there would be tons of suicides from all those that believed there was no god..
and quite a few from those who do believe..
What would it take?
- Thread starter answers
- Start date
there would be tons of suicides from all those that believed there was no god..
and quite a few from those who do believe..
Or it would be like that scene in the Simpsons Movie where there is a bar next door to a church. Everyone runs out of both buildings, looks up in the sky and then runs into the other building.
lol..yeah..something like that..
On the other hand, there are many terms from Sanskrit and the biblical languages which are difficult to translate because we do not have adequate words/concepts.
And many of these terms are from the field of spirituality, which suggests that it is the modern language that is poorer.
Spiritual knowledge is constant, not subject to change - unlike knowledge about the material world.
Who we really are, or how God created the world, for example, is something that has been settled once and for all, does not require any further experimentation or investigation.
What varies about spiritual knowledge is in what way and to what extent can it be presented, given the people to whom and the circumstances in which it is presented.
An individual's knowledge or understanding of spiritual topics will evolve - going from ignorance toward proper understanding.
But spiritual knowledge as such does not evolve; there is no "objectively existing problem of who we really are; a problem that would still need to be solved", for example.
Perhaps, like you, they have studied, discussed and prayed, and received revelations different than those you have received.
Who or what is the source of all knowledge?
Do you think there can be any guarantee of absolute accuracy of knowledge based on personal observations and rationale?
(Such accuracy may namely be needed in spiritual matters.)
I think one can approach God only indirectly, through a representative. Such a representative must, thus, be given divine status, in regard to spiritual knowledge and empowerment.
This approach is not limited to Catholicism, but can be found in many other traditions as well.
But Jesus has departed.
We cannot talk to him.
He cannot tell us whether he actually accepts us or not.
Thinking oneself someone's follower or disciple, without actually having this person's approval, is vain, to say the least.
haven't been following this discussion very closely..but..
the representative is not divine they are just as susceptible to their own humanity as the rest of us..
not to sidetrack the discussion but a disagreement came up in church today,thought i would ask here..
the term 'son of man' is mentioned several times in the bible..what is the root word and is the root word used for all instances of the term 'son of man'?
i've talked to him.
SolusCado,
Did they have a word for "satellite", "play station", telescope, "black-hole", "apple-crumble" and so on?
Solus, you are the one creating this "linguistic" barrier.
I have given you definitions of the word "and", the little word that seems to be holding up this discussion. I can't do anymore than that.
What is your reason for ignoring them?
What is the mainstream understanding?
And why is it sufficient for you?
Because "light" was the result of what He said. That's what it says.
As we do not have experience of such activity, our attempt to fill in the gaps is understandable, but open to error.
But more importantly. Why don't you believe that God has that ability?
I will overlook the unnecessary ad-hominem attack if you explain the true meaning of the beginning of genesis. So far you appear to be on the back foot, clinging to the word "and" as if it was a light in the darkness.
In fact Solus, you haven't explained anything, and managed to insult me twice in the process.
jan.
Did they have a word for "satellite", "play station", telescope, "black-hole", "apple-crumble" and so on?
Solus, you are the one creating this "linguistic" barrier.
I have given you definitions of the word "and", the little word that seems to be holding up this discussion. I can't do anymore than that.
What is your reason for ignoring them?
What is the mainstream understanding?
And why is it sufficient for you?
Because "light" was the result of what He said. That's what it says.
As we do not have experience of such activity, our attempt to fill in the gaps is understandable, but open to error.
But more importantly. Why don't you believe that God has that ability?
I will overlook the unnecessary ad-hominem attack if you explain the true meaning of the beginning of genesis. So far you appear to be on the back foot, clinging to the word "and" as if it was a light in the darkness.
In fact Solus, you haven't explained anything, and managed to insult me twice in the process.
jan.
Indeed. Which is why such studies shouldn't be ignored - which I have repeatedly said. They just shouldn't be treated as divine - and any who CLAIM divinity should be treated with that much more skepticism.
