Discussion with buddhists....hope fellow Christians here can
-
Hmmm....submission is a good word to use (though sound like muslim)....
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
Born again is the result of something.... I am more interested in the "Gate of Christianity" to the divine, than the effect itself. As discussed in skype in Christianity, Faith is one crucial factor, and there is another crucial factor... it is not another way other than Christ, for it is taught by Christ himself.
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1722
[b](3) Submission is at the core of manÂ’s relationship with God.
In the Garden of Eden, man was to submit to God, trusting in His Word and keeping His commandment. Adam and Eve’s sin was a revolt against God, a refusal to submit to Him. Jesus represented the sin of Israel’s religious leaders as the sin of “insubmission” (see Matthew 21:33-46). They continually challenged Jesus to prove His authority (see Matthew 21:23). They refused to submit to Him, mocking His authority at the foot of His cross (see Matthew 27:37-44).
Submission and sin are almost antithetical. Each is almost the exact opposite of the other. Salvation is the solution to manÂ’s sin. When we are born again by faith in Christ, it is a submission to God, to the authority of His Word, and to Christ as His means of salvation. As manÂ’s refusal to submit to God brought about the fall of man, so manÂ’s submission to God brings about salvation (see Acts 2:36; Romans 10:9-10).
Submission is also at the heart of discipleship. Jesus called men not only to believe in Him but to follow Him. A disciple is a learner and a follower, a student who has submitted himself to his teacher. Submission is therefore one of the prominent themes in the epistles, whether the technical term for submission occurs or not.111
------------------
Ok... gtg for now.[/b] -
YOU LEFT OUT A VERY IMPORTANT THING.
Wow. In tat case I can claim anything I want and since it is "unverifiable", it become "more verifiable". I can claim the existance of invisible unicorns or giant floating hippo in space and since it can't be "verified", it become "more verified" and thus true ! Using your logic, every cult or mad man hallucination is true since men brain r limited and it is normal for them not to understand everything or prove everything. Then as long as anyone made a claim, it become true.
tHAT NOT ALL THINGS IN THE BIBLE R VERIFIABLE. BECOS OF THIS, IT IS EVEN MORE VERIFIABLE THAT GOD IS THE TRUTH.
unverifiability make it more verifiable.
we wont know every God's ways because of one thing, our brains r limited(by time and space) so it is normal for us not to understand everything or able to prove everything in the bible about God(in other words, verifiable) -
well...the big bang is unverifiable....but u believe it wat....Originally posted by stupidissmart:Wow. In tat case I can claim anything I want and since it is "unverifiable", it become "more verifiable". I can claim the existance of invisible unicorns or giant floating hippo in space and since it can't be "verified", it become "more verified" and thus true ! Using your logic, every cult or mad man hallucination is true since men brain r limited and it is normal for them not to understand everything or prove everything. Then as long as anyone made a claim, it become true. -
Obedience is the correct term.Originally posted by laoda99:Hmmm....submission is a good word to use (though sound like muslim).... -
well...the big bang is unverifiable....but u believe it wat....
a lot of mathematical evidence point to it being true. It is supported by evidence. Does god have any evidence ? -
at least there are reasons to believe it. and we can inidrectly verify it through things like the cosmic background radiation.Originally posted by laoda99:well...the big bang is unverifiable....but u believe it wat.... -
It will help you if you remember what Thusness saidOriginally posted by laoda99:well...the big bang is unverifiable....but u believe it wat....
-
errr....wat he said ha.....Originally posted by An Eternal Now:It will help you if you remember what Thusness said -
Did u witness it?Originally posted by stupidissmart:a lot of mathematical evidence point to it being true. It is supported by evidence. Does god have any evidence ?
And evolution....did u witness any animal evolved?
But u believe wat!!! -
big bang diff from evolution 'cos the theory is verifiable by inference and observation.Originally posted by laoda99:Did u witness it?
And evolution....did u witness any animal evolved?
But u believe wat!!! -
I thought its inference based on observations? meaning the inference that support the big bang theory is based on observations of the surrounding supposingly related events.Originally posted by Icemoon:big bang diff from evolution 'cos the theory is verifiable by inference and observation.
like cosmic energy pattern, movements of the planets/stars ...etc
-
yah lor.Originally posted by vince69:I thought its inference based on observations? meaning the inference that support the big bang theory is based on observations of the surrounding supposingly related events.
like cosmic energy pattern, movements of the planets/stars ...etc
in any case, there are good reasons to believe in the big bang. Big Bang is a good science. -
Did u witness it?
I think u need to realise the difference between verifiable and witnessing. Did u witness the 911 attack ? Did u witness the mumbai train blast ? Did u witness the triple point of water ? Did u witness the atomic bomb ? Did u witness raffles coming to singapore ? So u do not believe in all of them just because u do not witness it ?!?!?! Come on man ! There r so many incidents in tis world and surely u can't witness every single one of them ! When sufficient evidences is produced from reputable organisation, with no conflicting account from other organisation as well as logically sound with little room of doubt, then u can believe it to be true. There r tons of evidences for evolution. And it is establish and confirm by a majority of scientists as well as almost all biologist to be factual. No cofnlicting evidence is found and the theory is logically adequate. I see no ground not to believe in it
And evolution....did u witness any animal evolved?
But u believe wat!!! -
I must be superslow to realise this thread
hope i can catch the discussion soon
-
Simple question: Have u witnessed? Y/NOriginally posted by stupidissmart:I think u need to realise the difference between verifiable and witnessing. Did u witness the 911 attack ? Did u witness the mumbai train blast ? Did u witness the triple point of water ? Did u witness the atomic bomb ? Did u witness raffles coming to singapore ? So u do not believe in all of them just because u do not witness it ?!?!?! Come on man ! There r so many incidents in tis world and surely u can't witness every single one of them ! When sufficient evidences is produced from reputable organisation, with no conflicting account from other organisation as well as logically sound with little room of doubt, then u can believe it to be true. There r tons of evidences for evolution. And it is establish and confirm by a majority of scientists as well as almost all biologist to be factual. No cofnlicting evidence is found and the theory is logically adequate. I see no ground not to believe in it
If u have not, u are also believing all these phenomenon and their supporting evidence BY FAITH.......becoz there is no way u urself could have find out proof.... -
If u have not, u are also believing all these phenomenon and their supporting evidence BY FAITH.......becoz there is no way u urself could have find out proof....
Let me just ask a simple question to u. Do u believe Raffles ever come to singapore before ? Going by your theory, then everybody knowledge becomes little since they cannot believe in anything, even newspaper, science and history
For your other question, the answer is No, I do not witness it much as I do not witness the atomic bomb. However I believe in it because it is verifiable, logically sound and there is no dispute with other information. It is not FAITH From dictionary.com
faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
The things I believe rest on logical proof and material evidence. happy ? -
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
Not happy.
Let me just ask a simple question to u. Do u believe Raffles ever come to singapore before ?
For your other question, the answer is No, I do not witness it much as I do not witness the atomic bomb. However I believe in it because it is verifiable, logically sound and there is no dispute with other information. It is not FAITH, because is it verifiable, supported by evidence and logically sound. From dictionary.com
[b]faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence
The things I believe rest on logical prrof and material evidence. happy ?[/b]
Go back to the Evolution discussion. So far, u are only having faith in the theory that Darwin devises. U are having faith that his conclusion is correct, and there is no way u can verify it urself.
Face it. U only believe in the things u wanna believe. -
typical text book answer...Originally posted by stupidissmart:I think u need to realise the difference between verifiable and witnessing. Did u witness the 911 attack ? Did u witness the mumbai train blast ? Did u witness the triple point of water ? Did u witness the atomic bomb ? Did u witness raffles coming to singapore ? So u do not believe in all of them just because u do not witness it ?!?!?! Come on man ! There r so many incidents in tis world and surely u can't witness every single one of them ! When sufficient evidences is produced from reputable organisation, with no conflicting account from other organisation as well as logically sound with little room of doubt, then u can believe it to be true. There r tons of evidences for evolution. And it is establish and confirm by a majority of scientists as well as almost all biologist to be factual. No cofnlicting evidence is found and the theory is logically adequate. I see no ground not to believe in it
where there are tons of evidences from diggings of bones, the underlying assumptions for these deductions on evolutions spam off from a single base assumption, ie. all lives on earth begins from a single cell mircobes then evolves into more complex beings.
