Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-27-2017 6:44 PM
386 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,569 Year: 10,175/21,208 Month: 3,262/2,674 Week: 678/961 Day: 140/151 Hour: 0/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11248
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 76 of 162 (788614)
08-02-2016 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 2:38 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I mentioned the issue of Romans 14:14 because I thought you were making fun of the clean/unclean concept.

The question I was answering was for examples of faith leading to knowledge that was scientific.

It turns out that you actually have your own theories about the concept, and you accept it based on your theories (of sickness issues and safety of meat). Historians say there is no evidence that food safety was the concern of ancient peoples especially the Hebrews with regard to pork and its parasites. It is often repeated by many that the concern is parasites and such. Again, the historians say there is no evidence that this was the concern.

Regardless, it is an example of what was asked for.

Even if safety wasn't the driving factor behind pork being unclean, it is still a concept that is supported by science.

Yes, vegetarians were simply described as "weak" in Romans. The consceince part was in 1 Corinthians 8:12

quote:

12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ.

13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.


So that's not about being a vegetarian. Paul was responding to concerns of the people of the new church in Corinth, where they were wondering about eating the animals that the locals had sacrificed to their gods.

Paul was explaining that since the sacrifices to other gods mean nothing to the one true God, then it doesn't really matter if you eat that meat. But, if you are upsetting people by doing it, then you shouldn't eat that meat as a means to avoid upsetting people. It didn't really have anything to do with eating meat, in and of itself.

Remember that I thought you were making fun of the "clean" issue. The better word is "pure" anyway.
I posted Romans 14:14 just to clarify that the issue isn't even part of (the original and modern so-called)Christianity anyway.

Sure, God doesn't really care about all those crazy convoluted jewish laws.

The early Jewish Christians tied his death (c. 30 A.D.)to the end of eating animals, and the Temple destruction (70 A.D.) to the end of animal sacrifice.

How do you feel about vegetable sacrifice? Like when the plants from Palm Sunday are burnt to make the soot for Ash Wednesday?

quote:

[CatSci]
Let me get this straight: Humans are no different from animals. Animals eat each other, including humans, but humans are not supposed to eat animals?

It sounds to me like you are saying we are the same but at the same time saying that we must be different.


I was quoting what religions and their sacred texts say. I don't think they feel that a trained dog should eat the same food that a wild dog does. It's all about enlightenment I suppose.

quote:

So if animals do have a soul, should we then hold the lion accountable when it murders and eats a gazelle?

Lions can actually be quite nice. Tigers too. They actually can form friendships with animals they normally eat, and this happens in the wild. A wild Tiger formed a friendship with a young ram, but the friendship ended when it got tired of the ram playfully butting him endlessly. He threw the ram away (with his mouth), and human observers later decided to separate the 2. Wild lions can be friendly with humans too, even though they are hungry meat-eaters. But they can't digest carbohydrates (most can't anyway), so they seem to need to eat meat. About 14/17 house cats (85%) can digest carbohydrates, and can survive on a plant-based diet. But not all of them can.

quote:

Yeah I don't get it. We are animals, and we have K9's designed for tearing flesh. We've evolved eating meat.

So what now? Now that's bad thing?


Even the right-wing anti-vegetarian Dr. Michael Savage recently had to admit that vegetarians had more bioavailability of L-CARNITINE than meat-eaters. I remember when he claimed that vegetarians couldn't get enough.

I don't feel like you've answered my questions.

Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary

What do you mean a latecomer? Apes have been eating meat long before humans evolved.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 2:38 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 4:18 PM New Cat's Eye has responded
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:27 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 77 of 162 (788616)
08-02-2016 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Stile
08-02-2016 1:14 PM


Re: Topic Remix
The fact that every time we look for evidence of an intelligence that is ultimately responsible for our existence we do not find any.

Being unable to find evidence of an-intelligence-that-is-ultimately-responsible-for-the-fact-that-we-exist is itself evidence that an intelligence is not ultimately responsible for the fact that we exist.

Did it ever occur to you that this intelligence does not want us to find any evidence?

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Stile, posted 08-02-2016 1:14 PM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 4:01 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 7:11 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 91 by Stile, posted 08-03-2016 8:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11248
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 78 of 162 (788617)
08-02-2016 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
08-02-2016 3:56 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Did it ever occur to you that this intelligence does not want us to find any evidence?

"Bwahahaha, let's see who believes in me now!

Oh, you don't? Off to the fire pits with you!"

Please don't make God be Loki.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 3:56 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 79 of 162 (788618)
08-02-2016 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 3:36 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
quote:

[CatSci]
So that's not about being a vegetarian. Paul was responding to concerns of the people of the new church in Corinth, where they were wondering about eating the animals that the locals had sacrificed to their gods.