A misnomer - you are going to have to be more specific in what you mean by "all knowledge". A child learning to walk for example gains such knowledge through trial and error. The child itself is then the source for such knowledge.
Know, which is why the word "faith" is so relevant. We do not follow God because we know, but because we believe.
I absolutely disagree. Such a statement invalidates what the Bible says about both "faith" and a "personal God".
This is a fundamental belief I have noticed in many Catholics, and in the ruling Pharisees at the time of Christ. It is also in direct opposition to one of the fundamental messages of Christ.
Agreed. Such as the Pharisees. You aren't helping your point with that statement.
Ahhh - well then, was Christ resurrected or not? What do you suppose it means to be "alive in Christ"? It would appear that you and I have fundamental differences of opinion in what it means to be a "Christian". (Which may have something to dow ith why Protestants refer to themselves as "Christians", and catholics refer to themselves as "Catholics"...)
Agreed - which is why I noted above that any who claim to have a divine message should be treated with extra caution.
That is an excellent question, and while I cannot comment on the root Hebrew without further research, I have always taken it to mean the naturalistic descendants - the "animal" that evolved, whereas 'sons of God' refer to the spiritual aspects of man.
Something many other "Christians" would also claim, which is my point above. (What do you know Jan - we are in agreement again!
)Clearly not - which is once again my point. If such terms were relevant to explaining the universe, and they did not have such terms, I would expext their physical explanations to be restricted.
Because they are simply not correct. Spouting incorrect English to me deserves no response. You simply made assertions without any examples or references to prove you very much incorrect assertions. I am not creating the barrier; I am identifying it.
I don't feel like going back to see what you were referring to in order to repeat common knowledge. The mainstream understanding is sufficient because there is no reason to think otherwise. It is consistent with other things, both biblically and theologically. If new knowledge were raised to cast doubt on that I would revisit the subject (as should any thinking person). As that has not yet occurred, I have no reason to disagree.
How or why is "light" the result of what He said? How can you claim that is what it says when you cannot provide a single instance of proper grammar being applied thusly? Jan, you clearly don't understand English well enough to have this conversation. Drop it.
What I believe God does and doesn't have the ability to do is irrelevant. I am simply going by what the Bible "actually says", and it doesn't "actually say" what you think it does.
It isn't an ad-hominem attack as it is highly relevant to the question at hand. If you cannot understand English grammar well enough to understand the point being discussed, there is no reason to discuss it with you.
In fact Solus, you haven't explained anything, and managed to insult me twice in the process.
jan.
It isn't an insult, but an observation. I have given you other examples in the English language supporting my position. You have not. You have repeatedly disagreed while repeatedly failing to provide such support. I can only conclude that you are being wilfully obtuse, or that you just don't understand grammar well enough to participate in the conversation. I personally would consider the conclusion of stubborness to be an insult, and the conclusion of ignorance to simply be a lack of knowledge - something for which one cannot be faulted (unless they continue in such ignorance, which would go back to the stubbornnes). So, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt.
I do not disagree with you here, and once more we must constantly seek to improve our knowledge and understanding. Our current culture has more scientific knowledge and less spiritual knowledge, so when it comes to interpreting scientific events, I will lean more on current knowledge. When it comes to interpreting spiritual statements, I will rely more on historical writings. This is just basic education, and hardly worth the level of conversation we are applying to it. I don't understand why you keep saying things that are in line with what I am saying, and yet come to such distinctly different conclusions.
No knowledge is constant. Those who have stopped seeking the truth are guaranteed to never find it. To think that you "know" is arrogance beyond all arrogance.
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. Seriously?? If that is your opinion, I see no reason whatsoever in continuing this conversation. Your beliefs CLEARLY outweigh any possible logic, rational, or conversation in general.
OK; I'll agree with that.
I may or may not disagree with you. The statement is unfounded as far as I am concerned, so UNTIL new knowledge says otherwise, I have no reason to think that there is some knowledge we are missing - though the history of mankind has shown that we never know all there is to know, and I refer back to the assertion of arrogance to ever think that we know all there is to know.
