You're thinking of the wrong idea for study. It's not talking about memorizing the President names in 5th grade. It's talking about the fluid conglomeration of results from repeatable and testable studies of everything. And the only reason it's fluid is because it is based on current knowledge.
The important requirement is that someone is intellectually curious enough to seek this out. If the idea of "science" and the "scientific method" doesn't trigger some curiosity, nothing will help. I often get asked by the believers around me to explain this or that. I tell them that with the advent of the internet all of the information, knowledge and current understanding is readily available if they would just type it into a search engine. If they have a specific question about something they have actually been studying, I will try to answer the question if I know the answer. Otherwise, I direct them to do some reading on their own and get some basics down. If they are only trying to validate their beliefs, they reject the idea of reading pretty quickly.
Questions take two forms:
1. I don't understand how X happens or is true. Help me understand. 2. I don't understand how X happens or is true therefore it's not true.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 03-20-2014).]
trees with fruits BEFORE stars [when everything in a tree was made in a star] light BEFORE the sun was made ?
The Hebrew words used in the creation account. When God created "light" in verse 3, the word used means the presence of light only, this does not have to mean the Sun. The word used for "lights" in verse 14,15, and 16 is best translated "light bearers," “luminaries” or permanent light sources. Their purpose was not only to give light, but to serve as timekeepers for man once he was created.
Young’s literal translation: 14 And God saith, `Let luminaries be in the expanse of the heavens, to make a separation between the day and the night, then they have been for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years, 15 and they have been for luminaries in the expanse of the heavens to give light upon the earth:' and it is so. 16 And God maketh the two great luminaries, the great luminary for the rule of the day, and the small luminary -- and the stars -- for the rule of the night;
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-20-2014).]
i have no issue with people who honestly strive to live according to the word of jesus. i have few issues with people who honestly strive to live by the words of the old testament.
i have major problems with those who claim to live by the words, but do otherwise. the difficulty is telling the one, from the other.
Why does it make a difference to you? Is there any guarantee of success when someone strives? Don't ones who strive also fail from time to time? You seem to be bothered by the success rate of adherence to a system you do not believe in. That is something that I would call illogical.
Politics and religion, I have never had a discussion with ANYONE that changed their mind on either topic. Most people have their minds made up and have their minds closed to any different ways of looking at things. I obviously am an exception since I have altered my perceptions on both topics and may do so again when confronted with facts that require me to question my previous perceptions. I appreciate knowledge way more than beliefs although I believe in knowledge. I know that I believe. Whoops, I mean that I believe I know.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-20-2014).]
Politics and religion, I have never had a discussion with ANYONE that changed their mind on either topic. Most people have their minds made up and have their minds closed to any different ways of looking at things. I obviously am an exception since I have altered my perceptions on both topics and may do so again when confronted with facts that require me to question my previous perceptions. I appreciate knowledge way more than beliefs although I believe in knowledge. I know that I believe. Whoops, I mean that I believe I know.
I've seen it multiple times actually, not least in myself. I really believe that most religious and political conversations bear some amount of fruit (however small).
I've not done the math myself but I've heard that number as being the approximate age of the Earth according to the Bible. I believe the Bible so yes, I do believe in a "young" Earth.
I don't understand how some people want to pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe. Either it is true or it isn't. Either it is God's word or it isn't. I have no doubt that if a being had the ability to create the universe by speaking it into being, He would have no trouble creating the Earth to show any amount of age He chooses. Either God created the world the way He wanted it to be or He didn't. My faith tells me to believe this. My experience tells me God and His son are real. I find it easy to believe in a young Earth for these reasons.
I have no doubt that if a being had the ability to create the universe by speaking it into being, He would have no trouble creating the Earth to show any amount of age He chooses.
Either [my version of the Bible] is true or it isn't. Either it is God's word or it isn't.
Herein lies the crux of the matter. Taking this position, insisting upon strict literal interpretation of your Bible, you deny God the use of metaphor ... something any competent high school student can master ... in recording His Word. That strikes me as an extreme expression of human pride and arrogance. So God can create a universe but can't use a simple metaphor? Gimme a break!
quote
Either God created the world the way He wanted it to be or He didn't. My faith tells me to believe this.
I reject any religious or philosophical system in which any question that begins "Why ..." can summarily be dismissed with, "Because God wants it that way." Such a logical construct tells us absolutely nothing about either God or our universe.
Why is your faith so threatened when science enables us to understand how parts of the universe work?
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-20-2014).]
Herein lies the crux of the matter. Taking this position, insisting upon strict literal interpretation of your Bible, you deny God the use of metaphor ... something any competent high school student can master ... in recording His Word. That strikes me as an extreme expression of human pride and arrogance. So God can create a universe but can't use a simple metaphor? Gimme a break!
I deny God nothing. You assume much. I believe God can do whatever He wants. I believe God has given me the information He wants me to have in my Bible. Which Bible? Whichever one is in my hand. He can speak through any means He sees fit. There is zero pride or arrogance in my belief. You simply do not understand my position.
quote
Originally posted by Marvin McInnis:
I reject any religious or philosophical system in which any question that begins "Why ..." can summarily be dismissed with, "Because God wants it that way." Such a logical construct tells us absolutely nothing about God or His universe.
