ChatterBank1 min ago
How Much Do You Love The Truth?
69 Answers
(John 8:32)
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by goodlife. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
You know as your eyes scan these words you are employing a skill that is the very foundation of education, yes the ability to read.
Through the use of this basic skill, the gathering of thoughts from printed pages, you are able to learn of events of the distant past, the present, and, as if from a blueprint, the future. Ask yourself, “What would life be like had I never learned to read?
Through the use of this basic skill, the gathering of thoughts from printed pages, you are able to learn of events of the distant past, the present, and, as if from a blueprint, the future. Ask yourself, “What would life be like had I never learned to read?
Our friend atalanta makes an interesting and entwined prolegomenon, but... doesn't explain what (for example) "testable evidence" looks like or consists of (pardon the sentence ending preposition).
For example, we often read of the newly emerging science of quantum mechanics. However, if one were to apply atalanta's prequisites one would never be able to believe in the conclusions reached by it's proponents.
The mathmaticians fully understand that the proposition can never be proven; 99.995% of people can never test the evidence, as well as never being able to experience or personally see the conclusions reached. Perhaps atalanta can claim to know those who have developed the 'science' and therefore find their reputations trustworthy... most cannot.
But... we don't have to rely on such an arcane example, do we? Historians wrote centuries after the facts, have varying reputations, but anything older than yesterdays news is given a degree of credibility that does not include my own witnessing.
Look... science itself was largely built upon Christianity. Most, if not all, of the founders of inquiry were staunch believers adhering to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (among many other similars). Many scientists of all stripes today are believers, but I suppose they should all be cast on the junkpile since they fit none of the requirements enunciated by atalanta ( and, in fairness, a lot of others herein).
Tom Price, an academic tutor at the Oxford Center for Christian Aoplogetics in Oxford, England, sums up this thought far better than I could...
"So in conclusion, faith is not a kind of religious hoping that you do in spite of the facts. In fact, faith is a knowledge that results in doing, a knowing that is so passionately and intelligently faithful to Jesus Christ that it will not submit to fideism, scientism, nor any other secularist attempt to divert and cauterize the human soul by hijacking knowledge."
By any standard, testable, available through my own eyes and experience and the evidence of centuries of trustworthy people whose reputations I respect. Far removed from any fairy tale I know.
For example, we often read of the newly emerging science of quantum mechanics. However, if one were to apply atalanta's prequisites one would never be able to believe in the conclusions reached by it's proponents.
The mathmaticians fully understand that the proposition can never be proven; 99.995% of people can never test the evidence, as well as never being able to experience or personally see the conclusions reached. Perhaps atalanta can claim to know those who have developed the 'science' and therefore find their reputations trustworthy... most cannot.
But... we don't have to rely on such an arcane example, do we? Historians wrote centuries after the facts, have varying reputations, but anything older than yesterdays news is given a degree of credibility that does not include my own witnessing.
Look... science itself was largely built upon Christianity. Most, if not all, of the founders of inquiry were staunch believers adhering to 1 Thessalonians 5:21 (among many other similars). Many scientists of all stripes today are believers, but I suppose they should all be cast on the junkpile since they fit none of the requirements enunciated by atalanta ( and, in fairness, a lot of others herein).
Tom Price, an academic tutor at the Oxford Center for Christian Aoplogetics in Oxford, England, sums up this thought far better than I could...
"So in conclusion, faith is not a kind of religious hoping that you do in spite of the facts. In fact, faith is a knowledge that results in doing, a knowing that is so passionately and intelligently faithful to Jesus Christ that it will not submit to fideism, scientism, nor any other secularist attempt to divert and cauterize the human soul by hijacking knowledge."
By any standard, testable, available through my own eyes and experience and the evidence of centuries of trustworthy people whose reputations I respect. Far removed from any fairy tale I know.
The Bible and all the other Abrahamic books are full of contradictory statements which means one of them must be untrue, or at least wrong. Which is probably why most followers, do a pick 'n' mix of believing the bits they want to belueve, and ignore the 'triths' that are inconvenient to them.
If we live in a society where we must obey the rules, I want ones that were formulated very recently and are under constant review, not ones written 2,000, 1,300 years ago, for a different age.
If we live in a society where we must obey the rules, I want ones that were formulated very recently and are under constant review, not ones written 2,000, 1,300 years ago, for a different age.
goodlife - //You know as your eyes scan these words you are employing a skill that is the very foundation of education, yes the ability to read.
Through the use of this basic skill, the gathering of thoughts from printed pages, you are able to learn of events of the distant past, the present, and, as if from a blueprint, the future. Ask yourself, “What would life be like had I never learned to read? //
You have posted an original thought - not copied and pasted from some religious dogma - are you feeling quite well?
Through the use of this basic skill, the gathering of thoughts from printed pages, you are able to learn of events of the distant past, the present, and, as if from a blueprint, the future. Ask yourself, “What would life be like had I never learned to read? //
You have posted an original thought - not copied and pasted from some religious dogma - are you feeling quite well?
-- answer removed --
Clanad, //faith is a knowledge that results in doing, a knowing that is so passionately and intelligently faithful to Jesus Christ that it will not submit to fideism, scientism, nor any other secularist attempt to divert and cauterize the human soul by hijacking knowledge."//
Faith is a knowledge? No, it isn’t. If it were, Tom Price (and you, Goodlife and Keyplus) would all agree, but you don’t. At best you’re all guessing – and hoping you’re right.
