Why Human CREATED Religions?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tell me, is naturalism being neutral? Before you speak off your mind without even thinking, please go find out what naturalism entails.
You havent answered me .
"Not 100% perfect but definitely way more neutral than a christian taking info out of the bible and then finding evidence to support the bible, No?" OR "a hindu taking info out of the hindu scriptures and then finding evidence to support the scriptures"?
Agree?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
You don't know, and you still have the cheek to say you were like me, a YEC and defender of it? What a fraud you are Tcmc.
LOL
when i said "i dont know", i said it with sarcasm.
You lack a sense of humor!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. It shows that you do not completely believe that the earth is 6000 years old. You are scared to stand for your "truth" THats all I am saying.
2. I am not appealing to the majority. My point was I would rather trust those people who studied and researched and do it as their profession.............than people who take info from a religious book that talks about a man in a fish stomach?
No no no. You got it wrong.
Its a matter of trusting the right source.
You think a book that mentions a literal man lviing in a fish stomach is the right source. For me, i think the scientists who studied and researched and put up articles and research papers are doing the job are is the right source.
Tcmc,
1. Again, please explain what examinations are about. Test of knowledge, or test of one's beliefs? If I take Buddhist study today to learn more about Buddhism and choose to sit for an exam, what should I write in order to pass the exam? Should I be guilty of betraying my own faith if I pass the exam? You tell me.
2. Yes, you were guilty of appealing to the majority. Also, you have also conceded that for you it is a matter of choice as to who you choose for your authority. Scientists have been wrong on many matters, but the anvil of the Word of God has worn out the hammers of atheists and critics and skeptics for centuries. So the bottom line is that you have chosen fallible men as your "right" source whereas I have chosen the infallible Word of God for my right source. Like I said many posts before it is all about authority.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
LOL
when i said "i dont know", i said it with sarcasm.
You lack a sense of humor!
Trying to weasel out of a self-pwned situation, ya?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
You havent answered me .
"Not 100% perfect but definitely way more neutral than a christian taking info out of the bible and then finding evidence to support the bible, No?" OR "a hindu taking info out of the hindu scriptures and then finding evidence to support the scriptures"?
Agree?
You are skirting the question again. Please prove empirically that empiricsm is true. The myth of neutrality was addressed earlier by me. And I also said before that all facts and evidence are interpreted according to one's worldview. You cannot use science to prove your worldview when you are using your worldview to interpret science.
-
Are definitions and proofs so important ? We are not defending our Doctoral thesis, right? Hahaha!
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Are definitions and proofs so important ? We are not defending our Doctoral thesis, right? Hahaha!
Definitions and proofs have their place, even if we are not defending doctoral thesis. But the problem comes when Tcmc insist on ONLY empirical proofs when he has yet to justify why empiricism should be the ONLY criteria when it fails its own test of being proven empirically.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Definitions and proofs have their place, even if we are not defending doctoral thesis. But the problem comes when Tcmc insist on ONLY empirical proofs when he has yet to justify why empiricism should be the ONLY criteria when it fails its own test of being proven empirically.
Like u said, some people would wanna know exactly how the DVD players worked...Hahaha!
Maybe Tcmc is one of them.... -
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Like u said, some people would wanna know exactly how the DVD players worked...Hahaha!
Maybe Tcmc is one of them....But the problem with Tcmc's view is this, he believes that no one can possibly know how DVD players work! I mean you have many people claiming to know how DVD players work, and Tcmc's view is that this is a problem because there's no way to tell who is right or wrong. So he takes the ridiculous way out by saying we have to reject the DVD player, or worst, that there is no DVD player at all!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
But the problem with Tcmc's view is this, he believes that no one can possibly know how DVD players work! I mean you have many people claiming to know how DVD players work, and Tcmc's view is that this is a problem because there's no way to tell who is right or wrong. So he takes the ridiculous way out by saying we have to reject the DVD player, or worst, that there is no DVD player at all!
LOL.
Lying is a sin in christianity and to me lying is a very thing to do as a human being.
Why do you lie about me and misrepresent me?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. Again, please explain what examinations are about. Test of knowledge, or test of one's beliefs? If I take Buddhist study today to learn more about Buddhism and choose to sit for an exam, what should I write in order to pass the exam? Should I be guilty of betraying my own faith if I pass the exam? You tell me.
2. Yes, you were guilty of appealing to the majority. Also, you have also conceded that for you it is a matter of choice as to who you choose for your authority. Scientists have been wrong on many matters, but the anvil of the Word of God has worn out the hammers of atheists and critics and skeptics for centuries. So the bottom line is that you have chosen fallible men as your "right" source whereas I have chosen the infallible Word of God for my right source. Like I said many posts before it is all about authority.
1. Just admit it. You are not confident to stand for your truth.
2. Whether majority or minority, even if the scientists were a minority, i would rather trust them than people taking info out of a book that mentions unicorns
Understand?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Just admit it. You are not confident to stand for your truth.
2. Whether majority or minority, even if the scientists were a minority, i would rather trust them than people taking info out of a book that mentions unicorns
Understand?
1. Just admit it, you have no refutation at all to my points about the examination and test of knowledge. You are just making an issue for the sake of it.
2. Again you have stated your preference for your authority. It's your choice. You have chosen fallible men's opinions that are ever changing over against the infallible Word of God. Yes I understand that perfectly well.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Just admit it, you have no refutation at all to my points about the examination and test of knowledge. You are just making an issue for the sake of it.
2. Again you have stated your preference for your authority. It's your choice. You have chosen fallible men's opinions that are ever changing over against the infallible Word of God. Yes I understand that perfectly well.
1. Still, you are not standing for your truth in exams! WHY!
2. Yes and I understand perfectly why you would trust a book that mentions unicorns and talking animals than scientists who work day and night to study the ageof the earth, fossils etc. I understand perfectly.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Still, you are not standing for your truth in exams! WHY!
2. Yes and I understand perfectly why you would trust a book that mentions unicorns and talking animals than scientists who work day and night to study the ageof the earth, fossils etc. I understand perfectly.
1. Because I said already for the 1000 times, examinations are a test of knowledge, not a test of your beliefs, nor asking you to vouch for the truth. Gee, I suppose when you sit for your exams they asked you to swear on some holy book that what you write is the truth?
2. I also understand that when it comes to the Bible you are completely incompetent to read it as it is meant to be read and understood, and so all your objections are merely a projection of your own ignorance and rebellion against God's truth.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
1. Because I said already for the 1000 times, examinations are a test of knowledge, not a test of your beliefs, nor asking you to vouch for the truth. Gee, I suppose when you sit for your exams they asked you to swear on some holy book that what you write is the truth?
2. I also understand that when it comes to the Bible you are completely incompetent to read it as it is meant to be read and understood, and so all your objections are merely a projection of your own ignorance and rebellion against God's truth.
1. If its truth and if you love your God and you love truth, you would stand for truth even in the exams, like Daniel, Abraham who sacrificed his son, and Esther whotook part in a sexy pageant!
2. You mean.....the way you read it is - unicorns in the bible are fake but the talkin serpent is real?Just wondering how you read it ?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. If its truth and if you love your God and you love truth, you would stand for truth even in the exams, like Daniel, Abraham who sacrificed his son, and Esther whotook part in a sexy pageant!
2. You mean.....the way you read it is - unicorns in the bible are fake but the talkin serpent is real?Just wondering how you read it ?
Tcmc,
1. Now you are trying to change goalposts to score points even when you know you don't have anything to whack on. Lame sia! Anyway, as I mentioned before which you could not refute, if I write that so-and-so textbook says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, how is that not being truthful at all?
2. In the first place, does the word "unicorn" means the white horse with a pointed horn on its forehead? That's what you are thinking of obviously right? Then what makes you think YOUR interpretation of this word is correct? A unicorn would simply mean a one horned creature and it does not necessarily have to mean the imaginary one horn horse we all grew up reading about in fantasy novels.