Or you could simply answer, "because that's the way it is" to any and all questions. No religion needs to be brought in at all. Now, what "system" will you reject?
I've not done the math myself but I've heard that number as being the approximate age of the Earth according to the Bible. I believe the Bible so yes, I do believe in a "young" Earth.
I don't understand how some people want to pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe. Either it is true or it isn't. Either it is God's word or it isn't. I have no doubt that if a being had the ability to create the universe by speaking it into being, He would have no trouble creating the Earth to show any amount of age He chooses. Either God created the world the way He wanted it to be or He didn't. My faith tells me to believe this. My experience tells me God and His son are real. I find it easy to believe in a young Earth for these reasons.
I can understand that idea. That God created the earth to show age. That's even an idea that I tossed around as a Believer.
But why create such depth to the idea? Just for the purpose of doubt? Not only does the earth show age, but we can see very clear and identifiable histories in rocks. We see extinct animals that have never existed with humans (according to the rocks, not scriptures). We see oceans that existed then didn't.
If God created it with the illusion of age just so that faith would be forced to exist entirely independently of Him, I don't see why all the depth had to be with it. I would have accepted an older earth without such sweeping history!
But that would be putting God into a box of human concepts, which I don't want to do. So I get it.
But it's not acceptable reason. It's not science. That's where it does veer off and religion becomes unacceptable to science. And that's okay for you. But a young earth and creationism should never be taught as even theories of how the earth was created. That lies in faith, and if any Christian parents want their child believing that, then they should do that themselves. But the schools need to teach science during science. And religion during the history classes (not just literal history but all that the public school genre covers). I know that's not what the topic of conversation was, but it's important. The earth is old. Really old. And that's a fact.
There are lots of different religions in the world. They are largely contradictory and therefore can't all be correct. It seems pretty arrogant to assume your deity exists and everyone else is wrong. Then to base it on a book that was written and changed repeatedly as people reinterpreted it with their own ideas...and act like it is fact really doesn't make any sense. I don't mean to insult peoples religions, but I just don't buy it.
I don't understand how some people want to pick and choose parts of the Bible to believe. Either it is true or it isn't. Either it is God's word or it isn't.
I completely agree with you on this one. It astonishes me how "believers" pick and choose all the time. Hey, it's the word of your GOD you're disregarding here!!!! Choose sides!!!!
Having said that, it's a lot of terrible, terrible things you're embracing when you're taking the bible literally, especially the old testament. For most of the bible, it's better not to be taken literally.
There are lots of different religions in the world. They are largely contradictory and therefore can't all be correct. It seems pretty arrogant to assume your deity exists and everyone else is wrong.
Let's just hope they will eventually cancel each other out, somehow...
quote
Originally posted by Neils88: I don't mean to insult peoples religions, but I just don't buy it.
Pointing out facts shouldn't be insulting to anyone. And if it is to someone, they can be offended all they want.
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 03-20-2014).]
Unless you're wrong. The non-existance of something cannot be proven so there is no way to prove there is no God. If you can't disprove God, you cannot disprove that He created all things just as they are by design.
Who would you consider to be a great painter of cars, the man who can lay down new paint flawlessly on an old car making it look better than new or the painter who can mix colors and textures and paint a replacement fender in such a way as you couldn't tell it wasn't original?
Clearly, the second painter had the much more difficult task. He deserves more praise and admiration for doing something difficult and amazing. I think that's the way God wanted the creation of the Earth to be.
I can understand that idea. That God created the earth to show age. That's even an idea that I tossed around as a Believer.
But why create such depth to the idea? Just for the purpose of doubt? Not only does the earth show age, but we can see very clear and identifiable histories in rocks. We see extinct animals that have never existed with humans (according to the rocks, not scriptures). We see oceans that existed then didn't.
If God created it with the illusion of age just so that faith would be forced to exist entirely independently of Him, I don't see why all the depth had to be with it. I would have accepted an older earth without such sweeping history!
But that would be putting God into a box of human concepts, which I don't want to do. So I get it.
But it's not acceptable reason. It's not science. That's where it does veer off and religion becomes unacceptable to science. And that's okay for you. But a young earth and creationism should never be taught as even theories of how the earth was created. That lies in faith, and if any Christian parents want their child believing that, then they should do that themselves. But the schools need to teach science during science. And religion during the history classes (not just literal history but all that the public school genre covers). I know that's not what the topic of conversation was, but it's important. The earth is old. Really old. And that's a fact.
I've heard Christians explain it away as its god just testing people's faith or a god day is a billion years and many others.
There is a fault with the Christian explanations of the world that is opposite of scientific method. Christians can change the explanation and still have the same conclusion, which is god's will. The Scientific method doesn't work that way. If you change the explanation then you change the conclusion.
Unless you're wrong. The non-existance of something cannot be proven so there is no way to prove there is no God. If you can't disprove God, you cannot disprove that He created all things just as they are by design.
