Originally posted by PenguinI'm back. Did you miss me?
I didn't have time to post last week but I did follow the argument (or at least read most of the posts)
The problem here is that scientists have a different understanding of eternal from theologans. To a scientist, time is a property of the universe. To say matter/energy is eternal is to say that matter and energy exist through out the time line of th ...[text shortened]... th just a brief blink in the middle of our actual existance?
Just wondering.
--- Penguin.
Deeply.
So do Christians (or any other faith that includes the concept of eternal souls) believe that our souls existed before our bodies?
Orthodox Christianity holds that the soul is created at the moment the body emerges from the womb. Further, once created, the soul becomes immortal. There is no such thing as soul elimination: the soul will live forever, either in heaven or hell.
Originally posted by XanthosNZBelieve me: I've tried. They aren't listening, unfortunately. Wrote a thread about it a few months back, but those of the placcard persuasion wouldn't touch it.
Try telling that to the people who go on and on about how abortion is killing babies because of God's will or some crap.
Originally posted by dj2beckerEm, those where scientists under the Christian church though. The ancient Greeks knew the earth was spherical, and had calculated its radius.
At a certain time it was well accepted in scientific circles that the earth is flat.
And if the scientists had read their Bibles at the time they would have seen that the Bible suggested that the earth was round.
That should tell you something...
Originally posted by dj2beckerClearly the Christians in those days did not have secret decoder rings and were unable to identify the suggestion that the earth was spherical.
And if the scientists had read their Bibles at the time they would have seen that the Bible suggested that the earth was round.
That should tell you something...
Most of the 'scientists' you talk about were actually Christian and thus influenced by thier beliefs and by proclamations made by thier church leaders.
I'm going to create a new thread for this as it has nothing to do with Evolution.
A bit of the original discussion follows the end of this for context.
Basically, DJ pointed me at Ravi Zacharias for an objective explanation of why Christianity holds more value than any other religion. I downloaded one of his lectures (The Uniqueness of Christ, I think it was) and listened to it a couple of days ago.
In my opinion, ravi was not from the same mold as the traditional Tellivangelist so I will retract that accusation. However, most of his arguments were anecdotal, emotional or bible interpretations. Any other established religion has plenty of all of those.
The only objective point I heard was concerning the impact of Christ. Apparantly, it was about 3 years between his starting to preach and his crucifiction and no-one can deny that 2000 years later Christianity is now one of the most widespread and popular religions (possibly even *the* most)
However, I would suggest that it is not orders of magnitude more widespread or popular than the other major religions and a posible reason for it's current dominance is simply that it was the main religion in European countries when those countries had the technologies and political drives for the last great expansionist period and the religion expanded on the back of that.
That it gained dominance in Europe in the first place is impressive but is probably more due to the preachings of the disciples than Jesus himself so his 3-year tenure is not strictly relevant.
--- Penguin
==============================================
Originally posted by Penguin
So to elaborate (correct me if I'm wrong, I don't want to be accused of willful misinterpreting):
DJ2Becker firmly believes that people should be more compelled to believe in his faith system (presumably one of the many forms of christianity) than any other such as Hinduism, buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Animism, Jainism, Paganism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastri ...[text shortened]... Again please explain if I've misunderstood the meaning of the term.
--- Penguin
I really don't have the time right now to go into all of that.
But, I would suggest you look up 'Ravi Zacharias' and read some of his books.
Here's one for starters:
"Jesus Among Other Gods"
http://shop2.gospelcom.net/epages/rzim.storefront/4522082d00c13a34271d45579e7c0602/Product/View/SBK9
Originally posted by FreakyKBHResponding to one of your posts, Penguin, I charged that the anti-theistic viewpoint quickly devolves into absurdity. We are attemtping to lay ground rules pertinent to either proving or disproving that position. Care to join in?
[b]I detect entrapment.
The force within you is strong.
By knowns, are we referring specifically to those knowns that can be shown to be true rather than the 'presumes' that we take on faith?
Yes.
What do you mean by mechanistic?
Relating to the philosophy of mechanism, especially tending to explain phenomena only by reference to physical or biological causes.
Automatic and impersonal; mechanical.
Fair enough?[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAnti-theistic, perhaps. But a non-theistic position is ironclad. Disproving a theistic position is not necessary. But proving it...therein lies the rub.
Responding to one of your posts, Penguin, I charged that the anti-theistic viewpoint quickly devolves into absurdity. We are attemtping to lay ground rules pertinent to either proving or disproving that position. Care to join in?
Originally posted by rwingettAnti-/non-/a- ... regardless of the negation, any position other than a theistic perspective is bound for absurdity. We're just waiting for Godot (or Nemesio, whichever decides to happen along first).
Anti-theistic, perhaps. But a non-theistic position is ironclad. Disproving a theistic position is not necessary. But proving it...therein lies the rub.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease define 'absurdity' or the discussion will go nowhere.(You have a tendancy of redefining english words to suit your arguement).
Anti-/non-/a- ... regardless of the negation, any position other than a theistic perspective is bound for absurdity. We're just waiting for Godot (or Nemesio, whichever decides to happen along first).
In my opinion all theistic perspectives theat I have come across are absurd to me.
Not directly related but interesting:
from wikipedia:
Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meaning in the universe will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's a workable definition.
Please define 'absurdity' or the discussion will go nowhere.(You have a tendancy of redefining english words to suit your arguement).
In my opinion all theistic perspectives theat I have come across are absurd to me.
Not directly related but interesting:
from wikipedia:
Absurdism is a philosophy stating that the efforts of humanity to find meanin ...[text shortened]... iverse will ultimately fail because no such meaning exists (at least in relation to humanity).
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't see that it does disolve into absurdity, just the realisation that we must make our own meaning, partly because we have evolved with the inbuilt desire to continue. However, other participants in the debate seem to be reflecting my views pretty well and far more eloquently than I could so far so I am unlikely to participate.
Responding to one of your posts, Penguin, I charged that the anti-theistic viewpoint quickly devolves into absurdity. We are attemtping to lay ground rules pertinent to either proving or disproving that position. Care to join in?
Thanks for the invite though.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinSuit yourself.
I don't see that it does disolve into absurdity, just the realisation that we must make our own meaning, partly because we have evolved with the inbuilt desire to continue. However, other participants in the debate seem to be reflecting my views pretty well and far more eloquently than I could so far so I am unlikely to participate.
Thanks for the invite though.
--- Penguin.
Nemmy?