Faith is a knowledge? No, it isn’t. If it were, Tom Price (and you, Goodlife and Keyplus) would all agree, but you don’t. At best you’re all guessing – and hoping you’re right.
Strange then, isn't it naomi, that almost every science and thus scientist's, disagree on certain aspects of their endeavor's... or is that fact exempt from your statement?
Fact is "faith" as used in Scripture (Old or New) derives from pistis[i or [i]eumnah]... to which we rely on Strong's for correct interpretation:
1. The root of 4102/pistis ("faith") is 3982/peithô ("to persuade, be persuaded") which supplies the core-meaning of faith ("divine persuasion"). It is God's warranty that guarantees the fulfillment of the revelation He births within the receptive believer (cf. 1 Jn 5:4 with Heb 11:1).
2. {eumnah}Word Origin
from aman
Definition
firmness, steadfastness, fidelity
NASB Translation
faith (1), faithful (3), faithfully (8), faithfulness (25), honestly (1), responsibility (1), stability (1), steady (1), trust (2), truth (5).Generally translated as faith.
We’re used to thinking of faith as a strategy for people who can’t think for themselves. "The fool believes everything," Solomon writes, "the wise man understands." Emunah, however, is an innate conviction, a perception of truth that transcends, rather than evades, reason. Quite the contrary, wisdom, understanding and knowledge can further enhance true emunah.
Nevertheless, emunah is not based on reason. Reason can never attain the certainty of emunah, since, reasonably speaking, a greater reasoning might always come along and prove your reasons wrong. In this way, emunah is similar to seeing first hand: Reason can help you better understand what you see, but it will have a hard time convincing you that you never saw it. So too, emunah endures even when reason can't catch up.
Fact is "faith" as used in Scripture (Old or New) derives from pistis[i or [i]eumnah]... to which we rely on Strong's for correct interpretation:
1. The root of 4102/pistis ("faith") is 3982/peithô ("to persuade, be persuaded") which supplies the core-meaning of faith ("divine persuasion"). It is God's warranty that guarantees the fulfillment of the revelation He births within the receptive believer (cf. 1 Jn 5:4 with Heb 11:1).
2. {eumnah}Word Origin
from aman
Definition
firmness, steadfastness, fidelity
NASB Translation
faith (1), faithful (3), faithfully (8), faithfulness (25), honestly (1), responsibility (1), stability (1), steady (1), trust (2), truth (5).Generally translated as faith.
We’re used to thinking of faith as a strategy for people who can’t think for themselves. "The fool believes everything," Solomon writes, "the wise man understands." Emunah, however, is an innate conviction, a perception of truth that transcends, rather than evades, reason. Quite the contrary, wisdom, understanding and knowledge can further enhance true emunah.
Nevertheless, emunah is not based on reason. Reason can never attain the certainty of emunah, since, reasonably speaking, a greater reasoning might always come along and prove your reasons wrong. In this way, emunah is similar to seeing first hand: Reason can help you better understand what you see, but it will have a hard time convincing you that you never saw it. So too, emunah endures even when reason can't catch up.
// almost every science and thus scientist's, disagree on certain aspects of their endeavor's (sic) //
That is not really a true representation of science and scientists.
Scienced based knowledge is being added to constantly. At periods we assess the sum of knowledge we have to date, and make theories based on what is available to us. Occassionally, scientists will discover something that proves there is a problem with the theory. In light of the new knowledge we can modify the theory to best fit what we know. As we go along, the more we learn, the better the theory becomes.
Scripture is a finite base of 'knowledge'. It is not constantly being added to or updated. It is presented as the finished article. That it is the word of God so it cannot be wrong.
Unfortunately, the more we learn about the real world, the more this 2000 year old version of the world looks to be spectacularly wrong.
That is not really a true representation of science and scientists.
Scienced based knowledge is being added to constantly. At periods we assess the sum of knowledge we have to date, and make theories based on what is available to us. Occassionally, scientists will discover something that proves there is a problem with the theory. In light of the new knowledge we can modify the theory to best fit what we know. As we go along, the more we learn, the better the theory becomes.
Scripture is a finite base of 'knowledge'. It is not constantly being added to or updated. It is presented as the finished article. That it is the word of God so it cannot be wrong.
Unfortunately, the more we learn about the real world, the more this 2000 year old version of the world looks to be spectacularly wrong.
The fact that the books of the Bible were recorded by some 40 men as diverse as king, prophet, herdsman, tax collector, and physician.
They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail.
But to appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.
They did the writing over a period of 1,610 years; so there was no opportunity for collusion. Yet their writings agree, even in the smallest detail.
But to appreciate the extent to which the various portions of the Bible are harmoniously intertwined, you must read and study it personally.
As in? Examples please Groit.
By the way, if scientists don't very basically disagree on basic points within their specialty, could you provide a singular definition of 'Species' please? Then we'll see how well it comports with the definition provided from the fields of science that rely on that definition as a basis for explanation.
Why, thank you, andy-hughes... always enjoyed your rambling, opinionated blowhardiness!
By the way, if scientists don't very basically disagree on basic points within their specialty, could you provide a singular definition of 'Species' please? Then we'll see how well it comports with the definition provided from the fields of science that rely on that definition as a basis for explanation.
Why, thank you, andy-hughes... always enjoyed your rambling, opinionated blowhardiness!
Latest Posts
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music10 mins ago
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank28 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News32 mins ago
