28 Sep 09
Originally posted by black beetleedit: "Properly?" Given that the definition offered is gleaned from Scripture, I would dare say that all others in conflict are necessarily the improper ones."
Of course you would dare it, and you do it all the time -you twist everything in order to serve your personal interests. This is the reason why you do not even have the integrity to admit openly that you worship the Christian Triune God😵
edit: "True, there do exist a very small number of religions that do not acknowledge a diety (other than the ...[text shortened]... to avoid the obvious, ie to reject the fact that you follow the Christian religion.
😵
Of course you would dare it, and you do it all the time -you twist everything in order to serve your personal interests. This is the reason why you do not even have the integrity to admit openly that you worship the Christian Triune God
😵
30 Sep 09
Originally posted by Conrau KOkay--every seminal accomplishment "OF REALLY PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE" man has achieved. That's a better phrasing.
[b] Wasn't it Christianity as the fountainhead before every seminal accomplishment man has achieved?
I doubt it. Early Christian theologians looked to the ideas of the Greeks, like Plato and Aristotle, to ground their doctrines in a strong philosophical base. The great Latin theologians, St Augustine and St Jerome, were also zealous devotees to the ...[text shortened]... f Western civilisation simply overlooks the substantial contribution of classical civilisation.[/b]
04 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleThis is false; this approach is clearly religious, because a religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion”. Indeed, over here the fundament set of beliefs is described solely in the Scriptures, and in fact you act according to that set of beliefs. Furthermore, at this stage the action of “accepting the gift” is “good work”, whilst the action of “rejecting the gift” is not “good work”. Therefore you follow a religion.
edit: “To be saved according to the Scriptures, one need not do anything. One either accepts or rejects the gift. Where's the work in that? Non-existent.”
This is false; this approach is clearly religious, because a religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian re ...[text shortened]... ow his specific doctrines in order to be saved (“work&rdquo😉, you definitely follow a religion.
😵
Again, you are seriously confused. Act implies action, or something that someone can do. Belief is emphatically not action. Belief may lead to action, or it may not; no such imperative exists mandating action. Test it for yourself. In what way is your belief in evolution an action?
This means that if one follows salvation… he has to make decisions (and act accordingly, and this is “work” too).
There is no “follows salvation” concept. It is something one either possesses or does not possess. Again, no work to be done.
BTW, “the biblical mandate to grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ in whatever varying degrees that may be accomplished” is in full accordance with the following definition of religion too: “a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.”.
According to your application, if a man pursues a woman to the desired end result of married bliss, such a man is religious. Interesting concept, don’t you think?
I understand that in your opinion the worship of God is not an issue in relation with the issue of the salvation, however it remains a core issue because you admit that it is warranted anyway for other perspectives.
You’ve missed the point. Again. If salvation is not contingent upon worship of God, it is not a core issue. Some people never in their lifetimes come to a point of worship toward God, yet they are nonetheless saved, nonetheless Christian.
Now, just for a change, be specific: do you in person worship the Christian Triune God, or not?
Of course I do, but this is wholly beside the point.
Therefore, since you firmly believe that Jesus died solely in order to offer you the gift of salvation and you follow his specific doctrines in order to be saved (“work&rdquo😉, you definitely follow a religion.
Since the concept of work is so lost on you, I suggest you start by finding out what the term means prior to continuing the conversation.
05 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “Again, you are seriously confused. Act implies action, or something that someone can do. Belief is emphatically not action. Belief may lead to action, or it may not; no such imperative exists mandating action. Test it for yourself. In what way is your belief in evolution an action?”
[b]This is false; this approach is clearly religious, because a religion is “a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion”. Indeed, over here the fundament set of beliefs is described solely in the Scriptures, and in fact you act according to that se ...[text shortened]... ou, I suggest you start by finding out what the term means prior to continuing the conversation.
You act according to a given set of beliefs (according to your personal theory of reality) -and in this case your beliefs are religious, therefore you do follow the Christian religion driven by your religious beliefs.
