07 May 15
Originally posted by C HessYou are not going to be incredibly lucky because there is no evidence of abiogenesis since God did it. 😏
Unless we're incredibly lucky, it's highly unlikely we shall find any direct evidence of abiogenesis. Time and geological activity is quite an effective combination, so there's no need for a god to erase evidence from that long ago.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by sonhouseBoth you and twhitehead have insinuated that in discussion of truth using the Bible is off grounds. This should not be necessarily true at all.
Prove it with your own arguments, no bible verses, no BS video's.
For example, in debating about the resurrection as a historical event appeal to the historical documents of the New Testament is quite valid.
The secular historian would grant that Paul's letters are historical documents that can be referred to in that capacity. I of course believe that they are sacred inspired revelation from God. But I could also use them as historical documents.
See Dr. Gary Habermas,
The Argument that Changed a Generation of Scholars
Why not just listen to the first 6 minutes?
I might not be able to prove that fact of the resurrection by appeal to Paul's letters. I can demonstrate that he and a considerable number of people very close in time to the proclaimed event definitely believed it. Contemporaries were alive who could bear witness that it didn't happen.
The charge "Prove it without reference to the Bible" is often an arbitrary requirement.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhiteheadRight now I will take your word for it that I mistakenly charged you.
I did no such thing.
I don't have time now to read through the whole thread.
Correction:
Quoting a document found in the bible is sometimes quite appropriately taken in a non-sacred context. For example, in debating about the resurrection as a historical event appeal to the historical documents of the New Testament is quite valid.
The secular historian would grant that Paul's letters are historical documents that can be referred to in that capacity. I of course believe that they are sacred inspired revelation from God. But I could also use them as historical documents.
See Dr. Gary Habermas,
The Argument that Changed a Generation of Scholars
Why not just listen to the first 6 minutes?
I might not be able to prove that fact of the resurrection by appeal to Paul's letters. I can demonstrate that he and a considerable number of people very close in time to the proclaimed event definitely believed it. Contemporaries were alive who could bear witness that it didn't happen.
The charge "Prove it without reference to the Bible" is often an arbitrary requirement.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by twhitehead
When starting the thread I had in mind a thread by sonship where he started off by saying atheists were blinded by Satan or something to that effect,
While we are on the matter of possibly mistakeningly attributing things to people they really didn't say -
Do you recall and can you quote me where I started some thread with something like "atheists are blinded by Satan ?"
I don't recall ever starting any thread like this.
I once responded to a comment you made about "tell me something I don't know" by saying you were a fool and didn't know that.
Confessedly rude of me. But your wisecrack at that time provoked me to be candid.
But if you say I started some thread with "Atheists are blinded by Satan" I would like your evidence to this rather than just believe it on your say - so. I'm out on a limb here now. So prove to me I did start some thread that way.
Good for the goose - Good for the gander, you know?
08 May 15
Originally posted by sonshipThread 163285
Do you recall and can you quote me where I started some thread with something like "atheists are blinded by Satan ?"
I don't recall ever starting any thread like this.
Thread title was: "Sin's Damage to the Human Mind"
Originally posted by sonship
Firstly, the spiritual enemy of God and man Satan, has blinded the thoughts of those who do not believe the Gospel.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
08 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou're right.
Thread 163285
Thread title was: "Sin's Damage to the Human Mind"
Originally posted by sonship
[b]Firstly, the spiritual enemy of God and man Satan, has blinded the thoughts of those who do not believe the Gospel. [/b]
He's right folks. I did start a thread like that.
Any why ?
Why did I start a thread like this?
Probably in response to being accused of not being able to think straight or not use my mind.
Ring any bells?
Actually we all are deluded because Satan deceives the whole world. But some are more deluded or deceived than others. Even at 71 years of age, it does not mean I am too old to learn of my errors in thinking. I still have the ability to learn more truth and dispell the lies of the Devil. And so does everyone else, including old sonhouse.
13 May 15
Rather than start a new thread in this subject, let's continue a train of thought on "Delusion".