Who would you consider to be a great painter of cars, the man who can lay down new paint flawlessly on an old car making it look better than new or the painter who can mix colors and textures and paint a replacement fender in such a way as you couldn't tell it wasn't original?
Clearly, the second painter had the much more difficult task. He deserves more praise and admiration for doing something difficult and amazing. I think that's the way God wanted the creation of the Earth to be.
So your saying 6000 years ago God created Earth to look millions of years old?
There are lots of different religions in the world. They are largely contradictory and therefore can't all be correct. It seems pretty arrogant to assume your deity exists and everyone else is wrong. Then to base it on a book that was written and changed repeatedly as people reinterpreted it with their own ideas...and act like it is fact really doesn't make any sense. I don't mean to insult peoples religions, but I just don't buy it.
Then you miss the whole point of religion. All are different. All claim to be the correct one. That proves that ONLY one out of the entire bunch can be correct if ANY of them are. Soak that statement in. They all say they are the one but that does NOT mean they are all wrong. One could still be true. The fact that all the others are lying does not make a liar out of the original and true religion if it exists. That is very simple logic that any reasonably intellegent person can follow and agree it is irrefuteable. Not that one religion IS true, just that only one CAN be true. The question is, which one if any?
Next, if you know that only one religion CAN possibly be true, and you believe that your religion is the correct one, why would you give ANY consideration to possibly believing any portion of any other religion? That would be completely illogical. That's why I believe in Christianity and only Christianity and all of Christianity.
Having said that, it's a lot of terrible, terrible things you're embracing when you're taking the bible literally, especially the old testament. For most of the bible, it's better not to be taken literally.
But then, it doesn't matter.
It is history. I cannot change it. It was recorded for a purpose. I'm glad I didn't have to live through it. Maybe that is the reason it was recorded, so I would see how much better I have it than they did back then. It's always good to be thankful.
You're from Germany and there are elements of terrible history there. No need to bring any of the specifics up. That doesn't make all of German history terrible, there are many things in German history to be proud of and I'm sure you know a much larger list of those things than I do.
Then you came to America. You moved from one place with terrible history to another place with terrible history. The Civil War, the Trail of Tears, Obamacare, all terrible yet part of our nation and our history. Those things don't make me want to stop being an American.
So your saying 6000 years ago God created Earth to look millions of years old?
I was asked if I believed a core fundamental of my faith. Yes I do. I am not asking you to believe it. I am not asking for your belief. I am not interested in debating it. I believe it because I am a Christian and I believe the Bible. I cannot help it if you disagree or if you find it funny or ridiculous. That does not matter to me. Your opinions will not change mine. Your scientific facts will not change my faith. As far as I know, God put the scientific facts in place therefore I'm not questioning your findings. I agree that science as we know it points to the Earth and everything else being billions (how many billions is it this year?) old.
Logic....something that is used by people such as yourself only when it's convenient...rather than the basis of every argument.
Your problem is that you think I'm trying to make an arguement. I was asked my BELIEF. That was what I answered with.
You seem to have a desperate need to identify a villan. Will you ever get to a point where you can say, "if that's what you're into, it's not my place to interfere"?
From that line of reasoning you would not be offended if I said my belief is that the Noahs ark story is in NO way possible, right? I'm not offended by your beliefs. You can believe anything you want. I do find harm anyone in trying to convince or teach these beliefs as fact to anyone. I know many smart people with very good hearts that believe exactly the same as you, and I enjoy them. I won't discuss religion with them though. There would be no point. Logic completely gives way to their beliefs. I am always amazed when I hear these things come out of the mouth of these intelligent people whom I truly do respect.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 03-20-2014).]
From that line of reasoning you would not be offended if I said my belief is that the Noahs ark story is in NO way possible, right? I'm not offended by your beliefs. You can believe anything you want. I do find harm anyone in trying to convince or teach these beliefs as fact to anyone. I know many smart people with very good hearts that believe exactly the same as you, and I enjoy them. I won't discuss religion with them though. There would be no point. Logic completely gives way to their beliefs. I am always amazed when I hear these things come out of the mouth of these intelligent people whom I truly do respect.
Please remember the Bible was written by men. You can argue over inspiration or divine guidance, but the fact is it was men who wrote the stories. Given all that men do in this world it makes me very cynical and wary that it's "God's word". Same for the Quran. My .02
Next, if you know that only one religion CAN possibly be true, and you believe that your religion is the correct one, why would you give ANY consideration to possibly believing any portion of any other religion? That would be completely illogical. That's why I believe in Christianity and only Christianity and all of Christianity.
One can also consider and review all of them and come back to one.
Not all religions teach that they are the only religion. All rivers lead to the ocean.
Yes and that makes the least sense. I would consider a statement like that to be basically meaningless. There are religions that say whatever works for you, but when they say that they include Christians for example, which believe Jesus is the only way. Which nullifies both statements, both viewpoints if you stay "inbetween". Alot of people just pick a "religion" to feel better, and stay away from hard questions.
