Is it okay for a christian to drink wine, beer and mixed drinks?

[lightgigantic]

Also...

WHY is it un-Christian to drink alcohol?
Rev. Hart claims that it is habit-forming, results in violence and distracts from God.

Ok - let's take each in turn:

- what is wrong with being "habit-forming"?
Is "habit-forming" bad per se?

if it also results in violence - yes

I bite my nails - and have done since I can remember.
It does me no harm - and actually helps me calm down when I am nervous.
So is "habit-forming" bad?
No.

obviously the issue is that it does harm - and while some may take it, it is not recommended for the serious candidate for spiritual advancement

Apparently it "results in violence" - yet I have NEVER been involved in a fight - not before I start drinking, during my drinking, or even after getting absolutely hammered.

Research has conclusively shown that hazardous and harmful alcohol use in Australia results in high economic and social costs to the community.

http://www1.enoughisenough.com.au/pages/alcoholRelatedStats.asp

# Almost 14 million adult Americans abuse alcohol.
- Connecticut Clearinghouse, The Relationship Between Parental Alcohol or other Drug Problems and Child Maltreatment, April 1999

# There is an association between alcohol consumption and violent or aggressive behavior: alcohol may promote aggressiveness and victimization may lead to excessive alcohol consumption.
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, October 1997

http://www.vpcla.org/factAlcohol.htm

and there is another 1 300 000 hits on google

Alcohol does not make people violent per se - it merely reduces inhibitions.

people established in justice, criminology, psychology, medicine and sociology tend to disagree

Does alcohol "distract from God"?
Maybe - to be honest I wouldn't know.

if you admit this

But then if alcohol does - so does chocolate, so do holidays, so does a relaxing bath etc.

we can safely dismiss this

If the Bible was going to stop Christians from drinking alcohol, surely it would have started off by telling people that it actually damages the body.

it requires a PHD to come to that conclusion?

But does it? I don't know for sure

if you admit this

- but I don't think so.

we can dismiss this

Does the Bible say that marijuana is "un-Christian"?

at least as far as determining whether a person is capable of driving a car safely, the justice system doesn't suffer from such problems of semantics

It is less harmful than alcohol - is not habit-forming (usually it is the nicotein in the cigarettes that is the habit-former).
For that matter - does the Bible say that smoking is un-Christian?

nothing there about crack either - I guess jesus gives the big thumbs up eh?

It damages the health of the smoker and those around them.
It is certainly habit-forming.

No?

I guess you have no choice but to find your nearest dealer and be liberated

So why does the Bible pick on alcohol?

Is it because it is an out-dated piece of writing?

perhaps because alcohol was popular at the time

What other messages are people wanting to read into it to suit their religion?

you mean people other than you?
I guess it depends on how much they are actually practicing as opposed to theorizing

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
therefore the general reccomendation, as with any field of knowledge, is that it is more intelligent to approach (qualified) persons established in the field
”
I am talking about the supposed "qualified" people in the field that are coming up with the many differing interpretations.

how do you determine whether the persons advocating these differing interpretations are qualified or not? (or do you accept all of them for the sake of argument)

“
(BTW - the fist step in destroying a field of knowledge is to demerit the persons established in it - hey it worked for hitler - certainly works for many an atheist too)
”
Pathetic, LG. Truly pathetic.

since many atheists have no philosophical principles for their convictions ( but plenty of confidence statements and ad homs) it appears to be true, even though it is pathetic

“
therefore practice is better than mere reading, so to approach knowledge by merely reading is not sufficient in many circumstances
”
Irrelevant.
One can only practice one's religion after one knows what it is they are meant to be practicing.

If the words of the "practice" are constantly changing then practice becomes either incongruous with the (new) understanding of the scripture or meaningless.

still, even before all is said an done, if one is convinced that they will not practice, their reading is useless (in other words one is obviously already convinced of something else)

“
you can read anything into physics too - but such speculations will not deliver the expected result
”
No you can't.

yes you can

this is a beanie I would like to wear next winter

Physics is not based on some scripture laid out 2,000 years ago to which scientists apply a translation! LOL!

instead it is based on the understandings of an elite few who have a qualification in the related field of direct perception

Your analogy falls flat on its face, LG! Pick a new one!

if I tell you that an electron is a proton, why would you disagree?

Physics takes prior work and expands on them, corrects them, adapts them, in order to advance knowledge.

much like my point about the necessity of practical application don't you think?

Religion (Christianity) takes scripture from 2,000 years ago ... and translates the words to suit their end.

much like my point about how many theorizing on one's laurels is useless don't you think?

