CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: General Religious Discussion...

[Dead Duck]

When you guys are done playing stump the pope, I have a question that's been bugging me.

Hauntings - Residual and/or Interacting Ghosts.
What does this fall under in the religious world?

 

[T.Lex]

When you guys are done playing stump the pope...

Quick clarification - that hasn't been part of the initiation for a long time....

 

[JettaKnight]

When you guys are done playing stump the pope, I have a question that's been bugging me.

Hauntings - Residual and/or Interacting Ghosts.
What does this fall under in the religious world?

I'm highly suspect, but open.

If someone talks about speaking to the dead, I'm more concerned they're interfacing with demons (be they from hell or a bottle ).

 

[indiucky]

Jeep if more people opened their mind's to science they would understand God....Science isn't something to be feared just because it points to God..Give science a try...

[video=youtube;0XIDykeZplU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XIDykeZplU&t=3s[/video]

 

[indiucky]

Oxford's John Lennox...

[video=youtube;0FmO2XKMe6g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FmO2XKMe6g[/video]

 

[indiucky]

Ard Louis...Physics at Oxford...They are scientist's...Don't fear them...Hear what they have to say...

[video=youtube;xgskFDykU7E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgskFDykU7E[/video]

 

[indiucky]

Here's Reverend Thomas Dolby singing about God's love or perhaps some limey science chick...(I'm 100 % British Isles DNA so I get a hood pass on "limey")



[video=youtube;-FIMvSp01C8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FIMvSp01C8[/video]

 

[indiucky]

Learn....Open your mind......I've been watching your arguments and they could use some help...

Look to Christopher Hitchen's and Sam Harris...On INGO look to Jamil and PaulF...They all make a decent case for their Agnostic views...Even Richard Dawkin's is an agnostic not an Atheist.....Follow the evidence with an open mind and see where that leads you.....

[video=youtube;f_vO6H-iIvM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_vO6H-iIvM[/video]

You're obviously looking for something with these posts....If it is God I hope you find Him....If it's just an argument you're looking for spend some time studying Sam Harris..He can hold his own in a debate....

 

[indiucky]

This one is a very good debate to watch...I feel bad for your side on this one...He was just out of his league against Stephen Meyer...Peter Ward starts asking for help from another professor in the audience....

DNA is a book and books have authors....To me to take the childlike 19th century religion of Darwin with all of the scientific advancements we've had since then takes a pretty big leap of Faith....Peter Ward was just out his league...Sad as my President would say...

[video=youtube;01P4py7NUMc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01P4py7NUMc[/video]

 

[indiucky]

I spent a good 15 years studying this subject...I thought like you...I sounded like you....I didn't believe in a higher being until well after 30 years of age..Science brought me to God and history brought me to Christ at age 50 years old...Good luck on your journey and God bless....

 

[JeepHammer]

JH, I'm beginning to wonder if I'm on your "ignore list".

Not at all, I'm not going to exclude anyone that wants to debate.
Sorry if I missed something you had to say on the subject that was debatable.

You've asked why people kill in the name of religion, and I've asked why people kill in the name of science.

Not specific in details, and I don't want to get banned for getting baited into some subject that's a sore spot for a moderator.

Are you here to have a meaningful discussion, or just ask rhetorical questions?

Another attempt to bait?

A 'Rhetorical Question' isn't a question, it's sarcasm.
The term 'Rhetorical Question' is an oxymoron.

You believe science will explain everything can, and does, occur without supernatural involvement given enough time.

I don't.

That's fine. Your beliefs are your own, it also means we don't have common ground to have a discussion or debate.

We're all taking it on good faith that you came here with the pure motive of discussing it with some openness.

I don't believe that. End of subject.

Here's a nugget: My faith isn't based on the premise that there are things science can't explain; it's based on Jesus. Any doubt I had was erased when I looked at the life of Jesus through a critical, historical lens.

Historical lense.... Current bible, "The Word Of God".
1. Hebrew/Jewish with a Spanish name. There is no Hebrew/Jewish comparable name to this day, Jewish use Jesus.
2. Parents have European names that have roots in traditional names from the middle east, but not traditional middle eastern/Hebrew names that were used at the time.
At the very least, it's a bad translation screwed up by humans if you believe 'God' isn't capable of a mistake.
3. Would have been 'Average' about 5'3" tall, had a pronounced nose, a thicker lower lip than top lip, a rounded, flatter face than Europeans do. Dark skinned, dark hair & dark eyes simply because all Jewish people had those features on average 2,000+ years ago.
4. The earliest reference to 'Jesus' being 'Devine' was about 200 years AFTER 'Jesus' died,and that reference was in Rome (state, not city).
5. Constantine (the great) convened the council of divinity to decide if 'Jesus' was 'Devine', or a composite/created being.
6. Let's not forget that the Hebrew words for 'Virgin' & 'Maiden' (unmarried) were entirely different.
The Greek translation switched 'Maiden' (unmarried) for 'Virgin'. Anything from a translation error to completely changing the story...
It's also the reason for the council of divinity that lasted for 300 years...

Those are historical facts, the 'Historical Lense'.

He (A) was a real person, (B) died on a cross, (C) was resurrected, (D) was followed by many to their own grizzly deaths, (E) fulfilled the manifold prophecies of old.

Nothing new here, no room for debate, in discussion, a flat statement.
This is why I didn't address anything I saw previously, I didn't see anything new and no room for debate, which was what the thread specifically called for,
Not a bunch of people telling me what they *Think* the bible says, the usual Christian religious dogma.

I honestly thought it might be about discussion of different religions or religion/superstition vs actual facts.
Stupid me...

Only someone perfect and supernatural could fit that description.

Now you say someone (person), instead of 'Some Thing' (creation/construct), or the devine...

So, if you're really open, then let's quit talking about science v. religion (because you're mind is already set on the "winner", despite there isn't really a contest), and start talking about Christ v. evil.

Good vs evil...
Is a snake bite evil?
How about the snake bites a bear trying to eat you, is that same snake bite evil?

Or...
Is a snake biting you bad FOR YOU, while that snake biting the bear good FOR YOU?

A fire that burns everything away...
Is fire evil?
Is your homes being destroyed evil?
Is the pot ash and growing space created for the burst of life that will replace the old, over grown forest/brush an evil thing?

'Good' is relative to what gains.
The opposite of that is BAD (not evil), and it's relative to what gains from the change.

When a 'Mad' dog kills humans, is the dog 'Evil', or a victim of rabies, or a head full of bad wiring?
When a human kills humans, is he evil or suffering from mental illness or disease?

'Evil' is a human construct trying to explain why something happens, instead of just saying it was bad luck or a bad spot to build a house, or a bad deal you ran across a diseased dog or human.

(If that's the case, we should go over the "Christianity" thread)

(or you can just keep telling us how unenlightened we are because with start with a different presupposition than you.)

Christianity thread is probably a good idea for all but about one that chimed in on my comments.
From the very outset I gave examples of 'Christian' religion, CLEARLY stating that to reference other religions would be pretty pointless since a vast majority of people in Indiana are 'Christian' and wouldn't have any/extensive knowledge of other religions.
It wasn't to pick a christians vs everyone else argument....
Or to have Christians attack everything/everyone else argument.

It wasn't supposed to be an argument at all, but a debate/discussion with both sides represented...
If this is a 'Christian Only' thing, just say do and I'm out instantly, not being a 'Christian' I'm not qualified to enter into a Christian Only conversation.

 

[rvb]

sigh.

I'm aware of the idea of dark matter. another theory trying to fill the gaps where previous theories left holes. un-observed other than the effects it's supposed to address. An interesting THEORY. not fact. actual evidence of dark matter will open a whole new series of questions about its origin and creation. A never ending cycle, regardless of how fascinating it might be.

You're basing your arguments against religion on dark-age ideas of heresy, and you don't think you have a filter or bias?

It's not that I can't separate religion and science, it's that years of studying both have led me to believe they are intertwined. You study only one, refuse to acknowledge the other, and claim I have the filter?

You weren't who I was asking for anyway, I asked for someone that, 1. Can separate science from religion, 2. Can put into words what their faith is, if that's possible.

1) science shouldn't care that I believe in God. The results are the results. My belief in God doesn't change that. That you aren't even open to the idea that future evidence could change common understanding of the THEORY of evolution is no different than those dark-age priests who refused to believe the Earth orbits the sun. I've seen the observable evidence. I'm also aware of the disputing evidence. I'm open to new evidence and other theories. That's science. Calling theories "fact" while filtering all other evidence, known or yet to be discovered, is not.

2) Faith is belief in the absence of proof. I have evidence that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, but I don't have PROOF. Yet I believe it anyway. That's faith. I have faith my wife has been monogamous even though I don't know what she does while I'm at work all day. No PROOF, but I believe it. I know I said I was done with this, but answering this for you is what pulled me in. Did that answer it?

Another example: You seem to have faith evolution is absolute truth. There is evidence supporting it. It's not, however, a law of nature.

-rvb

 

[JeepHammer]

sigh.

I'm aware of the idea of dark matter. another theory trying to fill the gaps where previous theories left holes. un-observed other than the effects it's supposed to address. An interesting THEORY. not fact. actual evidence of dark matter will open a whole new series of questions about its origin and creation. A never ending cycle, regardless of how fascinating it might be.

You're basing your arguments against religion on dark-age ideas of heresy, and you don't think you have a filter or bias?

It's not that I can't separate religion and science, it's that years of studying both have led me to believe they are intertwined. You study only one, refuse to acknowledge the other, and claim I have the filter?



1) science shouldn't care that I believe in God. The results are the results. My belief in God doesn't change that. That you aren't even open to the idea that future evidence could change common understanding of the THEORY of evolution is no different than those dark-age priests who refused to believe the Earth orbits the sun. I've seen the observable evidence. I'm also aware of the disputing evidence. I'm open to new evidence and other theories. That's science. Calling theories "fact" while filtering all other evidence, known or yet to be discovered, is not.

2) Faith is belief in the absence of proof. I have evidence that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, but I don't have PROOF. Yet I believe it anyway. That's faith. I have faith my wife has been monogamous even though I don't know what she does while I'm at work all day. No PROOF, but I believe it. I know I said I was done with this, but answering this for you is what pulled me in. Did that answer it?

Another example: You seem to have faith evolution is absolute truth. There is evidence supporting it. It's not, however, a law of nature.

-rvb

Then we obviously reached an impasse... Like I have with every other 'Christian'.

I find it odd that other religions, ones that aren't Judeo-Christian-Islam based can articulate their beliefs and differentiate between religious beliefs & science.
Now I'm interested why that is, another question I don't have an answer to...

 

[rvb]

Then we obviously reached an impasse... Like I have with every other 'Christian'.

I find it odd that other religions, ones that aren't Judeo-Christian-Islam based can articulate their beliefs and differentiate between religious beliefs & science.
Now I'm interested why that is, another question I don't have an answer to...

I find it interesting that Christian is in quotes. Like you don't believe I am one? Or do you not know what it means to be Christian?

I don't know why you think I can't differentiate religious beliefs and science. For that matter, I don't know why you are using that as a reason to shut down conversation. I have a left hand, and a right hand. they are both strong. they are each better at addressing certain tasks. Together they are even stronger and can allow me to do more than if I only have one or the other. They compliment each other.

Perhaps if I gave another example of faith to answer your question about faith above? I have faith God created the universe. Science does not prove that, hence it requires faith.

Science, however, has also not proven God did NOT create the universe. You're trying very hard to prove religious people are not up to date on latest science, that you are smarter than us, that our contributions to scientific discussions must be ignored. that we are to be silenced. I find THAT interesting. Are you trying to disprove the existence of God? is that the ulterior motive of this discussion?

-rvb

 

[JeepHammer]

I spent a good 15 years studying this subject...I thought like you...I sounded like you....I didn't believe in a higher being until well after 30 years of age..Science brought me to God and history brought me to Christ at age 50 years old...Good luck on your journey and God bless....

A NON-Attack!
I'm just shy of 60 and can't see an even close connection...
Either I'm REALLY dense, or the connection hasn't been presented that makes any sense.
Maybe I don't possess the connections in the brain that allows for 'Believing'...?

Some people use the term 'God Spot' as an insult, I don't.
I consider that it might be/allow for perception other than the 5 senses.
It's a 'Theory' anyway...

I'm open to debate/speculation but not blindly following dogma or trying to connect things that don't fit, you can't weld steel to water no matter how hard you *Believe* it can be done...

AND,
Best wishes to you and yours!

 

[JeepHammer]

I find it interesting that Christian is in quotes. Like you don't believe I am one? Or do you not know what it means to be Christian?

I don't know why you think I can't differentiate religious beliefs and science. For that matter, I don't know why you are using that as a reason to shut down conversation. I have a left hand, and a right hand. they are both strong. they are each better at addressing certain tasks. Together they are even stronger and can allow me to do more than if I only have one or the other. They compliment each other.

Perhaps if I gave another example of faith to answer your question about faith above? I have faith God created the universe. Science does not prove that, hence it requires faith.

Science, however, has also not proven God did NOT create the universe. You're trying very hard to prove religious people are not up to date on latest science, that you are smarter than us, that our contributions to scientific discussions must be ignored. that we are to be silenced. I find THAT interesting. Are you trying to disprove the existence of God? is that the ulterior motive of this discussion?

-rvb

Another argument...
Not biting.

I have no idea what sect 'Christian' you are, and I'm doing my best not to offend.
If I lump LDS, Lutherans, Protestants, etc. in with Catholics or Amish or whatever, that would be disrespectful.

'Christian' is generic and as polite as I can put it since I don't know EXACTLY how you refer to each other in respectful terms, or even if you all reference to each other in respectful terms.
The manners between sects isn't something I study since I can barely wrap my head around most religions at all.

--------

Why are you looking for ANY reason for a fight with someone that clearly isn't wanting to fight with you or your specific beliefs?

Like I said, no common ground so post if you want to but I can't discuss/debate without common ground rules to start with,
And since I believe you want to start a fight (reason unknown to me) I think it's time, in my best interest, I stopped communicating with you directly.

 

[BugI02]

[snippety]
You weren't who I was asking for anyway, I asked for someone that, 1. Can separate science from religion, 2. Can put into words what their faith is, if that's possible.
[/snip]

Well, Ray Bradbury said faith is "... jumping off a cliff and building you wings on the way down"

 

[NKBJ]

Faith... for critters two and four legged faith is usually the result of experience.
My cat has faith in me based upon what she has experienced ever since I rescued her skinny little tail in 2011.
The faith people have in God is usually acquired the same way.
They find out that He does what He says and says what He does.

 

[JeepHammer]

OK, that's three or four to consider!
Thanks!

The next question is, do you pick & choose, or is everything off limits to ignore?
Self improvement/meditation religions allow for ignoring what doesn't apply to you, or what doesn't improve you.
(Reflection on past deeds directs future actions)

 

[rvb]

Another argument...
Not biting.

I have no idea what sect 'Christian' you are, and I'm doing my best not to offend.
If I lump LDS, Lutherans, Protestants, etc. in with Catholics or Amish or whatever, that would be disrespectful.

'Christian' is generic and as polite as I can put it since I don't know EXACTLY how you refer to each other in respectful terms, or even if you all reference to each other in respectful terms.
The manners between sects isn't something I study since I can barely wrap my head around most religions at all.

--------

Why are you looking for ANY reason for a fight with someone that clearly isn't wanting to fight with you or your specific beliefs?

Like I said, no common ground so post if you want to but I can't discuss/debate without common ground rules to start with,
And since I believe you want to start a fight (reason unknown to me) I think it's time, in my best interest, I stopped communicating with you directly.

ok, thanks for that explanation. For future reference, just calling people a Christian is fine. No need for quotes. People often use quotes for a negative implication, eg to imply people say they are Christian when they don't act like it, or to imply their version of Christianity isn't correct, etc. That's why I simply asked why vs making an assumption you were trying to insult.

I don't feel I'm trying to pick a fight with you. I'm sorry if you feel I am. So what is it you want to discuss??? I just went back to what I think is your first post in this thread to see what your opening assertion was.... Your first sentence was "There isn't any way to discuss/debate religion with a 'Believer' simply because deity based religion doesn't make provable, scientific sense." Then you went on to talk about brain anomalies in believers, etc. You came out swinging.

From that first post... if all you know about religion came from some "comparative religion" class you took, then it's obvious universities aren't doing any real education about major religions if all you took away about Christianity is the Bible tells us to kill everyone who sins and take slaves. (Not that I'd think universities have an agenda there or anything.) Maybe we could start with what questions you have about religions? I mean, wouldn't you like to know if that's really what we believed?? I tried to answer your question and describe above what faith means to me, both as a general concept and within my religion...

No one knows as hard-fast verifiable fact the answers to these hard questions... origin of life, morality, origin of universe, etc. Anything beyond observation is extrapolation... Believers put their faith in God, with the idea that the evidence supports that. Non-believers put their faith in nature, with the idea that the evidence supports that. I feel I, and others here, are trying to have the discussion with how the evidence leads US to a different conclusion, but when you state our opinions are irrelevant because we don't share the same end conclusion, well, you're right, there's no point in having the discussion if we won't be listened to.

So I guess it all goes back to your opening sentence in your original post... there's no way to have a discussion with us. I don't understand what these "common ground rules" are other than I am not allowed to believe in God to have a scientific opinion. I'm curious, do you believe all scientists are atheists?

-rvb

ps: Perhaps this all comes down to a miscommunication in the semantics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory