thyroid instead.

 

This all plays into the radio silence of the god of the bible. As Tanaqui says, children tend to believe what their parents tell them (and model for them) uncritically. It's a natural instinct. If the OP is like the majority of people in the United States, she grew up in a home that at least recognized the possibility of the existence of the god as represented in some way in the bible. Certainly she grew up on a society that does. If I recall correctly, she grew up going to church, participating in the sacraments and rituals of her religious community, accepted the claims of the faith as generally true, even if certain details were tweaked here and there along the way. Lately she's been questioning these claims. She's starting to see the logical blind spots and asking herself (and us) what presuppositions have been taken for granted as being reliable? Prayer, miracles, God watching out for her, are some of those presuppositions she no longer trusts on face value. You do. Why do you not consider the possibility God is silent? Why do you not accept that events can be explained more reasonably in the line of cause and effect? Why do you assume that your emotions, your feelings, your faith is indicative of reality in this aspect of life, but not others? Why do you not apply the same skepticism towards your own religious beliefs as you do towards others? kwim? These are the blinders I see, and others who are not invested in a similar belief system will see.

 

Now you've got me curious. Why do you disagree with the idea of a perfect standard of human behavior? Upon what do you base this idea? Is there an objective, unbiased source for identifying this perfect standard, or is it simply a part of your belief system, another presupposition to be applied uncritically?

 

Is it not? You used to believe in God. Now you don't. So somewhere along the line you chose to not believe in God. Since God cannot be disproved (right?) that's a supposition. (Not saying you don't have any evidence to support your belief.) Since God cannot be disproved (right?), it's a supposition. You're bringing it into this thread. I should have said...the OP is assuming the existence of God in her question. I'm here to discuss her question & some possible answers...not to debate the existence of God. [Not that that's not a discussion we could have on another thread. I like discussion as long as it stays civil. :) But see my last comments below...]

 

I mean for the sake of answering her question. Not for life in general.

 

Starting with a particular belief for the sake of answering OP's question in this thread. (See above.) 

 

Sorry, that's my fault for not being clearer... Skepticism... You are assuming a lot here. That I blindly believe what my parents taught me as a child, critically examining other belief systems but not my own, finding no evidence to support what I believe (b/c according to you, there is none), turning a blind eye to the myriad of evidence that contradicts my belief system, etc. These are assumptions you are making. I don't have time to address this here. I can assure you that none of the above is true...but that's not something within the realm of this thread. You could start a thread asking Christians whether they have blind faith...or how they respond when they find evidence contradicting their belief system...or whatever. 

 

Was going to say...I'll keep my eye out for any other threads you start...but I saw your next post...so see below.

 

 

 

You don't see the connection between sin and miracles and whether or not God is still active, less active, hiding, or an illusion - as it pertains to the OP?

 

I see a direct correlation. Without sin, redemption is not necessary. If redemption is unnecessary, a redeemer is unnecessary. If the identified redeemer is in actuality a synchronization of Jewish and Roman mythological stories and characters, rather than a historical god-man sent to offer redemption, it explains why the stories in the bible aren't repeated today. If today's miracles are really events that escape the comprehension or understanding of the individual, it explains why the stories in the bible aren't repeated today. Perhaps there are other explanations. The ones offered so far are not logical or reasonable, and are not even universally acknowledged by Christians themselves. This leaves the explanation, no true scotsman, the only option. As that is a known logical fallacy, it doesn't actually explain anything, it simply rationalizes another blind spot. Exposing and dissecting these blind spots may feel like mockery or disrespectful jabs, but they're not.

 

 

 

 

Pretty much anything is connected to some extent. And when you're talking theology, yes. Definitely intertwined. Today's miracles...you can see that article 6packoffun linked. That's my take on today's miracles. Universally acknowledged by Christians... "Christian" is a terribly broad term. Universal acknowledgment does not denote truth. Presentation of fact/truth itself is not mockery, no. 

 

I do believe in sin... I do believe in evil. I don't pretend to have all the answers about this. I don't know of any rationalist who presumes to have all the answers either. But I do have explanations. And what I believe is observable. The evidence is all around me. Just like I have read explanations for why there is *no* sin/evil. I find the evidence for the existence of sin more convincing than the evidence against such an existence. You are welcome to provide me with evidence to support your views about sin/evil. I just don't have the time to put my thoughts together about every facet of my worldview... I can't afford to live at the Hive. :) I usually only join a thread when I have something to contribute, or a question to be answered. But maybe sometime when I have the time I can the start the 'existence of sin' thread for you. :)

 

 

However, I don't mind ignoring this point (for now or at all). It's my opinion, my observations, and admittedly does jump to the end of the train of thinking. I would start a new thread but people seem to think I'm pulling a bait and switch, or somehow luring them in for some nefarious purpose. People tend to ignore the threads I start, so I won't start one, but I would join one. The concept of sin, what it is understood to be, what it is understood to do, how it impacts our interpretation and reaction of certain events is a fascinating topic for me.

[TranquilMind]

And all of this seems to completely discount that much-touted notion of free will.  If we have free will, why would you attribute your actions to God's telling you to do something rather than you exercising your own free will in deciding to donate that money or not to argue with your child or whatever?

This is another point for me about why I dislike Christianity.  These kinds of ideas completely discount the notion of personal responsibility.  If a person does something good, it's because God told him to do it.  If he does something bad, it's because the Devil was influencing him. But then, where is free will in all of this?  Yes, you could say that you are still choosing whether to do or not to do, but then if you are making the choice, why would you say it was God or the Devil and not yourself?