SolusCado,
Maybe.
Or maybe they are of no consequence in the context of spirituality.
"AND"
"as result: used to introduce a situation or event that is a consequence of something just mentioned"
Their work was excellent and won several awards.
check out the link
God said "let there be light", and, there was light.
There being light IS a consequense of what is said, especially in light of the context of the text (i.e. in the begining GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH).
Why don't you tell us what it actually means then?
Oh I forgot, it's somehow secretly encoded in the language because the people were too thick to learn how to understand concepts.
Do you think that ancient people didn't have the capicity to learn new concepts, or words?
Yes it does, and you cannot refute it.
You are basically combining two opposing world views to come up with a neat and tidy explanation.
Of course there is a point.
I understand english grammer well enough to know what i'm talking about in this context.
You've given no examples to support your position.
Not only have I given examples, to support my position, I have also given you the oppotunity to explain how your atheistic world view can be demonstrated in the bible. To this, you dish out insults.
jan.
Maybe.
Or maybe they are of no consequence in the context of spirituality.
"AND"
"as result: used to introduce a situation or event that is a consequence of something just mentioned"
Their work was excellent and won several awards.
check out the link
God said "let there be light", and, there was light.
There being light IS a consequense of what is said, especially in light of the context of the text (i.e. in the begining GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH).
Why don't you tell us what it actually means then?
Oh I forgot, it's somehow secretly encoded in the language because the people were too thick to learn how to understand concepts.
Do you think that ancient people didn't have the capicity to learn new concepts, or words?
Yes it does, and you cannot refute it.
You are basically combining two opposing world views to come up with a neat and tidy explanation.
Of course there is a point.
I understand english grammer well enough to know what i'm talking about in this context.
You've given no examples to support your position.
Not only have I given examples, to support my position, I have also given you the oppotunity to explain how your atheistic world view can be demonstrated in the bible. To this, you dish out insults.
jan.
Last edited:
I agree with that 100%, which is why I object so strongly to Christians trying to take what is essentially meant to be a message of spirituality and try to shoehorn it to fit with bad science, creating bad religion in the process.
OK; fair enough - though it IS listed as a secondary definition to the mine, the primary. Why would you use the secondary in place of the primary? (More to the point, why did the translators? We are really having a pointless argument if we don't focus on the Hebrew.)
Why don't you tell us what it actually means then?
Oh I forgot, it's somehow secretly encoded in the language because the people were too thick to learn how to understand concepts.
Do you think that ancient people didn't have the capicity to learn new concepts, or words?
No; it's how we got to the languages of today. Do you think that spiritual inspiration also taught them physical sciences? If not, does your question/statement have any point of relevance?
No, I am showing that they don't have to be opposing. They ARE neat and tidy, which is the strongest evidence of their truth.
This was the first post in which you have done so - and how do you come to the conclusion that I have not? Remember the conversation about making coffee? And it isn't an atheistic worldview - it is a scientific one. The theories of natural selection, expansion theory, etc. do not assume there is no God; they are simply explanations as to how things work - explanations that fit in fine with Genesis if people recognize that Genesis isn't telling us a "how" but rather a "what" - something that is fully supported by the PRIMARY definitions of the words in use.
It is attitudes like yours that are truly responsible for the rift between "science" and "religion" - you are responsible for the scientific worldview becoming an atheist one because you are placing religion squarely opposite science and truth, in an attempt to force your religion to mean something that you have no reason to do - other than the fact that people hundreds of years ago made a decision based on THEIR limited knowledge that you are trying to hold to today. You may as well maintain that the Earth is flat and the center of the universe. You create a mockery of God and Christianity in the process, and that is why I find it so distasteful. You create an image of religion that is so clearly false that it drives people away, and that is a horrendous thing to be responsible for.
SolusCado,
What do you mean "message of spirituality"?