“
Actually I agree with that statement - an unqualified person reading scripture bears as much fruit as an unqualified person reading the findings of a rocket scientist
”
Your overlying implication in nearly all you write, LG, is that "to belive in God you need to believe in God".

since no one is born with direct perception of physics, but must go through a transitional period of faith to come to the platform of direct perception (one believes that physics is true and wonderful therefore one spends a good few years at it before they let you write things while staring down a microscope), maybe you could explain how one can acquire ANY knowledge by avoiding the step of 'faith'??

It is a circular path you tread - with a self-fulfilling set of scriptures behind it. You are trapped - because you can not seem to think for yourself long enough to break out of the circle.

you don't realize that all fields of subtle knowledge are dependent on faith - if you disagree provide an example of one that does not

 

[Sarkus]

if it also results in violence - yes

Logical fallacy - we are talking about the "habit-forming" element - nothing else.

obviously the issue is that it does harm

Biting my nails does harm? To who? How?

if you admit this

we can safely dismiss this

Logical fallacy LG - dismissing arguments on the basis of authority - not on the argument itself. This is what is known as "Appeal to Authority".

it requires a PHD to come to that conclusion?

Now you are merely making excuses for what is and what is not included in the Bible.

if you admit this

we can dismiss this

Ditto the point above - appeal to authority. Logical fallacy.
Please remove them from your repetoire.

at least as far as determining whether a person is capable of driving a car safely, the justice system doesn't suffer from such problems of semantics

WTF? What has the legal system got to do with diddly? Logical fallacy - red herring. Strike... too many to count.

nothing there about crack either - I guess jesus gives the big thumbs up eh?

It's not about giving it a "thumbs up" - so yet another logical fallacy.
It is merely about using words of 2,000 years ago to try and live your life by. And the way people (yes - the supposed "qualified" people) do that is to put whatever interpretation on the words they see fit.

perhaps because alcohol was popular at the time

And now you are interpreting the Bible to suit your own situation / upbringing / situation etc.

you mean people other than you?

Of course.

I guess it depends on how much they are actually practicing as opposed to theorizing

Explain. How can one practice if one doesn't know or isn't sure about what exactly one is meant to practice.



"Go Forth and build me a Rocket Ship capable of reaching the Stars!"

But how, I hear you ask? What exactly do you want?
And then if I'm no longer around to answer your questions, how indeed will you know other than through interpretation of meaning?
What do I mean by "Rocket Ship"?
- One "sect" will go and build a personal ship, capable of fitting just me.
- Another "sect" will go and build a vast ark, capable of supporting vast numbers of animals and me.
- Another will just build the smallest possible unmanned probe.

All interpretation after-the-fact to suit their own ends.
And this is the Bible.

 

[Ragnarok]

I was always told that it was not bad to drink,"for we comfort our brothers with wine", but very bad to get drunk. "Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging, whosoever is decieved is therefore is not wise." But personally i go by the scripture, to shun the very appearance of evil. If it is percieved as evil by a few, and not by another few, then i will just default to stay away from alchohol for good. I guess it all depends if the consumption of alchohol hinders your relationship with God.

 

[lightgigantic]

sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if it also results in violence - yes
”
Logical fallacy - we are talking about the "habit-forming" element - nothing else.

your metonymic analysis is fascinating

“
if you admit this

we can safely dismiss this
”
Logical fallacy LG - dismissing arguments on the basis of authority - not on the argument itself. This is what is known as "Appeal to Authority".

I dismissed your statement on the authority that you said you don't know - like for instance if I say "I am no brain surgeon but ...." you can dismiss anything I say after the word "but" if it is related to brain surgery

“
it requires a PHD to come to that conclusion?
”
Now you are merely making excuses for what is and what is not included in the Bible.

seriously - you would never have come to the conclusion that alcohol is harmful?

“
if you admit this

we can dismiss this
”
Ditto the point above - appeal to authority. Logical fallacy.
Please remove them from your repetoire.

lol - Hey ya know I'm no brain surgeon but ......

“
at least as far as determining whether a person is capable of driving a car safely, the justice system doesn't suffer from such problems of semantics
”
WTF? What has the legal system got to do with diddly? Logical fallacy - red herring. Strike... too many to count.

seriously? You can not determine what stands as a category of intoxication?

