Miracles

Originally posted by josephw
So you don't believe in miracles. Jesus didn't heal. The dead weren't really dead when He brought them back to life. The blind didn't receive their sight. The lame didn't walk. A miracle isn't really a miracle. It's only what you want it to be. Heavens, let's not be caught believing God actually intervenes in the affairs of man! That just might cost one his pension. 😕

I thought the only criterion of faith important to a Christian was the belief that Jesus Christ is
Lord, and that He died for the sins of all humankind. Why do you care if Kirksey takes a
different position in the significance of the miracles?

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
I was going to ask you again what that role is, but I change my mind.
I really don't think you want to say anything.

This is one of the most honest things you've said on this site. Not wanting to learn about the
way that someone else approaches his faith might make the foundations of your own faith
tremble a bit, so your natural inclination is to not want to learn.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
This is one of the most honest things you've said on this site. Not wanting to learn about the
way that someone else approaches his faith might make the foundations of your own faith
tremble a bit, so your natural inclination is to not want to learn.

Nemesio

Are you saying I've lied?

"Not wanting to learn about the
way that someone else approaches his faith might make the foundations of your own faith
tremble a bit, so your natural inclination is to not want to learn."

That is a rather bizarre thing to say seeing as I've listened to what everybody has to say for over a year now. Just because I don't agree doesn't give you grounds for making unsubstantiated claims.

Unlike you though, I try to keep my comments directed at the issue and not at the individual.

Originally posted by Nemesio
I thought the only criterion of faith important to a Christian was the belief that Jesus Christ is
Lord, and that He died for the sins of all humankind. Why do you care if Kirksey takes a
different position in the significance of the miracles?

Nemesio

You are wrong.

"Man does not live by bread alone,.." "All scripture is given by inspiration and useful for..." Everything is important.

If I don't agree with Kirksey, what do you care?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is that what you think or just are you agnostic on the subject?
Lets suppose it is bad science.
Are you worried that the might have got a lot of other things wrong? Surely if such major fields of science are so terribly wrong what else could be wrong?
Why do we not see any evidence for such major errors except in one specific area - where science contr ...[text shortened]... ul than me to look after me and take care of my responsibilities etc". Just a thought 🙂

I've never said that there's anything wrong with science. Science is knowledge. Knowledge is good. But when scientists come up with knowledge that contradicts the truth, I call that bad science.

"Are you worried that the might have got a lot of other things wrong?"

By and large I believe science has contributed hugely to the advancement of life. But there is a flip side to it all. The problem is what man does with it. If science was controlled I believe we could feed and house the world. But people like to hang on to the power and wealth generated by science for their own greedy desires. It's the same with everything else don't you think?

Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. You know the rest.

Originally posted by josephw
Are you saying I've lied?

No. I think everything you've said on this site rates a 20 on my truthfulness scale (1 to 20).
However, I think the post above was more true.

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
You are wrong.

"Man does not live by bread alone,.." "All scripture is given by inspiration and useful for..." Everything is important.

If I don't agree with Kirksey, what do you care?

Okay, then what are the criteria of faith that a believer needs to believe in in order to be a
true Christian?

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. You know the rest.

Can you appreciate that to someone reading this, it sounds like you endorse non-knowledge. Can
you recognize that when you write unclearly like this, it is confusing (like when you say that
obscure passages rate the highest on your relevance scale, and then say that the Prodigal Son
is more relevant).

Nemesio

Originally posted by josephw
I've never said that there's anything wrong with science. Science is knowledge. Knowledge is good. But when scientists come up with knowledge that contradicts the truth, I call that bad science.

But the only Truth that you know is what is in the Bible. You do not know what other Truth there is that scientist might be contradicting. Again I ask, aren't you worried that they might have got a lot more wrong. I mean statistically speaking if almost everything that they have come up with that can be compared to the Bible (Truth) is wrong then the likelihood that they have got everything else wrong to the same degree is pretty high.

Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. You know the rest.
I see you forgot that you said "Knowledge is good." in the first paragraph.
My version would be "Knowledge empowers, empowerment is freedom."
Knowledge only gives power when it is controlled by those in power. That is why all dictators go to great lengths to control and manipulate knowledge. Many dictatorships depend on the lack of education of those they control. One wonders of course about Cuba where education levels are very high - but the media is nevertheless controlled there I believe.

As Nemesio points out you seem to be arguing for ignorance. Yet the issue in question was actually incorrect knowledge (bad science). Would you have a problem with scientists finding out the correct knowledge? (evidence for the flood etc.) And would that knowledge corrupt us?

Originally posted by josephw

Knowledge is power, and power corrupts. You know the rest.

Unalloyed instrumental reason has caused much harm. However, that's no reason to bury your head in the sand. Using the Bible like a science textbook only makes you look like a fool. You need better tactics if you want to outsmart the heirs of Nietszche. Have you got the smarts? Can you sell morality?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Unalloyed instrumental reason has caused much harm. However, that's no reason to bury your head in the sand. Using the Bible like a science textbook only makes you look like a fool. You need better tactics if you want to outsmart the heirs of Nietszche. Have you got the smarts? Can you sell morality?

Nietzsche had a strong ethical sense (whether one agrees with his ethics or not). His attacks on “morality” were attacks on morality social/cultural/religious convention. In other words, he used the term “morality” and “morals” a bit differently than we tend to in conventional (no pun intended) discourse today. You might read Daybreak and A Genealogy of Morals (the former, I think, is the better book).

Nietzsche’s “will to power”, for example, tends to be grossly misunderstood. Nietzsche was also not a nihilist (in fact, his fear of a chronic nihilism was a major impetus to his philosophical endeavors).

Originally posted by josephw
It's true. A miracle, by it's very definition, implies the suspension of natural laws.

I don't think science can explain a miracle.
Do you think science is confined to the material/physical realm?

I believe it is a mistake to pick and choose what one accepts as true in the Bible. But I'm a literalist.

I'm an atheist and a solipsist. I see miracles all the time (i.e., I observe phenomena that cannot be explained by existing so-called natural law), but since I regard science to be as baseless as religion, my attitude toward them is not the same as would be the case were I attempting to interpret them from within the framework of "natural law". I regard both categories of phenomena to be aspects of the same generative/manifestational power.

Science can't actually explain anything. It's all smoke and mirrors. And religion is another kind of delusion.

Originally posted by vistesd
Nietzsche had a strong ethical sense (whether one agrees with his ethics or not). His attacks on “morality” were attacks on morality social/cultural/religious convention. In other words, he used the term “morality” and “morals” a bit differently than we tend to in conventional (no pun intended) discourse today. You might read Daybreak and A Gene st (in fact, his fear of a chronic nihilism was a major impetus to his philosophical endeavors).

The writings of "Nietzsche" do not reveal a sentient being with a strong ethical sense. They reveal, on the whole, a non-sentient phenomenon which in large part may be regarded as a kind of disease reflex: something which has no values of its own, but which adopts values contrary to those of sentient beings, merely to be in opposition to them. Of course, I would expect even Nietzsche's writings to be incoherent in toto so no doubt one could pick out certain passages which seem to indicate an ethical sense.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
The writings of "Nietzsche" do not reveal a sentient being with a strong ethical sense. They reveal, on the whole, a non-sentient phenomenon which in large part may be regarded as a kind of disease reflex: something which has no values of its own, but which adopts values contrary to those of sentient beings, merely to be in opposition to them. Of cours ...[text shortened]... [/i] so no doubt one could pick out certain passages which seem to indicate an ethical sense.

I think you have dwelt upon N’s “oppositional” views only (or else you misunderstand him). Or else you misunderstand the term “ethics.” Or else you’re just a sloppy reader of Nietzsche.

Basically, however, since you are the singular consciousness on here who understands anything (being the singular consciousness on here), I am merely a distorted aspect of said consciousness compelled, so to speak, to play my role.

Originally posted by Nemesio
Okay, then what are the criteria of faith that a believer needs to believe in in order to be a
true Christian?

Nemesio

Ro 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.