We either accept the belief that God is the original source, or not.
Science is only bad (as is religion) when people are bad. It's very simple.
Ultimately nobody knows exactly what happened before the formation of matter. But we can access knowledge which can be of value to our time as human beings.
And science isn't the only source of knowledge, there is also philosophy, art, and religion.
There would be no point in the statement;
"God said let there be light, AND there was light",
used in the same or similar context of
"We need to clean the house AND pack our suitcases."
I mean, come on!
For a nice guy (?), i'm begining to sense a condescending, and smug attitude, mixed in with your responses. Believe me, there is no need for it.
Do you think that ancient people would have trouble accepting the evolution idea, if it were written in the bible? If you do please explain why.
Sanskrit, i'm sure you are aware, is a very old and ancient language. Older than Hebrew, i believe.
Within that language there is a word for "atom" and an explanation. The word is parama-aṇuḥ.
"The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man."
You're kidding right?
Science does not oppose God, i'm way ahead of you on that.
People oppose God, or science, or both.
People are prone to error or fault, as well as they can be right, enlightened, and so on.
Incorrect.
Yes I do.
And i did respond to it.
Maybe you IGNORED it.
It does when you agree that nature is capable of generating life forms, or can form out of nothing. At the very least it removes the need for God. The only real card the atheist has in order to develop a utopia.
Don't be so naiive Solus.
If you can't take the literalness of the bible, then just admit it. Don't try and explain it away. That is what is wrong with the western idea of Christianity, imo (for Signal).
There is nothing wrong with being a true atheist, or atheistic. I'm almost sure the majority of the worlds population (especially in the west) are at the very least atheistic.
The modern atheist, is a different kind of animal. One who seeks to destroy God, in the minds of men.
As it ever occured to you that for a minority group, they sure wield alot of power?
No.
These are the times my friend. It's going to get a whole lot worse.
I haven't contradicted science at all, and I have made no reference to religion. You are merely echoing cliches that are etched into our minds, less we make an effort to remain focused.
What exactly are you talking about here?
Ok, check this out.
I hold that God created by use of His Perfect Knowledge and command of nature, and you say that I may as well maintain that the earth is flat?
Despite showing you that the earth being round is not only in the bible, but all other scriptures as well (if you care to research).
You're not listening.
That is what I find distateful with western Christianity.
It's funny. I accept what the scripture says and you accuse me of creating a false image.
I think you are lost.
All you have done is attack me.
Think about what that means.
jan.
What do you mean "message of spirituality"?
We either accept the belief that God is the original source, or not.
Science is only bad (as is religion) when people are bad. It's very simple.
Ultimately nobody knows exactly what happened before the formation of matter. But we can access knowledge which can be of value to our time as human beings.
And science isn't the only source of knowledge, there is also philosophy, art, and religion.
There would be no point in the statement;
"God said let there be light, AND there was light",
used in the same or similar context of
"We need to clean the house AND pack our suitcases."
I mean, come on!
For a nice guy (?), i'm begining to sense a condescending, and smug attitude, mixed in with your responses. Believe me, there is no need for it.
Do you think that ancient people would have trouble accepting the evolution idea, if it were written in the bible? If you do please explain why.
Sanskrit, i'm sure you are aware, is a very old and ancient language. Older than Hebrew, i believe.
Within that language there is a word for "atom" and an explanation. The word is parama-aṇuḥ.
"The material manifestation's ultimate particle, which is indivisible and not formed into a body, is called the atom. It exists always as an invisible identity, even after the dissolution of all forms. The material body is but a combination of such atoms, but it is misunderstood by the common man."
You're kidding right?
Science does not oppose God, i'm way ahead of you on that.
People oppose God, or science, or both.
People are prone to error or fault, as well as they can be right, enlightened, and so on.
Incorrect.
Yes I do.
And i did respond to it.
Maybe you IGNORED it.
It does when you agree that nature is capable of generating life forms, or can form out of nothing. At the very least it removes the need for God. The only real card the atheist has in order to develop a utopia.
Don't be so naiive Solus.
If you can't take the literalness of the bible, then just admit it. Don't try and explain it away. That is what is wrong with the western idea of Christianity, imo (for Signal).
There is nothing wrong with being a true atheist, or atheistic. I'm almost sure the majority of the worlds population (especially in the west) are at the very least atheistic.
The modern atheist, is a different kind of animal. One who seeks to destroy God, in the minds of men.
As it ever occured to you that for a minority group, they sure wield alot of power?
No.
These are the times my friend. It's going to get a whole lot worse.
I haven't contradicted science at all, and I have made no reference to religion. You are merely echoing cliches that are etched into our minds, less we make an effort to remain focused.
What exactly are you talking about here?
Ok, check this out.
I hold that God created by use of His Perfect Knowledge and command of nature, and you say that I may as well maintain that the earth is flat?
Despite showing you that the earth being round is not only in the bible, but all other scriptures as well (if you care to research).
You're not listening.
That is what I find distateful with western Christianity.
It's funny. I accept what the scripture says and you accuse me of creating a false image.
I think you are lost.
All you have done is attack me.
Think about what that means.
jan.
You have an incorrect interpretation of what knowledge is.
The false image is that of the so-called scripture itself since it is mythology and fiction if you base you belief on that, then yes it is necessarily wrong.
Yeah, I'm going to have to side with Jan on this one. You no better know whether it is true or false than Jan (or me).
I mean that the Bible, or more specifically, the scriptures - were never intended to be books that explained physical processes. The attempt to turn it into that is what causes modern, thinking, rational, 'scientific' people to call it mythology and fiction. Because that is exactly what mythologies do - they create elaborate fictions to explain the otherwise unexplainable.
No, "bad science" is when you try to assert things that have no experimental support, cannot be disproven by experimentation, or are outright in opposition to experimental observations. Science is not a religion, and people being good or bad is irrelevant. That is the domain for religion.
Actually, it is believed that the Big Bang did not create matter, but rather matter was formed in the moments immediately following the Big Bang - a concept that is supported by Genesis, wherein first God created light, and then God created 'earth', which is notably lower case - I believe the intent was simply to say 'matter', but once again - since there was no such concept back then, I wouldn't have expected them to use a distinct word delineating the difference.
Arguably, there is no source of knowledge at all - we all do our best to cobble together the observations of our existence into something approximating knowledge. The statement does not however have any bearing on the conversation at hand.
There would be no point in the statement;
"God said let there be light, AND there was light",
used in the same or similar context of
"We need to clean the house AND pack our suitcases."
I mean, come on!
Please stay on track here - your example of the use of the word "and" is a different definition than the one I used in my original example - one in which the point of the statement would be to identify that light was created at God's will - much like me buying a cup of coffee. There is still no reason to think that the statement carried with it any attempt to convey how light was created, and you have still not provided any such reason - which is why I may be getting more and more condescending. When people can't/don't stick to the conversation, I get very frustrated or dismissive.
I do apologize; I would much prefer to stick to the points of the conversation - you just seem unwilling to do so. You keep making statements that are either completely irrelevant, or if they ARE relevant you don't explain why. It forces me to type more and spend more time on a conversation that is getting nowhere.
It isn't that I think they would have had trouble accepting it; it's that the Bible (as I said in the very first sentence above) is NOT a science textbook. Never was. So I wouldn't expect scientific explanations to be included in it. Why would you? (PLEASE answer that question, since it seems to be a root issue at play here.)
Yes, it is older than Hebrew. And even the word "atom" comes from the Greeks around the time of Christ. It was however a concept (in the Greek) that everything is made up of constituent particles - it was by no means an indication that they had any knowledge whatsoever of particle physics, subatomic particles, etc. Do you actually think it did? Because if not, why do you even bring it up?