“
nothing there about crack either - I guess jesus gives the big thumbs up eh?
”
It's not about giving it a "thumbs up" - so yet another logical fallacy.
It is merely about using words of 2,000 years ago to try and live your life by. And the way people (yes - the supposed "qualified" people) do that is to put whatever interpretation on the words they see fit.

an intelligent person can understand that there were forms of intoxication 2000 years ago and there are forms of intoxication now and that the names and favourites may have changed but its still old wine in a new bottle, so to speak

“
perhaps because alcohol was popular at the time
”
And now you are interpreting the Bible to suit your own situation / upbringing / situation etc.

and so are you - maybe if jesus had talked more about crack we would have a stronger message of the youth of today (except of course that no one would understand what jesus was talking about 2000 years ago)

“
you mean people other than you?
”
Of course.

“
I guess it depends on how much they are actually practicing as opposed to theorizing
”
Explain. How can one practice if one doesn't know or isn't sure about what exactly one is meant to practice.

simple

if you are already convinced of something before you begin the endeavour to understand something else, never the twain shall meet

"Go Forth and build me a Rocket Ship capable of reaching the Stars!"

But how, I hear you ask? What exactly do you want?
And then if I'm no longer around to answer your questions, how indeed will you know other than through interpretation of meaning?
What do I mean by "Rocket Ship"?
- One "sect" will go and build a personal ship, capable of fitting just me.
- Another "sect" will go and build a vast ark, capable of supporting vast numbers of animals and me.
- Another will just build the smallest possible unmanned probe.

All interpretation after-the-fact to suit their own ends.
And this is the Bible.

despite such disparity you see that syllabuses about things such as physics, maths, english etc can be composed for people ranging from children to adults, with such things as 1+1=2 and ABC being a constant through out it all

in other words the divulging of knowledge tends only to be convulted when taught by the unqualified

 

[Sarkus]

how do you determine whether the persons advocating these differing interpretations are qualified or not? (or do you accept all of them for the sake of argument)

All part of your circular world, LG.
They are only saintly if they follow the same circular path - and once on the circular path you can easily tell who they are. All circular, LG.
Learn to break free of it.
Go on.

yes you can

this is a beanie I would like to wear next winter

Pathetic. That's not reading into physics - that's reading into an image.
Even you should understand that.
So I repeat. No you can't.

instead it is based on the understandings of an elite few who have a qualification in the related field of direct perception

No it isn't.
Physics is what it is.
The understanding of an elite few will not make physics any less or more than what it is.
Gravity does not falter when people change their understanding of it.

The "elite few" are merely better positioned to push back the boundaries of understanding.
But physics will always be what it is.

if I tell you that an electron is a proton, why would you disagree?

For the same reason you would disagree if I called a bucket a spade. Definition.

much like my point about the necessity of practical application don't you think?

Nope - not at all.
Physics is based on observation - not "practical application".
One doesn't suddenly learn more about gravity and then walk differently as a result.

much like my point about how many theorizing on one's laurels is useless don't you think?

Nope - but your lack of understanding of the differences that make your analogies moot is probably why you thought so.

since no one is born with direct perception of physics

Yes they are. This is displaying your simple lack of understanding.
Physics is what it is. It can never change.
Only our understanding of it can.
One sees anything and they have direct perception of physics.
The only person who would be born without direct perception would be someone born without any sense perception at all - including sense of balance, heat, etc - any one of 11 or so senses we have.

...but must go through a transitional period of faith to come to the platform of direct perception

DRIVEL!!!

(one believes that physics is true and wonderful therefore one spends a good few years at it before they let you write things while staring down a microscope)

You confuse physics with our understanding of physics.
Physics DOES NOT CHANGE.
Only our understanding of it does.

maybe you could explain how one can acquire ANY knowledge by avoiding the step of 'faith'??

At what point did you know not to eat certain things - like mud?
Through "faith"?
No.
Through direct perception from the moment you were born.

you don't realize that all fields of subtle knowledge are dependent on faith - if you disagree provide an example of one that does not

Subtle knowledge??
LOL! This very term you use implies the need for faith.
No wonder you feel the need for it.
There is no "subtle" knowledge - there is just knowledge.

Don't use such terms - as they do nothing but help keep the walls of indoctrination around your mind.
Break free of the brain-washing you have received!

 

[Sarkus]

your metonymic analysis is fascinating

Unfortunately your logical fallacies are nothing but tiring.

I dismissed your statement on the authority that you said you don't know - like for instance if I say "I am no brain surgeon but ...." you can dismiss anything I say after the word "but" if it is related to brain surgery

Unfortunately that was NOT the case in this instance.
I suggest you reread the words. And then apologise if you see fit.

seriously - you would never have come to the conclusion that alcohol is harmful?

Long-term to the body? No. Why would I? Did the Vikings?

You can not determine what stands as a category of intoxication?

It is irrelevant. The legal system has no bearing on this discussion.

an intelligent person can understand that there were forms of intoxication 2000 years ago and there are forms of intoxication now and that the names and favourites may have changed but its still old wine in a new bottle, so to speak

And by doing so they can put whatever they want and label it "new wine".
One sect will put one thing in to it, another sect something entirely different.
This is my point.
Each can interpret what is meant by the "old wine" and label anything else nowadays as "new wine".

In the end all you need is COMMON SENSE.

and so are you

I am doing no such thing.
I am placing no interpretation on it in these discussions.
I am merely stating that one can interpret it any way they want.

if you are already convinced of something before you begin the endeavour to understand something else, never the twain shall meet

Maybe in your experience.

despite such disparity you see that syllabuses about things such as physics, maths, english etc can be composed for people ranging from children to adults, with such things as 1+1=2 and ABC being a constant through out it all

in other words the divulging of knowledge tends only to be convulted when taught by the unqualified

Convulted? New word to me - sorry. What does it mean?

In my example - who would be the "qualified" to determine what I meant?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: What about people who call themselves christians but do time for repeated DWIs? Are they really christians if they can't stop drinking and driving, yet they preach the salvation of Jesus Christ as if they were pious and holy? A little clarification, please.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
your metonymic analysis is fascinating
”
Unfortunately your logical fallacies are nothing but tiring.[/QUOTE
your logic is nothing

if a person makes a three point statement to verify a conclusion, it s not clear what intelligence one utilizes (except the one of putting forth one's own agenda) that prohibits one from seeing the interconnection between the three points

“
I dismissed your statement on the authority that you said you don't know - like for instance if I say "I am no brain surgeon but ...." you can dismiss anything I say after the word "but" if it is related to brain surgery
”
Unfortunately that was NOT the case in this instance.
I suggest you reread the words. And then apologise if you see fit.

Does alcohol "distract from God"?
Maybe - to be honest I wouldn't know.

:shrug:

“
seriously - you would never have come to the conclusion that alcohol is harmful?
”
Long-term to the body? No. Why would I? Did the Vikings?

great upholders of intelligent progress in the western world no doubt - lol

“
You can not determine what stands as a category of intoxication?
”
It is irrelevant. The legal system has no bearing on this discussion.

it does however indicate what most people can grasp straight off the bat

“
an intelligent person can understand that there were forms of intoxication 2000 years ago and there are forms of intoxication now and that the names and favourites may have changed but its still old wine in a new bottle, so to speak
”
And by doing so they can put whatever they want and label it "new wine".

not really - most people can determine, given a group of people, which one is under the influence of heroin, which one is under the influence of LSD, which one is under the influence of alcohol - but they may have a bit of difficulty determining which one is under the influence of barley sugar or jam on toast

One sect will put one thing in to it, another sect something entirely different.
This is my point.

you aren't on a legalize marijuana trip are you by any chance?

Each can interpret what is meant by the "old wine" and label anything else nowadays as "new wine".

still, it remains a commonly observable fact that any fool can determine the influence of intoxication on a person

In the end all you need is COMMON SENSE.

even drunkards can observe it (provided they are not at the point of drowning in their own vomit of course)

“
and so are you
”
I am doing no such thing.
I am placing no interpretation on it in these discussions.
I am merely stating that one can interpret it any way they want.

and then you let rip with you interpretations - that is why the interpretations of persons established in the field of knowledge in discussion are held as more credible than one who is not (except perhaps for a few rare cases on oprah winfrey)

“
if you are already convinced of something before you begin the endeavour to understand something else, never the twain shall meet
”
Maybe in your experience.

ever heard of type 1 and type 2 errors?

“
despite such disparity you see that syllabuses about things such as physics, maths, english etc can be composed for people ranging from children to adults, with such things as 1+1=2 and ABC being a constant through out it all

in other words the divulging of knowledge tends only to be convulted when taught by the unqualified
”
Convulted? New word to me - sorry. What does it mean?

in this context, misconstrue

In my example - who would be the "qualified" to determine what I meant?

the one who properly understood - like for instance someone who received one sentence of instruction would probably not be as qualified as one who had spent 20 years in close daily association with you to further clarify what you desired

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how do you determine whether the persons advocating these differing interpretations are qualified or not? (or do you accept all of them for the sake of argument)
”
All part of your circular world, LG.
They are only saintly if they follow the same circular path - and once on the circular path you can easily tell who they are. All circular, LG.
Learn to break free of it.
Go on.

then obviously institutional stamp, or saintly by appearance, is not a qualification, even though it is currently popular to think so

SB 12.2.3: Men and women will live together merely because of superficial attraction, and success in business will depend on deceit. Womanliness and manliness will be judged according to one's expertise in sex, and a man will be known as a brāhmaṇa just by his wearing a thread.