 

I am a huge proponent of personal responsibility myself.  If I screw up, it's not because the Devil made me do it.  It's because I screwed up.  I made a bad decision or didn't follow my own better judgement.  I'm not going to blame the Devil.  Likewise, if I do something nice, donate money or buy someone groceries or whatever, I attribute that to my better, more generous side.  Good for me.  I did something right today.  I don't need God or the Devil to blame for my actions, be they good or bad.  That, to me, is free will, not this God/Devil told me to do it business.

Well, because you have the choice to do it or not.  Just because you know that God is directing you to do something does not remove your ability to do it or not.  He doesn't force you, like an automaton. 

 

God doesn't tell you to do EVERY good thing.  Sure, you choose regularly to do good things or not.  But sometimes, He may specifically tell you to do something.  And you may be listening and do it (or not). 

 

If you do bad things, you do them because you want to.  Your flesh cooperates with fleshly desires, so to speak.  You can still decline, or you can go with it and jump in. 

 

It's all your own responsibility, properly understood, but it is foolish to discount influences, because we all are influenced, whether we recognize it or not. 

[Jasperstone]

 

Jasperstone, you are another one who clearly doesn't understand the theory of evolution. You are continually confusing it for Lamarck's ideas. Please, open up a book and spend the next few days reading before trying to talk about it. It's embarrassing, and I'm not entirely sure I have the patience to walk you through the very basics.

 

 

As, long as you pick up the bible, and spend some days reading it, as your knowledge of Christianity is embarrassing, as well. ;-)

 

Have no interests in doing that? Well, what makes you think that I have?

 

Stop trying to belittle, and dominant me. It's not the first time either. I'm not making you post, or quote me......it's your choice. So, if you are tired, or bored with my posts then you are free to stop reading and commenting. It's not like you own this site. Geez....

[albeto.]

Is it not? You used to believe in God. Now you don't. So somewhere along the line you chose to not believe in God. Since God cannot be disproved (right?) that's a supposition. (Not saying you don't have any evidence to support your belief.) Since God cannot be disproved (right?), it's a supposition. You're bringing it into this thread. I should have said...the OP is assuming the existence of God in her question. I'm here to discuss her question & some possible answers...not to debate the existence of God. [Not that that's not a discussion we could have on another thread. I like discussion as long as it stays civil. :) But see my last comments below...]

 

I mean for the sake of answering her question. Not for life in general.

 

Starting with a particular belief for the sake of answering OP's question in this thread. (See above.)

The OP is asking why God is silent today when he was more present in the world 2000 years ago. It's not a presupposition to say the answer is because he doesn't exist and the stories from 2000 years ago weren't real historical events. It's a reasonable conclusion when taking all the evidence and lines of argument into account.

 

Sorry, that's my fault for not being clearer... Skepticism... You are assuming a lot here. That I blindly believe what my parents taught me as a child, critically examining other belief systems but not my own, finding no evidence to support what I believe (b/c according to you, there is none), turning a blind eye to the myriad of evidence that contradicts my belief system, etc. These are assumptions you are making. I don't have time to address this here. I can assure you that none of the above is true...but that's not something within the realm of this thread. You could start a thread asking Christians whether they have blind faith...or how they respond when they find evidence contradicting their belief system...or whatever.

Your careful examination of your faith doesn't prevent cognitive dissonance with regard to the faith. In some measure, faith does accept a claim as true, not based on the merits of evidence but based on belief it's true. That's the definition of faith. That's what faith is. That's not to say every thought with regard to your religion is motivated by blind faith, but if you had no faith, you would not hold your religious beliefs.

 

Or let me put it this way, if your religious beliefs could be proven with evidence, you wouldn't need faith. How then would salvation even work?

 

I'm saying that faith represents a claim accepted as true even against the evidence to the contrary. At that point (whatever that point is for you), the critical examination is suppressed. This is universal among all Christians.

 

Pretty much anything is connected to some extent. And when you're talking theology, yes. Definitely intertwined. Today's miracles...you can see that article 6packoffun linked. That's my take on today's miracles.

I disagree pretty much anything is connected to some extent. Earlier someone suggested suffering is connected to God's grace. I fail to see that connection in any way, just by way of example.

 

Can you share an example of a legitimate miracle?

 

I do believe in sin... I do believe in evil. I don't pretend to have all the answers about this. I don't know of any rationalist who presumes to have all the answers either. But I do have explanations. And what I believe is observable. The evidence is all around me. Just like I have read explanations for why there is *no* sin/evil. I find the evidence for the existence of sin more convincing than the evidence against such an existence. You are welcome to provide me with evidence to support your views about sin/evil. I just don't have the time to put my thoughts together about every facet of my worldview... I can't afford to live at the Hive. :) I usually only join a thread when I have something to contribute, or a question to be answered. But maybe sometime when I have the time I can the start the 'existence of sin' thread for you. :)

Do you have time to share one piece of evidence for sin that you see?

 

[albeto.]

As, long ad you pick up the bible, and spend some days reading it, as your knowledge of Christianity is embarrassing, as well.

 

Have no interests in doing that? Well, what makes you think that I have?

