Posted on 01/28/2010 2:23:22 PM PST by The Ignorant Fisherman
to God be the glory...!
It’s realy simple but our pride gets in the way of the reality of our dire situation. Oh... how we need or needed Christ!
And in this instance you would be correct
Exactly. Each religion has its own requirements, almost always mutually exclusive from any other religion, and they all proclaim themselves as having a hotline to God (or Gods, as the case may be).
Then you haven’t carefully considered the claims of Jesus Christ who did exactly that.
Incorrect, I have carefully considered the such claims. I simply don't believe them.
Yet if Jesus was who He said he was, then these “myths” become more credible.
And if Muhammed was who the Koran says he was, his myths become more credible. The same goes for Gautama Buddha, Joseph Smith, Zoraster, L. Ron Hubbard...etc.
Basing one’s philosophy of life on the sayings of science fiction authors can be likened to living on sugar alone.
Don't read too much into it; I was simply giving credit where due for a clever phrase. I will admit to being extremely fond of Heinlein, but that's more in the nature of finding an author who is expressing many of my own thoughts much more eloquently than I'm able to. I simply find him a kindred spirit.
(er...excuse the term)
I would also point out that for those born into islam, beheadings and honor killings await those who critically evaluate the teachings of Mohammad and leave islam.
That's certainly the case for many in Islam. Please note that I'm not defending Islam, as religions go it leaves much to be desired.
But those two do not answer all the questions. Why is our planet and universe so completely fine tuned to support life?
Since we evolved on Earth, it by definition must be fine tuned in just that manner, just as any other life-bearing planet would be similarly fine tuned for the local life. Also, keep in mind that we're working from a sample of one, in a universe with upwards of an octillion planets! There's a decided lack of data at the moment.
Jesus Christ is one of the best documented individual of ancient history – and his resurrection one of the most spectacular.
Written about decades after the "fact". Not exactly empirical proof.
So are you satisfied to become a meaningless collections of molecular substances upon death after experiencing life?
My satisfaction (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the fact that this will happen. The universe is utterly indifferent to our desires.
Would the claims of Christ who came from eternity to enlighten man and rose again to underscore those words mean more?
If I believed those claims, they undoubtedly would. Since I don't...
And others by experiencing that which transcends both.
I prefer verifiable evidence.
I will agree that what you are asserting is conventional Biblical doctrine. If I were inclined to believe the Bible to be the word of God, it would be quite persuasive.
But I'm not, so it's not.
On what basis? The presence of the supernatural? If there is a God then it is illogical to rule out the supernatural a priori.
And if Muhammed was who the Koran says he was, his myths become more credible. The same goes for Gautama Buddha, Joseph Smith, Zoraster, L. Ron Hubbard...etc.
the myths surrounding these became embedded centuries later or have been throughly rejected by the simple facts surrounding the individuals (Smith and Hubbard). How many of these have come back to life - none.
That's certainly the case for many in Islam. Please note that I'm not defending Islam, as religions go it leaves much to be desired.
Was never claiming you were - just pointing out the substantial difference in your comparison.
Since we evolved on Earth, it by definition must be fine tuned in just that manner, just as any other life-bearing planet would be similarly fine tuned for the local life.
If, just for grins and giggles, I agree with you regarding evolution as the source for life here, when you look at the requirements for a planet to be able to sustain life, the odds against a planet meeting all those requirements - even against the universe - become small.
IF evolution - what path did it take to bring non-life to life. Science cannot answer it, and scientists rely upon a philosophical assumption when they make that assumption.
Also, keep in mind that we're working from a sample of one, in a universe with upwards of an octillion planets! There's a decided lack of data at the moment.
A planet must orbit within the right distance from the right type of sun, tilted axis, large moon, right size to retain oxygen, nitrogen, water, etc - there is a substantial list of requirements astronomers have come up with for a planet to support life. Science fiction may imply many more - but the requirements for life quickly pare the octillion of planets down to a very few.
Written about decades after the "fact". Not exactly empirical proof.
With the oral tradition embedded from the very beginning - the traditional means of Jewish transmission. However the testimony of the writings in some instances are less than 20 years from the fact (the writings of Paul). Hostile sources - the Jews - are unable to provide a solution. They could have quashed the beginning by simply providing the body. Yet in Jewish writings THEY try to explain away the empty tomb in their polemic. The first followers of Christ went to their death with the claim they had seen the risen Jesus. And throughout this - there is an empty tomb. The naturalistic explanations have been evaluated over the years and all found flawed and unworkable.
My satisfaction (or lack thereof) has no bearing on the fact that this will happen. The universe is utterly indifferent to our desires.
But not the Creator of that universe who spoke to us by Jesus.
I prefer verifiable evidence.
Where is the verifiable evidence of life from nonlife?