One of the issue I have with the theory of evolution is that, what trigger the change? I mean a monkey does not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to evolve (like pokemon).
can you substantiate this statement of yours "confirm by a majority of scientists as well as almost all biologist" or its just a page off a textbook? the last I read, the scientific community is still quite evenly split between the theory of Evolution and Creation and so far, none of them is able to produce any conculsive evidence yet. on why the schools teach Evolution as a science subject/topic and not Creation? this is more a political issue and not really a scientific one (ie. separation of the state and religion).
pls be reminded, Evolution like Creation as at the stage of Theory, meaning there is no conclusive evidence on both, reason is because neither can be humanly repeated in anyway.
Assumption->Observation->Inference->Theory->Repeatibility->Acceptability->Conclusion/Facts
*additions:
on the theory of Man being evolved from Apes, last I heard, they are still looking for the 'missing link', and what is this missing link about, its the link (that is still missing) that will link the Apes to Man.
ie.. Apes ---> Missing Link ----> Man.
-
maybe Laoda, Icemoon, SIS can go for the Stephen Tong's lecture on the subject
Difficult Passages In The Bible - Creationism versus Evolution -
tell that to laoda.Originally posted by vince69:maybe Laoda, Icemoon, SIS can go for the Stephen Tong's lecture on the subject
Difficult Passages In The Bible - Creationism versus Evolution
i went for his every session. -
aiyoh....he haven talked abt tat right?Originally posted by Icemoon:tell that to laoda.
i went for his every session. -
wait until over liao then go meh?Originally posted by laoda99:aiyoh....he haven talked abt tat right? -
icemoon says now still stuck at philosophy partOriginally posted by vince69:wait until over liao then go meh?
nvm...i always get him to summarise for me....
-
then summarised already never post here... selfish...Originally posted by laoda99:icemoon says now still stuck at philosophy part
nvm...i always get him to summarise for me.... 
-
Go back to the Evolution discussion. So far, u are only having faith in the theory that Darwin devises. U are having faith that his conclusion is correct, and there is no way u can verify it urself.
I think u need to know more about darwin evolution theory first
First, the idea is actually not new before darwin wrote the book tat made the theory famous. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
The idea of biological evolution has existed since ancient times, notably among Greek philosophers such as Anaximanderand Epicurus and Indian philosophers such as Patanjali
Subsequently, there r many studies made by many studies tat expand his works. Tis is not a 1 man theory. It is science tat have been explored by many many scientist before the form which u see now.
Scholars in a number of academic disciplines continue to document examples of the theory of evolution, contributing to a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms.
Moreover, there r many evidence tat were shown by different scientists tat show evolution. Nylon digesting bugs (nylon is man made and only recently invented), sars virus (the change of the virus tat used to plague the believe civet cat), dinosaurs (fossils evidence), domesticated animals (they can't survive in the wild, they have been evolve from the original form), banana (it cannot reproduce without human help) and whales with legs (an evidencetat show mutated whales having legs. U can only mutate with parts u have now or before) etc. There is so many evidences tat I only need 5 minutes to list the above.One of the issue I have with the theory of evolution is that, what trigger the change? I mean a monkey does not wake up one morning and suddenly decide to evolve (like pokemon).
Is survival of the fittest. Living things adapt to their environment and as they try to adapt, they change, albeit very finely. We r all constantly changing to suit the environment better, it is only the change is so small u can't see the effect instantly. Only after a few million years then the change is substantialpls be reminded, Evolution like Creation as at the stage of Theory, meaning there is no conclusive evidence on both, reason is because neither can be humanly repeated in anyway.
Theory is fact. I have proably explained one million times before. Tis is one of the word tat the church love to use to fool the uneducated.
The word Evolution has been used to refer both to a fact and a theory. The existence of these two distinct meanings, and confusion over the relationship between and definitions of fact and theory in science, have often caused misunderstandings among laypeople about the scientific status of evolution.can you substantiate this statement of yours "confirm by a majority of scientists as well as almost all biologist"
Though the modern synthesis is almost universally accepted within the scientific community, many people find aspects of it counterintuitive.
WHy don't u substantiate your stand by putting in a reputable scienc webpage tat show the scientific comittee is evenly split. If u can find me a reputable biology textbook tat dispute evolution, i eat my hat.