Weegle777 78 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 This is how a debate should be. Well done fellows. If this is a debate, I'm losing. It helps me to think of it as a learning exercise. I can appreciate the fact that there's a lot I can learn from TT and everyone else. You aren't losing. Debates should be about hearing both sides of an argument, and genuinely considering what the other person has to say instead of just arrogantly laughing someone's opinions or beliefs off like a couple of people on this board do. You, though we might differ on our views, are one that I like to discuss and debate with because of the respect. Many here could learn from that example including myself. OK, I slept on this last night and as EMT would say, "its a new day"... First, I want to point out you implied that a belief in evolution, as well as "Big Bang", is "crazy" in post #15. I then tried a respectful line of questions in posts #42, 43, 45, 49, 50, 52 and (especially) 54 and all I got in return was snark. To your credit, you became a little more serious in post #61 and 62 where you stated simple opinion (though woefully wrong) which I pointed out in post .#66. I admit, I "turned bad" in post #68, which was extremely arrogant (and snarky), even if honest. I even respectfully admitted that in post #76. I still maintain I have no duty to explain such a complex and significant theory on the internet when the person asking for proof is not willing to do their own homework. I am perfectly willing to address specific questions regarding evolution, but I can't really "teach" you the subject in a discussion forum, even if I wanted to. I would take the same position to anyone asked me to "prove" the validity of the elecromagnetic theory or quantum mechanics, etc. At any rate, you used this reasonable position as an excuse to pile on more snark. So we have now arrived at the above post, where all of a sudden I am the one guilty of not "genuinely considering what others have to say". I am tired of being accused of exhibiting a pattern of thoughtless responses after I have made repeated tries to confirm or clarify your positions in a respectful thoughtful manner. Maybe I should not lose my temper but I have spent most of my life being polite to people who don't deserve it and figured it's time to live a little. People like you and Titan are clearly playing by a double standard. My biggest problem is I don't have enough self-control to just allow you to keep exhibiting this hypocrisy. I should take some lessons from BigBen. Regardless, I apologize to you and everyone else for losing my temper and resorting to snark. I take responsibility of the jabs I have thrown. In hindsight, it was at least counterproductive if not just dumb on my part. I will try to do better. In that regard, I have some questions for you if you are willing to entertain them. How about it? I didn't specifically point you out at all, and I included myself as one that needs to be better. I have researched evolution and natural selection and Darwinism pretty extensively in the past, so I am pretty familiar with most of it. And fire away with the questions. I am always willing to consider a different POV if the info moves me so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I have a question for believers on this thread. If we should live as Jesus did when He walked this planet, with all of the power that He had, and in His own words, gave to all those who would follow Him to perform the supernatural wonders that He did, is it any wonder that people today don't have a desire to follow Jesus when the very ones that are supposed to represent Him live a powerless life and don't live in the supernatural like we are supposed to? Are we the ones that are failing the people who are lost? I know what I believe is the answer. What say ye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japantiger 4,051 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 You misinterpreted the statement. It's not that people do good or bad; it's what defines good or bad. God, not people make the definition...otherwise there is no standard. Like taking a test; if I make 80 and you make 81; the standard set by the teacher was 100 based on certain answers to the test....otherwise the grade has no meaning.... I'm reminded of the old cartoon with Satan meeting people in hell...he says "welcome, there's no right or wrong here; just what works for you"... God defined morality in multiple ways between the old testament and the new testament. He also defined morality differently in the koran. There is no one standard set by god, it is up to us to figure out which standards to follow. Where is moral relativism taught in the Bible? I really can't remember seeing that. Please provide the reference. No, God does not put a menu out there for us to choose from. It's really a whole lot simpler than that. There are a whole lot of Old Testament references still being made...the Law of the Old Testament was replaced....period. Jesus changed that....so, no God doesn't define morality in multiple ways. We may want him to because, frankly, it is hard to live that way. But he doesn't give us the latitude to follow some of the rules and ignore the others because we don't like them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 You misinterpreted the statement. It's not that people do good or bad; it's what defines good or bad. God, not people make the definition...otherwise there is no standard. Like taking a test; if I make 80 and you make 81; the standard set by the teacher was 100 based on certain answers to the test....otherwise the grade has no meaning.... I'm reminded of the old cartoon with Satan meeting people in hell...he says "welcome, there's no right or wrong here; just what works for you"... God defined morality in multiple ways between the old testament and the new testament. He also defined morality differently in the koran. There is no one standard set by god, it is up to us to figure out which standards to follow. Where is moral relativism taught in the Bible? I really can't remember seeing that. Please provide the reference. No, God does not put a menu out there for us to choose from. It's really a whole lot simpler than that. There are a whole lot of Old Testament references still being made...the Law of the Old Testament was replaced....period. Jesus changed that....so, no God doesn't define morality in multiple ways. We may want him to because, frankly, it is hard to live that way. But he doesn't give us the latitude to follow some of the rules and ignore the others because we don't like them. We choose between the old testament, the new testament, the koran, and other places where god defined morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I haven't gotten a response on my faith vs. belief post. It is nice to finally put to rest the myth that being atheists takes faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToomersRevenge 284 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. The major hurdle there comes from even getting two people to the point where they agree that stuff like evolution even happens. Quite a few people refuse to believe that based primarily on a conflict they perceive it bringing with their religious views. It also doesn't take a large leap to believe, if one does, that the universe has always existed as the Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy states that neither can be created nor destroyed. By extension everything has always been. That's an extremely difficult concept for humans to comprehend, and some of that is probably restricted to the way our brains developed. It's also not that difficult to say, well I've got experiments, theories, laws, etc which have all been verified which shows that A, B, C, D, E, and F are all the ways that certain systems work. Some of us just don't believe that the logical next step to that goes beyond a natural explanation into an unprovable supernatural one. The order that I've seen that work is "God does it" when nobody understands something to a "God of the gaps" argument as information is discovered, followed eventually by "God set that whole thing up to work like that" once it's all figured out. If God did something to concretely prove his existence then yes I'd switch my opinion, but I find it rather dubious that as time has gone on he has given up ALL of the supernatural demonstrations the bible claims happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jj3jordan 2,056 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. The major hurdle there comes from even getting two people to the point where they agree that stuff like evolution even happens. Quite a few people refuse to believe that based primarily on a conflict they perceive it bringing with their religious views. It also doesn't take a large leap to believe, if one does, that the universe has always existed as the Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy states that neither can be created nor destroyed. By extension everything has always been. That's an extremely difficult concept for humans to comprehend, and some of that is probably restricted to the way our brains developed. It's also not that difficult to say, well I've got experiments, theories, laws, etc which have all been verified which shows that A, B, C, D, E, and F are all the ways that certain systems work. Some of us just don't believe that the logical next step to that goes beyond a natural explanation into an unprovable supernatural one. The order that I've seen that work is "God does it" when nobody understands something to a "God of the gaps" argument as information is discovered, followed eventually by "God set that whole thing up to work like that" once it's all figured out. If God did something to concretely prove his existence then yes I'd switch my opinion, but I find it rather dubious that as time has gone on he has given up ALL of the supernatural demonstrations the bible claims happened. God is always there and has not given up anything. There is an innate desire that humans have that makes them know and seek the higher power that is God. God allows us to have free will, freedom of choice for all the pro-choice people. He wants us to choose Him, and He will accept anyone. Science is fine, it just doesn't explain life. Just as you used the matter cannot be created or destroyed law, one proposed by a human, there are others that conflict with science. The natural world does not progress from chaos to order. In fact, it goes from order to chaos. That is why it is difficult to believe that absolutely incredibly complicated organisms evolved from lesser complicated organisms. Doubtful you will get a personal sign from God. But if you are open to God, you will get signs that reveal Him to you on a personal level. If He did something spectacular my guess is you would explain it away rather than believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. The only semantics game is you pretending faith and belief are the same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToomersRevenge 284 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. The major hurdle there comes from even getting two people to the point where they agree that stuff like evolution even happens. Quite a few people refuse to believe that based primarily on a conflict they perceive it bringing with their religious views. It also doesn't take a large leap to believe, if one does, that the universe has always existed as the Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy states that neither can be created nor destroyed. By extension everything has always been. That's an extremely difficult concept for humans to comprehend, and some of that is probably restricted to the way our brains developed. It's also not that difficult to say, well I've got experiments, theories, laws, etc which have all been verified which shows that A, B, C, D, E, and F are all the ways that certain systems work. Some of us just don't believe that the logical next step to that goes beyond a natural explanation into an unprovable supernatural one. The order that I've seen that work is "God does it" when nobody understands something to a "God of the gaps" argument as information is discovered, followed eventually by "God set that whole thing up to work like that" once it's all figured out. If God did something to concretely prove his existence then yes I'd switch my opinion, but I find it rather dubious that as time has gone on he has given up ALL of the supernatural demonstrations the bible claims happened. God is always there and has not given up anything. There is an innate desire that humans have that makes them know and seek the higher power that is God. God allows us to have free will, freedom of choice for all the pro-choice people. He wants us to choose Him, and He will accept anyone. Science is fine, it just doesn't explain life. Just as you used the matter cannot be created or destroyed law, one proposed by a human, there are others that conflict with science. The natural world does not progress from chaos to order. In fact, it goes from order to chaos. That is why it is difficult to believe that absolutely incredibly complicated organisms evolved from lesser complicated organisms. Doubtful you will get a personal sign from God. But if you are open to God, you will get signs that reveal Him to you on a personal level. If He did something spectacular my guess is you would explain it away rather than believe. Entropy doesn't conflict with science in the least. It is one of the fundamental things driving biochemistry and organic chemistry. It's also completely logical that it takes energy to maintain order otherwise disorder results. And being "open" to God means you will read God into whatever you want. Got a raise? God. Hit all greens on the way home? God. Got Cancer...wait no nevermind. Now if I ran into a talking snake, or a talking burning bush, or a guy who turned two loaves of bread into a ton, or water into wine, or parted the seas with a sweeping motion...sure, I'd be much more inclined to believe. Name something recent that has a clear or demonstrable supernatural cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 And being "open" to God means you will read God into whatever you want. No, it means you are open to truth, wherever it leads...even if that is to God. Got a raise? God. Hit all greens on the way home? God. Got Cancer...wait no nevermind. Not according to Scripture: "Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked I will depart. The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised." (Job 1:21) There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born and a time to die... ...a time to weep and a time to laugh, a time to mourn and a time to dance, (Ecclesiastes) Now if I ran into a talking snake, or a talking burning bush, or a guy who turned two loaves of bread into a ton, or water into wine, or parted the seas with a sweeping motion...sure, I'd be much more inclined to believe. Name something recent that has a clear or demonstrable supernatural cause. Don't be so sure. Even the people who saw such miracles turned away and didn't believe in Him.: He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” (Luke 16:27-31) Now I don't mention all these things to browbeat you with the Bible. But rather, I mention them to give you a fuller, more accurate picture of Christian theology, particularly on the matter of when we "read God into" things or when we conveniently forget Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. The only semantics game is you pretending faith and belief are the same thing. Hate to break it to ya bud, but every person that walks this planet has some form of faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Hate to break it to ya bud, but every person that walks this planet has some form of faith. I don't know why this nonsense is repeated. Are those with faith insecure that others don't need faith to live their lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Probably because it's a distinction without a real difference. Two men can be evolutionists. They could be totally in sync with one another on how the world and universe developed over billions of years. They could agree on the fossil record and the theory on the Big Bang. But at that point, how something could come from nothing or what could have existed eternally with no beginning to have somehow developed into matter and energy...if you believe it happened independent of any supernatural being and just somehow happened all on its own, that's a faith/belief position. Period. If you believe there is a Creator that was the First Cause of nothing becoming something, that's a faith/belief position. You've put nothing to rest. You've just played semantics games. The major hurdle there comes from even getting two people to the point where they agree that stuff like evolution even happens. Quite a few people refuse to believe that based primarily on a conflict they perceive it bringing with their religious views. It also doesn't take a large leap to believe, if one does, that the universe has always existed as the Laws of Conservation of Mass/Energy states that neither can be created nor destroyed. By extension everything has always been. That's an extremely difficult concept for humans to comprehend, and some of that is probably restricted to the way our brains developed. It's also not that difficult to say, well I've got experiments, theories, laws, etc which have all been verified which shows that A, B, C, D, E, and F are all the ways that certain systems work. Some of us just don't believe that the logical next step to that goes beyond a natural explanation into an unprovable supernatural one. The order that I've seen that work is "God does it" when nobody understands something to a "God of the gaps" argument as information is discovered, followed eventually by "God set that whole thing up to work like that" once it's all figured out. If God did something to concretely prove his existence then yes I'd switch my opinion, but I find it rather dubious that as time has gone on he has given up ALL of the supernatural demonstrations the bible claims happened. God is always there and has not given up anything. There is an innate desire that humans have that makes them know and seek the higher power that is God. God allows us to have free will, freedom of choice for all the pro-choice people. He wants us to choose Him, and He will accept anyone. Science is fine, it just doesn't explain life. Just as you used the matter cannot be created or destroyed law, one proposed by a human, there are others that conflict with science. The natural world does not progress from chaos to order. In fact, it goes from order to chaos. That is why it is difficult to believe that absolutely incredibly complicated organisms evolved from lesser complicated organisms. Doubtful you will get a personal sign from God. But if you are open to God, you will get signs that reveal Him to you on a personal level. If He did something spectacular my guess is you would explain it away rather than believe. Entropy doesn't conflict with science in the least. It is one of the fundamental things driving biochemistry and organic chemistry. It's also completely logical that it takes energy to maintain order otherwise disorder results. And being "open" to God means you will read God into whatever you want. Got a raise? God. Hit all greens on the way home? God. Got Cancer...wait no nevermind. Now if I ran into a talking snake, or a talking burning bush, or a guy who turned two loaves of bread into a ton, or water into wine, or parted the seas with a sweeping motion...sure, I'd be much more inclined to believe. Name something recent that has a clear or demonstrable supernatural cause. My friend, you have no idea how profound the last paragraph in this post is. You have just answered my question in a post in this thread that went completely ignored until you unknowingly responded to it. What you stated here is the absolute most key part of why people do not have a desire to follow Jesus, and it is the fault of every believer that isn't or refuses to believe in the supernatural power that Jesus gave to every believer to continue to perform the miraculous works of Christ in our world. We are the reason you don't believe, because what reason have we given you that would make you want to? And please know that this post has no sarcasm in it. I mean this as a shot at every believer that has the false belief that miracles aren't for our day and time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Hate to break it to ya bud, but every person that walks this planet has some form of faith. I don't know why this nonsense is repeated. Are those with faith insecure that others don't need faith to live their lives? It's not your fault for not knowing, you can't have understanding of faith unless it is revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. I don't fault you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 It's not your fault for not knowing, you can't have understanding of faith unless it is revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. I don't fault you. It hasn't been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit. It seems you understand that some people do not have faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Hate to break it to ya bud, but every person that walks this planet has some form of faith. I don't know why this nonsense is repeated. Are those with faith insecure that others don't need faith to live their lives? It's not your fault for not knowing, you can't have understanding of faith unless it is revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. I don't fault you. your best post ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 It's not your fault for not knowing, you can't have understanding of faith unless it is revealed to you by the Holy Spirit. I don't fault you. It hasn't been revealed to me by the Holy Spirit. It seems you understand that some people do not have faith. You have a form of faith, just not faith in God. Do you plan for your future by chance? Retirement, 401K and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 You have a form of faith, just not faith in God. Do you plan for your future by chance? Retirement, 401K and such? Planning for the future requires faith? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 You have a form of faith, just not faith in God. Do you plan for your future by chance? Retirement, 401K and such? Planning for the future requires faith? Of course. Do you invest with hope that your money will grow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Of course. Do you invest with hope that your money will grow? Who doesn't hope their money will grow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Of course. Do you invest with hope that your money will grow? Who doesn't hope their money will grow? You have faith in your investment then. Why are you so opposed to faith? Faith isn't evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 ]You have faith in your investment then. Why are you so opposed to faith? Faith isn't evil. Hope is not faith. I hope Adriana Lima will walk through the door and demand she have my babies. I do not have faith that she will do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weegle777 78 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 ]You have faith in your investment then. Why are you so opposed to faith? Faith isn't evil. Hope is not faith. I hope Adriana Lima will walk through the door and demand she have my babies. I do not have faith that she will do this. Ok. For the sake of this thread, you win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aufan59 71 Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 It is interesting to see those with faith that do not know what faith is. I hope through simple examples I could show you that faith is more than hope or a belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.