My Friend,
Those are absolute truths. You do not need the Bible to tell you that. They are not to be debated or made relative. You your self stated that they are true. What hope is there then if you fall short of these 10 commandments and in the end die? Is that all life was meant to be?...No. it’s far greater than us. All the Answers are found truly found in God’s Word.
Let me ask you a question if I may... Rational reasoning states that there is a Creator. The law of Cause and effect. Look at the wonders of creation etc... Psalm 19
There is a longing in all to know truth… but it is all about how we go about it.
What if the biblical way is the right way? Are you willing to take that chance not to take a look into the Claims of Jesus Christ for your very soul? Forever is along time. Don’t be afraid. He paid the price that you may have a pardon, fellowship and life eternal (Gal 1:4, Rev 1:5). That’s what it’s all about my friend.. Not this little world or a few minutes of time called life. We are only here for a moment and then it is the reality of eternity.
I pray that you and others would consider the true claims of the Bible and God’s Savior.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matt 16:26
Thanks for your correspondence,
David
Why in the world not? Isn't that exactly what we're doing right now?
or made relative. You your self stated that they are true.
Incorrect. I said that what you were asserting was correct Biblical doctrine. That doesn't it true.
What hope is there then if you fall short of these 10 commandments and in the end die? Is that all life was meant to be?...
Life isn't "meant" to be anything. It simply is. The very concept of "meaning" is a human invention, so life (and anything else, for that matter) has whatever meaning we invest in it.
No. it’s far greater than us. All the Answers are found truly found in God’s Word.
You're certainly free to believe that.
Let me ask you a question if I may... Rational reasoning states that there is a Creator. The law of Cause and effect. Look at the wonders of creation etc... Psalm 19
If the universe needs a cause, then so does the Creator. If the Creator can be eternal, then so can the universe. It would be inconsistent to assert otherwise.
There is a longing in all to know truth… but it is all about how we go about it.
The scientific method has one heck of a track record!
What if the biblical way is the right way? Are you willing to take that chance not to take a look into the Claims of Jesus Christ for your very soul? Forever is along time. Don’t be afraid. He paid the price that you may have a pardon, fellowship and life eternal (Gal 1:4, Rev 1:5). That’s what it’s all about my friend.. Not this little world or a few minutes of time called life. We are only here for a moment and then it is the reality of eternity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager#Criticisms
I pray that you and others would consider the true claims of the Bible and God’s Savior.
Thank you for the thought.
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? Matt 16:26
Um...what "soul"? I've never seen any reason to believe that such a thing exists.
The fact remains that many events in the Bible are obviously myth, irrespective of whether or not God(s) exist.
the myths surrounding these became embedded centuries later or have been throughly rejected by the simple facts surrounding the individuals (Smith and Hubbard). How many of these have come back to life - none.
Um, no one has come back to life as far as I can tell (discounting people revived shortly after drowning, etc.)
If, just for grins and giggles, I agree with you regarding evolution as the source for life here, when you look at the requirements for a planet to be able to sustain life, the odds against a planet meeting all those requirements - even against the universe - become small.
You don't have enough data to support that assertion. This may change in the coming decades, as increasingly powerful telescopes are able to detect signs of life (such as free oxygen) on exoplanets.
IF evolution - what path did it take to bring non-life to life. Science cannot answer it, and scientists rely upon a philosophical assumption when they make that assumption.
Three points.
1) Evolution is an incredibly well-supported theory. Nothing else, particularly absurdities such as creationism, comes close to explaining the history of life on Earth.
2) Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life, that's abiogenesis.
3) While a literal interpretation of Genesis rules out the facts of a billions of years old Earth and the history of life thereon (not to mention virtually the whole of astronomy, geology, physics, etc.), a belief in God is not incompatible with evolution.
A planet must orbit within the right distance from the right type of sun, tilted axis, large moon, right size to retain oxygen, nitrogen, water, etc - there is a substantial list of requirements astronomers have come up with for a planet to support life. Science fiction may imply many more - but the requirements for life quickly pare the octillion of planets down to a very few.
There is no way to know (yet) how common Earth-like planets are throughout the universe. In any case, if even they are incredibly rare, the debate about them will only be held on those few planets by neccessity.
With the oral tradition embedded from the very beginning - the traditional means of Jewish transmission. However the testimony of the writings in some instances are less than 20 years from the fact (the writings of Paul). Hostile sources - the Jews - are unable to provide a solution. They could have quashed the beginning by simply providing the body. Yet in Jewish writings THEY try to explain away the empty tomb in their polemic. The first followers of Christ went to their death with the claim they had seen the risen Jesus. And throughout this - there is an empty tomb. The naturalistic explanations have been evaluated over the years and all found flawed and unworkable.
An empty tomb that was written about decades after the "fact". Note that even if it were written about only months later, one could not rule out that the Apostles were simply lying. It's not as if that hasn't happened before in the history of religion...
As for the first Christians being willing to die for their faith, that's hardly unique to Christianity...witness our current struggle against Islamofascism.