Paul was explaining that since the sacrifices to other gods mean nothing to the one true God, then it doesn't really matter if you eat that meat. But, if you are upsetting people by doing it, then you shouldn't eat that meat as a means to avoid upsetting people. It didn't really have anything to do with eating meat, in and of itself.


Romans 14 was about total abstinence from food.

Here is what Jerome said. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm see section 18 1:18

quote:

But after the deluge, together with the giving of the law which no one could fulfil, flesh was given for food, and divorce was allowed to hard-hearted men, and the knife of circumcision was applied, as though the hand of God had fashioned us with something superfluous.But once Christ has come in the end of time, and Omega passed into Alpha and turned the end into the beginning, we are no longer allowed divorce, nor are we circumcised, nor do we eat flesh, for the Apostle says, It is good not to eat flesh, nor to drink wine.

Here is the early church father (from the 2nd century!) Clement of Alexandria.

quote:

Now breathing together (σύμπνοια 3553 is properly said of the Church. For the sacrifice of the Church is the word breathing as incense 3554 from holy souls, the sacrifice and the whole mind being at the same time unveiled to God. Now the very ancient altar in Delos they celebrated as holy; which alone, being undefiled by slaughter and death, they say Pythagoras approached. And will they not believe us when we say that the righteous soul is the truly sacred altar, and that incense arising from it is holy prayer? But I believe sacrifices were invented by men to be a pretext for eating flesh. 3555 But without such idolatry he who wished might have partaken of flesh.

For the sacrifices of the Law express figuratively p. 532 the piety which we practice, as the turtle-dove and the pigeon offered for sins point out that the cleansing of the irrational part of the soul is acceptable to God. But if any one of the righteous does not burden his soul by the eating of flesh, he has the advantage of a rational reason, not as Pythagoras and his followers dream of the transmigration of the soul.
http://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/002/0020416.html


Read on and you will see that he gives a reason for the Jews not eating pork that is not based on health issues.

Clement also said (though not here) that Matthew was a vegetarian. I already quoted it in another thread.

quote:

How do you feel about vegetable sacrifice? Like when the plants from Palm Sunday are burnt to make the soot for Ash Wednesday?

Vegetarians ever complain about this?

Has a Hindu complained?

Did the early Jewish Christians ever complain?

I don't know.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 4:59 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11248
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


(1)
Message 80 of 162 (788621)
08-02-2016 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 4:18 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
Romans 14 was about total abstinence from food.

No, it isn't.

It's about not judging other people, keep it between you and God. It's about "live and let live", don't get in other people's way. If someone wants to eat meat, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too.

However, if your actions are causing distress to others then you should stop doing them and instead work towards peace.

Read on...

No. Bring the argument here in your own words.

...a reason for the Jews not eating pork that is not based on health issues.

That literally doesn't matter to the point I made.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 4:18 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:39 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
herebedragons
Member
Posts: 1298
From: Michigan
Joined: 11-22-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 81 of 162 (788623)
08-02-2016 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 3:36 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary

What do you mean a latecomer? Apes have been eating meat long before humans evolved.

Yea, don't you remember, even T-rex was a vegetarian.

HBD


Whoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for... I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca

"Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.

Ignorance is a most formidable opponent rivaled only by arrogance; but when the two join forces, one is all but invincible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 3:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:27 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 82 of 162 (788626)
08-02-2016 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by herebedragons
08-02-2016 5:27 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
quote:

[LamarkNewAge]
Meat eating was a latecomer and it isn't necessary

[CatSci]
What do you mean a latecomer? Apes have been eating meat long before humans evolved.
[herebedragons]
Yea, don't you remember, even T-rex was a vegetarian.


Reptiles from 65 million years ago are so like humans (uh huh).

Reminds me of Dr. Michael Savage trying to tell people that it SHOULD be illegal to eat dogs. Callers kept calling up and arguing that "half the world lives on this stuff" and often China was used as an example. Savage was nearly exasperated at all the b.s. logic. "No matter what I say, [the responce is] 'just like China' , 'just like China'. People would say but "most of the world eats dogs", and Savage would respond, "I KNOW they do, but I'm saying they are barbarians".

Anyway.

CatSci made a statement that might be false anyway.

Here is hit one on google when I type "apes meat eaters" into engine.

quote:

DO APES EAT MEAT?

Not really. Chimps do, but chimps are the closest of all of the apes to humans.

The Hominid line is often to thought to be Homo only. Not so. Hominids include chimps (2 species), gorillas (2 species) and orangutans. Beyond that, they’re all a bunch of monkeys, including gibbons, who straddle the monkey-ape line. Which apes are closest to humans? Chimps. After that, gorillas. Then possibly orangutans.

