Your view on Creation and the Creator?

Page 6 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Mar 2008, 8:31 am

ouinon wrote:

Thank you for the link to Dorrien's article on Frei and Lindbeck. Was very interesting.

You're welcome. I use narrative approaches in my own religion. For instance, I would ask about the message being conveyed by a text, not whether the text is factually accurate. "Factual accuracy" imposes modern ideas of history and the scientific method onto religious literature.

_________________
Mark A. Foster, Ph.D. (retired tenured sociology professor)
36 domains/24 books: http://www.markfoster.net
Emancipated Autism: http://www.neurelitism.com
Institute for Dialectical metaRealism: http://dmr.institute

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Mar 2008, 9:53 am

Orwell wrote:

That's what I've tried to tell you about a half dozen times now. Kudos to nominalist for apparently being a much better communicator than I am.

are you shure about that? i still think your religious outlook on life is still incorrect o_0

admittedly i dont have a religious outlook myself but i see people who do as inferiors

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

11 Mar 2008, 9:56 am

nominalist wrote:

Most Christians, outside of the United States and Australia, are religiously liberal.

In the north, yes. Africa? Not so much.

Griff
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 16 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,312

11 Mar 2008, 12:42 pm

Orwell wrote:

richardbenson wrote:

well i mean how can you take anything seriously thats been alterd from its origional state? do you know how many times the bibles been changed? grow an epidermis son. and i dont think your a christian, sorry.

So... you don't take evolutionary theory seriously? That's changed a lot more in the past two hundred years than Christian theology has in the past two thousand. You ever read Origin of Species? I have, and trust me most of it is considered to be a load of bull in today's scientific community. Come on now, if you use enduring permanence from the very beginning as a guide to deciding whether to take something seriously, you'll have to reject all of biology, chemistry, physics, language, even mathematics.

Now, let us compare the respective accomplishments of science vs. Christianity. One is mutable, and the other is not. I believe that we have a winner! You criticized user "iamnotaparakeet" for having a confirmation bias. What is wrong with confirmation bias is the same thing that is at the root of schizophrenia: a haste in accepting a belief and a reluctance to release it. It is a common characteristic of this well known psychiatric disorder. Mind you, psychology is one of my majors.

My chief issue with divine origin theory is that it has never once received serious study. This stems mostly from one central problem: its advocates are unwilling to try new approaches to the idea unless all but forced to.

Quote:

Fortunately for me, you are not the one who gets to define Christianity. I profess faith in one true sovereign God and in Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior. If that's not Christianity, I guess I'm in trouble. But I think it is.

Have fun.

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Mar 2008, 1:26 pm

Griff wrote:

Now, let us compare the respective accomplishments of science vs. Christianity.

exactly. although im shure someones will say christianity allowed science to exist or somehow science proves god. watch :lol:

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2008, 1:38 pm

monty wrote:

nominalist wrote:

Most Christians, outside of the United States and Australia, are religiously liberal.

In the north, yes. Africa? Not so much.

Europe is fairly liberal, yes.

Conservative movements in South Korea, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, some parts of Canada, and other places still exist. The majority may not have my views, so if I really thought numbers=truth I wouldn't be YEC.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Mar 2008, 2:02 pm

Griff wrote:

Orwell wrote:

richardbenson wrote:

Perhaps you did not realize that that post was intended as sarcasm. Richard questioned how I could possibly accept Christianity when its theology has changed, and I was pointing out the hypocrisy in this by saying that science changes and develops constantly, so if one wishes to reject religion because it changes, they must also reject science. Apologies if my sarcasm wasn't clear enough for you. I accept evolutionary theory as the most likely explanation of species diversification.

You are vastly oversimplifying the relative contributions of science and Christianity. I know science has made great contributions (otherwise I would not be going into biology) but Christianity has as well. Don't throw such unfounded overgeneralizations around, I'm sure you probably know they are false.

