The fact that it cannot be totally disproven does not give the theory any credit. The earth has relative motion to all other objects in the universe. It is unlikely that is had no relative motion compared to the center of the universe as well. Its not even clear that there is a center to the universe.
blackllotus,
Perhaps it is my own lack of comprehension, but I cannot perceive a universe that is without a boundary somewhere. However, I cannot perceive one that does have a limit either. One would have to ask what is beyond that boundary, which is too imcomprehensible for even science to tackle. However, I do not define the universe as being the entirety of space. The univese only encompasses the physical celestial bodies, and beyond their range, I think that there is nothing but a void. However, if anyone wishes to enlighten me, please feel free to do so.
Perhaps it is my own lack of comprehension, but I cannot perceive a universe that is without a boundary somewhere. However, I cannot perceive one that does have a limit either. One would have to ask what is beyond that boundary, which is too imcomprehensible for even science to tackle. However, I do not define the universe as being the entirety of space. The univese only encompasses the physical celestial bodies, and beyond their range, I think that there is nothing but a void. However, if anyone wishes to enlighten me, please feel free to do so.
sandorski,
If you actually had a full understanding of Christianity, you would not be a former Christian.
If you actually had a full understanding of Christianity, you would not be a former Christian.
No, but you would have some similarities, because He does reveal and teach His knowledge to those who will listen. Obviously, no Christian equals Jesus.
Perhaps, but I want to know where the logic of Seekermeister is in drawing that conclusion. Does he not assume that what he knows and his attachment to Christianity are deeper and somehow more profound than sandorski's? But how do we know that sandorski's knowledge was more advanced and that lead to his becoming 'former'. It looks for all the world to me to be nothing but a biased and egotistical opinion.
Why do you say that. You are what you eat and the disciples ate his flesh and drank his blood and really, no, not just in symbol.
I shall say nothing more about sandorsky, other than what I have already said, because that would require me to understand alot more than what he has said.
While I do understand why you might consider what I have said as being egotistical, all that I can say is that nothing is further from the truth. I have no delussions about being better than anyone. A person does not become a Christian because of their own merits or intellect. God chooses a person strictly based on spiritual merit, but this merit is contrary to any definition that you might have for the word. I would never compare myself to anyone, as far as how righteous or smart that I am. Anything that might appear as egotism is merely a confidence that I have in God.
I do not understand either your statement or your question. But, you are wrong about a person being what they eat, because it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, or makes them into anything in particular...at least not within the normal definition of the word "eat". As far as the consumption of the blood and flesh of Jesus, it sounds as though you were brought up as a Catholic, because they believed that the wafers and wine of the communion was actually transformed into flesh and blood, but even they no longer believe that. It is merely a ritual of a great spiritual truth.
Well, the nutrients in the food you eat are taken into your body and used to produce energy and materials which allow you to live. So, for a short while at least, you are partly made up of what you consume. As Seeker pointed out though, Christians do not agree on whether the communion is actually Christ's body and blood, or merely a representation. I think Moonbeam was just being humorous.
Sorry Cyclo, but you're really really wrong.
I don't know what your religion is... but not a single major religion on this entire planet has its fundamental convictions open for debate. Is that the "small subset" you are talking about? I'm not talking about whether or not to intrepret genesis literally, that's small potatoes. Say, for an easy example take any of the Abrahamic religions... the fact that God created the universe is not open for debate. That's only one example... we both know there are dozens of others. That simple idea is completely against everything that science stands for. In order to truly understand the world, nothing can be placed off limits... and all major religions do precisely that. Their sacred cows just happen to vary a bit. Do you understand now why they are opposed?
As far as blinding yourself with atheistic bias, are you kidding? It is literally the exact opposite. Maybe you don't understand what atheism is, or are deliberately using the angry high school kid definition of it (unfortunately he also tends not to know what it is). It is the absence of belief in something, not a positive belief in something's nonexistence. Do you see the difference? That is why an atheistic approach to science is important, precicely because it presupposes nothing. Within the realm of what we are talking about atheistic science is the only intellectually honest way to conduct science, because it is the ONLY one that has no bias.
I don't know what your religion is... but not a single major religion on this entire planet has its fundamental convictions open for debate. Is that the "small subset" you are talking about? I'm not talking about whether or not to intrepret genesis literally, that's small potatoes. Say, for an easy example take any of the Abrahamic religions... the fact that God created the universe is not open for debate. That's only one example... we both know there are dozens of others. That simple idea is completely against everything that science stands for. In order to truly understand the world, nothing can be placed off limits... and all major religions do precisely that. Their sacred cows just happen to vary a bit. Do you understand now why they are opposed?
As far as blinding yourself with atheistic bias, are you kidding? It is literally the exact opposite. Maybe you don't understand what atheism is, or are deliberately using the angry high school kid definition of it (unfortunately he also tends not to know what it is). It is the absence of belief in something, not a positive belief in something's nonexistence. Do you see the difference? That is why an atheistic approach to science is important, precicely because it presupposes nothing. Within the realm of what we are talking about atheistic science is the only intellectually honest way to conduct science, because it is the ONLY one that has no bias.
Aren't you being dogmatic? How are you different than the religions you criticize when you say they place things off limits and turn around and say that it's not intellectually honest science of you believe in God. Science doesn't care if there is a God or not. And long before you acquired your vaunted intellectual honesty you knew in your heart there is God, no? What you did was create the presumption there is not.
But it's not egotism to say you were selected to believe in God because you have some invisible merit?
By your standards, you are far more egotistical than many here, because you do not hesitate to speak about things that you do not understand.
myocardia
Diamond Member
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Haha, how is that possible? Seeker's god talks directly to him: about 2/3 of the way down this page.
Seekermeister
I am beginning to think you are pretty arrogant with your beliefs.
Your suggestion that science should be filtered through religion is foolish.
Science is dynamic while religion is pretty much static. Requiring science to be saddled with a Christian perspective is incomprehensible.
I am beginning to think you are pretty arrogant with your beliefs.
Your suggestion that science should be filtered through religion is foolish.
Science is dynamic while religion is pretty much static. Requiring science to be saddled with a Christian perspective is incomprehensible.
You mean to tell me that I am perfectly willing and happy to babble on about stuff I have no idea about while you limit yourself strictly and only to deep truths and I am the one with the big ego? Hehe, how is it that an idiot like me would have the larger ego? No, though I hate to say it because it sounds so egotistical, I surely have the smaller ego. Nan nah ne nah nah, your more egotistical than I.
It is obvious, that the last several posters are not capable of sticking to a subject. I was, and am not the subject of this thread. For some people, when they are unable to say anything pertinent, they will say just anything which comes to mind, because they have no control over their tongue. In case anyone has forgotten, the subject is logic...not illogic.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter