why
-
i know your stand. i have read some of your posts here in this forum [small portions of it actually just a modicum amount of it] and i must say i have to obey Matthew 7:6
Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces
Tat is very "flattering". I have Matthew 7:1-2 to describe the people who quote matthew 7:6
Matthew 7
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
U can call non-believers as pigs or dogs but in reality it may very well be members of a certain religion.Look at the first page of this thread. It's Shade434 who said that.
I think u really read very little of my posts. I reply to the replies made within the same thread with the same reply frequently. I have made tis practise since donkey years. -
SIS, you actually believe in the Scriptures ?
-
SIS, you actually believe in the Scriptures ?
the real question is whether do u believe in the scripture -
Is there a real question and a false question ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:the real question is whether do u believe in the scripture
I do believe. Do you ? -
Is there a real question and a false question ?
Tat is a real question. I do not believe in the scripture but u do. Sometimes the only way to convince people tat reject science, psychology, studies, other religions etc is through the only medium they believe in.
I do believe. Do you ? -
woah. am i missing something here? are u advocating that Christians reject science, psychology and studies? if yes, i think u are seriously mistaken. I engage in empirical methods all the time in my field of research and i am sure, the bulk of most Christians do.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is a real question. I do not believe in the scripture but u do. Sometimes the only way to convince people tat reject science, psychology, studies, other religions etc is through the only medium they believe in.
On the part of other religions... we acknowledge that they have their good points, just that Christians choose Christianity. like Muslims choose Islam and Buddhist choose Buddhism.
Now why is there a problem here? -
woah. am i missing something here? are u advocating that Christians reject science, psychology and studies? if yes, i think u are seriously mistaken. I engage in empirical methods all the time in my field of research and i am sure, the bulk of most Christians do.
If religion and science conflicts, which side will u be on ?On the part of other religions... we acknowledge that they have their good points, just that Christians choose Christianity. like Muslims choose Islam and Buddhist choose Buddhism.
However if Islamic state tat christians r bound for hell, r u going to treat it seriously or ignore it ? -
I am a Catholic, so my views will not be representing the Protestants here.Originally posted by stupidissmart:If religion and science conflicts, which side will u be on ?
The late Pope John Paul II advocated that truth will nv contradict truth. And if science has proven a truth, then we will not contradict it. If science has found a drug for cancer and we instead pray for the person instead of asking him to use the drug, that'll be silly wouldn;t u say? Unlike a Protestant view, Catholics treat the church as the extension of the body of Christ and that's where the differences occur, in that, it's dynamic
Then we have to make a choice. At the end of it all everyone is responsible for her or his decision. If the Qu'ran says that unbelievers will go to hell, and another religion claims the same, then u have to discern. but at the end of it all, u have to make a choiceOriginally posted by stupidissmart:However if Islamic state tat christians r bound for hell, r u going to treat it seriously or ignore it ? -
The late Pope John Paul II advocated that truth will nv contradict truth. And if science has proven a truth, then we will not contradict it. If science has found a drug for cancer and we instead pray for the person instead of asking him to use the drug, that'll be silly wouldn;t u say? Unlike a Protestant view, Catholics treat the church as the extension of the body of Christ and that's where the differences occur, in that, it's dynamic
Ok, so u view science as a higher truth than the scripture in the case they conflict. In tat case u probably believe in a young earth, big bang, statistics and evolution and dismissed the idea tat the world is created in 6 days, men do not decend from noah or adam since the timeline does not match, the whole story of noah ark, and men was specially made and not evolved from apes. These incidents from the bible r all merely symbolic and not true since science proven it otherwise. If tat is the case, then the "people tat reject science, psychology, studies, other religions etc is through the only medium they believe in" does not include u
Just another question... scientifically sperm is not a living thing; it can't eat, reproduce itself and grow. Sperm is classified as a cell, much like hair and skin which u drop/shed everyday. Why ban on contraceptions and masturbation ?Then we have to make a choice. At the end of it all everyone is responsible for her or his decision. If the Qu'ran says that unbelievers will go to hell, and another religion claims the same, then u have to discern. but at the end of it all, u have to make a choice
And u have made a choice which automatically place u as rejecting the other religions. -
that's a catch 22Originally posted by stupidissmart:And u have made a choice which automatically place u as rejecting the other religions.
by choosing science, u're doing the same thing -
Since u mentioned that 'scientifically', sperm is not a living thing right? so it becomes a theological matter.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Just another question... scientifically sperm is not a living thing; it can't eat, reproduce itself and grow. Sperm is classified as a cell, much like hair and skin which u drop/shed everyday. Why ban on contraceptions and masturbation ?
so why the contradiction here? -
that's a catch 22
Tat is very true. Tat is why if people wanna convince me, they have to use the scientific approach and not wat the bible says. And vice versa
by choosing science, u're doing the same thingSince u mentioned that 'scientifically', sperm is not a living thing right? so it becomes a theological matter.
If I am not wrong the reason why mastrubation or contraception r forbidden is because of something to do with living beings. The question is they r not living beings.
so why the contradiction here?
So in the other areas u believe in science and not the bible ? -
they are born this way so we normal humans can thank god that we are normal. the people with mental issues cant really think that well, so i believe god will bring them to heaven no matter wad. but for people with physical issues, they can choose to do good or bad. but since they are born with defects, they tend to have some things more than normal people, like love from their families and friends. maybe they are born rich. like i said, they are born so we normal people can thank god for god letting us normal. this aint fair to the disabled people, but who is fair right? even god is unfair.Originally posted by bluewinged:can anyone enlighten me? if God created human why some people are borned with deficiencies? be it physical or mental. -
tsk ...Originally posted by stupidissmart:If I am not wrong the reason why mastrubation or contraception r forbidden is because of something to do with living beings. The question is they r not living beings.
So in the other areas u believe in science and not the bible ?
i thought i told u in the other thread. Catholics have 3 pillars of faith. Bible, Mageisterium and traditions. That's my faith foundation. If u think i am avoiding the question... it's because nothing comes to mind at the moment since we see science and faith as complementary -
DO u believe men was evolved from apes and noah ark is impossible ?
-
Man evolving from apes. i think we had this discussion. sceince has tilted towards this ... so am i. What i mean to say is that i do not discount this and i will not see it as contrary to my faith. i think that's what u r inching towards right?Originally posted by stupidissmart:DO u believe men was evolved from apes and noah ark is impossible ?
Noah's Ark? i saw a video where non-christian archeologists claimed to have found it. But in this aspect, i ain't sure and to me personally, it doesn't matter. Why leh?
speaking on this, when i did undergrad in psychology, i came across this topic... in fact most of the major religion points to this great flood thing. Carl Jung (a psychologist) went on to conclude that this event did take place and this was etched into the collective memory of the human race.
anyway, why the questions? seems like u intend to lure me into something
-
Oh SIS, can u go to thread 'ID over evolution' and rebutt that please. It's not a challenge but i cannot seem to find a flaw in that arguement.
This is not a challenge.. but more of a knowledge exchange -
Man evolving from apes. i think we had this discussion. sceince has tilted towards this ... so am i. What i mean to say is that i do not discount this and i will not see it as contrary to my faith. i think that's what u r inching towards right?
Tat uis good, though tat is strange seems a lot of christians I met strangely reject science and believe tat men is not evolved from apes. Tat seems to go against the main idea of genesis etc.Noah's Ark? i saw a video where non-christian archeologists claimed to have found it. But in this aspect, i ain't sure and to me personally, it doesn't matter. Why leh?
I don't think so If it is found trust me the christian would have circulate it around. If i am not wrong u r talking about noah ark tat is show in some Gv. However tat time I did rebuke some of their findings (if I remember rightly it is icenmoon) and then the conclusion is to wait till a year had passed where they will conduct more "studies". Now a year and a half has passed and there seems to have nothing.speaking on this, when i did undergrad in psychology, i came across this topic... in fact most of the major religion points to this great flood thing. Carl Jung (a psychologist) went on to conclude that this event did take place and this was etched into the collective memory of the human race.