However, none of these are in the Homo line. The Homo line at present includes only humans, and I would argue Bigfoots, yetis, etc.

All non-human apes are basically vegetarians. Chimps are mostly vegetarian, but they will eat meat once in a while. Gorillas are completely vegetarian. So are orangutans.

An interesting thing is the occipital ridge. That is the coned head on the top of a gorilla’s head. The occipital and nuccal ridge develops in order to support very strong jaw muscles. It’s not easy to eat plants all day long. You need strong jaw muscles. Try eating trees and bushes all day and you will see what I mean. Gorillas chomp plants all day, so the occipital ridge of coned head developed to support very strong jaw muscles.

2.4 million years ago, humans split from other apes and lost the occipital crest. This made it harder to eat plants all day and required better foraging skills. At this time, humans or Homo started eating a lot more meat and a lot less plants. The occipital ridge was lost because believe it or not, it’s easier to eat meat than it is to eat plants all day. The loss of the occipital ridge created increased space for brain development, as the occipital ridge takes up space where the brain should be with pure bone.
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/...4/18/do-apes-eat-meat


Maybe we better start by looking at Mammals?

Maybe we better start by looking at the last 20 million years or so?

Maybe we better look at our ancestors from that period too?

Maybe we better see what our bodies get from certain foods (like how much L Carn)?

T-Rex is so so new age.

WWJD?

Ask James and the Jewish Christians from the first century.

Even Catholics like Jerome and Clement of Alexandria agree with me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by herebedragons, posted 08-02-2016 5:27 PM herebedragons has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 83 of 162 (788628)
08-02-2016 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
08-02-2016 4:59 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I said, "Romans 14 was about total abstinence from food."

quote:

[CatSci]
No, it isn't.

It's about not judging other people, keep it between you and God. It's about "live and let live", don't get in other people's way. If someone wants to eat meat, that's cool. If they don't, that's cool too.

However, if your actions are causing distress to others then you should stop doing them and instead work towards peace.


Paul came down on a vegetarian conclusion. You are using his stated logic and teaching techniques as an excuse to disagree with his conclusion. You did the same thing with 1 Corinthians 8:10-13.

Then when I was talking about Clement of Alexandria.

quote:

[CatSci]
No. Bring the argument here in your own words.

[LamarkNewAge said Clement of Alexandria said that]"...a reason for the Jews not eating pork that is not based on health issues."
[CatSci then responded]
That literally doesn't matter to the point I made.


It matters because the "health issue" for not eating pork is a modern invention.

And you still have to deal with the fact that even the gentile European Christians (in the Roman Catholic orbit) disagree with you at times. There were still many Jewish Christians around who kept the knowledge of the strict 1st century vegetarian commands of Jesus, James, Paul, and the rest.

The 1st century Jewish Christians (and the following centuries) were unanimous on meat being prohibited.

It is clear when reading Paul as well. (though James and his followers were the most powerful reason for the unanimity on eating meat being strictly prohibited) (the reason for not eating meat was very very clear. The Temple destruction also meant the end of sacrifice in Jerusalem so NO MORE ANIMAL KILLING for sacrifice as well as the previous food ban)

Amazing (and I do mean amazing) that even a 4th-5th century Roman Catholic like Jerome sees it. But he was a genuine scholar.

That fact alone settles the issue.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 6:51 PM LamarkNewAge has responded
 Message 89 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-02-2016 10:30 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9284
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 84 of 162 (788630)
08-02-2016 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 6:39 PM


Faith & Evidence.
Lamark, you are using human wisdom to try and explain scripture. This simply will not work. It leads to long posts that basically teach us nothing. Quit trying to convince yourself and others something which you dont even understand how to believe.

Drop that zoroastrianism stuff...its worthless.

If you believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the Dead and confess it with your mouth you will be saved. Its just that simple.

As for any critics, I have seen people transformed by simply doing just that.|

My evidence is based on the transformation in others which I saw.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:39 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:53 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 08-03-2016 12:36 PM Phat has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 162 (788632)
08-02-2016 6:53 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Phat
08-02-2016 6:51 PM


Phat?
Your post seems unconnected to this discussion.

As far as my posts are concerned, anyway.

Re read what I typed, and pay close attention to the posts you read (which you think were my posts?).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 6:51 PM Phat has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4545
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 86 of 162 (788634)
08-02-2016 7:11 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
08-02-2016 3:56 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Phat writes:

Did it ever occur to you that this intelligence does not want us to find any evidence?

Then it's rather odd that he sent his only son to earth to deliver his WORD and be sacrificed to save us. Odd too that he may perform miracles and respond to prayer. Then there's the small difficulty in annihilating all life on earth with a global flood whilst saving a select few to provide witness evidence.

Honestly Phat, do you not ever join the dots?