 

Stop trying to belittle, and dominant me. It's not the first time either. I'm not making you post, or quote me......it's your choice. So, if you are tired, or bored with my posts then you are free to stop reading and commenting. It's not like you own this site. Geez....

 

It's not "belittling" or "dominating" to correct factual errors.

 

Bizarre questions that lampoon known information hardly contributes to the conversation in any meaningful way. You might consider looking at the thread linked for Teannika earlier. It's helpful, and any questions you have would be appropriate there, or on another thread.

[Tanaqui]

As, long as you pick up the bible, and spend some days reading it, as your knowledge of Christianity is embarrassing, as well. ;-)

 

 

If I've said something about Christianity that's flawed, then by all means - correct it! I enjoy learning new things.

 

(Although - tangent - I realize that we have multiple Christians on this thread with multiple points of view. Seriously, do y'all agree on anything? :p We've got one Christian "this isn't a time of miracles" and another "yup, they happen every day!", for crying out loud!)

 

Have no interests in doing that? Well, what makes you think that I have?

 

Your participation in this thread.

 

 

 

[Jasperstone]

If I applied that standard when you guys make a comment about God, that we don't agree with. ..

And then if I said- what you are saying is embarrassing, and to come back *when* you have spent days reading His Word etc...

 

I'm sure I'd would be pounced upon by you atheists etc. ..

 

And you have every right to, as it was rudely said.

 

 

It's not "belittling" or "dominating" to correct factual errors.

 

Bizarre questions that lampoon known information hardly contributes to the conversation in any meaningful way. You might consider looking at the thread linked for Teannika earlier. It's helpful, and any questions you have would be appropriate there, or on another thread.

[Jasperstone]

If I've said something about Christianity that's flawed, then by all means - correct it! I enjoy learning new things.

 

(Although - tangent - I realize that we have multiple Christians on this thread with multiple points of view. Seriously, do y'all agree on anything? :p We've got one Christian "this isn't a time of miracles" and another "yup, they happen every day!", for crying out loud!)

 

 

Your participation in this thread.

I answer your questions the best I can. I'm not linking up websites and expecting you to become an expert on my beliefs. But you tell me that my knowledge is embarrassing, and to go away until I'm better informed.

 

Would you say that to a new homeschooler?

[Tanaqui]

But you tell me that my knowledge is embarrassing, and to go away until I'm better informed. Would you do that to a new homeschooler?

 

I would if they showed up and kept saying things like "I don't care if my kids ever learn anything, learning is a waste of time" and acted like it was an affront that people expected them to learn about things.

[Jasperstone]

I would if they showed up and kept saying things like "I don't care if my kids ever learn anything, learning is a waste of time" and acted like it was an affront that people expected them to learn about things.

 

 

Saying that I'm not interesting reading the book for days on end that you quoted, or links you put up, is different than learning from what others here write.

 

It's just a brush off to keep linking up links to answer questions. Can't you explain it in your own words? And if you can't be bothered, then fine. .... you can move onto someone else. I haven't locked you in, or anything.

[Tanaqui]

Jasperstone, in your own words you said, with regards to learning something you know very little about

 

Have no interests in doing that? Well, what makes you think that I have?

 

This is what I just don't get. If you, by your own admission, have no interest in learning, and you know nothing on the subject, why are you here talking about it? I have no interest in learning about soccer. I know nothing on the subject. So when other people are talking about soccer, I do something else. Anything else. I don't keep interrupting to let them know how stupid I think soccer is.

 

Edit: And once again, I'd be interested and willing to hear anything you have to say regarding whatever you think I got wrong about Christianity. I don't like being wrong, and I like learning new things. If I made a mistake, please, don't leave me hanging - let me know!
 

It's just a brush off to keep linking up links to answer questions.

 

No, it's not. It's helping you. When you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. When you teach a man how to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life. If I wanted to insult you, I'd just link to let me google that for you, because honestly, I think that site is hilarious. (The people I send there may be somewhat less amused, I admit.)

 

You're not a child. You're not in school. You're not learning everything at your mama's knee. You need to be able to find your own information.

 

Can't you explain it in your own words?

 

Verily, my words are little pearls of wisdom. It wounds me to the very core to see them ignored, cast aside like so much trash when they should be treasured.

 

So, no. I actually cannot.

 

Besides, I'm not terribly good at explaining. That's why I use links. If those links can help me learn, they can help you learn. Why should I re-invent the wheel? You'd rather have a crappy personal explanation than a really good link?

 

And if you can't be bothered, then fine. .... you can move onto someone else.

 

As could you, since you as much as said you cannot be bothered to learn anything. Again, why are you here trying to talk about evolution when you don't know anything about it? There are so many other conversations going on in this thread, and so many other threads out there, why join in on the one conversation where you know so little? That doesn't make much sense to me, I'm afraid.

 

 

[Jasperstone]

I was talking about the book you told me to go away and read.

 

And that's why I said-

that's like me telling you to go and read the Bible....

 

I betya you wouldn't care to do that either. Apply the above to yourself and see where the double standards lie.

[Tanaqui]

I suggested that you should educate yourself on a subject before you criticize it. I did not mention any specific book, because I don't have any good ones on hand to advise, and I didn't think you would go read one if I did. Would you?

 

Here's the thing. If I really thought you were interested in learning, and thinking critically, I would fall all over myself to help you out. There is nothing I enjoy more than learning, except possibly sharing that joy with others. Even if you ultimately still didn't believe in evolution, I'd be glad that you'd at least learned some better arguments against it, because I am so tired of the same old boring ones which I could refute in my sleep. (I like arguing and debating a whole bunch too.)

