rynodigsmusic 0 #126 June 3, 2008 QuoteQuoteFaith is not for doubt, but for belief. What an arbitrary distinction you provide. One person's doubt is another person's belief. Quote >>>>I knew you would say that. It is the only argument you have after that what I said. However, you said that it is the person who doubts that has the faith, so essentially, if you take your argument, the one who doubts is the one who believes. This does not seem rational to me. QuoteFaith operates in reality, of course im not disputing that. I can see why, since no one claimed that except you.Quote >>>>Are you serious? Faith manifests itself through reality. Goodness, this is the very essence of spirituality. QuoteI am saying that if someone attempts the inconcieved "impossible" (whether it is possible or not) it takes a certain amount of belief. No, they merely have to acknowledge that it won't require violation of natural laws and figure out how to do it. That's not to say it will be easy, but it doesn't require the faith you refer to. Quote >>>>Many people have died believing something was possible, but never saw it realized. Keeping faith in that belief was the only thing that kept them going. They gave their lives for a belief they had faith in. Thanks to thier progress and perseverance, others either were or werent able to see it through as possible or impossible. You would agree that many a hypothesis has never been proven? QuoteThe point is to say that evidence is not always required to make something possible, or to believe in something. Isnt that true? It is true to the extent that it is just as probable that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is the Supreme Being as it is probable that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.Quote QuoteJesus had witnesses who recorded and testified in the gravest of circumstances, giving their lives through their conviction. If blood is not enough for one to listen to a witness (it is good enough in our courts), then how about time, money, and energy? Everything these disciples did was given to glorify Jesus as the savior and as the messiah. The message of that same Gospel is very much still alive, and through all its scrutiny and skeptisism over 2000+ yrs, people are still testifying to the truth in its power. I testify to something I know will bring me persucution at times because I believe Jesus is the truth, is there anyone who testifies to the power of the flying spaghetti monster against persecution because they believe he is the truth? And, due to lack of historical evidence to support such claims of Jesus' existence and feats, it must be taken on faith.Quote >>>>If you were serious about discovering the historical aspects of the existance of Jesus, I dont think you would make such a comment. I do of course understand that Jesus' divinity must be taken on faith, and have said that is the very reason why we have this manifested reality (fruit of the spirit). Becuase the power of the spirit operates in faith, just as the power of an idea operates in the same way. "Evidence" is found along the way in both instances and through understanding, keeps us on the path of perseverance and progression. QuoteIm simply showing you that faith and belief are in the same flow of the imagination, and that both can be manifested into reality. Spiritually, faith found in Jesus produces good fruit and an indescribable joy, while wordly, belief in an idea produces progress and perseverance into something once thought "impossible". Sometimes "evidence" is not found without the idea (or spiritually, without faith) first. You're doing a poor job of showing me. I don't buy your claim. Perhaps you're trying to convince yourself? >>>>Forgive me, but you dont seem to be capable of reasoning outside of your own understanding (doesnt this go against Confuciousism?). The only reason I engaged you in this at all is because you openly challenged my "definition" of faith, yet you provide no definition or examples yourself. Rather you argue against every point. I am trying to understand you, but it sounds as if you are just defending your desire to be right."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #127 June 3, 2008 Quote I knew you would say that. It is the only argument you have after that what I said. However, you said that it is the person who doubts that has the faith, so essentially, if you take your argument, the one who doubts is the one who believes. This does not seem rational to me. What you seem to not understand is that in the example you provided, what was believed to be impossible was, in fact, possible (i.e. it was not known to be impossible). Twist it however you like, but that is the unavoidable fact of your example. Quote Are you serious? Faith manifests itself through reality. Goodness, this is the very essence of spirituality. There you go again, assigning qualitative characteristics when you have no facts with which to back up your argument. Please, give us a concrete example of how "faith manifests itself through reality." Quote Many people have died believing something was possible, but never saw it realized. Keeping faith in that belief was the only thing that kept them going. They gave their lives for a belief they had faith in. Thanks to thier progress and perseverance, others either were or werent able to see it through as possible or impossible. You would agree that many a hypothesis has never been proven? Once again, you are failing to grasp the difference between understanding something is possible but not knowing how to do it, and taking something on faith. Quote If you were serious about discovering the historical aspects of the existance of Jesus, I dont think you would make such a comment. I do of course understand that Jesus' divinity must be taken on faith, and have said that is the very reason why we have this manifested reality (fruit of the spirit). Becuase the power of the spirit operates in faith, just as the power of an idea operates in the same way. "Evidence" is found along the way in both instances and through understanding, keeps us on the path of perseverance and progression. And now you create your own definition of evidence. There is a very small amount of historical evidence of questionable credibility that there was an historical Jesus, There is no credible evidence of his divinity. The way your belief makes you feel is not credible evidence. Quote Forgive me, but you dont seem to be capable of reasoning outside of your own understanding … Let me get this straight. You are claiming I'm not capable of reason? Okay, sure, whatever. Quote doesnt this go against Confuciousism? No.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #128 June 3, 2008 Quote Quote I knew you would say that. It is the only argument you have after that what I said. However, you said that it is the person who doubts that has the faith, so essentially, if you take your argument, the one who doubts is the one who believes. This does not seem rational to me. What you seem to not understand is that in the example you provided, what was believed to be impossible was, in fact, possible (i.e. it was not known to be impossible). Twist it however you like, but that is the unavoidable fact of your example. Quote >>>>Im not twisting anything. This is not about what is possible or impossible. I made the statement that faith is not about doubt but belief. I believe you may be the one twisting it, dont you? How about a yes or a no instead. I say that statement is true, so that is a yes from me. Quote Are you serious? Faith manifests itself through reality. Goodness, this is the very essence of spirituality. There you go again, assigning qualitative characteristics when you have no facts with which to back up your argument. Please, give us a concrete example of how "faith manifests itself through reality." >>>>The good works of Mother Teresa. Quote Many people have died believing something was possible, but never saw it realized. Keeping faith in that belief was the only thing that kept them going. They gave their lives for a belief they had faith in. Thanks to thier progress and perseverance, others either were or werent able to see it through as possible or impossible. You would agree that many a hypothesis has never been proven? Once again, you are failing to grasp the difference between understanding something is possible but not knowing how to do it, and taking something on faith. Quote >>>>There seems to be no difference. Not knowing how to do something and still believing it is possible (whether it is or isnt) is taking something on faith. A belief for something you do not have faith in is not a strong belief. Believing in something you do have faith in is what inspires perseverance, which is a powerful aspect of the human spirit. Either way, there is an example of belief with or without faith. Quote If you were serious about discovering the historical aspects of the existance of Jesus, I dont think you would make such a comment. I do of course understand that Jesus' divinity must be taken on faith, and have said that is the very reason why we have this manifested reality (fruit of the spirit). Becuase the power of the spirit operates in faith, just as the power of an idea operates in the same way. "Evidence" is found along the way in both instances and through understanding, keeps us on the path of perseverance and progression. And now you create your own definition of evidence. Quote >>>>Really, how? Is it not true that a crime scene investigator may start with only a "hunch" or idea, and then gather information (evidence) as he seeks to prove it? In the same way, a scientist makes an educated guess and seeks to prove that with evidence. Either way, evidence is not always found until the hypothesis or idea is layed out. This is similar to when two people are united through marriage. There is very little "evidence" that will say whether or not they will last forever, but as they progress in thier faith (or sincere belief in one anothers love) they gather more and more "evidence" or reasons why they love one another, sometimes discovering new and exciting things that strengthen their love in the process. You say evidence is only something you can see and touch, yet you build your whole hypothesis around a theory, denying that evidence could be defined as something other than what you can see and touch, by boldly declaring that feelings are not evidence of belief. Quote There is a very small amount of historical evidence of questionable credibility that there was an historical Jesus, There is no credible evidence of his divinity. The way your belief makes you feel is not credible evidence. >>>>I dont know how you can say that and this at the same time...."Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future".... >>>>Feelings are not credible evidence of belief? What do you think love is? Quote Forgive me, but you dont seem to be capable of reasoning outside of your own understanding … Let me get this straight. You are claiming I'm not capable of reason? Okay, sure, whatever. Quote >>>>Outside of your own understanding it seems, yes. "We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #129 June 3, 2008 QuoteIm not twisting anything. Yes, you are. QuoteThis is not about what is possible or impossible. Yes, it is. QuoteI made the statement that faith is not about doubt but belief. You created an arbitrary difference. QuoteI believe you may be the one twisting it, dont you? No. QuoteThe good works of Mother Teresa. Her actions manifested in good works. It took much more than faith. QuoteThere seems to be no difference. Only because you refuse to see. QuoteA belief for something you do not have faith in is not a strong belief. What are you talking about, now? I believe the sun will appear over the easter horizon in the morning. It's a strong belief. It is not a faith based belief. The belief is based on my understanding of the earth's rotation on its axis. QuoteEither way, there is an example of belief with or without faith. There's nothing like a good contradiction. Or are you just claiming my belief that the sun will rise in the morning a weak belief? QuoteReally, how? Is it not true that a crime scene investigator may start with only a "hunch" or idea, and then gather information (evidence) as he seeks to prove it? No, that's how religious faith works. A crime scene investigator would gather evidence, and form a hypothesis based on that evidence. The hypothesis fits the evidence, not vice versa. QuoteIn the same way, a scientist makes an educated guess and seeks to prove that with evidence. Either way, evidence is not always found until the hypothesis or idea is layed out. Again, the evidence comes first. The hypothesis is then formed to rationally explain the evidence. QuoteThis is similar to when two people are united through marriage. There is very little "evidence" that will say whether or not they will last forever, but as they progress in thier faith (or sincere belief in one anothers love) they gather more and more "evidence" or reasons why they love one another, sometimes discovering new and exciting things that strengthen their love in the process. That's not similar at all. That would make as much sense as claiming that a career in law is just like a skateboard. The two have nothing to do with each other. QuoteYou say evidence is only something you can see and touch, yet you build your whole hypothesis around a theory, denying that evidence could be defined as something other than what you can see and touch, by boldly declaring that feelings are not evidence of belief. Yes, I'm funny that way. A vague emotion isn't evidence of anything, except maybe a vague emotion. QuoteI dont know how you can say that and this at the same time...."Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future".... It's easy. Cosmologists aren't lacking evidence to support their hypotheses. They just are not in denial about there being unanswered questions thus far in science. That's a very different situation from having no evidence at all. QuoteFeelings are not credible evidence of belief? What do you think love is? Do you need evidence of a belief?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #130 June 3, 2008 QuoteI made the statement that faith is not about doubt but belief. You created an arbitrary difference. >>>>How about answering with a yes or no instead. QuoteThere seems to be no difference. Only because you refuse to see.Quote >>>>Again, perhaps you can explain it better. QuoteEither way, there is an example of belief with or without faith. There's nothing like a good contradiction. Or are you just claiming my belief that the sun will rise in the morning a weak belief? >>>>What are you saying? If you had no faith that it would rise, your belief would be weak, whether is rises or not. However, through understanding, you know it will (provided nothing supernatural or indescribable happens) This is not a very good example. The truth is that if someone believes, truly believes (has faith) in something, it will inspire him to progress and persevere even in the face of failure and persecution. If they dont truly believe, their belief is weak. This is proven as true throughout history. QuoteReally, how? Is it not true that a crime scene investigator may start with only a "hunch" or idea, and then gather information (evidence) as he seeks to prove it? No, that's how religious faith works. Quote A crime scene investigator would gather evidence, and form a hypothesis based on that evidence. The hypothesis fits the evidence, not vice versa. >>>>Of course your right. The hypothesis is educated, but evidence is found along the way after the hypothesis was set. That is the point. Sometimes whether a guess is educated or not, the hypothesis is made merely as a foundation to collect more evidence to prove it. The crime scene detective would, form a hypothesis, which is educated based on the evidence, then seek to prove it. QuoteIn the same way, a scientist makes an educated guess and seeks to prove that with evidence. Either way, evidence is not always found until the hypothesis or idea is layed out. Again, the evidence comes first. The hypothesis is then formed to rationally explain the evidence.Quote >>>>Yes, and again, the hypothesis is not proven true at the beginning. If it was, it would not be a guess, but a fact. All the evidence is not in to prove it yet, showing that evidence is not always required before a guess is made (to be proven true), either educated or not. QuoteThis is similar to when two people are united through marriage. There is very little "evidence" that will say whether or not they will last forever, but as they progress in thier faith (or sincere belief in one anothers love) they gather more and more "evidence" or reasons why they love one another, sometimes discovering new and exciting things that strengthen their love in the process. That's not similar at all. That would make as much sense as claiming that a career in law is just like a skateboard. The two have nothing to do with each other. >>>>I disagree. I think metaphors and parables can be and have been used to explian things throughout the search for wisdom. QuoteYou say evidence is only something you can see and touch, yet you build your whole hypothesis around a theory, denying that evidence could be defined as something other than what you can see and touch, by boldly declaring that feelings are not evidence of belief. Yes, I'm funny that way. A vague emotion isn't evidence of anything, except maybe a vague emotion.Quote >>>>And of course a vague emotion is just random, it comes and goes when it pleases and has nothing to do with what has impacted the thought process, possibly even due to a belief? QuoteI dont know how you can say that and this at the same time...."Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future".... It's easy. Cosmologists aren't lacking evidence to support their hypotheses. They just are not in denial about there being unanswered questions thus far in science. >>>>How do you not see that you are operating in faith? You believe these questions will be answered and that is why you are progressing, persevering, and even outright denying even the slightest possiblity that something other than your theoretical explanation could be responsible for those "unanswered questions". Life is a miracle, it seems to be the most prevolent yet evasive force to us. It shows wisdom and many other qualities that represent it as more than possible that a perfect creator is responsible for its existence, no matter where it is found. Anyways, I would not want to live forever in a world run by man.Quote That's a very different situation from having no evidence at all.Quote >>>>Or possibly having all the evidence you need? You see faith as having no evidence, but you dont see faith as having all the evidence you need to proceed, progress, and persevere...the very thing you are doing by chasing evidence to support a theory based on an idea (after the educated guess). QuoteFeelings are not credible evidence of belief? What do you think love is? Do you need evidence of a belief? >>>>No. It doesn’t appear so. A feeling is an expression of a belief, but is not required to believe. The real question should be do you think that something you believe is true is enough to allow a belief to take root? That is, "Is truth a feeling"?"We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #131 June 4, 2008 Quote How about answering with a yes or no instead. How about asking a yes or no question if you want a yes or no answer. Quote Again, perhaps you can explain it better. Probably. Quote What are you saying? If you had no faith that it would rise, your belief would be weak, whether is rises or not. However, through understanding, you know it will You're wrong about the belief being weak due to not relying on faith. You're right about it being from understanding rather than faith. Quote Yes, and again, the hypothesis is not proven true at the beginning. Rarely will a hypothesis ever be proven true. Science proves very few things. One of the defining characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that it is disprovable. If you want proof, study mathematics. If it was, it would not be a guess, but a fact. All the evidence is not in to prove it yet, showing that evidence is not always required before a guess is made (to be proven true), either educated or not. Quote I disagree. I think metaphors and parables can be and have been used to explian things throughout the search for wisdom. I agree, they have. Plato's Allegory Of The Cave is one of my favorites. The difference is that most metaphors and parables are chosen or created due to be analogous in many ways. Quote And of course a vague emotion is just random, it comes and goes when it pleases and has nothing to do with what has impacted the thought process, possibly even due to a belief?[/relief] I think most emotions affect our thought processes. That doesn't mean they qualify as evidence of anything. Quote How do you not see that you are operating in faith? You believe these questions will be answered and that is why you are progressing, persevering, and even outright denying even the slightest possiblity that something other than your theoretical explanation could be responsible for those "unanswered questions". Whoa. Back up. Scientists don't deny possibilities of something other than their own explanation. There are currently, in fact, several competing theories of the "end" of the universe. Generally speaking, they all explain the observed phenomena/evidence equally well. As more phenomena/evidence is observed, some will be discarded or adapted. That's not faith. That's science. Quote "Is truth a feeling"? No.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #132 June 5, 2008 How about asking a yes or no question if you want a yes or no answer. >>>>Do you think faith is about belief and not doubt? Quote Again, perhaps you can explain it better. Probably. >>>>I respect your views and would sincerely like for you to explain the differece between faith and belief, and how they dont have anything to do with one another. I believe there is such a thing as conviction when it comes to belief, and that it is an inspiring influence. Quote What are you saying? If you had no faith that it would rise, your belief would be weak, whether is rises or not. However, through understanding, you know it will You're wrong about the belief being weak due to not relying on faith. You're right about it being from understanding rather than faith. Quote >>>>See, I dont believe so. Belief in a direction you have faith in gathers understanding along the way and strengthens your faith in the process, at least thats pretty much what Jesus says. He says faith starts out small and grows. To me this is similar to a theory which gathers understanding and grows, whether it will be proven or not. The difference is that science changes the theorys as the evidence comes in...but that doesnt mean that the original theory did not help them persevere and progress through understanding. The theory was based on some sort of belief or idea. >>>>"Your wrong..." That is because your example was poor and not in line with the conversation at hand. You used an example of surety, becasue the sun always rises. Quote Yes, and again, the hypothesis is not proven true at the beginning. Rarely will a hypothesis ever be proven true. Science proves very few things. One of the defining characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that it is disprovable. If you want proof, study mathematics. >>>>Of course, so you agree that evidence is found after the hypothesis is set as well? Both the evidence gathered to form the hypothesis and the evidence gathered to support it is gathered against an unproven threory. Yet, scientists still proceed, progress, and persevere in it. Quote I agree, they have. Plato's Allegory Of The Cave is one of my favorites. The difference is that most metaphors and parables are chosen or created due to be analogous in many ways. Quote >>>>I believe that the analogy of a wedding and faith in what is unseen or unknown works. Quote I think most emotions affect our thought processes. That doesn't mean they qualify as evidence of anything. Quote >>>>See, that is interesting to me, because I believe the thoughts inspire the emotions, and that the thoughts themselves are inspired by influence. This may be another one of our primary differences in our perceptions. Whoa. Back up. Scientists don't