Once more, you seem to be making irrelevant statements. What does people opposing God, science, or both have to do with what we know scientifically fitting in "neat and tidy" with what little the Bible says about Creation? (Once more, PLEASE answer this question as it is this constant derailing of the conversation that is getting so frustrating.)
I have no interest in a pissing match, but if you would care to provide a post number in which you did, I would be happy to apologize. If you can't or won't, I am also just as happy to drop the subject.
You were just saying that I have not provided any support to my claims; now you say that you do remember me doing so - which is it? (Your responses did not address my points; that is why I ignored them. Perhaps you actually think you ARE addressing my points and I am just not seeing them - maybe you could make an attempt at connecting the dots that I am not seeing?)
You are now shoehorning God into a picture that severely insults his abilities. Who created nature? If nature is capable of generating life forms, and does so according to the 'abilities' instilled by God when He created nature in the first place, how is it not a testament to His Creation that such things came about. The very insertion of unnatural processes to explain that nature He created suggests that His initial creation was insufficient, that He didn't do a good enough job initially and had to toss out some magic to get it where He wanted it.
As to the idea of a "need" for God... well that is some of the worst Theology I've ever heard. If we are saved through faith, then how can we ever be saved if God put us in a world that can only be explained by "God did it". Knowing that, we aren't exhibiting any faith at all when we come to such a conclusion; we are merely coming to a logical conclusion. If you think there "needs" to be a God to explain things, then you are severely lacking in faith.
You mistake "literalness" for "interpretation", a horribly common mistake in today's religions. You don't have to dismiss it as metaphor to look at the texts from a fresh perspective.
Umm - I'm really not sure what you're point is here, as it once more seems completely irrelevant, but no - it doesn't surprise me at all given the fact that our religions are represented by people who are stuck in a mindset that is hundreds of years old. Just like a small group of adults would easily control a much larger number of infants.
Unless the ostrich Christians get their heads out of the sand, yeah - you're right.
This entire tangent started when you said you didn't believe humans evolved from "molecule to man"... Which is very much a contradiction. What do you believe happened? And please do explain how it is NOT contradicting science when you explain it.
That you (apparently) believe the Earth was formed in 24 hours, that spacetime was somehow formed from sound waves (all the stranger since sound waves require a medium in which to travel), and all the other gross misinterpretations of what Genesis "actually says".
No; I actually agree with the statement that God "created" by use of "His Perfect Knowledge" and "command of nature". You are the one that then feels a need to supplement his "command of nature" with things that require a God to have occured. If God created through his perfect knowledge and command of nature, then we shouldn't be able to tell the difference in a universe that occurred completely "naturally" with no God and one that occurred completely "naturally" WITH a God.
Your refusal to accept new information regarding what exactly "nature" can do is why I say you may as well maintain that the Earth is flat.
You provided no such evidence. Or rather, you may have shown that they saw that the Earth was "round" but not a "globe" - which was the prevailing belief. If you look at ancient maps, the Earth as always been portrayed as round - but never a sphere. So - um, congratulations. You may as well have provided evidence that they also thought the sky was blue.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm not listening.
Jan, PLEASE drop the misdirection - it is dishonest. Our entire debate here is on "what the scripture says", so if we are in disagreement here then obviously I would see your position as a false image (just as you see mine). So don't sit there and make claims that you "accept what the scripture says" until you have proven as such.
See my last statement above. I am not attacking you, but rather your positions and statements. That means that I am not content to watch idiocy take hold of Christianity and fly its banner into a battle that is destined to be lost. If your best defense is to curl up and say "stop attacking me" then there is really no point in continuing the conversation at all, is there?
Kenny, if you aren't going to read the posts, don't bother posting. Jan and I have been going back and forth for weeks now because I don't think that is even what the Bible says. So, no - I don't believe the universe was created in six days, I don't believe the Bible says that it was, and people like you who choose to accept only such meanings are more interested in creating an image of Christianity that you can ridicule than actually engaging in anything that remotely approaches intelligent conversation.
I'm proud for you.