Over the past thirty or forty years I have more than once had the thought: "How do I actually know that I am not deluded, in the light of the multitude of groups around me who claim that I am, and that THEY are right?"
Surely, (to address the issue raised by sonship) in those comparisons, an appeal to one's own sacred scriptures is not useful, as dasa has demonstrated by continually appealing to his own Veda writings, and being consistently being refuted by the likes of Smugface and sonship.
Why are their scriptures wrong and ours right?
My first approach would be different from twhitehead's four questions, based on rationality and logic. I would probably try to probe inherent consistency, experience and personal validation.
Then, when I am convinced that there does exist such evidence, my approach would be: Go in peace, brother. Who am I to say you are deluded?
Because of this attitude of mine, some have (on this forum) questioned whether I am a Christian at all.
My answer is, yes of course I am. One has to make one's home somewhere, and I have found mine.
Yet I allow everybody else the same right that I want to claim for myself.
14 May 15
Originally posted by CalJust
Rather than start a new thread in this subject, let's continue a train of thought on "Delusion".
Over the past thirty or forty years I have more than once had the thought: "How do [b] I actually know that I am not deluded, in the light of the multitude of groups around me who claim that I am, and that THEY are right?"
Surely, (to address th ...[text shortened]... have found mine.
Yet I allow everybody else the same right that I want to claim for myself.[/b]
And God has appointed in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, administrations, various kinds of tongues. All are not apostles, are they? All are not prophets, are they? All are not teachers, are they? All are not workers of miracles, are they? All do not have gifts of healings, do they? All do not speak with tongues, do they? All do not interpret, do they?
(1 Corinthians 12:28-30 KJV)
And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
(Ephesians 4:11-16 KJV)
14 May 15
Originally posted by CalJustI do not understand this attitude. Are you telling them that because you simply don't want to be rude, but still think they are deluded, or are you remaining agnostic and saying they might be correct.
Then, when I am convinced that there does exist such evidence, my approach would be: Go in peace, brother. Who am I to say you are deluded?
If it is the latter, why do you not seem to what to know if they are actually correct? You appear to be telling them politely to leave you alone before you learn something you don't want to know.
Or are you still maintaining that although they may be right, your own beliefs are just as much right?
14 May 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadThank you. That is exactly my point.
Or are you still maintaining that although they may be right, your own beliefs are just as much right?
In cosmology, as in nuclear physics and quantum mechanics we have found incredible, unbelievable "inconsistencies", such as "dark matter" that nobody can explain.
It was Niels Bohr, I think, who said that : "The universe is not only stranger than we think, but stranger than we CAN think!"
Same with God. Any god worth his or her salt that made this fantastic universe, hundreds of billions of galaxies in stranger forms that we CAN imagine, must be of such a nature as to be totally incromprehensible to the human mind.
Now we DO have glimpses, tiny little aspects, of what some would call "revelation" into this Infinite. But they come from different sides, and "see" different aspects.
Who'se to say who is right? One of my favourite stories in the Bible (and I am relating it not as a doctrine, but as a nice story to illustrate a point) is the blind man that was healed by Jesus on a Sabbath. He was hauled before the authorities of the day, and the scholars of the Torah, to explain his heresy. Clearly, nobody "from God" would break the sacred Sabbath laws! So they questioned him as to who this person was that healed him.
His answer was a classic:" who he was, I don't know, and how come he broke your rules, I don't know. All I can say is that I was blind, but now I can see."
This man made no judgement on their being "right or wrong" or deluded or not. He based his statement entirely on his own personal experience.
In our discussions with dasa and Smugface, I make no pronouncement on whether their belief is "right or wrong". I have no way of telling. However, it is quickly clear whether their belief is "internally consistent", i.e. whether it affects their behaviour. And, unfortunately, in many cases it is not, but that raises questions of honesty and integrity, which is a different subject.
In my son's case, he is entirely consistent in his Buddhism, so I have no reason to question or doubt either his sincerity, or his "truth".