3. A person like you who is completely INCOMPETENT to interpret Scripture should not presume to judge those who can. That's just pure arrogance and being presumptuous. Many times these are actually TRANSLATION issues and not errors in facts. And BTW, these articles in Creation.com ought to put you to shame, if you have any sense of decency at all.
http://creation.com/the-unicorn
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. Now you are trying to change goalposts to score points even when you know you don't have anything to whack on. Lame sia! Anyway, as I mentioned before which you could not refute, if I write that so-and-so textbook says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, how is that not being truthful at all?
2. In the first place, does the word "unicorn" means the white horse with a pointed horn on its forehead? That's what you are thinking of obviously right? Then what makes you think YOUR interpretation of this word is correct? A unicorn would simply mean a one horned creature and it does not necessarily have to mean the imaginary one horn horse we all grew up reading about in fantasy novels.
3. A person like you who is completely INCOMPETENT to interpret Scripture should not presume to judge those who can. That's just pure arrogance and being presumptuous. Many times these are actually TRANSLATION issues and not errors in facts. And BTW, these articles in Creation.com ought to put you to shame, if you have any sense of decency at all.
http://creation.com/the-unicorn
1. Oh are you saying now the bible contains another MISTRANSLATED word "unicorn"?? That it is not supposed to be "unicorn"? WHy again go through all this trouble to put such ambiguous words?
2. Confirmation bias.
Obviously never been to university.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Oh are you saying now the bible contains another MISTRANSLATED word "unicorn"?? That it is not supposed to be "unicorn"? WHy again go through all this trouble to put such ambiguous words?
2. Confirmation bias.
Obviously never been to university.
Tcmc,
Like it or not, when you translate from one language to another this kind of things happen but causes problems because the meaning of words changes over time, and languages do "evolve" over time. Example is the word "gay" which you can find in the Bible to mean happy but which means same-sex preferences today. But I think you obviously have NEVER studied or read about language or involved in Bible translation work, ya? But then again Bible bashers like you are always eye-balling every word of the Bible and find fault to justify your own unjustifiable rejection of the Word of God.
-
Hi Tcmc, why do you not heard of the "six realms" in buddhism? I tot u said u were a buddhist long time ago ?
Have u read any sutras before ? -
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Hi Tcmc, why do you not heard of the "six realms" in buddhism? I tot u said u were a buddhist long time ago ?
Have
u read any sutras before ?I have heard about the 6 realms before.
But you have not shown me if its added by buddhists later, or taught by buddha himself?
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I have heard about the 6 realms before.
But you have not shown me if its added by buddhists later, or taught by buddha himself?
Many buddhist scriptures/sutras begins with "this is what I heard (from the buddha)"......
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
I have heard about the 6 realms before.
But you have not shown me if its added by buddhists later, or taught by buddha himself?
Is this what u mean ?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
Like it or not, when you translate from one language to another this kind of things happen but causes problems because the meaning of words changes over time, and languages do "evolve" over time. Example is the word "gay" which you can find in the Bible to mean happy but which means same-sex preferences today. But I think you obviously have NEVER studied or read about language or involved in Bible translation work, ya? But then again Bible bashers like you are always eye-balling every word of the Bible and find fault to justify your own unjustifiable rejection of the Word of God.
Dude, obviously if I am billigual and have been to Uni before I know the problem of translation. You dont have to be a language expert to know meaning is lost in translation.
But sorry dude, this explanation does not work when an allknowing, allpowerful and creative god is in the picture.
If you really want to explain why the bible contains translation errors/inconsistencies there are a few ways -
1. "God" was incapable or unwilling or not powerful enough to preserve the meaning through translation, therefore there is no "God" in the picture, merely a religious book written by men
2. There are errors in the current bible but the original supposedly inspired by God is perfect. (Unproven)
Which one is it?
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Is this what u mean ?
Or any official texts? or website that i can read? thanks
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Or any official texts? or website that i can read? thanks
Hi, Tcmc, pls check your PM...