deny possibilities of something other than their own explanation. There are currently, in fact, several competing theories of the "end" of the universe. Generally speaking, they all explain the observed phenomena/evidence equally well. As more phenomena/evidence is observed, some will be discarded or adapted. That's not faith. That's science. Quote >>>>You hinted that those with faith are in denial about certain "unanswered questions", so I went with the flow. You and I simply disagree in the applications of faith. Science is searching for answers, so naturally the questions are the most important. In regards to the spirit, searching for answers is about the individual. The greatest question should be how important is the answer, and is it really that evasive? Quote "Is truth a feeling"? No. >>>>Do you believe it can be? This may be another primary difference in our perceptions. I believe it can. I think there is something within us that connects us to truth, and that it may express itself through a feeling, of course, depending on the individual. For example, most people like the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #133 June 5, 2008 QuoteDo you think faith is about belief and not doubt? No. It is about belief, but the "not doubt" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with faith in the context you've used it. QuoteI respect your views and would sincerely like for you to explain the differece between faith and belief, and how they dont have anything to do with one another. All faith is based on belief. Not all belief is based on faith. It is a similar relationship to that between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. QuoteSee, I dont believe so. Belief in a direction you have faith in gathers understanding along the way and strengthens your faith in the process, at least thats pretty much what Jesus says. He says faith starts out small and grows. Tell us, what exactly did Jesus say about the scientific method or about the earth revolving around the sun? If he didn't address either of these two issues, why are you bringing him up? QuoteTo me this is similar to a theory which gathers understanding and grows, whether it will be proven or not. The difference is that science changes the theorys as the evidence comes in...but that doesnt mean that the original theory did not help them persevere and progress through understanding. True, the original hypothesis offers a starting point to look for evidence or form experiments that could disprove said hypothesis, and offer insight into how the hypothesis needed to be modified to accurately explain the evidence & phenomena, or why it needs to be completely discarded. QuoteThe theory was based on some sort of belief or idea. No, it was based on evidence and observed phenomena. QuoteThat is because your example was poor and not in line with the conversation at hand. You used an example of surety, becasue the sun always rises. Sure it was. It was a valid example of belief based on understanding, and not faith. QuoteOf course, so you agree that evidence is found after the hypothesis is set as well? Yes, in an attempt to disprove the hypothesis. QuoteBoth the evidence gathered to form the hypothesis and the evidence gathered to support it is gathered against an unproven threory. No, the evidence is not gathered with intent to support the hypothesis. Evidence is gathered with intent to test the hypothesis. QuoteYou and I simply disagree in the applications of faith. Yes we do. I recognize the fact that faith is useless when seeking answers to explain the world and universe around us or other topics better left to science, such as the origin of of life. QuoteScience is searching for answers … More specifically, science is about finding answers in such a manner that different people in different places will obtain the same answer, every time, without any need for faith. QuoteQuoteQuote"Is truth a feeling"? No. Do you believe it can be? No, the definitions of the words are too different. QuoteThis may be another primary difference in our perceptions. I believe it can. I think there is something within us that connects us to truth, and that it may express itself through a feeling, of course, depending on the individual. That's significantly different from saying "truth is a feeling." If I have an idea, I can express that idea in text, but that text is not the idea. QuoteFor example, most people like the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... Even the Golden Rule has its problems. I once new a female with a fantasy of being raped and murdered. I certainly hope she does not practice the Golden Rule. She would be a serial killer, probably dubbed black widow or something similar by the press. Or, perhaps well meaning Christians, following the Golden Rule, start talking about Jesus and Christianity with everyone they meet. This may be what they would like to have done unto themselves, but it results in annoying (or worse) a large portion of those with whom they start such conversations. Personally, I prefer Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. But while its passive approach reduces the potential for problems, it does not eliminate the potential. What if a shy introvert notices a great accomplishment of an extravert that feeds off of attention. The introvert would not want a big deal made of the accomplishment if it was his own, yet the extrovert might feel slighted if the accomplishment is not acknowledged. In the end, I think Richard Bachman offered the most realistic rule. [I]Do unto others as you want to do unto others.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #134 June 5, 2008 QuoteMSN Quoteupdated 10:31 a.m. ET, Tues., May. 20, 2008 Remember when the shooting of the Quran hit the press. This, not as much. Kind of difficult to find. It is not anywhere on CNN. CNN story: Hundreds of New Testaments torched in Israel "Police in Israel are investigating the burning of hundreds of New Testaments in a city near Tel Aviv, an incident that has alarmed advocates of religious freedom. "Investigators plan to review photographs and footage showing "a fairly large" number of New Testaments being torched this month in the city of Or-Yehuda, a police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said Wednesday. "News accounts in Israel have quoted Uzi Aharon, the deputy mayor of Or-Yehuda, as saying he organized students who burned several hundred copies of the New Testament. The deputy mayor gave interviews to Israeli radio and television stations after word of the incident surfaced about two weeks ago. "Soon he was talking with Russian, Italian and French television stations, "explaining to their highly offended audiences back home how he had not meant for the Bibles to be burned, and trying to undo the damage caused by the news (and photographs) of Jews burning New Testaments," The Jerusalem Post reported. "Aharon told CNN on Wednesday that he collected New Testaments and other "Messianic propaganda" that had been handed out in the city but that he did not plan or organize a burning. Instead, he said, three teenagers set fire to a pile of New Testaments while he was not present. Once he learned what was going on, he said, he stopped the burning."There were lots of commerical media stories on the incident. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #135 June 5, 2008 QuoteI respect your views and would sincerely like for you to explain the differece between faith and belief, and how they dont have anything to do with one another. All faith is based on belief. Not all belief is based on faith. It is a similar relationship to that between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. >>>>Agreed. But the conversation was about whether or not belief was stronger because of faith. I believe the belief can come before understanding and that that is a fundamental aspect of the human search for wisdom. Sometimes a guess is enough, whether it is educated or not, to gain understanding. QuoteSee, I dont believe so. Belief in a direction you have faith in gathers understanding along the way and strengthens your faith in the process, at least thats pretty much what Jesus says. He says faith starts out small and grows. Tell us, what exactly did Jesus say about the scientific method or about the earth revolving around the sun? If he didn't address either of these two issues, why are you bringing him up?Quote >>>>I think its just you and I left in this conversation. Your sun example was not a good one. This is about if someone truly believes something and puts his faith in it, whether or not, through that faith, (sincere belief) he would persevere and progress. The difference in us is that I believe that one can have sincere true belief (faith) and that no matter what happens, he still believes. I am gathering that you dont believe this is true. Love is a very powerful expression of belief. I believe before Jesus that I severely underestimated its power. But to answer your question...Jesus says faith grows, thats why I brought him up...In his words.... >>>>31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." QuoteThe theory was based on some sort of belief or idea. No, it was based on evidence and observed phenomena. >>>>I believe there is an idea or imaginative flow of thoughts after the observed pheonmena. I believe that when someone is in love that they are full of life. Is love an observed phenomena? Not the emotions or what happens within the brain, but the connection itself? QuoteThat is because your example was poor and not in line with the conversation at hand. You used an example of surety, becasue the sun always rises. Sure it was. It was a valid example of belief based on understanding, and not faith. Quote >>>>We arent talking about belief based on understanding, as I believe that faith is strengthened through understanding and revelations as well. We were talking about whether a belief is stronger by faith, and that I believe those operating in the surety of finding-the-answer-they-have-not-found are operating in faith as well. You disagree, because you dont believe that faith could be applied in that way. What then, is it called when you sincerely believe you will find the answers you have not yet found? QuoteBoth the evidence gathered to form the hypothesis and the evidence gathered to support it is gathered against an unproven threory. No, the evidence is not gathered with intent to support the hypothesis. Evidence is gathered with intent to test the hypothesis. >>>>Whoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. This sincere belief can go on until death, showing that what was found or not found, whether it is true or not, was persevered by and progressed by a sincere belief in the theory. QuoteYou and I simply disagree in the applications of faith. Yes we do. I recognize the fact that faith is useless when seeking answers to explain the world and universe around us or other topics better left to science, such as the origin of of life.Quote >>>>Yes you do, and I see that you are using this useless faith and dont recognize it. Faith is not only for religion, it is a powerful aspect of the human spirit, our ability to say we can and we will, regardless of the outcome. QuoteScience is searching for answers … More specifically, science is about finding answers in such a manner that different people in different places will obtain the same answer, every time, without any need for faith. >>>>To eliminate faith, or to eliminate faith in God? It seems you are convinced that the morality of a believer may be substandard to those who do not believe. What you dont seem to understand is that even if science finds all the answers, I will still love Jesus as the spirit of God and I will continue to share his love with everyone. One thing I have noticed about love, is that it must be believed to be recieved. In any event, the spirit cannot be eliminated by getting rid of believers, it is a deep search that has very little to do with answers and more to do with hope and love. QuoteThis may be another primary difference in our perceptions. I believe it can. I think there is something within us that connects us to truth, and that it may express itself through a feeling, of course, depending on the individual. That's significantly different from saying "truth is a feeling." If I have an idea, I can express that idea in text, but that text is not the idea.Quote >>>>I said truth can be a feeling. And I dont understand the idea-text thing. Could you explain it, it does sound interesting. Because this is close to people who live by the letter of the bible and people who live by the spirit behind the letter. One of the biggest problems in not only Jesus' time, but also in the church today. QuoteFor example, most people like the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... Even the Golden Rule has its problems. I once new a female with a fantasy of being raped and murdered. I certainly hope she does not practice the Golden Rule. She would be a serial killer, probably dubbed black widow or something similar by the press. Or, perhaps well meaning Christians, following the Golden Rule, start talking about Jesus and Christianity with everyone they meet. This may be what they would like to have done unto themselves, but it results in annoying (or worse) a large portion of those with whom they start such conversations. >>>>I would rather them act like Jesus personally. Personally, I prefer Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. But while its passive approach reduces the potential for problems, it does not eliminate the potential. What if a shy introvert notices a great accomplishment of an extravert that feeds off of attention. The introvert would not want a big deal made of the accomplishment if it was his own, yet the extrovert might feel slighted if the accomplishment is not acknowledged. In the end, I think Richard Bachman offered the most realistic rule. [I]Do unto others as you want to do unto others. >>>>This sounds like a slippery slope to me. The point was whether or not it is connected as true in what is truth, not whether or not people use it. Jesus did not say that all follow or even listen to truth. The examples you gave against the golden rule might be better discussed on an individual thread. They just dont seem rational to me. Dont, dont sounds the same as do, do, of course depending on the circumstances, and unto others thing seems a bit egocentric and narscissistic. But again, maybe a new thread on that would be an interesting conversation."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #136 June 6, 2008 QuoteBut the conversation was about whether or not belief was stronger because of faith My bad, I thought we had settled that. It isn't. QuoteYour sun example was not a good one. Why not, because it so easily refutes your erroneous claim? It is an excellent example of a belief not based on faith that is stronger than faith based beliefs. QuoteIs love an observed phenomena? Neuroscientists may well be able to observe it. The average person is limited to feeling it. QuoteNot the emotions or what happens within the brain, but the connection itself? Oh, nevermind. Scratch what I said about it being observable. With your restrictions, no, it is unlikely to be observable. QuoteWe arent talking about belief based on understanding … We were talking about belief based on faith versus belief based on anything else, of which belief based on understanding is a subset. QuoteWhat then, is it called when you sincerely believe you will find the answers you have not yet found? I don't think we will ever find all the answers. The more we know the more questions we are able to ask. Even if/when we to discover the UFT/TOE, the number of problems it could be applied to is virtually infinite, so we still couldn't obtain all the answers. QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. QuoteYes you do, and I see that you are using this useless faith and dont recognize it. That's because you still don't understand science well enough to realize it is faithless by design. QuoteTo eliminate faith, or to eliminate faith in God? It seems you are convinced that the morality of a believer may be substandard to those who do not believe. I don't believe there is any correlation between morality and religious faith. QuoteWhat you dont seem to understand is that even if science finds all the answers, I will still love Jesus as the spirit of God and I will continue to share his love with everyone. I never cared enough to consider it. QuoteI said truth can be a feeling. And that would still be nonsensically incorrect. QuoteAnd I dont understand the idea-text thing. Could you explain it, it does sound interesting. To quote Fritjof Capra, "The map is not the territory." QuoteThis sounds like a slippery slope to me. How so? QuoteThe point was whether or not it is connected as true in what is truth, not whether or not people use it. Huh? One more time, in English, please. QuoteThe examples you gave against the golden rule might be better discussed on an individual thread. They just dont seem rational to me. What isn't rational about them? I offered realistic examples of situations for each rule in which obeying the rule does not achieve the desired effect. You're trying to observe the rule from the perspective of one who has faith that the golden rule is absolutely correct. I'm trying to observe the rule like a scientist testing a hypothesis, trying to find scenarios that can disprove its accuracy. Having shared such scenarios with you, you are now trying to justify why the scenarios should be ignored so you don't have to adjust your faith in the golden rule as being absolutely correct, while I simply accept that the golden rule is not absolutely correct, because it makes the assumption that everyone desires the same things. QuoteDont, dont sounds the same as do, do, of course depending on the circumstances, and unto others thing seems a bit egocentric and narscissistic. Do unto others … is an active rule. It requires a conscious action on the part of the follower. Do not do unto others … is passive. The follower is not required to do anything, only to avoid doing things they themselves would find undesirable. While they do indeed appear similar, they are actually very different.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #137 June 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut the conversation was about whether or not belief was stronger because of faith My bad, I thought we had settled that. It isn't.Quote >>>>Right, and I disagree. QuoteYour sun example was not a good one. Why not, because it so easily refutes your erroneous claim? It is an excellent example of a belief not based on faith that is stronger than faith based beliefs. >>>>I think its quite obvious, and to be honest, Im a little tired of explaining this. It is simple, you dont believe in the power of faith. QuoteIs love an observed phenomena? Neuroscientists may well be able to observe it. The average person is limited to feeling it.Quote >>>>To me, life would not be worth living without that, and if that makes me an average person, then I am glad I am not a neuroscientist. QuoteNot the emotions or what happens within the brain, but the connection itself? Oh, nevermind. Scratch what I said about it being observable. With your restrictions, no, it is unlikely to be observable. >>>>good one, so Im assuming you cant explain the connection??? QuoteWe arent talking about belief based on understanding … We were talking about belief based on faith versus belief based on anything else, of which belief based on understanding is a subset.Quote >>>>Finish the quote, please. I already agreed with you on this. QuoteWhat then, is it called when you sincerely believe you will find the answers you have not yet found? I don't think we will ever find all the answers. The more we know the more questions we are able to ask. Even if/when we to discover the UFT/TOE, the number of problems it could be applied to is virtually infinite, so we still couldn't obtain all the answers. >>>>Ok. So what is it called? QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws.Quote >>>>Believe me, I got it. There still is not much relevance there as either way, you dont believe you are operating in faith, and I do. Religion and faith don't do that. >>>>You may be suprised. Our perceptions are almost totally different as is evidence in this conversation. Of course you believe mine is baseless and ridiculous, but our thought process is just so different. The questions you ask, are not the questions I ask. Remember, its all based on individualism...how important is the answer??? You believe faith is zero evidence and I believe it is all the evidence I need. This is a very radical difference in perception. Some people ask why, how, ect..., some people just accept. It is about the individuals' desires and what they want out of life. QuoteYes you do, and I see that you are using this useless faith and dont recognize it. That's because you still don't understand science well enough to realize it is faithless by design. Quote >>>>If we disagree, we disagree. To use your words..."you still havent convinced me". You are right of course, I dont know anything about the scientific perception, could it be possible that you may not know about the spiritual perception of the Gospel? QuoteTo eliminate faith, or to eliminate faith in God? It seems you are convinced that the morality of a believer may be substandard to those who do not believe. I don't believe there is any correlation between morality and religious faith. >>>>I believe I know that about you. It is even more evidence that you dont really know the teachings of Jesus that well. Or, you simply believe that what he taught is not moral...probably because it may not be as liberal as you would like? Although, I can testify that I have never been more free. QuoteWhat you dont seem to understand is that even if science finds all the answers, I will still love Jesus as the spirit of God and I will continue to share his love with everyone. I never cared enough to consider it.Quote >>>>Is that why youre trying to eliminate faith? QuoteI said truth can be a feeling. And that would still be nonsensically incorrect. >>>>I disagree. Some things just feel right to me, I believe in a conscience, and I also believe it is quite powerful. QuoteAnd I dont understand the idea-text thing. Could you explain it, it does sound interesting. To quote Fritjof Capra, "The map is not the territory."Quote >>>>Oh. QuoteThis sounds like a slippery slope to me. How so? >>>>Look at your intent for that answer. It just feels like your running up hill. QuoteThe point was whether or not it is connected as true in what is truth, not whether or not people use it. Huh? One more time, in English, please.Quote >>>>If that rule doesnt seem like truth, then you dont listen to truth. Its really just that simple. QuoteThe examples you gave against the golden rule might be better discussed on an individual thread. They just dont seem rational to me. What isn't rational about them? I offered realistic examples of situations for each rule in which obeying the rule does not achieve the desired effect. You're trying to observe the rule from the perspective of one who has faith that the golden rule is absolutely correct. I'm trying to observe the rule like a scientist testing a hypothesis, trying to find scenarios that can disprove its accuracy. Having shared such scenarios with you, you are now trying to justify why the scenarios should be ignored so you don't have to adjust your faith in the golden rule as being absolutely correct, while I simply accept that the golden rule is not absolutely correct, because it makes the assumption that everyone desires the same things. >>>>But, I have already explained that I also know as truth that not everyone will believe in that rule. I dont have to adjust my faith in the rule to understand that. Jesus is clear about this world being evil, he is clear about us all being sinners. He gave us a path of perfect righteousness...it is a path of perfection so that it can be followed, but not attained until death. The level of joy it brings here gives us hope that when we are with Jesus, the joy level will be on a level not even close to being understood here. There is nothing wrong with the rule, it is us with the problem. That includes me. Righteousness is about life to the fullest, the qualites of its fruit are the most sought after in the human existance. Peace, Joy, