Christians

[qacwac]

to IBhacknU: that is why my church supports missionaries.

As to what believing Christianity is right makes others religions.
I think you can answer that yourself. Is there nothing that you believe? If there is then you believe that those in opposition to you are wrong. That is what a belief is. It doesn't make me dislike them or think I am better than them. I know how evil I am and I know no one who is worse than me.

 

[BoberFett]

LMAO UG, uh, that's embarashin'.

Edit: Fixed

 

[LadyJessica]

Missionaries are one thing. Missionaries trying to convert everybody is quite another. Speaking of which, anyone know any Muslim or Jewish missionaries in the US?

 

[Athanasius]

To be a "Christian," in any defensible historical interpretation of the term, means to believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, God's chosen human to lead us to real meaning and life.

But being a Christian does not mean that I believe that I am 100% right and other religions are 100% wrong. There are many facets of Christianity that do not have widespread historical agreement or are based on difficult passages of the Bible. Still, there is a core element to Christian doctrine that has remained fairly uniform for at least 1800 years. This core element does not include the age of the earth, the universe, or the literalness of the six days of Creation. Nor does it include absolute statements that no one outside of Christianity can be saved. Many early church fathers speculated about those who neve heard or who had lived before Christ and/or outside of national Israel. Of course the early church fathers focused on individuals that they knew about: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. Still, the earliest Fathers had a clear understanding of who the Apostles understood Jesus to be: Jesus was the unique, human incarnation of the Logos of God. Read John 1. The Logos/Word is the Creator, (John 1:3, He is the Light which lights every man (John 1:4-5,9), He is the Redeemer of mankind (1:10-18).

The Word was all of these things before He joined the humanity of Jesus, the Word will always be all of these things. But one must also understand that this means that anytime anyone apprehends any genuine truth, it is the power of the Universal Logos/Word/Reason that is guiding that one's reason. Hence, truth is found throughout many different world religions. Paul quoted a Hymn to Zeus and applied it to the One True God: "In him we live and move and have our being." (Acts 17:28) In some fundamentalist circles today, if I quoted Carl Jung or Sigmund Freud, I would automatically be labeled a heretic. But the Word was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth to show us the Unseen Father. Still, the Word guides all people (even, at times, Zeus worshippers) and the Spirit seeks to convict the entire world of what is right.

What I am getting at is this: being a Christian does mean believing that, where Jesus and other great sages contradict, Jesus has the superior understanding because Jesus is the Word Incarnate. He is the self-claimed "Teacher" and "Master". All others are only groping after their best apprehensions of the Logos as it resonates with their own "logos," the image of God within all of us. But this doesn't mean that Buddha, Confucius, Mohammed, Lao-Tse, Aristotle, or the modern "sages" of quantum physics are total heretics or infidels.

[Sarcasm] They are only infidels when they disagree with me or force me to think for myself. [Sarcasm] Like Red Dawn and UG

Judgment does not come because of what we are truly ignorant of or do not know. Judgement comes because of what we really do know, deep inside, and yet find excuses to reject. When Christians, who are supposed to be the Body of Christ, act prejudiced or arrogant or condemning, do non-Christians see the Light of God clearly? If judgment must occur, it is supposed to start with the house of God (1 Cor 5:12). What business is it of mine to judge those who don't even believe that Jesus is the Christ?

 

[Semper Fi]

Vision, sorry to take your thread off the posted topic. I apologize.


Napalm, are you mad because I choose not to use your dictionary. I told you what dictionary I used, what dictionary did you use. I did not make up anything off the top of my head. The "scientists dictionary"? No, you pulled these definitions from a website that supports your beliefs. How am I a liar? Look up the definitions yourself in a dictionary.

That definition of "fact" is correct. There is no way to rigorously prove anything as a fact in the real world. To completely prove something means you must prove that it holds for every case possible. This is possible in mathematics, but obviously not so in the real world

Exactly my point. You responded to my original post. This is the point I am making to people that say they don't believe because it is unscientific.

Exactly what lies have I made up? I don't know what your problem is, but get your facts straight before you accuse someone of lying.

 

[HardwareAddicted]

I'm not going to tell anybody that I am a gospel expert, but....

What I DO know for sure is this:

When I was converted to the gospel, when the Holy Ghost touched me inside,
when I felt the love, peace and joy beyond description.....

I couldn't speak...only cry.

It was the most moving thing I have ever experienced, words are not able to describe.....

If you have the wonderful thing in your life, and you see LOTS of people without it,
it makes you very sad for them and you want to share what you have so they can have it too.

This may be a bit simplistic, but I was touched deeply by the spirit when I prayed for an answer to the question... Is this the Gospel you want me in and support?

I will never forget it and will take it to grave, gladly knowing what waits for me.

(And hopfully more of you guys too)

I never thought I would be sharing this on a forum such as this, but I'm glad I did.

May you all find peace in your own beliefs, but be honest to yourself.

You may not know what your missing if you have never had it.

 

[Napalm381]

Within the same dictionary, you can find definitions of "theory" that support both of our viewpoints. From the Merriam Webster dictionary defintion of "theory":
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
(Supports your viewpoint)
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
(Supports my viewpoint. )

Which one do we choose? I offer the definition of theory from my biology textbook:
The term theory has a very different meaning in science compared to our general use of the word. The colloquial use of &quot;theory&quot; comes close to what scientists mean by a &quot;hypothesis&quot;. In science, a theory is more comprehensive than a hypothesis.

One can easily find references to the &quot;theory of gravity&quot;, the &quot;wave theory of light&quot;, and other scientific principles that are essentially beyond reproach. Gravity is referred to as a theory, but you'd have a tough time finding someone who disagreed with it.

Have I provided enough examples to show you that theory is used in a different sense in scientific contexts that colloquial ones yet?

 

[VisionsUCI]

HardwareAddicted, it is so great to hear you share! I know the most powerful examples of Christianity are the impacts on people's life, rather than preaching and teaching. Its very encouraging to hear from you!

Napalm, I understand what you're saying about theories. Technically then, evolution and creationism are both theories. Both cannot be duplicated completely, and scientists think that they've found evidence contrary to each, though not completely. So, I suppose one might conclude that there is more to it than science, perhaps, yes? Every decade or so the age of the earth is revised, as are many other basics of evolution. Scientists have it difficult, because they need to prove things. Christians can just believe and have faith, realizing that the worldview holds together, not having to necessarily prove it through laws, but from experience. Even if I can't explain creationism succinctly, I can't deny the presence of God in my life and his help and blessings.

 

[rahvin]

Well that big post was a load of rubbish.

 

[dmbsuperfan]

which post is a &quot;load of rubbish?&quot;

 

[Semper Fi]

Hypothesis-1) An explanation that accounts for a set of facts and that can be tested by further investigation; theory. 2) Something that is taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; assumption.(source Second College Edition, The American Heritage Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin)

There are no laws that I know of that are associated with the theory of evolution. It is not in the same category as the theory of gravity. Physical and repeatable experiments can be conducted to test the theories of gravity and light waves. No such experiments can be conducted with evolution.

I fail to understand how you can attack me and then say I am a liar.

<<<Which one do we choose? I offer the definition of theory from my biology textbook:>>>
So if I use your selected definition then we can get along? Sorry, I feel my selected definition for theory(as used to describe evolution) is more accurate.

&quot;The truth is that evolution was an hypothesis which hardened into dogma before it had been thoroughly analysed. Hence it mothered a number of fallacies.&quot;-Prof. E.W.F. Tomlin

 

[Napalm381]

<< There are no laws that I know of that are associated with the theory of evolution. >>

Just because you are unaware of them does not mean that they do not exist.



<< No such experiments can be conducted with evolution >>

Again from talkorigins:
&quot;Evolution has never been observed.&quot;

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, &quot;Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory.&quot; Evolution 46: 1214-1220). The &quot;Observed Instances of Speciation&quot; FAQ in the talk.origins archives gives several additional examples.

Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.


&quot;Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.&quot;

First, we should clarify what &quot;evolution&quot; means. Like so many other words, it has more than one meaning. Its strict biological definition is &quot;a change in allele frequencies over time.&quot; By that definition, evolution is an indisputable fact. Most people seem to associate the word &quot;evolution&quot; mainly with common descent, the theory that all life arose from one common ancestor. Many people believe that there is enough evidence to call this a fact, too. However, common descent is still not the theory of evolution, but just a fraction of it (and a part of several quite different theories as well). The theory of evolution not only says that life evolved, it also includes mechanisms, like mutations, natural selection, and genetic drift, which go a long way towards explaining how life evolved.

Calling the theory of evolution &quot;only a theory&quot; is, strictly speaking, true, but the idea it tries to convey is completely wrong. The argument rests on a confusion between what &quot;theory&quot; means in informal usage and in a scientific context. A theory, in the scientific sense, is &quot;a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena&quot; [Random House American College Dictionary]. The term does not imply tentativeness or lack of certainty. Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely. Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either. On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

What evolution has is what any good scientific claim has--evidence, and lots of it. Evolution is supported by a wide range of observations throughout the fields of genetics, anatomy, ecology, animal behavior, paleontology, and others. If you wish to challenge the theory of evolution, you must address that evidence. You must show that the evidence is either wrong or irrelevant or that it fits another theory better. Of course, to do this, you must know both the theory and the evidence.

If you refuse to use widely accepted scientific definitions to discuss a scientific subject, then I have nothing more to say to you.

 

[Napalm381]

Thought I might point out an article that pokes quite a few holes in the Noah's Ark/great flood theory. You can find it here.. I know I will most likely be attacked for referring to heretic evolutionist site, however I point out that Semper_Fi and others have offered no sort of reference besides a few dictionary definitions.

 

[UG]

Boberfett;

<<...uh, that's embarashin'...Edit: Fixed...>

Half fixed.

<...The current state of the universe in this example, is 10. Slowly but surely, scientists are gathering information to find parts of the original equation. To illustrate 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + x = 10 So x = 1, right? Wrong. x could just as easily be 3^3 - (5 x 3) + 7...>

Okay, then let's examine this:

x = [ 3^3 - (5 x 3)] + 7 = 19

x = 3^3 - [(5 x 3) + 7] = 5

Which is it: x = 1 could just as easily be x = 19, or x = 5?

 

[UG]

My new motto:

Semper Infi!

 

[UG]

Semper_fi;

<...I fail to understand ...>

At least you're accurate when you state the obvious.

 

[UG]

Boberfett;

Are you now willing to entertain the notion that you are similarly incorrect in the presumption that you've unerringly, logically deduced the existence of your, and Apoppin's, 'mind behind the universe' god?

ILMAOAYPD.

 

[kami]

Nice link, Napalm381. interesting read.

 

Good discussion, folks. Interesting information on both sides, no? Lot's of questions answered that I had started wondering about just a few days ago.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......

 

[~zonker~]

I think you're just jealous UG... because you've never had that loving feeling that all these folks swear by

Perhaps rather than respect their experience you're logical mind says... 'if they're right, maybe I'm missing something, that could not be possible, they must be fools!'

 

[UG]

~zonker~;

<...you've never had that loving feeling that all these folks swear by...>

Nope, you're correct: I've never been to philosophy prison.

<...rather than respect their experience you're logical mind says... 'if they're right, maybe I'm missing something, that could not be possible, they must be fools!'..>

That I respect anyone's right to believe anything they want doesn't require of me that I respect any idea just because it is believed by someone. I tend to respect evidence that transcends pedestrian belief criteria.

 

[DRGrim]

qacwac: To tell you the truth, I am saddend by your blindness. And I do hope you know I was jokeing when I said &quot;Especially since I know that I am right&quot;.
I started out religious, but soon realized what a bunch of junk it was. Hey, I even started out liking Macintoshes.

And another thing: If I was religious, I would be VERY offended by you calling my religon a 'game'. I'm supprised other people havn't said anything.

And the logic you people use to defend you point of view is horrific. If thats the best you can come up with, I say give it up now to spair further embarrisment.


<< Evolution is not science! It has nothing to do with science. It should not be in the science textbooks. Statements like &quot;billion of years ago...&quot; is not scientifically provable and should not be in the textbooks. No one can prove that the world is billions of years old, but if you pick up any earth science textbook, it will tell you that the earth is billions of years old. That theme is all through the public school textbooks. >>


This is the worst thing I have ever heard in my life. People who think like that should not be alowed to speak of science. Religion is the least scientific thing on earth. How can he say there is no proof? Proof is everywhere. What there is no proof of, is creationism. There is only one piece of 'evidence' that supports this idea. And who knows how long people were telling these storys, exagerating them beyond belief (at least for sane people) before they were written down? I say we iliminate that as 'evidence' also. There: Zero evidense supports creation. Thier fore everything else supports evolution. Case closed.

 

[qacwac]

to DRGrim: If you are saddened by my blindness that does not offend me. I am sorry that my life does not shine forth so that you envied me but you cannot see my life.

You say you were joking about &quot;Especially since I know that I am right.&quot; How can you be joking when in your next line you say
&quot;religious...realized what a bunch of junk it was.&quot;
You right there state that your irreligious state is right and all religious people are going after junk. That is quite a harsh statement. Now once again this doesn't offend me but I am amazed at how some people condemn people in one sentence and do the same as them in the next. Do you see that?

I have already stated that I was using a play on words from someone else's post. Perhaps I should not have done that. For that I am sorry. As for people being offended by that. I do not think it is as derogatory as your junk statement. Again, can you see that? Not that it offends me but to those others who you were thinking I might offend I think you are probably offending.

That's my understanding with the light I have been given.

 

[DRGrim]

No, qacwac, I cannot see that, for I am blinded, remember?
Fine. I should have said it was junk in my opinion. But I was just trying to be funny by saying I was right and you were wrong, next to a quote that said the exact opposate. I think its called juxtoposition(sp?).
Well, I sure am glad you have been given light (?), and that you believe whatever you want to, despite rather thin evidense... in my HUMBLE opinion. You are obviously better then me. I now relize I have been bad and will go to hell for ever. Blah blah blah. Good night.

 

[jhu]

you're all going to hell. have fun!