My belief (ie in evolution) eases me to act differently than I would act if I would accept that the theory is false. At the same time my belief in evolution is a product of my evaluation of this theory, therefore my belief is a product of my decisions, which they are set in motion by means of specific actions of mine.
The same mechanism is followed in chess: my belief that a variation is refutable forces me to look for a non-refutable variation. Therefore this belief of mine is a product (effect) of a specific previous evaluation/ action of mine; then (my adjusted belief) becomes the cause of a further action of mine; then it becomes again an effect of my actions and so on ad infinitum.
Of course my (non-religious) beliefs are ever adjustable, whilst your religious beliefs the same for ever they remain -you call them “absolute truth” 😵
edit: “There is no “follows salvation” concept. It is something one either possesses or does not possess. Again, no work to be done.”
How do you “possess” it? Are you born with that doctrine in your mind? Or is this belief a part of your DNA? It is obvious that you follow this specific religious concept because you decided to believe that this product/ effect of your personal evaluation will ease you to live your life properly by means of specific actions driven by your religious core belief of salvation.
Edit: “According to your application, if a man pursues a woman to the desired end result of married bliss, such a man is religious. Interesting concept, don’t you think?”
According to my application, it is obvious that such a man pursues a woman with religious zeal.
edit: “You’ve missed the point. Again. If salvation is not contingent upon worship of God, it is not a core issue. Some people never in their lifetimes come to a point of worship toward God, yet they are nonetheless saved, nonetheless Christian.”
The saved Christians honor and worship Jesus, the son of God. You consider yourself a saved Christian and you worship Jesus along with the Christian Triune God, so you follow the Christian religion.
Edit: “Of course I do, but this is wholly beside the point.”
It is not at all “wholly beside the point”. And obviously you are using a religious doctrine that it has Protestant/ Methodist origins.
Edit: “Since the concept of work is so lost on you, I suggest you start by finding out what the term means prior to continuing the conversation.”
Now it seems to me that you are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of your Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Therefore your religious doctrine is that you are justified by faith only, and this means that you follow a specific religious denomination.
😵
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHLOL
Clearly, you're just not going to get it. Good luck.
A belief (another product of the human mind that cannot be considered as “absolute truth&rdquo😉 exists solely in relation with something else and it lacks of own-being. It can be assent to a proposition or affirmation, it can be the acceptance of a fact or of an opinion, it can be an assertion without immediate personal knowledge, or a reliance upon word or testimony, or a partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty, or a persuasion, or a conviction or a confidence. Therefore, since a belief takes place into a psychological state in which one holds a proposition or premise to be real, it can also be understood as a mental system consisting of interrelated items of assumptions, ideas and knowledge that one holds about virtually everything.
Therefore a religious belief like yours (salvation), is understood as a major religious cognitive system that it comprises your theory of reality and determines how you filter the given information and how you create a specific structure of those pieces of information that you received from the world around; then this structure eases you to bring up more details of your personal theory of reality that is based mainly on the concept of salvation.
In any case, the core of your belief about salvation is nothing but a strong feeling that "your" salvation is "real", and thus it cannot exist outside of your free will (you accept the "reality" of this belief and you build on it, so you are becoming a product of "your" idea about "salvation"😉 and of your determination to follow it -and this is action. No action of yours, no belief of “salvation”; indeed, how can you form this belief without your intentional action, which is nothing but a huge operation of manipulating specific thoughts in relation with specific rules? Your belief about “salvation” must be deployed (action now) or it must be apt to be deployed (action soon to evolve) because it is called up for use in theoretical inferences towards which it is relevant -towards the representation of a “proper way of living by accepting that Jesus is the son of God and your Saviour”.
😵
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleAccording to your own words, your belief in evolution is, itself, a religion. Congratulations!
LOL
A belief (another product of the human mind that cannot be considered as “absolute truth&rdquo😉 exists solely in relation with something else and it lacks of own-being. It can be assent to a proposition or affirmation, it can be the acceptance of a fact or of an opinion, it can be an assertion without immediate personal knowledge, or a reliance upon w ...[text shortened]... “proper way of living by accepting that Jesus is the son of God and your Saviour”.
😵
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOf course it is not a religion -it is solely a belief based on a specific scientific theory, which is ever evaluated and it is not considered "absolute truth" by any means. For me, evolution is merely a non-falsified theory; for you, salvation is the "absolute truth"
According to your own words, your belief in evolution is, itself, a religion. Congratulations!
😵
06 Oct 09
Originally posted by black beetleFor me, evolution is merely a non-falsified theory; for you, salvation is the "absolute truth"
Of course it is not a religion -it is solely a belief based on a specific scientific theory, which is ever evaluated and it is not considered "absolute truth" by any means. For me, evolution is merely a non-falsified theory; for you, salvation is the "absolute truth"
😵
Assuming that by "non-falsified" you are admitting that evolution is merely a theory which can never be proved, I would agree. There is nothing concrete about the theory and it is subject to the constant winds of change.
However, whether you find it temporarily sufficient or rock-solid in its truth-relaying principles your handling of the same is nonetheless religious in nature--- as religion has been described by you.
For instance:
A belief (another product of the human mind that cannot be considered as “absolute truth&rdquo😉 exists solely in relation with something else and it lacks of own-being.
So far, so good.
It can be assent to a proposition or affirmation, it can be the acceptance of a fact or of an opinion, it can be an assertion without immediate personal knowledge, or a reliance upon word or testimony, or a partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty, or a persuasion, or a conviction or a confidence.
Again, evolution is still in the running here.
Therefore, since a belief takes place into a psychological state in which one holds a proposition or premise to be real, it can also be understood as a mental system consisting of interrelated items of assumptions, ideas and knowledge that one holds about virtually everything.
Still nothing at odds with your views on evolution.
Therefore a religious belief like yours (salvation), is understood as a major religious cognitive system that it comprises your theory of reality and determines how you filter the given information and how you create a specific structure of those pieces of information that you received from the world around; then this structure eases you to bring up more details of your personal theory of reality that is based mainly on the concept of salvation.
The grip remains.
In any case, the core of your belief about salvation is nothing but a strong feeling that "your" salvation is "real", and thus it cannot exist outside of your free will (you accept the "reality" of this belief and you build on it, so you are becoming a product of "your" idea about "salvation" and of your determination to follow it -and this is action. No action of yours, no belief of “salvation”; indeed, how can you form this belief without your intentional action, which is nothing but a huge operation of manipulating specific thoughts in relation with specific rules? Your belief about “salvation” must be deployed (action now) or it must be apt to be deployed (action soon to evolve) because it is called up for use in theoretical inferences towards which it is relevant -towards the representation of a “proper way of living by accepting that Jesus is the son of God and your Saviour”.
Eerie, isn't it?
07 Oct 09
Originally posted by FreakyKBHedit: “Assuming that by "non-falsified" you are admitting that evolution is merely a theory which can never be proved, I would agree. There is nothing concrete about the theory and it is subject to the constant winds of change.”
[b]For me, evolution is merely a non-falsified theory; for you, salvation is the "absolute truth"
Assuming that by "non-falsified" you are admitting that evolution is merely a theory which can never be proved, I would agree. There is nothing concrete about the theory and it is subject to the constant winds of change.
However, whether you find it t ...[text shortened]... y accepting that Jesus is the son of God and your Saviour”.[/b]
Eerie, isn't it?[/b]
This is false. Every accepted scientific belief that is not in contradiction with the current scientific facts and evidence is a non-falsified scientific belief, and in the future it could remain acceptable or it could be falsified.
You should know well by now what exactly a non-falsified scientific theory is, but you keep up twisting the definition because your religionism forces you to act this way. This is pathetic. However, if you really believe that your opinion is not pathetic and that the theory of the evolution is “not concrete”, this is your Big Kahuna: take your sweer time and explain in detail the reasons why, debunk the theory and win the Nobel prize and the glory😵
edit: “However, whether you find it temporarily sufficient or rock-solid in its truth-relaying principles your handling of the same is nonetheless religious in nature--- as religion has been described by you.”
There are no “truth relaying principals”, and when we were talking about the essence of the “truth” and “absolute truth” I explained you in detail the reason why. There are solely facts, along with false and accurate interpretations. A scientific theory is based on facts and therefore our interpretation regarding these facts is always adjustable according to our new, always expanding knowledge; however your religious belief (ie the one about salvation) is not based on facts but on mambo-jumbo alone -and therefore it lacks of philosophic value, it never changes because it is considered “absolute truth”, and it must be accepted solely by faith. So it's obvious that a religious belief (ie salvation) has nothing in common with a belief that is based on scientific finds and evidence.
Do you understand now that a scientific belief is not equivalent to a religious belief?
😵
13 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillI cannot log in that site -and until today I failed to notice even a single paper by Craig that is scientifically accepted; kindly please explain how exactly the illustrious theologian debunks scientific naturalism😵
Craig explains why Scientific Naturalism Refutes Itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bVrafC1vi0&feature=related
13 Oct 09
4 edits
Originally posted by black beetleHe's a philosopher. He's not submitting scientific papers but philosophical ones.
I cannot log in that site -and until today I failed to notice even a single paper by Craig that is scientifically accepted; kindly please explain how exactly the illustrious theologian debunks scientific naturalism😵
And the people who should be waring of his papers are not necessarily scientists but scientists posing as philosophers - like Hitchens and Dawkins. W.L. Craig, like many Christian apologists is not anti science.
Such popularizers as Hitchens and Dawkins have recently been caught stepping out of their area of expertise. When they step into philosophical arguments to argue atheism they are rightly called on it by people who major in philosophical arguments like W.L. Craig. It doesn't mean that they are not good scientists in their respective fields.
He does remind us of the philosophical underpinnings of science. Doing science rests on assumptions which themselves cannot be proved by the scientific method.
In the discussion that I linked to he argues against the philosophy that people ought only to believe what can be proved by science. He argues that not all things can be proved by science and that that claim is self refuting.
Craig points out in the video that science cannot prove atheism. And he quotes an athiest who also argues that if all proofs of the existence of God fail it still does not mean that there is no God. That is his quotation not of a theist but of an atheist philosopher who happens to be rigorous in the art of philosophical argumentation.
13 Oct 09
Originally posted by jaywillAccording to http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/creation.html, “William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia, with his wife Jan and their two teenage children Charity and John. At the age of sixteen as a junior in high school, he first heard the message of the Christian gospel and yielded his life to Christ. Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College (B.A. 1971) and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School (M.A. 1974; M.A. 1975), the University of Birmingham (England) (Ph.D. 1977), and the University of Munich (Germany) (D.Theol. 1984). From 1980-86 he taught Philosophy of Religion at Trinity, during which time he and Jan started their family. In 1987 they moved to Brussels, Belgium, where Dr. Craig pursued research at the University of Louvain until 1994.”
He's a philosopher. He's not submitting scientific papers but philosophical ones.
And the people who should be waring of his papers are not necessarily scientists but scientists posing as [b]philosophers - like Hitchens and Dawkins. W.L. Craig, like many Christian apologists is not anti science.
Such popularizers as Hitchens and Dawkins h ...[text shortened]... atheist[/b] philosopher who happens to be rigorous in the art of philosophical argumentation.[/b]
Therefore, once you read the above it is obvious that Craig is a theologian and teaches Philosophy of Religion at Talbot School of Theology. Therefore he is not submitting philosophical papers but his theological beliefs.
In addition, we agree that we cannot prove everything by means of science. However this does not mean that we have to accept a theological mambo-jumbo as a profound and intelligent explanation for whatever we ignore.