Originally posted by KellyJayYou don't use the word 'truth' correctly. Seriously, look it up. Your version may be true, or it may be false. Religion is called 'faith belief' for a reason.
...religion should be about truth, not my wants or desires.
You clearly want and desire to believe as you do. You aren't being honest, either to others on purpose, or to yourself from confusion. I think the latter.
28 May 17
Originally posted by apathistTruth resides regardless of our facts, opinions. or anything to do with us. It is what it is. and i believe God is the Way, the Truth. and the Light.
You don't use the word 'truth' correctly. Seriously, look it up. Your version may be true, or it may be false. Religion is called 'faith belief' for a reason.
You clearly want and desire to believe as you do. You aren't being honest, either to others on purpose, or to yourself from confusion. I think the latter.
Originally posted by KellyJayThe word for that is 'reality'. Truth is more like our understanding of reality and does depend on facts.
Truth resides regardless of our facts, opinions. or anything to do with us. ...
There are many theories about how best to understand what 'truth' is, but none of them imply that a mere faith belief is properly considered to be 'truth' for everyone. If your faith belief is 'truth', then so is everyone else's,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth
Of the five major theories, I tend toward the Coherence theory. Christians must hold to the Consensus theory - which justifies my last sentence before the link above.
28 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by apathistI would disagree, our "understanding" will always just be our current opinion at the
The word for that is 'reality'. Truth is more like our understanding of reality and [b]does depend on facts.
There are many theories about how best to understand what 'truth' is, but none of them imply that a mere faith belief is properly considered to be 'truth' for everyone. If your faith belief is 'truth', then so is everyone else's, ...[text shortened]... ians must hold to the Consensus theory - which justifies my last sentence before the link above.[/b]
moment, Our break with reality has damaged us in so many ways.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Stripping away all religious connotations from the word, human life, to me, is 'miraculous'. - Recently however i'm left wondering if Christians are of the same mind. Three Christians in particular seem very casual about human death, with the philosophy that 'we're all going to die anyway' so what does it matter if God decides to nonchalantly wipe us ...[text shortened]... etchMyJunk/another account.
Does an atheist give more value to a mortal life than a theist?
"You seem very upset about the bears killing the slandering young men. Are you vehemently Pro-Life ?" - Sonship.
I am going to just assume that you don't feel comfortable comparing your attitude about the holocaust of aborting children under the modern liberal philosophy with God sending the bears on 42 young guys harassing the prophet. And that a prophet who just accomplished an act of mercy publicly upon the society.
So you just show selective outrage. And I'll leave it at that.
To start, Christ speaks that man has value more so than all the other created lives on earth. That is not that they do not have value. That is that comparitively so, humans have more in God's sight.
" Are not two sparrows sold for an assarion? And not one of them will fall to the earth apart from your Father;
But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.
Therefore do not fear; you are of more value than many sparrows." (Matt. 10:29-31)
I derive from this a few points:
1.) We under estimate the awareness of the Creator God about every detail of what occurs in nature. Not a bird falls to the earth died without the awareness of God.
2.) We under estimate the awareness of God as the Designer of human beings too. If you should pluck out a hair from your head, God knows the exact count of that hair. His detailed knowledge of every minute feature of the men and women, boys and girls is infinite.
3.) Sparrows are meaningful to God. Man is more meaningful to God.
The birds and other beasts have value before God. Man has more value before God.
It takes the God who is ultimate value and preciousness and worth to bestow value and worth and preciousness upon His creation. Therefore doing away with God immediately undercuts human dignity.
An atheist is fighting against her own or his own dignity bestowed upon humanity by the One who created man in His own image and according to His own likeness.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 17
People have pointed out to me that there are two accounts of God creating man and the animals in Genesis. And I partly agree - chapter one and chapter two do contain some paradoxical details. Maybe they are contradictions.
But the similarities of the two are what interest me very much.
Did God create the animals FIRST and finally man afterwards as Genesis 1 says?
Or did God create Adam FIRST and then form the animals afterwards for Adam to name, as Genesis 2 says ?
It is futile for Christians to deny that there is a decrepancy.
It is difficult to logical reconcile the sequence of events of both.
Maybe it is not impossible. But it is not easy.
I have come to the conclusion that the wise God probably purposely delivers the revelation of the origins of things is a way in which certain details are not completely clear.
