Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
What if Darwin's theory of natural selection is inaccurate? What if the way you live now affects the life expectancy of your descendants?
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Psalms are song. That's not the same as a narrative account of something.
You picked a poor example to back up yourself.
P-Marlowe: Faith and belief are two different things entirely. Faith is spiritual, whereas belief is temporal.
First, spiritual and temporal are unrelated. Spiritual and non-spiritual and temporal and non-temporal are related, so you are comparing apples and oranges.
Second, faith (trust) and belief are two faces of the same coin. If you have faith in something you believe in it. If you believe something you have faith in it. What spunkets was asserting, correctly in my opinion, is that faith, as in the biblical verse you posted, it is an a priori (blind) acceptance.
But even this is questionable, because I seriously doubt people would have faith in God if there was no promise of rewards in heaven but just plain nothing after death. So, I think the faith people have is conditional on the hope that God will deliver his promise. It's rather selfish if you think about it. It seems people don't love God for being God but for what he will do for them, sort of like "what's in it for me" thing.
As opposed to "On the Origin of Species"?
If the Bible qualifies as a book with fantastic tales in it, then EVERYTHING man wrote should be held to that criteria because there's no reason in the world to presume that any other work of man is any different.
Evos can cry *evidence* all they want, but it's not evidence that they refer to but INTERPRETATION of the evidence. The same evidence in the form of hard, physical objects can be interpreted in different ways.
Evos claim that the *evidence* supports their viewpoint. Others, using the same evidence, claim that it supports their viewpoint.
The argument isn't over the validity of the evidence, what it is and was, but the interpretation of the evidence, what it means and tells us about the past,
And scientists don't have a corner on the interpretation of evidence market. They can be, and have often been, wrong as well and there's no reason to not conclude that they will continue to be wrong in the future.
For the record, people have been trying to discredit the Bible for years claiming that events that it recorded and people groups it refers to never happened or existed, and yet archaeological evidence is continually laying to rest those lies.
The Bible have been found to be historically very accurate.
You can claim *fantastic tales* all you want, but you have yet to demonstrate that that's what they are. Let's see your proof that they never happened, whatever it is that you are referring to that you claim is unbelievable.
LOL! I am not interested in opinions; I want demonstrable facts. You will have to make up your mind what is "wrong" with me, because sometimes it seems I want too much proof and at other times I am going down the slippery slope of "everything is an opinion."
All I ever asked you for was what is God and for demonstrable proof of all the immaterial things you claim exist. All I ever got from you was unsolicited characterization of what 'drives' me, or complaints that what I want is excessive. But you never really gave me what I asked for.
Remember that when you get sick next time. Just drive the 'demons' out...and everything will be okay.
There are different schools of thought on that. There is likely more overlap than many people realize, humans being one. We are spiritual beings in temporal bodies.
But even this is questionable, because I seriously doubt people would have faith in God if there was no promise of rewards in heaven but just plain nothing after death. So, I think the faith people have is conditional on the hope that God will deliver his promise. It's rather selfish if you think about it. It seems people don't love God for being God but for what he will do for them, sort of like "what's in it for me" thing.
I doubt there are many people who come to God just because they have the unselfish desire to do so. If that were the criteria for God accepting us, we'd all be in pretty desperate straits.
Being human, there's always going to be some amount of selfishness in coming to God. Very few people come to him when everything is all rainbows and ponies. It's during the hard times, when we see our need for Him that we do.
And Jesus Himself warned people of the consequences of ignoring Him. That's an appeal to our selfish nature in some respect.
But Ps 103:13 & 14 As a father has compassion on his children, so the LORD has compassion on those who fear him; for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.
God knows our weaknesses and failings. He knows that we can't do it ourselves and even our most sincere, pure motivation to come to Him is tainted by sin. And yet, he's willing to accept that and do it for us if we stop fighting Him and allow Him to.
Just like parents are thrilled with any progress that their child makes, God is thrilled with progress we make.
Same thing with believers. They argue at nauseum what the Bible says. Same book same verses, thousands of different interpretations.
Can’t you stay on topic?
What’s that got to do with the discussion at hand?
Indeed.
Which then brings up the question that if you refuse to acknowledge the evidence of the supernatural, why do you bother to post on the Religion Forum?
" Good grief spunkets, what are you talking about? Could you try again — please put that statement in plain English?
It is plain English. Please review your post #403, where you wrote about the effort and detailed examination you made regarding your faith. All of what you wrote can only effect the details of the testimony itself. None of it can change the fact that your faith is based on testimony, with which you later agreed is so.
Thousands?
Give us an example of thousands of interpretations of a verse.
Pick any verse you want.
You are joking, right?
You can claim *fantastic tales* all you want, but you have yet to demonstrate that that's what they are. Let's see your proof that they never happened, whatever it is that you are referring to that you claim is unbelievable.
I don't have to prove that donkeys talk, or that people live in a belly of a fish for three days and then talk about it, or that dead people are resurrected. The burden of proof is on the one making the claims. And these claims just don't happen in our everyday world.
I hope you don't mind my jumping in, but has anyone suggested that nature reveals God.
Prove it. I don't see any spirits.
If that were the criteria for God accepting us, we'd all be in pretty desperate straits.
Take out the promise of heaven and rewards and see how many people come to church or how many people adore God just because he is magnificent.
I am on the topic of science and truth. If you don;t trust science then don’t depend on it, especially when you are sick. Isn’t God enough?
has anyone suggested that nature reveals God
Some suggest that nature is God. People make up whatever "evidence" they want. You can argue that nature suggests a creator. That's plausible, but it doens't prove that such a 'creator' is God. If we can assume that God existed for all eternity, why not the world? If we can assume that God didn't have a beginning, why not the world?
Because some people claim they "know."
The Bible doesn't teach that God is nature and nature is God. SO, yeah, someone who believes that is making it up, especially if they claim that that is what the Bible teaches.
You can argue that nature suggests a creator. That's plausible, but it doesn't prove that such a 'creator' is God.
OTOH, evos/atheists argue that nature doesn't require a creator and yet have no proof to provide to back up their assertion. They've yet to demonstrate that order and complexity can arise without intelligence intervention.
If we can assume that God existed for all eternity, why not the world? If we can assume that God didn't have a beginning, why not the world?
Because God is not the world. The universe and world were created. They had a beginning. Time had a beginning. Since God is outside time and the universe and not subject ot its limitiations, the best explanation is that He had no beginning, which in incomprehensible to us as finite beings.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.