SB 12.2.4: A person's spiritual position will be ascertained merely according to external symbols, and on that same basis people will change from one spiritual order to the next. A person's propriety will be seriously questioned if he does not earn a good living. And one who is very clever at juggling words will be considered a learned scholar.
etc etc

“
yes you can
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:.../dustwave1.jpg
this is a beanie I would like to wear next winter
”
Pathetic. That's not reading into physics - that's reading into an image.
Even you should understand that.
So I repeat. No you can't.

my point is that you can - but the moment you do so (incorrectly) is the moment it is no longer physics (and beanies aside, since empiricism by nature re-evaluates things, we see that science has revealed many things that were read in to science - by scientists)

“
instead it is based on the understandings of an elite few who have a qualification in the related field of direct perception
”
No it isn't.
Physics is what it is.

lol - then why has the understanding of physics undergone so many changes in the past 50 years - do you mean to say that physics has changed over time?

The understanding of an elite few will not make physics any less or more than what it is.

in terms of knowledge it sure does

Gravity does not falter when people change their understanding of it.

but the cutting edge of the elite few at the position of defining the phenomena lay the ground work for everyone else down to time magazine to the university syllabus

The "elite few" are merely better positioned to push back the boundaries of understanding.
But physics will always be what it is.

either way, the only way you (or anyone) understands anything on the topic is due to the endeavours and conclusions of the before mentioned elite few

“
if I tell you that an electron is a proton, why would you disagree?
”
For the same reason you would disagree if I called a bucket a spade. Definition.

so in other words it is not direct perception

“
much like my point about the necessity of practical application don't you think?
”
Nope - not at all.
Physics is based on observation - not "practical application".

does a person perform observation in physics bereft of any practical application in the field of knowledge

One doesn't suddenly learn more about gravity and then walk differently as a result.

I am not challenging the notion that laws of the material world, some of which are known to physics, bear an effect on us - I am challenging that the comprehension of these laws is in the hands of an elite few, after all, when was the last time you checked the gravitational constant of a proton?

“
much like my point about how many theorizing on one's laurels is useless don't you think?
”
Nope - but your lack of understanding of the differences that make your analogies moot is probably why you thought so.

actually the notion that knowledge is comprised of prac and values (or realization) as well as just theory is commonly held in all educational institutions (ever wondered why they teach theory before prac)

“
since no one is born with direct perception of physics
”
Yes they are. This is displaying your simple lack of understanding.
Physics is what it is. It can never change.


Only our understanding of it can.

and that is my point - no one is born with the direct perception of the gravitational constant of a proton

One sees anything and they have direct perception of physics.

the gravitational constant of a proton however is not one of those things

The only person who would be born without direct perception would be someone born without any sense perception at all - including sense of balance, heat, etc - any one of 11 or so senses we have.

if we are born with direct perception of physics why would it be an aspect of higher education that finds its specialization in tertiary education?

“
...but must go through a transitional period of faith to come to the platform of direct perception
”
DRIVEL!!!

if a scientist didn't have faith that the laws of the material world are constant they would have no basis to present findings that are repeatable by experiment

“
(one believes that physics is true and wonderful therefore one spends a good few years at it before they let you write things while staring down a microscope)
”
You confuse physics with our understanding of physics.
Physics DOES NOT CHANGE.
Only our understanding of it does.

which is why one requires faith to even begin an understanding of it

“
maybe you could explain how one can acquire ANY knowledge by avoiding the step of 'faith'??
”
At what point did you know not to eat certain things - like mud?
Through "faith"?
No.
Through direct perception from the moment you were born.

lol - behavioral knowledge is one of the strongest cases for faith based knowledge, since it pertains to an expectation in the future (related to pleasure or pain)

“
you don't realize that all fields of subtle knowledge are dependent on faith - if you disagree provide an example of one that does not
”
Subtle knowledge??
LOL! This very term you use implies the need for faith.

you don't see any difference between doof music and einstein?

No wonder you feel the need for it.
There is no "subtle" knowledge - there is just knowledge.

so if they gave the nobel prize to a football player that seems perfectly ok to you?