But what IS clear from the TWO accounts?"
But what do BOTH of them emphasize? That is what He does not want us to miss.
And this is what it is:
At the TOP of the pyramid of lives created on the planet, MAN is at the pinnacle.
Whether the other creatures time-wise came first or the other creatures time-wise came latter, Man is the crown of the creation.
Man is connected to all the other created lives. So he cannot be so arrogant to assume he is not along side of them in some sense. Yet at the same time Man alone is said to be in the image and likeness of God (chapter one) and defines and names all the other living things (chapter two).
Man is of the other creatures yet uniquely transcendent to them all as well.
There is nothing else on the earth like a human being.
Dolphins, bees, whales, chimps are fascinating.
But there is nothing else like a human being on the earth.
Both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 make this point. And probably it is delivered to us in that way because being distracted from God and His eternal purpose we are experts on missing the most important point.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
28 May 17
Originally posted by sonship"You seem very upset about the bears killing the slandering young men. Are you vehemently Pro-Life ?" - Sonship."You seem very upset about the bears killing the slandering young men. Are you vehemently Pro-Life ?" - Sonship.
I am going to just assume that you don't feel comfortable comparing your attitude about the holocaust of aborting children under the modern liberal philosophy with God sending the bears on 42 young guys harassing the prophet. ...[text shortened]... wed upon humanity by the One who created man in His own image and according to His own likeness.
Your above statement Sonship is appalling, even after I have reflected on it. Indeed, that one sentence has done more to push me away from your God than all your other sentences have done to draw me nearer to Him.
Yes, you can try and mitigate it by saying I am selective in my outrage (although don't believe i have ever made public comment about abortion and the like). Bottom line though, what decent person wouldn't be 'upset' by bears being sent by God to kill young men for a bit of name calling? And yes, you can labour to mitigate it further by exaggerating the incident and make the young men out to be the mafia.
Appears only one of us is 'vehemently Pro-Life.' Who would have guessed it was the one 'without' an all loving God in his life?
28 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayWhat tastes better, apples or oranges? That question asks for 'opinion'.
I would disagree, our "understanding" will always just be our current opinion at the
moment, Our break with reality has damaged us in so many ways.
Does the earth orbit the sun? That question asks for knowledge.
Sure, our knowledge can change as we learn more. That doesn't mean knowledge is opinion. You just aren't good at using words correctly.
28 May 17
Originally posted by apathistI agree with you on how you broke those things out, but with us we do assume a lot of
What tastes better, apples or oranges? That question asks for 'opinion'.
Does the earth orbit the sun? That question asks for knowledge.
Sure, our knowledge can change as we learn more. That doesn't mean knowledge is opinion. You just aren't good at using words correctly.
things are true, where there is no real way to know for sure. How old is the planet, how
did the universe get here? Where did everything come from? Those are not apples and
orange questions, but people form opinions about them all the time, and some settle in
on thinking they know the answers.
We can assume so much about life and each other, and be so wrong about the both, and
we can as you so correctly point out that at times we view some questions as if they were
in deed a question about knowledge that are truly a taste question, and as bad a question
about taste that is really a knowledge question.
28 May 17
Originally posted by KellyJayGood post, Kelly.
I agree with you on how you broke those things out, but with us we do assume a lot of
things are true, where there is no real way to know for sure. How old is the planet, how
did the universe get here? Where did everything come from? Those are not apples and
orange questions, but people form opinions about them all the time, and some settle in
on thinking ...[text shortened]... t are truly a taste question, and as bad a question about taste that is really a knowledge question.
Scientists do form opinions and tailor studies and interpret data to support their beliefs. They even cheat sometimes. They are just humans, after all.
28 May 17
Originally posted by apathistI agree, the whole process however attempts to shield the scientific community of those that
Good post, Kelly.
Scientists do form opinions and tailor studies and interpret data to support their beliefs. They even cheat sometimes. They are just humans, after all.
would cheat. I don't know of too many processes that are flawless when it comes to those
that would be willing to do that, and if the vast majority actually want to believe what is being
said it would be even harder to dispel the errors since no one would want too.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
"You seem very upset about the bears killing the slandering young men. Are you vehemently Pro-Life ?" - Sonship.
Your above statement Sonship is appalling, even after I have reflected on it. Indeed, that one sentence has done more to push me away from your God than all your other sentences have done to draw me nearer to Him.
Yes, you can try ...[text shortened]... mently Pro-Life.' Who would have guessed it was the one 'without' an all loving God in his life?
Your above statement Sonship is appalling, even after I have reflected on it. Indeed, that one sentence has done more to push me away from your God than all your other sentences have done to draw me nearer to Him.
Do not try to put a guilt trip on me for speaking God's word., though my expositions and interpretations are not perfect. The result for some to hear it is to be saved. The result for others to hear it is to be hardened more. Second Kings 2:23 is no showstopper to me.
The ministry to some is a fragrance of life unto life.
To others it is a fragrance of death unto death.
But it will not return to Him void.
Yes, you can try and mitigate it by saying I am selective in my outrage (although don't believe i have ever made public comment about abortion and the like). Bottom line though, what decent person wouldn't be 'upset' by bears being sent by God to kill young men for a bit of name calling?
You err in that I never said that I liked the fact.
I just say I can understand it in its context.
I can believe that God is righteous in all of His judgments and still recognize the sadness of what that means to those under judgment. You assumed that do not see there that mothers, fathers, friends were bereaved at the manifestation of God sending the bears.
I do not have to like everything I read of God's judgment in order to comprehend it and believe it and to take warning from it.
And yes, you can labour to mitigate it further by exaggerating the incident and make the young men out to be the mafia.
You lost me here unless you are somehow tying in my comment about the Godfather movie.
Appears only one of us is 'vehemently Pro-Life.' Who would have guessed it was the one 'without' an all loving God in his life?
You say you are vehemently Pro-Life by conscience.
The irony is that you are vehemently a Source of Life which is realistic.
You are also vehemently anti resurrection as a demonstration to the world that life's source cannot be destroyed.
And the loss is yours that you are also vehemently against eternal life.
Being against God you are simultaneously against the Source of life, the Origin as the Uncreated Author of life.
Being against God you are simultaneously against God dispensing His eternal life into vessels created by Him to receive and live in oneness with Him.
And you don't believe the manifestation of God victory over death.
I sure don't want to vehemently pursue any of these routes.
I want to know the Prince of Life, Christ.
I am not stumbled by 2 Kings 2:23.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 17
Other commentary on Second Kings 2:23,24
In summary, 2 Kings 2:23-24 is not an account of God mauling young children for making fun of a bald man. Rather, it is a record of an insulting demonstration against God’s prophet by a large group of young men. Because these young people of about 20 years of age or older (the same term is used of Solomon in 1 Kings 3:7) so despised the prophet of the Lord, Elisha called upon the Lord to deal with the rebels as He saw fit. The Lord’s punishment was the mauling of 42 of them by two female bears. The penalty was clearly justified, for to ridicule Elisha was to ridicule the Lord Himself. The seriousness of the crime was indicated by the seriousness of the punishment. The appalling judgment was God’s warning to all who would scorn the prophets of the Lord.
https://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 May 17
1 edit
Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Stripping away all religious connotations from the word, human life, to me, is 'miraculous'. - Recently however i'm left wondering if Christians are of the same mind. Three Christians in particular seem very casual about human death, with the philosophy that 'we're all going to die anyway' so what does it matter if God decides to nonchalantly wipe us ...[text shortened]... etchMyJunk/another account.
Does an atheist give more value to a mortal life than a theist?
Does an atheist give more value to a mortal life than a theist?
Most of the atheists that I have talked with seem not to clear about the relative value of human life over the cockroach. In trying to escape from man being made in the image of God, they seem forced to dumb down humans to be just another animal.
If they value human life most of them see nothing but a future of melting back into the dust of the earth for all people.
If they value human life most of the atheists see no final vindication or its goodness or rectification of assaults upon it. Every criminal will only melt peacefully back into the dirt.
Not holding to God means not holding to divine judgement of an infallible nature.
Most atheists I know wanting to value life see no other future for man than his universe dying a cold death of dispersed ashes in the silent blackness of a dead cosmos eventually. Ultimately I don't see that life for them really has anymore than some fleeting temporary purpose to propagate until inevitable extinction.
I think if they were honest the ultimate answer for them is that life does not really have value. Or groping for a bases of its value is a bleak exercise.