 

But... you're not. This isn't my feeling or a guess or a prejudice against you, you outright said that you're not.

 

So I'm not going to put myself out there. The links are for you if you choose to read them, but otherwise I'm assuming that other people reading this thread will be interested enough to read them, after all, they're interesting links. I mean, biological immortality in jellyfish? Parasite plants taking genes from their hosts? From my perspective, how could you NOT think this is the coolest stuff ever? Okay, clearly you don't, we can't all have the same tastes, but somebody else is bound to, and it's just gonna rock their socks off. How could I possibly resist the chance to make somebody's day a little more interesting, sharing something I learned with the world?

 

Really, you're doing me a favor. If I didn't have you to talk to, I'd have to just sit on these links, and I wouldn't be able to share them with anybody. I would be a sad Tanaqui. :crying:  But because you might find them useful if you cared to read them, I get to share them with the entire board. Yay! Go me!

 

Edit: Also, I actually have read the Bible. Years ago, back when I found out about the Dead Sea Scrolls and realized that several of them weren't in the Bible and then found out about the whole selection process for putting books into the Bible. It made me very interested in the subject for a brief time, and I was interested to find out how the rejected books compared to the accepted ones. Like I said, I enjoy learning new things.

 

Edit again: I should point out that in Christian-majority countries, many atheists have read the Bible. Some, like me, who were always atheists (or at least non-religious) read it because they were interested. Quite a few read it out of self-defense - they want to have different verses to quote at people, or they want to find all the inconsistencies, that sort of thing. Some find spiritual or emotional meaning in certain books of the Bible, even though they of course don't consider it a holy text (although if the selected quotes are representative, we don't generally appreciate the same ones Christians do. Atheists, on the whole, seem to be much fonder of Ecclesiastes!) And, of course, many many atheists were once Christians, and read the Bible then. If you click that last link, you'll find some Bible verses that are very applicable to this conversation.

 

 

[albeto.]

If I applied that standard when you guys make a comment about God, that we don't agree with. ..

And then if I said- what you are saying is embarrassing, and to come back *when* you have spent days reading His Word etc...

 

I'm sure I'd would be pounced upon by you atheists etc. ..

 

And you have every right to, as it was rudely said.

 

 

 

This doesn't have anything to do with the comment of mine you quoted.

 

Correcting misinformation isn't "pouncing" any more than it's "belittling" or "domineering."

 

This forum exists to support home educators. While we may not be professionals in that we get paid for our work, we should nevertheless strive to continue our own education for the purpose of taking on our self-appointed duties responsibly. This furthering of our own education includes gathering information, and that includes recognizing and correcting misinformation. We do this in lots of ways, and sharing information on forums is one pleasant way of doing that. None of us should take it personally when people correct misinformation. If you have some information or insight to contribute, please do so. If you have information about evolution, please do so, but please consider the opportunity to be courteous and take it to a relevant thread. Rather than predict what "you atheists" would do, you might consider addressing specific comments as they come up.

[Jasperstone]

I could go and link creationist who are scientists that once believed in evolution, as well.

 

To me, it's a theory that Darwin on his death bed renounced. So, they have revised it, and needed to present it in a complex manner to make it look plausible. And that's why I'm not particularly interested in reading more of their scientific findings, and explanations.

 

I appreciate that you might find my questions irritating, as I'm no match for both of your intelligency. And you can run rings on me with your way with words. I was handicapped by being raised without English at home, plus then traveling around the country side school hopping, lol. I will leave it there then.

[albeto.]

I could go and link creationist who are scientists that once believed in evolution, as well.

 

Irrelevant. Belief doesn't make things true. The number of people who believe something doesn't affect its credibility.

 

To me, it's a theory that Darwin on his death bed renounced.

 

Incorrect. This is not a factual statement.

 

So, they have revised it, and needed to present it in a complex manner to make it look plausible. And that's why I'm not particularly interested in reading more of their scientific findings, and explanations.

 

You might find this link helpful. It's a resource created to help educators understand the theory of evolution: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01

 

I appreciate that you might find my questions irritating, as I'm no match for both of your intelligency. And you can run rings on me with your way with words. I was handicapped by being raised without English at home, plus then traveling around the country side school hopping, lol. I will leave it there then.

 

Language has no bearing on the accuracy of information. There is information available for you if you wish to learn.

 

If you wish your children to have knowledge, you can show the link to them as well.

 

 

ETA: same link as tanaqui upthread, lol!

[Teannika]

Sorry to interrupt here, I've had trouble keeping up due to sickness...

I was just wondering why Momof3's and sixpackoffun (I think) response to the OP as a biblical perspective of why we don't see miracles today was ignored. Or if there was a response to that, what was it in summary? (Besides the response that even Christians don't agree with each other.)

 

The bible has laid out what happens at particular times in God's dealings with man. Usually a Christian will recognise the differences between the various covenants that were made, and what happens within those time periods. The bible supports what we see today. It would actually be contradictory to the bible if miracles, signs and wonders were happening for the church today.

 

In answering a question that assumes God, (as momof3 already politely pointed out,) shouldn't the bible be the authority for the answer?

[Teannika]

Ok, not really.