Don't use such terms - as they do nothing but help keep the walls of indoctrination around your mind.
Break free of the brain-washing you have received!

most of what goes down in the name of science, philosophy and art is subtle, since it draws heavily on rationalism (or the antithesis of rationalism

 

[lightgigantic]

*************
M*W: What about people who call themselves christians but do time for repeated DWIs? Are they really christians if they can't stop drinking and driving, yet they preach the salvation of Jesus Christ as if they were pious and holy? A little clarification, please.

they may be trying to surrender to jesus, bu they are not really fit preachers since their personal example is lacking

 

[Sarkus]

if a person makes a three point statement to verify a conclusion, it s not clear what intelligence one utilizes (except the one of putting forth one's own agenda) that prohibits one from seeing the interconnection between the three points

And yet it is YOU who fails to see the connection between your statements and my claim of logical fallacy.
Let me spell it out for you....

You said: "If I admit this: Does alcohol "distract from God"?
Maybe - to be honest I wouldn't know.

then we can safely dismiss this:
But then if alcohol does - so does chocolate, so do holidays, so does a relaxing bath etc."

THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY ON YOUR PART!!!

If you can not see this then
(a) you do not understand logical fallacies - in which case I suggest you go and research them and start trying to avoid them in your arguments; or
(b) you are being argumentative on irrelevancies for the sake of it! - in which case please stop - it is frustrating and tiring.

it does however indicate what most people can grasp straight off the bat

It is STILL IRRELEVANT!

not really - most people can determine, given a group of people, which one is under the influence of heroin, which one is under the influence of LSD, which one is under the influence of alcohol - but they may have a bit of difficulty determining which one is under the influence of barley sugar or jam on toast

Logical fallacy.
You are taking things to extreme - where the effects become noticeable.
This discussion is about "drinking alcohol" per se - not necessarily to excess.

you aren't on a legalize marijuana trip are you by any chance?

Logical fallacy. Not to mention pathetic.

still, it remains a commonly observable fact that any fool can determine the influence of intoxication on a person

Logical fallacy - we are not talking about intoxication but about drinking alcohol. There is a difference.

even drunkards can observe it (provided they are not at the point of drowning in their own vomit of course)

Logical fallacy.

...that is why the interpretations of persons established in the field of knowledge in discussion are held as more credible than one who is not (except perhaps for a few rare cases on oprah winfrey)

And it is logically fallacious to do that.
One should listen to the arguments - not the authority.
Until you realise that you will continue to struggle.

The main difference between someone established in a field is that they usually also have knowledge of the EVIDENCE to support their claims.
If they don't have this evidence then their claims / interpretations / statements are of no better value than anyone else who can NOT SUPPORT THEIR CLAIMS WITH EVIDENCE.

Likewise - if a non-established person came along and could fully support their arguments with evidence - then this person, regardless of their lack of authority, should be preferred over anyone without evidence.

Learn this.
Use it.

[qupte]in this context, misconstrue[/quote]You do know that there is no such word as "convulted"? If there is, please provide link to meaning, derivation, etymology etc - as it's a new one on me.

the one who properly understood - like for instance someone who received one sentence of instruction would probably not be as qualified as one who had spent 20 years in close daily association with you to further clarify what you desired

And this is nothing other than admittance that to be "qualified" in a matter of belief you need to have that belief. It is the circle of your world.

then obviously institutional stamp, or saintly by appearance, is not a qualification, even though it is currently popular to think so

Logical fallacy.
I am not talking about "institutional stamp" or "saintly by appearance". I am talking about being "qualified" as you have described it.

my point is that you can

And that is why you are wrong.

lol - then why has the understanding of physics undergone so many changes in the past 50 years - do you mean to say that physics has changed over time?

:wtf:
You honestly think Physics has changed over time?
That gravity didn't exist before Newton was hit by an apple?
Physics is what it is.
Only our understanding of it changes.

in terms of knowledge it sure does

Logical fallacy.
You were talking about "physics" - not "the understanding of physics".

but the cutting edge of the elite few at the position of defining the phenomena lay the ground work for everyone else down to time magazine to the university syllabus

But it doesn't change PHYSICS!!

so in other words it is not direct perception

Now you're just being obstreperous.
In this example of course you need direct perception.
YOU need to point to something (that is defined as X) and say that it is not X. Until I have direct perception of what it is you are talking about then there is no discussion in this regard.

does a person perform observation in physics bereft of any practical application in the field of knowledge

All the time.
I challenge you to observe anything that is not obeying the laws of physics.

I am not challenging the notion that laws of the material world, some of which are known to physics, bear an effect on us...

ALL THE LAWS ARE KNOWN TO PHYSICS.
PHYSICS IS DEFINED BY THE LAWS.
PHYSICS DOES NOT CHANGE.
THE UNDERLYING LAWS DO NOT CHANGE.
Only our understanding of the laws, or physics, changes.

- I am challenging that the comprehension of these laws is in the hands of an elite few, after all, when was the last time you checked the gravitational constant of a proton?

Logical fallacy. This has never been in question nor disputed.

But ANYONE can make an observation and challenge the "elite" as long as they have the EVIDENCE to support their claim.
And the ELITE are only the ELITE because they HAVE THE EVIDENCE.

and that is my point - no one is born with the direct perception of the gravitational constant of a proton

People are born with direct perception of physics. Period.
They just do not yet (when born) know how to calculate the details of what they observe.

the gravitational constant of a proton however is not one of those things

see above.

if we are born with direct perception of physics why would it be an aspect of higher education that finds its specialization in tertiary education?

WE ARE BORN WITH DIRECT PERCEPTION - just not an understanding of how to explain what we see.

if a scientist didn't have faith that the laws of the material world are constant they would have no basis to present findings that are repeatable by experiment

Faith has diddly to do with it!
When will you learn.

Do you have "faith" that gravity holds you to the ground?
Please feel free to demonstrate a change in faith that will see you float.

which is why one requires faith to even begin an understanding of it

You just do not understand.
No matter how many times people have tried to explain it to you - you just seemed blocked off to explanations.

lol - behavioral knowledge is one of the strongest cases for faith based knowledge, since it pertains to an expectation in the future (related to pleasure or pain)

That's not "faith" - but a subconcsious assessment of probability of future expectations. The same reason we talk about having "faith" that a friend will help you when asked.
It is the colloquial term used to express a subconscious assessment based on all the evidence of observation received up to that point.

This is very different to religious "faith".

you don't see any difference between doof music and einstein?

"doof music"?
This doesn't answer the question I asked.
Did you know it is bad etiquette to answer a question with a question.

so if they gave the nobel prize to a football player that seems perfectly ok to you?

It would depend upon what the nobel prize was for, and the evidence to support the award over someone else.

most of what goes down in the name of science, philosophy and art is subtle, since it draws heavily on rationalism (or the antithesis of rationalism

This still doesn't answer the question.

 

[Godless]

Convulted? New word to me - sorry. What does it mean?

It's not a word, then again when debating with a pathological theist, who claims to be Hindu, but always side steps to debate on behalf of christianity, and the numerous logical fallacies you've mentioned Sarkus just on this on thread alone, what can one expect? :shrug:

He loves to beat the dead horse, I'm surprised he hadn't mentioned his friend the high school drop out?

 

[Adstar]

*************
M*W: What about people who call themselves christians but do time for repeated DWIs? Are they really christians if they can't stop drinking and driving, yet they preach the salvation of Jesus Christ as if they were pious and holy? A little clarification, please.

A lot of alcoholics (Christian and non-Christian ) know that their excessive drinking is wrong. This knowledge does not stop them from going out and getting drunk again and again and again. The reason they continue to get drunk is because the addiction to the alcohol. Even though many of them deeply regret taking up drinking in the first place and wish they could be free of their addiction they continue to drink to excess.

My Sister is addicted to smokes, She knows that it is bad for her health and tells me she wishes she never took up smoking. Now she found out her son has also taken up smoking and she went of the deep end at him and they had a argument, of course her son called her a hypocrite for criticising him for smoking when she is already a smoker. But irrespective of her faults she is right when she tells her son that he should stop smoking.

So people can believe and agree that their actions are wrong but still be addicted to their actions. It is not hypocrisy when someone fails to live up to the ideals they hold as true. People fall down because they are people.

And Yes i know that a lot of people who suffer from alcoholism are also devout Christians. See they know only too well that they are sinners needing to be forgiven their faults. They know they are doing wrong the more they detest themselves for it the more they appreciate being forgiven for it.



All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Godless]

addiction is a mental weakness of the individual. Lots of people pray on Sunday in their church to help overcome their addiction, but after the services they are at it again, either drinking or smoking, or doing elicit drugs, whatever the hang up would be. They rely on substitute substance to stop them from doing what they are seemingly addicted to.

Most people don't have the mental conviction to just stop whatever they "seemingly are addicted to" for that it takes a strong mind, one with strong will, and able to stand on it's convictions.