But not the Creator of that universe who spoke to us by Jesus.
Unwarranted assumption. YMMV, of course...
Where is the verifiable evidence of life from nonlife?
At the moment it's highly speculative. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models
You see, that's how science is supposed to work. Nothing is canonical, there are no sacred cows (the treatment of AGW being an obvious perversion of the process). In the absence of sufficient evidence, it's perfectly ok to say "insufficient data".
Do you possess all knowledge? Are you an eyewitness to any of those events? Then it is far beyond an established 'fact' isn't it.
Um, no one has come back to life as far as I can tell (discounting people revived shortly after drowning, etc.)
Jesus did.
You don't have enough data to support that assertion. This may change in the coming decades, as increasingly powerful telescopes are able to detect signs of life (such as free oxygen) on exoplanets.
The specifics I refered to are those already identified by astronomers as fundamental for life support. Free oxygen by itself is not enough to provide for life if those other components are not present.
1) Evolution is an incredibly well-supported theory. Nothing else, particularly absurdities such as creationism, comes close to explaining the history of life on Earth.
A "theory" that still lacks substantial understanding. How do irreducable mechanisms "evolve". How can random actions produce the cell with DNA capable of holding 30X the equivalent information of the Encyclopedia Brittiania? Evolution begins to fall completely apart at the cellular level and is not a 'solid' as may be inferred.
There is no way to know (yet) how common Earth-like planets are throughout the universe. In any case, if even they are incredibly rare, the debate about them will only be held on those few planets by neccessity.
A statement of 'faith' rather than fact?
2) Evolution has nothing to do with origin of life, that's abiogenesis.
As a naturalistic 'answer' to theistic based origions, abiogenesis has always been considered a component of evolution. Abiogenesis is a key factor in evolutionary thought -
- If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that life only arose once, or in one pool of organisms?
- If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a multicellular organisms must have had a single-celled organism as an ancestor?
- If you do not rely on a specific conception of abiogenesis, how do you know that a fossil sequence of high disparity is not the result of multiple abiogenesis events separated in time, rather than representing an ancestral lineage?
Studies of abiogenesis have been joined to evolutionary theory at the hip from almost day one.
An empty tomb that was written about decades after the "fact".
Two separate sources - on hostile to Christianity and the other the eyewitnesses (positive to Christianity) all come to the same fundamental observation - the tomb was empty. Given that within weeks the Jewish leadership was persecuting and killing these new Christians. Do you deny the fundamental facts surrounding Abraham Lincoln? Many were written decades - even over a hundred years later. Again, eyewitnesses began writing within two decades of the event. Jewish emphasis upon accurate oral history reaffirms the accurate transmission of the information over that short period of time.
Note that even if it were written about only months later, one could not rule out that the Apostles were simply lying.
And followers were being put to death within your window. Eyewitnesses, as many as 500 who saw the resurrected Jesus. And all the Jewish authorities had to do to quash this new religion was to produce a body - something that they had to explain away as well.
But the simple aspect of lying about a belief is completely contrary to the public teachings of Jesus. From day 1, the teaching of the Church was that Jesus rose from the dead and that teaching held in the face of hostile opinion.
It's not as if that hasn't happened before in the history of religion...
How many of these instances involved sects/cults where the membership was severely brainwashed and conditioned over a period of years? I would be interested to see if any of these parallels match the conditions in the early church.
As for the first Christians being willing to die for their faith, that's hardly unique to Christianity...witness our current struggle against Islamofascism.
Yes, we see islamofacists killing lots of folks in the basis of their religion - even different sects within islam itself. Again, are the conditions of the first century church within months of the resurrection the same as in islam thousand years after its start? Compare apples to apples.
Unwarranted assumption. YMMV, of course...
Jesus was a historical person who taught some incredable things. Jesus did some incredable things. Jesus demanded incredable faith of his followers. Jesus claimed to be God. And Jesus claimed He would rise again from the grave. An empty tomb speaks to the fact Jesus backed up his words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models
I do not consider wiki to be a valid source, and here's why. It refers to 1953 Miller–Urey experiment - an experiment darwinists were not shy in using to support evolution (see your earlier comment above). It relies upon a reducing environment that has no evidence of existing in the past.
Take the time and really READ each theory. Every one runs into a wall - a molocule of some time can be created - but nothing approaching life can be attained. Explain the data storage in the basic DNA - random mutations are completely insufficient to account for it as it is statistically impossible for it to develop randomly within even the period of time the entire universe is thought to exist.
You see, that's how science is supposed to work. Nothing is canonical, there are no sacred cows (the treatment of AGW being an obvious perversion of the process). In the absence of sufficient evidence, it's perfectly ok to say "insufficient data".
Indeed, yet AGW is not the only science to have been perverted because of 'sacred cows', Piltdown man ring a bell? Yet the process is skewed to seeking only naturalistic solutions. Other scientists see additional data in the order and design of the universe and life.
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.