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 08-02-2016 3:56 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 7:34 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 88 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 7:36 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 24442
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.0


Message 87 of 162 (788636)
08-02-2016 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tangle
08-02-2016 7:11 PM


Re: Topic Remix
I'm sure Phat had in mind that God won't let us find a certain kind of evidence, the kind that does fine for science but not for things of the spirit. For spiritual things, however, He's provided evidence galore.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 7:11 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tangle, posted 08-03-2016 2:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 88 of 162 (788637)
08-02-2016 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tangle
08-02-2016 7:11 PM


Re: Topic Remix
quote:

do you not ever join the dots?

Look at the problem I have with about a half-dozen or so posters.

I'm almost not allowed to talk about the vegetarian issues related to prophecy, the new covenant/testament, Jesus, and the Temple destruction.

Never mind that all the Jewish Christians all saw them as very closely connected.

Nevermind that the Roman Catholic scholar Jerome of the 5th century clearly saw it as connected.

Nevermind Clement of Alexandria (essentially a Roman Catholic and a gentile for sure) saw the connection.

I show that even the (almost pagan) Manicheans were strict vegetarians because of their connection to the Elkesaites (a 100/101 A.D. Jewish Christian sect that had features that connected them to the Jerusalem Jewish followers of James from 30-62 A.D. and then after that when they fled to Pella in TransJordan), and I get either blank stares or posts shouting at me because people can't connect dots.

I'm never allowed to connect obvious dots.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Tangle, posted 08-02-2016 7:11 PM Tangle has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11248
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 89 of 162 (788643)
08-02-2016 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by LamarkNewAge
08-02-2016 6:39 PM


Re: Cat Sci made a sarcastic remark about science and religious text.
I'm collapsing your last two replies:

From Message 82

CatSci made a statement that might be false anyway.

Here is hit one on google when I type "apes meat eaters" into engine.

quote:
.

Maybe we better start by looking at Mammals?

Ah, you're more zoomed out and I'm more zoomed in, I see what you meant by latecomers now. I was thinking more on the level of "within the genus Homo". Honest mistake, thanks.

From Message 83

Paul came down on a vegetarian conclusion.

I'm honestly not sure what that means.

You are using his stated logic and teaching techniques as an excuse to disagree with his conclusion. You did the same thing with 1 Corinthians 8:10-13.

I don't know what it is that you think I'm doing, but you sound way off.

But we're not really on this thread's topic anymore, so I'd rather not go further here, we should branch off to a different one.

It matters because the "health issue" for not eating pork is a modern invention.

That's what doesn't matter. I don't care if you forbid it because a magic pig talked to you and told you not to; back then the belief that 'you should not be eating pork' was one that today we can support scientifically.

And you still have to deal with the fact that even the gentile European Christians (in the Roman Catholic orbit) disagree with you at times. There were still many Jewish Christians around who kept the knowledge of the strict 1st century vegetarian commands of Jesus, James, Paul, and the rest.

The 1st century Jewish Christians (and the following centuries) were unanimous on meat being prohibited.

It is clear when reading Paul as well. (though James and his followers were the most powerful reason for the unanimity on eating meat being strictly prohibited) (the reason for not eating meat was very very clear. The Temple destruction also meant the end of sacrifice in Jerusalem so NO MORE ANIMAL KILLING for sacrifice as well as the previous food ban)

Amazing (and I do mean amazing) that even a 4th-5th century Roman Catholic like Jerome sees it. But he was a genuine scholar.

That fact alone settles the issue.

I'm willing to discuss with you why that issue is not settled, but I really don't think this is the thread's topic here.

You really should start (or link me to) a thread about Vegetarianism and Religion, or something like that. I'll argue with you about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by LamarkNewAge, posted 08-02-2016 6:39 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4545
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 90 of 162 (788644)
08-03-2016 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Faith
08-02-2016 7:34 PM


Re: Topic Remix
Faith writes:

I'm sure Phat had in mind that God won't let us find a certain kind of evidence, the kind that does fine for science but not for things of the spirit. For spiritual things, however, He's provided evidence galore.

Nonsense, Jesus (born of a virgin) walked around raising the dead, feeding the masses with couple of loaves and fishes, turning water into wine, walking on water and rose from the dead. His dad parted water, burnt bushes without burning them, turned water into blood, created all our languages instantly, flooded the word, sent manna from heaven, made laws on tablets of stone etc etc etc.

Every one of those things interfere with the natural world in ways intended to impress and convince. Utter crap of course. It's interesting that the more sceptical and rational our society becomes the less of these kind of 'miracles' happen. The magician, it seems, can't do close-up work. These days he only impresses the ignorant off-camera.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Faith, posted 08-02-2016 7:34 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
45
6
78
...
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017