 

My question is, why all the mystery? God speaks to people all through the OT, then Jesus is talking to people in the NT, then 2000 years of radio silence?? Why would God not speak up once in awhile? Why is God ok with all the confusion about the Bible and religion? Why not just speak up and say "This group over here is the right one"??

 

There was a four hundred year period of silence between the Old Testament and New Testament.

[Tanaqui]

I could go and link creationist who are scientists that once believed in evolution, as well.

 

You could. And if the information contained therein is correct, we'll all learn something.

 

But it probably won't be. The theory of evolution is backed up by mountains and mountains of evidence.

 

To me, it's a theory that Darwin on his death bed renounced. So, they have revised it, and needed to present it in a complex manner to make it look plausible. And that's why I'm not particularly interested in reading more of their scientific findings, and explanations.

 

That's not true, even a little bit.

 

And I don't see how you can say that the theory of evolution is wrong if you refuse to learn anything about it. How did you decide it was wrong, when you don't even know what it states or how it's been proven? How can you effectively argue against something you don't understand? (You definitely can't.)

 

Note: "theory" doesn't mean "guess" or "idea". It means "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." Gravity is a theory. The idea that microorganisms cause disease is a theory. Relativity is a theory, and as I am fond of pointing out, you can't make GPS work unless somebody understands what relativity is and how to compensate for it.

 

I was handicapped by being raised without English at home, plus then traveling around the country side school hopping, lol.

 

That certainly would leave gaps in your education. Luckily, they're not incurable. You can always learn something new. There are many resources out there for people who need a more basic introduction.

[Tanaqui]

There was a four hundred year period of silence between the Old Testament and New Testament.

 

Which OT is that? Because as I understand it, different Christian groups have different books in their OTs, and some of the Catholic books are written less than 400 years before the supposed birth of Jesus. I ask this just out of curiosity.

 

[Jasperstone]

Tanaqui-

And I don't see how you can say that the theory of evolution is wrong if you refuse to learn anything about it. How did you decide it was wrong, when you don't even know what it states or how it's been proven? How can you effectively argue against something you don't understand? (You definitely can't.)

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Easy, as the Bible gives the account of creation, and both creation and evolution can't be right. I believe that the Bible is 100 percent true. It has an explanation for the beginning of time, and the end as we know it.

 

Okay, yes...it does appear that it was a rumor only about Charles. Sorry about that.

[Teannika]

Which OT is that? Because as I understand it, different Christian groups have different books in their OTs, and some of the Catholic books are written less than 400 years before the supposed birth of Jesus. I ask this just out of curiosity.

 

I was referring to Malachi's prophecies in the book by the same name as the last word before the NT. Enter 400 years of silence after this last word. (The apocrypha which was written in this gap of time is not accepted by the Jews as scripture, nor was it accepted by the Protestant church. Jesus never quoted any part of it, nor did anyone of the NT writers quote it, which is quite good evidence that they did not use or accept it either.)

[Jasperstone]

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

 

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

 

These links go into showing why evolution isn't correct without using the Bible, but scientific studies only.

 

So, without a full-on science degree, how would one know which scientists to believe? When they have charts and data to disprove it. You have to have *faith* in what you believe, as there is no way it can be proven.

[nevergiveup]

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

 

http://www.ucg.org/science/prove-evolution-false-even-without-bible/

 

These links go into showing why evolution isn't correct without using the Bible, but scientific studies only.

 

So, without a full-on science degree, how would one know which scientists to believe? When they have charts and data to disprove it. You have to have *faith* in what you believe, as there is no way it can be proven.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/01/29/382464912/scientists-general-public-have-divergent-views-on-science-report-says

 

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science (article linked from NPR above):

Although the divide on the subject of human evolution was slightly less wide than on some other topics, the unanimity of thought among the AAAS scientists was notable: 65 percent of adults surveyed say that humans evolved over time (31 percent say they "existed in present form since [the] beginning"). But among scientists, the split was 98 percent to 2 percent.

 

I bolded a part for emphasis.

[Tanaqui]

 

Easy, as the Bible gives the account of creation, and both creation and evolution can't be right. I believe that the Bible is 100 percent true. It has an explanation for the beginning of time, and the end as we know it.

 

The Bible also states that the sun goes around the earth. Is that something else that you believe? The Bible states (or, at least, strongly implies) that π = 3. Is that also something you believe? The Bible states that locusts have four legs and that bats are birds.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Scientific_errors_in_the_Bible

 

So, without a full-on science degree, how would one know which scientists to believe?

 

Well, first off, you know you can't trust the scientists in the first link because they show by their statements that they do not understand what the theory of evolution states and what it means. They make many of the same errors you make - talking about "apes evolving into humans" (no, humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor, this is not the same thing) and conflating the subject of evolution with the subject of abiogenesis.

 

You'll also note that although they claim to cite studies, they don't actually list the authors or link to the studies in question so you can examine them for yourself. They simply cherry-pick information.

 

That shows that they are untrustworthy. If the information shows what they claim it shows, why not share it openly? The only reason for that is because it does not hold up.