And yeah, nice trying to implicitly diagnose all Christians with schizophrenia. Autism diagnosis excludes those who meet the criteria for schizophrenia, and I assure you that I do not come close to matching up with scizophrenia. My views have often been very plastic as I learn more and more.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

11 Mar 2008, 2:06 pm

richardbenson wrote:

Orwell wrote:

That's what I've tried to tell you about a half dozen times now. Kudos to nominalist for apparently being a much better communicator than I am.

are you shure about that? i still think your religious outlook on life is still incorrect o_0

admittedly i dont have a religious outlook myself but i see people who do as inferiors

Yes, I am sure. I have said many times on this thread that I do not take a literalist approach to the Bible. I have also pointed out to you, repeatedly, that most Christians do not, and cited the Roman Catholic Church and several Protestant denominations as examples. And since you seem utterly incapable of comprehending what my religious outlook on life even is, you are hardly in a position to say that it is wrong.

And of course, you're not insulting anyone's religion here when you claim that anyone who is religious is inferior to you. :roll:

Get over yourself.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

richardbenson
Xfractor Card #351
$Xfractor Card #351$

Joined: 30 Oct 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,553
Location: Leave only a footprint behind

11 Mar 2008, 5:05 pm

get over myself? that sounds sucky. and im glad im not religious, but i really dont understand why you would get so upset over me saying anything negative about your religion. why you would even care what i think if its the truth? i think im shocked more than anything because if i was religious and someone was treating my religion in a way i didnt approve of i guess i wouldnt care because well..
its the truth! :lol:

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2008, 7:05 pm

richardbenson wrote:

Have you ever been picked on at school? Are the insults that bullies make true? No, not usually. But do they still hurt? For me, yes, and for others as well I'm fairly certain.

nominalist
Supporting Member

Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,740
Location: Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas (born in NYC)

11 Mar 2008, 8:21 pm

monty wrote:

nominalist wrote:

Most Christians, outside of the United States and Australia, are religiously liberal.

In the north, yes. Africa? Not so much.

That is true. I should have qualified that I was referring to industrial or postindustrial countries

slowmutant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Feb 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,430
Location: Ontario, Canada

11 Mar 2008, 9:34 pm

Odin wrote:

We scientists have the fossils and DNA sequences. You Creationists have nothing but blind faith

We win.

So it's fair to say that you worship science as God?

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

11 Mar 2008, 10:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

My view is there will be no final conflict of data. Since God has convinced me of His existence at the age of 13 and with the research I've done, I've decided to favor the theologically correct view (as far as I can tell) of young earth creation rather than old earth creation. It is my hope that in the future technical issues will be resolved objectively.

If you have a compulsion to flame me or anyone else for expressing their views, I ask that you do not post.

Are you aware that jews, you know, the ones who wrote the old testament (or transcribed it from god or whatever you believe) don't take the story of creation literally? So you're basically arguing with the author about their own book.

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

11 Mar 2008, 10:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Wow. So you're not even pretending not to suffer from confirmation bias. "Objectively?" No, you mean in the future technical issues will be resolved in such a way that vindicates your worldview. Be careful with claims of "theological correctness." My theology, which I would consider to be at least as valid as yours, does not compel me to reject science.

I think it is confirmed in part now already and further research will only confirm it more. If I didn't view the evidence as pointing to it, I wouldn't be a YEC. Also, a straightforward reading of Genesis would lead to the conclusion that the days are literal and the chronogenealogies don't have gaps, so I've found I can't contort it to say otherwise.

Unless you've studied ancient hebrew and aramaic in order to read the bible in its original form, reading it word for word is irrelevant. You don't know what word was originally used to describe the time period in which god supposedly created the earth, you don't know who decided to translate it as "days", and you don't know their reasoning for translating it in that way.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

11 Mar 2008, 11:41 pm

Obres wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Orwell wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Yes I've studied ancient Hebrew. Argument by misunderstanding and appeal to ignorance will get you nowhere.

Obres
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,423
Location: NYC

12 Mar 2008, 12:02 pm

Congratulations on keeping yourself properly informed. However, there's still the issue of why jews, and I can tell you for a fact that there are millions of them who study the old testament as their full-time job their whole lives, including ancient hebrew (obviously), interpret it differently. And while I'm impressed by your effort, I'd find it hard to believe that someone your age who (I assume) doesn't spend the majority of his life studying the old testament has a good enough understanding of everything involved to definitively determine the original intent of the author.

Page 6 of 9 [ 131 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Your view on Creation and the Creator? Post Reply New Topic

Your view on Creation and the Creator?