I speak from experience. I was an alcoholic, drug addict, my drug of choice was crack cocaine, I drank a storm, and smoked a pack a day. After having my nervous break down, I made the commitment to stop doing drugs, on my own, It's been 11 years, since. I quit smoking cigs about two years ago, I hardly ever drink, only sociably. I changed my life style without substitute substances, hence I didn't quit smoking sigs with Nicorretes gum or anything, I just plainly quit all together. I didn't substitute eating for drugs or alcohol, I just plainly quit, I've not gained weight considerably, or taken up any other destructive behavior. No prayer, no god, no angels, non of that shit helped me, I did it all on my own. It is the convictions of one committed to change their life style.

My mom quit smoking cigs pretty much the same way. After her heart operation, she just simply quit smoking! Period. It's the commitment and having the conviction to follow through. It has nothing to do with "will power" or prayer, it's following through your commitments. For that it takes a strong will.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

your post doesn't make sense

Is it possible to present an abbreviated version?

It's not a word, then again when debating with a pathological theist, who claims to be Hindu, but always side steps to debate on behalf of christianity, and the numerous logical fallacies you've mentioned Sarkus just on this on thread alone, what can one expect? :shrug:

He loves to beat the dead horse, I'm surprised he hadn't mentioned his friend the high school drop out?

the high school drop out analogy is brought up repeatedly because it is the most common argument brought up by atheists - " There is no evidence" - the next question is "evidence according to who?" - its not an issue of theism/atheism but foundations of knowledge you can apply to any discussion of knowledge

 

[567]

They are not suppose to but they do it anyways, they have this guy name Jesus and he is son of god and he will come and save them.... so they say lets do all the bad things in the world and have fun.

 

[lightgigantic]

They are not suppose to but they do it anyways, they have this guy name Jesus and he is son of god and he will come and save them.... so they say lets do all the bad things in the world and have fun.

actually it is the common pitfall - "Jesus died for our sins" - the question is why does one go on sinning if one actually in a sinless position?

 

[Sarkus]

your post doesn't make sense

It does if you have the decency to read it.

Is it possible to present an abbreviated version?

It is possible. But I'm not going to.
If I have the decency to read your posts through, please have the decency to do likewise with mine.

If you have any confusion about elements of it - please feel free to point them out and explain your confusion.

 

[Adstar]

addiction is a mental weakness of the individual. Lots of people pray on Sunday in their church to help overcome their addiction, but after the services they are at it again, either drinking or smoking, or doing elicit drugs, whatever the hang up would be. They rely on substitute substance to stop them from doing what they are seemingly addicted to.

Most people don't have the mental conviction to just stop whatever they "seemingly are addicted to" for that it takes a strong mind, one with strong will, and able to stand on it's convictions.

I speak from experience. I was an alcoholic, drug addict, my drug of choice was crack cocaine, I drank a storm, and smoked a pack a day. After having my nervous break down, I made the commitment to stop doing drugs, on my own, It's been 11 years, since. I quit smoking cigs about two years ago, I hardly ever drink, only sociably. I changed my life style without substitute substances, hence I didn't quit smoking sigs with Nicorretes gum or anything, I just plainly quit all together. I didn't substitute eating for drugs or alcohol, I just plainly quit, I've not gained weight considerably, or taken up any other destructive behavior. No prayer, no god, no angels, non of that shit helped me, I did it all on my own. It is the convictions of one committed to change their life style.

My mom quit smoking cigs pretty much the same way. After her heart operation, she just simply quit smoking! Period. It's the commitment and having the conviction to follow through. It has nothing to do with "will power" or prayer, it's following through your commitments. For that it takes a strong will.

For some it takes a stronger will because the strength of the addiction is higher. While in others it takes less will because the same drug does not have the same level of addictive strength to them.

It is a mistake to think ones own struggle with addiction is the same struggle for others.

So you might think that it is a case of one person having a stronger will and another person having a weaker will, but it can also be that the substance has a more addictive effect on one person and a less addictive hold on the other.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Godless]

Perhaps, your right, but coming from combing the floor for a rock to get high, I say I was way out there, spending over $500 a week on a habit, is not a joke of how weak my addiction was, but how addicted I truly was, however I suppose it's the shock of my nervous system, that brought the high to an end, then it literally became a battle of will to leave the kind of life style I've led till then! It's hard to explain it Adstar, but I don't think quiting my addiction had anything to do with belief or lack there of, I was an atheist while I was a drug addict at the same time, being a drug addict has nothing to do with one's beliefs, it's the life style the individual has led, and has allowed himself/herself to lead, however when a choice is made and a commitment is made to one self for a change, one only lies to themselves if they continue that which they wish to leave, whatever the substance, if an individual makes the commitment to leave it, he/she will seek help if needed, until then he/she will continue on the same path.