 

I had to dig up their study for myself, and although I do not intend to pay for it at this moment, I can quote the abstract for you:

 

The human Y chromosome began to evolve from an autosome hundreds of millions of years ago, acquiring a sex-determining function and undergoing a series of inversions that suppressed crossing over with the X chromosome^{1, 2}. Little is known about the recent evolution of the Y chromosome because only the human Y chromosome has been fully sequenced. Prevailing theories hold that Y chromosomes evolve by gene loss, the pace of which slows over time, eventually leading to a paucity of genes, and stasis^{3, 4}. These theories have been buttressed by partial sequence data from newly emergent plant and animal Y chromosomes^{5, 6, 7, 8}, but they have not been tested in older, highly evolved Y chromosomes such as that of humans. Here we finished sequencing of the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in our closest living relative, the chimpanzee, achieving levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY. By comparing the MSYs of the two species we show that they differ radically in sequence structure and gene content, indicating rapid evolution during the past 6 million years. The chimpanzee MSY contains twice as many massive palindromes as the human MSY, yet it has lost large fractions of the MSY protein-coding genes and gene families present in the last common ancestor. We suggest that the extraordinary divergence of the chimpanzee and human MSYs was driven by four synergistic factors: the prominent role of the MSY in sperm production, ‘genetic hitchhiking’ effects in the absence of meiotic crossing over, frequent ectopic recombination within the MSY, and species differences in mating behaviour. Although genetic decay may be the principal dynamic in the evolution of newly emergent Y chromosomes, wholesale renovation is the paramount theme in the continuing evolution of chimpanzee, human and perhaps other older MSYs.

 

 

That's a lot of verbiage. I'll sum it up - "our theory of how the y chromosome evolved states that we should expect to see this result when we examine chimp and human genomes. We have done so, and we pretty much got the result we expected. However, notably, this process of loss resulted in wildly different genomes for the two species, and we think we have an explanation as to why this should be. That will, of course, require further testing to prove or disprove".

 

If your theory states that you should see something specific, and then you DO see that something, that can be generally taken as confirming the theory.

 

So that sums up your first link. You know they're not a good source because they are sketchy about their information. That is not how legitimate scientists operate.

 

Let's take a look at the second link.

 

Okay, first thing I see? This site uses the illogical claim of a distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution". That claim is that somehow organisms can change in teeny tiny ways through time, but something prevents these changes from adding up to a BIG change. Common sense will tell you that this doesn't make sense. If you keep making little changes to something, sooner or later you'll have a different something than you started with. An infant takes tiny changes through time, small enough that you can't see them day to day, but they eventually do change into an adult. (This is just an analogy, don't take it too far).

 

It does not fill me with optimism when a science site so easily uses false logic.

 

And it gets worse. This person seems to feel - with no statistics, note - that lack of fossils disproves evolution. However, as I have stated many times, it is very unlikely that any organism will get fossilized in the first place. Lack of fossils shows that... the ancestors fully decomposed in the usual way.

 

I have covered his letters A and L in previous comments. I can recap if you need me to, but for now suffice to say that these points are, in turn, illogical and already disproven. We have already created self-replicating proteins in a lab, which proves that self-replicating proteins can come from inert matter in the proper conditions. Self-replicating proteins are the first step towards life.

 

And the last two letters are equally illogical, though a little beyond my scope to explain simply. Let me try. With regards to symbiosis, we actually know a great deal about the evolution of symbiotic systems. For him to claim that we do not is lying. And the same with "engineering" - we can, and have, shown how a change that is useful for one thing can become useful for another thing later. Small mutations that make small flaps that provide a selective benefit because they keep an organism warm can evolve into large flaps that provide a selective benefit by allowing that organism to fly.

 

It is also worth noting that "science" isn't a field. Some subjects, such as biology and paleontology, are relevant to the study of evolution. Others are not. A biologist's opinion on evolution is worth more than a sociologist's opinion, because they know more about it.

 

Mario Seiglie, from your second link, has degrees in theology and Spanish. He is not a scientist of any measure, and not a qualified source on this subject.

 

I can't find out who runs Darwin Conspiracy. If they're not willing to put their name to it, you shouldn't trust them.

 

There are other ways you could determine which source is more likely to reliable, but those should be the takeaways, so I'll say it again.

 

1. If the source doesn't have a degree in a relevant field, you should not trust their opinion as much as a source who does.

2. If they do not provide the full information they are working with, or a way for you to easily find it, you should be wary about accepting what they say.

3. If they do not put their name to their work, you should not trust them.

 

That is how you know which scientists to trust. The ones who are most likely correct will have specific knowledge in that field, they will share their research and information openly so that you can determine for yourself whether or not their conclusions are correct without having to just take their word for it, and they will put a name to their work.

 

Think about what you said to me. You said if I want to know about your religion, I should read the Bible. You didn't say I should talk to a pastor or priest and have them interpret the Bible for me and trust what they say. Would you go to a church where the preacher said that it was dangerous or bad for you to look at the Bible for yourself?

 

An honest scientist, who doesn't have an agenda, will not tell you to trust them and let them interpret the data for you. They'll let you look at the data for yourself. These guys don't do that.

[albeto.]

Sorry to interrupt here, I've had trouble keeping up due to sickness...

I was just wondering why Momof3's and sixpackoffun (I think) response to the OP as a biblical perspective of why we don't see miracles today was ignored. Or if there was a response to that, what was it in summary? (Besides the response that even Christians don't agree with each other.)

 

It wasn't ignored. The claim (miracles still happen today) has not yet been answered with any actual, usable information, only arguments about what God is understood to have meant. No examples of miracles have been shared, no evidence for miracles has been offered. There's only personal assurances that they still happen. We're waiting on an example of a miracle that shows God isn't silent. Speaking to someone's heart, for obvious reasons (I hope), doesn't count.

 

The bible has laid out what happens at particular times in God's dealings with man. Usually a Christian will recognise the differences between the various covenants that were made, and what happens within those time periods. The bible supports what we see today. It would actually be contradictory to the bible if miracles, signs and wonders were happening for the church today.

 

In answering a question that assumes God, (as momof3 already politely pointed out,) shouldn't the bible be the authority for the answer?

 

The bible can't be the authority. The bible can only be a source. People interpret the bible differently, and appeal to various, extrabiblical, subjective sources and arguments to support their claim. JenniferB considers her faith tradition to use the bible as an authority and yet her theological claims differ from yours. Heidi considers her faith tradition to use the bible as an authority and yet her theological claims differ from yours. If you suggest the answer to that is they incorporate "outside" authority in addition to the bible ("sacred tradition" extra books, further divine revelation), then you must put away your own "outside" authority (the new testament), as that was compiled and canonized in addition to the "established" faith of the time, because in doing so, it became a new faith (christianity from judaism). But if you accept the letters and epistles from the new testament, then you must accept that Muhammad or Joseph Smith are no less credible sources than Paul, as each one claimed to have been visited by divine agents of / God himself, passing on the Really Right Message Of God.

[Heidi]

. But if you accept the letters and epistles from the new testament, then you must accept that Muhammad or Joseph Smith are no less credible sources than Paul, as each one claimed to have been visited by divine agents of / God himself, passing on the Really Right Message Of God.

Are you seriously using my argument against you on her? You don't believe in God. All faith traditions are baloney to you. You can't say one is more relevant than the other bc they are all the same to YOU.

 

As a person who does believe in God, Tiannika has every right to decide which is true and which isn't. Your argument is ridiculous.

[Scrub Jay]

Are you seriously using my argument against you on her? You don't believe in God. All faith traditions are baloney to you. You can't say one is more relevant than the other bc they are all the same to YOU.

 

As a person who does believe in God, Tiannika has every right to decide which is true and which isn't. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

Why is it ridiculous, exactly?  Why is one claim that god spoke to them acceptable but other claims are considered fabricated?

 

And Albeto wasn't calling these claims credible to HER so who cares what her beliefs are?

 

[albeto.]

Are you seriously using my argument against you on her? You don't believe in God. All faith traditions are baloney to you. You can't say one is more relevant than the other bc they are all the same to YOU.

 

As a person who does believe in God, Tiannika has every right to decide which is true and which isn't. Your argument is ridiculous.

 

Everyone has the same right to decide which is true and which isn't. Objective fact, however, isn't effected by subjective opinions. I'm not suggesting Teannika can't decide what is right. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.  My argument here is that using the bible as "the source" of the Christian message is an impossible expectation when trying to decipher the actual, accurate will of God. I say that because the bible doesn't interpret itself, it doesn't answer the questions inherent in reading it. Sacred texts such the judeo-christian scriptures is interpreted by people, and people use sources outside these texts for support. For the Christian, that support was found in the record of Paul's visions. They (and the supposed biographies, and other corroborating letters) were eventually canonized by the Christian community and so officially accepted as being part of the authoritative texts. For the Muslim, this included the record Muhammad's visions. They were eventually canonized by the Muslim community and accepted as being part of the authoritative texts. For the Mormon, this included the record of Joseph Smith's visions. They were eventually canonized by the Mormon community and accepted as being part of the authoritative texts. For the Catholic and Orthodox, this includes certain Jewish scriptures dismissed by the protestants, and the unwritten but officially accepted "Sacred Tradition," which is a rough compilation of sermons and letters recorded in history that support particular theological arguments. Each one of these differ from the original religion - Judaism (which in its turn, modified the religions of its origin until they existed a separate religion). For this reason, Teannika's claim is no more or less valid than your claim about which texts are included in "authority" with regard to revealing "God's will." 

 

I disagree with the implication that my lack of faith means I cannot, or should not weigh in on such conversations. The ideas and arguments in this conversation are based on the validity of the arguments that support any opinion. One need not adhere to a particular faith to recognize logical fallacies (such as no true scotsman, or equivocating, or begging the question). One need not adhere to a particular faith to request an example of a legitimate miracle. One need not adhere to a particular faith to ask for the definition of a miracle, or to note the accuracy of an example against the definition. None of these things require a belief system to explore.

[albeto.]

You have to have *faith* in what you believe, as there is no way it can be proven.

 

It's not accurate to use the word "faith" in a religious sense for a scientific context. One might have faith that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross redeems their sins, but this is not based on evidence, this is based on accepting the claim as being true. A biologist doesn't have faith in evolution any more than a chemist has faith in electrons. These things are facts, discerned from a methodological approach to hypothesizing, testing, verifying, and analyzing objective information. The definition of Christian faith is laid out in Hebrews 11:1: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.†Science is the opposite of this. It relies on observation, evidence, experimentation, rational analysis of data, peer review, etc. You might think of science as the conviction of things that are seen. These are not things just seen with our eyes, but with careful observation of the effect of one thing on another (like wind, barometric pressure, or the Higgs boson [particle]).

[TranquilMind]

 

 

Verily, my words are little pearls of wisdom. It wounds me to the very core to see them ignored, cast aside like so much trash when they should be treasured.

 

So, no. I actually cannot.

 

Besides, I'm not terribly good at explaining. That's why I use links. If those links can help me learn, they can help you learn. Why should I re-invent the wheel? You'd rather have a crappy personal explanation than a really good link?

 

 

 

Just for the record, it is completely obnoxious to post links in lieu of actually having an informed opinion of your own and stating it.  Posting them in support of your explanation is fine.

 

The topic is irrelevant.  Caveat:  In posting something very technical, where you state up front that you truly don't understand all the specifics but found it interesting, that's perfectly acceptable. 

 

If you don't have something of your own to add, then why bother?  I will never understand why people simply post links and think other people should do all the work for them. 

 

And now, feel free to return to your previously scheduled programming. 

[Tanaqui]

Just for the record, it is completely obnoxious to post links in lieu of actually having an informed opinion of your own and stating it.  Posting them in support of your explanation is fine.

 

No. It's not. A well chosen link helps explain or illustrate an idea, especially one that cannot be reasonably crammed into the sentence at hand. Also, just a reminder, when discussing evolution we're not discussing opinions, but facts.

 

I will never understand why people simply post links and think other people should do all the work for them.

 

And I will never understand why people simply jump into a conversation where they don't know what the heck they're talking about, and think other people should do all the work of educating them. If you can't put the bare minimum of effort in before opening your mouth, why should I give you more than the bare minimum of my effort?

 

However, as we *are* discussing facts, the fact of the matter is that I have expended a great deal of my own words on this topic already. Since I'm not in the habit of posting bare links without my own words attached, I'm really unsure why you felt the need  to respond to me as though I am.

 

[Tanaqui]

Jasperstone, re-reading comments, I realized you said something that wasn't addressed and needed to be. You cite as a criticism of evolution that "they revised it".

 

This is how science works. We have a buttload of information. We don't know what to do with it, so we try to come up with an explanation for the information we have. That explanation is called our theory. Based on our theory, we make a hypothesis about what will happen in a specific situation. Then we test that idea - we run an experiment, or we study that situation in the wild, as it were. If our hypothesis proves correct, that shows that our theory was probably correct, at least a little bit.

 

Over time, we continually adjust and revise our theories to come close to the truth as more and more information comes in. We know we'll make mistakes along the way, but that's not a problem because our goal is to learn more and more, and our theories will have fewer and fewer errors.

 

This is a feature and not a bug.

 

This is how it is supposed to work. We don't cling to old ideas just because they're old. That'd be pretty silly! We strive for the truth. If our theory states that we shouldn't find rabbits in the pre-cambrian era (thank you, Bill Nye), then finding rabbit skeletons in the pre-cambrian would be pretty devastating. So - and this is important - we keep looking for those rabbits. We test theories as hard as we can to see if they fall apart.

 

Some of the best science has been done by people trying to prove a theory wrong! The mechanism for cholera transmission? Discovered by a guy who thought the germ theory of disease was the most ridiculous thing he had ever heard of, and only (reluctantly) concluded that must be it once he had thrown out every other possible method of transmission. The medical model of schizophrenia? Discovered by a group of doctors who were devoted to Freudian thought, and appalled to find out that their patients did much better on drugs than the test group that had been given no drugs, but lots of therapy. (I'm pulling these examples from the back of my mind, and am crossing my fingers that I recall them correctly. The principle illustrated is correct, at least.)

 

If you can't think of anything at all that will disprove your theory of the world, you're not doing science. That's when you're doing faith.

 

I can think of dozens of things that would disprove evolution. None of them have shown up. I can think of many, many things that would disprove atheism. Haven't happened to me. That's the difference between a scientific approach, and one of faith - when you're doing science, you're constantly looking for anything to prove you wrong. When you're doing faith, you're looking for those things to prove you right.

 

So, yeah, the theory of evolution has been revised in the 150 odd years since it was first promoted by Darwin. Of course it has! We've learned more! Theories are supposed to be revised as new information comes in. In science, that's kinda the point.

 

Edit: And since we're tangentially on the subject, who the heck is gonna do a conspiracy to get people to believe in evolution if that's against the facts? There's no money in lying, so what the heck is the motive supposed to be?

 

[Jasperstone]

Thanks Tanaqui.... I understand what mean there.

 

I'm going to have to wait until I get onto the computer to answer some of your and Albeto's comments/ questions etc.... As, it's just too hard with a subject like this. Hence my short replies.

 

Phones are good for laundry threads only! ;-)

[Tanaqui]

Ugh, I wouldn't ask you to type up a long or thoughtful reply on a phone. Sounds like a recipe for real hand pain to me! Been there, done that, had to spend a week not typing anything to anybody at all. For somebody like me whose social life is primarily online it was TORTURE.

[Jasperstone]

Lol...I first thought that you were arguing with yourself, Tanaqui!!!!

 

As, I didn't see the difference in usernames, and thought TranquilMind was you etc...That was really funny!

 

Hmmm... I think I need coffee. :-D

[Tanaqui]

Would you believe that I have made the very same mistake? I sit there going "Did I write that? Seriously?" and then realize I'm being a doofus. I sure hope she does the same thing sometimes, or I'm going to feel really, really stupid once she says she doesn't.

[Jasperstone]

Would you believe that I have made the very same mistake? I sit there going "Did I write that? Seriously?" and then realize I'm being a doofus. I sure hope she does the same thing sometimes, or I'm going to feel really, really stupid once she says she doesn't.

That's hilarious!!!!