Neh... it is impossible simply because there isn't tat much water to have a great flood tat affect the whole world Secondly there is no evidence tat such happens. It is probably something like tsunamis especially since early people like to live near the river. If u wanna talk about other religion, there r speculation tat genesis copy the story of noah ark wholesale from pagan origins -
no no . not the GV one. the one i watched was in Aussie, conducted by this group of archeologist from different famous institutes. I forgot the name, i'll ask my housemate when he comes backOriginally posted by stupidissmart:I don't think so If it is found trust me the christian would have circulate it around. If i am not wrong u r talking about noah ark tat is show in some Gv. However tat time I did rebuke some of their findings (if I remember rightly it is icenmoon) and then the conclusion is to wait till a year had passed where they will conduct more "studies". Now a year and a half has passed and there seems to have nothing.
i honestly dunno. coz this isn't my area of research. hahaaOriginally posted by stupidissmart:Neh... it is impossible simply because there isn't tat much water to have a great flood tat affect the whole world Secondly there is no evidence tat such happens. -
depends on how they view the bible i guess.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat uis good, though tat is strange seems a lot of christians I met strangely reject science and believe tat men is not evolved from apes. Tat seems to go against the main idea of genesis etc.
The main msg of the bible to me is the gospel. Basically the good news that Christ has died and rose again -
Then, let your yes be a yes and your no be a no. I am only interested in the first part of your sentence.Originally posted by stupidissmart:Tat is a real question. I do not believe in the scripture but u do. Sometimes the only way to convince people tat reject science, psychology, studies, other religions etc is through the only medium they believe in.
My next question is, if you do not believe in the Scripture, why are you quoting Matthew 7:1-2 for Ironside's quote for Matthew 7:6 ?
Just trying to understand your intentions better so that fair view can be given to what you post. Thanks. -
My next question is, if you do not believe in the Scripture, why are you quoting Matthew 7:1-2 for Ironside's quote for Matthew 7:6 ?
I thought I have already explicitly answer tis question already when u quote wat I said
Just trying to understand your intentions better so that fair view can be given to what you post. Thanks.
I do not believe in the scripture but u do. Sometimes the only way to convince people tat reject science, psychology, studies, other religions etc is through the only medium they believe in. -
That is an answer ?Originally posted by stupidissmart:I thought I have already explicitly answer tis question already when u quote wat I said
I do not believe in the scripture but u do. Sometimes the only way to convince people tat reject science, psychology, studies, other religions etc is through the only medium they believe in.
How could you try to convince others in a Faith which you yourself does not have ? Please explain.
So it means that you would use something which you yourself do not believe in to refute whatever you think is not right ? I mean, if you do not believe in something, how could you even understand what it is actually saying ?
Really incredible.
This goes a lot to say about your integrity and logic in all these discussions ! -
That is an answer ?
Why does having a faith or not have to do with being logical and right in its argument
How could you try to convince others in a Faith which you yourself does not have ? Please explain. Why should I have faith before I can even start to convince others ?So it means that you would use something which you yourself do not believe in to refute whatever you think is not right ? I mean, if you do not believe in something, how could you even understand what it is actually saying ?
As said, u believe in the bible being all powerful and the ultimate truth and as such I present to u the harder to digest part of the bible to show tat it is not true. Lets put it tis way. A person "A" claim tat there is a noch nest monster. B believe there is no loch ness monster. He can try to convince A by saying tat "If there is a noch ness monster, why do u think the exploration of the river yield nothing, why bla bla bla etc etc".
B do not have to believe in A in order to refute his argument The thing is A believes such a notion and if he find it hard to answer, he will have doubts and rethink his theory, thus B fulfill the act of convincing.Really incredible.
Is it ? Personal attack again I see...
This goes a lot to say about your integrity and logic in all these discussions ! -
Why does having a faith or not have to do with being logical and right in its argument Rolling Eyes Why should I have faith before I can even start to convince others ?
Well no problem if you just wish to convince others based on what you believe. But in the first place you dont believe in what you are using to convince ! That is the problem !As said, u believe in the bible being all powerful and the ultimate truth and as such I present to u the harder to digest part of the bible to show tat it is not true. Lets put it tis way. A person "A" claim tat there is a noch nest monster. B believe there is no loch ness monster. He can try to convince A by saying tat "If there is a noch ness monster, why do u think the exploration of the river yield nothing etc etc". B do not have to believe in A in order to refute his argument
Again...incredible. firstly, how do you know that it is the harder to digest part of the bible if you dont believe in the bible ? Secondly, the river is something which A and B believe in ya ? A river. But you are telling me now, you dont believe in the bible. So based on your "river" and loch ness example , is it the same river we are talking about ?Is it ? Personal attack again I see...
Yes. My opinion of your way to refute or argue. Personal ? Why not, it comes from you anyways.