18 Sep 07
Originally posted by mdhallThe Word of God is His revelation of Himself to man.
Arrangements for this version were completed by the appointment of fifty-four learned men, who were also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, "our said translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." This attitude of the king, the removal of their first suspicion ...[text shortened]... e understanding of what Christ really started, you'd be better off reading the Philokalia.
If you don't know that then you are deluded.
18 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by mdhallIf you want a more approximate understanding of what Christ really started, you'd be better off reading the Philokalia.
Arrangements for this version were completed by the appointment of fifty-four learned men, who were also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons, that, as the king put it, "our said translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom." This attitude of the king, the removal of their first suspicion e understanding of what Christ really started, you'd be better off reading the Philokalia.
Okay, I’ll bite: Why the Philokalia? Because it preserves the oral tradition? Can you flesh that out a bit? Have read a bit into Eastern Orthodoxy (Nyssa, Pseudo-Dionysius, broadly in The Roots of Christian Mysticism by Olivier Clement, and a few others). Am really asking for your perspective.
Just curious (I have volume I, by the way, but have barely touched it). No disagreement with the rest of your post.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by josephwHow about giving an intelligent argument instead of calling people who disagree with you "deluded." You are intellectually dishonest, josephw. I don't think that the Christian God would approve of your attitude.
The Word of God is His revelation of Himself to man.
If you don't know that then you are deluded.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually there have been many holes in Darwins theories. I believe people do evolve to better adapt to their surroundings. But I don't believe that over time molecules evolved into fish, animals, man. That take a real leap of faith.
Why do you sound so doubtful about the Theory of Evolution? Why are you 'not happy' with it? The over all theory is so clear and obvious to the educated and has not changed since Darwin wrote about it in "the origin of the species" and will not be changing any time soon. The evidence is overwhelming, the logic is clear, why the doubt? Are you similarly un ...[text shortened]... deo tape of every living thing past and present but that they did evolve is undeniable fact.
The theory on how dinosaurs have evolved at what happened to them has changed majorly 4 different times over the years. Some of those theories are pretty interesting. I wouldn't doubt if they change again within the next 5-10 years.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37You reminded of something. According to you, either dinosaurs did not exist, OR they must have coexisted with men. Fantastic.
Actually there have been many holes in Darwins theories. I believe people do evolve to better adapt to their surroundings. But I don't believe that over time molecules evolved into fish, animals, man. That take a real leap of faith.
The theory on how dinosaurs have evolved at what happened to them has changed majorly 4 different times over the y ...[text shortened]... ies are pretty interesting. I wouldn't doubt if they change again within the next 5-10 years.
No one can really explain what happened to the poor guys. There are theories, but none can be sure, because it's so hard do have data from 100 millions ago (or ~6000 according to the bible). Nothing is definite and absolute in science. Absolutism and made truths are for religion.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37Just because you don't like it or don't believe it doesn't translate into 'holes'. His theory is a sound and valid today as it ever was and the core theory has not changed.
Actually there have been many holes in Darwins theories. I believe people do evolve to better adapt to their surroundings. But I don't believe that over time molecules evolved into fish, animals, man. That take a real leap of faith.
Whether or not you personally need to take a 'leap of faith' to believe it is irrelevant. There is no contradictory evidence and plenty of supporting evidence and no other reasonable competing theories, so it remains a valid scientific theory.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by freightdog37Can you give a few examples of these holes? I'm guessing that they are old misunderstandings dealt with several times each already in the "what's wrong with Evolution" thread.
Actually there have been many holes in Darwins theories. I believe people do evolve to better adapt to their surroundings. But I don't believe that over time molecules evolved into fish, animals, man. That take a real leap of faith.
The theory on how dinosaurs have evolved at what happened to them has changed majorly 4 different times over the y ...[text shortened]... ies are pretty interesting. I wouldn't doubt if they change again within the next 5-10 years.
Molecules into simple self replicating structures is not covered by the theory (that requires a theory of abiogenesis) but once those have occured, there is no barrier that I am aware of to the evolutionary process producing all the complexities of life we see around us (including ourselve). Has evidence of any such barrier been presented? KJ says evolution can't transform one 'kind' into another but has been unable to define why or even what a 'kind' is. It is certainly not the same as 'species' since speciation has been observed in the wild and recreated in the lab.
--- Penguin.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by gaychessplayerSo you believe there is a God? Don't call me intellectually dishonest.
How about giving an intelligent argument instead of calling people who disagree with you "deluded." You are intellectually dishonest, josephw. I don't think that the Christian God would approve of your attitude.
It is the Christian God that call those who deny Him deluded.
How much of what is posted in this forum would you call "intelligent argument" gaychessplayer?
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by josephwI am a Christian, and we are commanded in the Bible to give "a reason for the faith that is within us." (I'm paraphrasing).
So you believe there is a God? Don't call me intellectually dishonest.
It is the Christian God that call those who deny Him deluded.
How much of what is posted in this forum would you call "intelligent argument" gaychessplayer?
It is intellectually dishonest to assert something on a discussion board, and then when challenged on it to say "you wouldn't get it anyaway", or something to that effect.
Many of the arguments posted on this forum are intelligent, and some are not. What's your point?
Since Jesus called us Christians to witness to the world, that seems to prove that people can become un-deluded (is that a word?).
Peace.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Veracity, or truth as some might say, can be subjective. The Bible is completely true to those that believe it to be so, and no amount of argument or pursausion will change that.
From my perspective there is Truth with a capital T, and truth with a small t. The underlying themes in the bible are Truth. Are they the actual words of God, in my opinion no, but it is the word (or message) of God to us, written through the eyes, opinions, prejudice, and varied perspectives of the many different authors. To say that the bible is the unerrant word of God is to be niave. We know for sure that many of the new testament works, were not written down for 150-300 years after Christ's death (and subsequent resurection). Scholars stuying the ancient texts have found wide variances in the text' of supposedly the same books, by the same author. They have also found that in many cases the translations are very inadequate, and should not be taken literally.
of course this is just my opinion
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by josephwIn the KJv bible the word Easter appears only once, in the book of acts. The word properly translated should read passover. My source is strongs exhaustive concordance, look it up. It is that easy to discredit your incredibly child like ignorrance.
All non-believers and some believers have a hard time with this assertion; namely, the KJV, I believe, is the Word of God. It is inerrant.
I believe this because I know something you don't know.
I'd tell you what it is, but you wouldn't believe it anyway.
Please read "Misqouting Jesus", you might learn something.
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by duecerPlease be respectful and polite and not refer to someone else's opinion as "incredibly child like ignorrance(sic)."
In the KJv bible the word Easter appears only once, in the book of acts. The word properly translated should read passover. My source is strongs exhaustive concordance, look it up. It is that easy to discredit your incredibly child like ignorrance.
Please read "Misqouting Jesus", you might learn something.
I think we can all "agree to disagree agreeably!"
19 Sep 07
Originally posted by duecerExcellent post.
Veracity, or truth as some might say, can be subjective. The Bible is completely true to those that believe it to be so, and no amount of argument or pursausion will change that.
From my perspective there is Truth with a capital T, and truth with a small t. The underlying themes in the bible are Truth. Are they the actual words of God, in my opinion no, but ...[text shortened]... s are very inadequate, and should not be taken literally.
of course this is just my opinion
The question is the bible being truth is a matter of belief.
I want to show that that belief does not make sense, because the book (well, compilation of books) is not the original one, and is subject to human interpretation. Even among believers there are themes that cause heavy discussion... so ... how can it be true? It can be the "Truth" (capital "T"😉 to them, but the truth can't be forgotten.
What i can't comprehend is how causes this departure from reality to the absolutism of the Bible. I guess some people just want to believe there's something more because they feel empty, and see in the Bible an answer, and grasp it with all their strength, forgetting the real world.
19 Sep 07
1 edit
Originally posted by serigadoOf course your right, I should try to be more respectful, there are times when I am not the patient person God wants me to be.
Excellent post.
The question is the bible being truth is a matter of belief.
I want to show that that belief does not make sense, because the book (well, compilation of books) is not the original one, and is subject to human interpretation. Even among believers there are themes that cause heavy discussion... so ... how can it be true? It can be the "Truth in the Bible an answer, and grasp it with all their strength, forgetting the real world.
I think for many of those with unflinching belief that every word of the Bible is straight from God's mouth to their ears, that such belief is comforting for them. It fills in the blanks for them, and does not challange them. In many ways it eases their own insecurities about how they fit into the world around them. As a former member of a church that practiced that type of dogma, they share the belief that they are special, and chosen by God to "save" the rest of us. They believe that if we don't share their particular interpretation of the Bible, then we are of the synagogue of Satan, and doomed to burn in hell for all eternity, which again reinforces their sense of specialness and entitlement
(am replying to 2 post's at once if that is unclear)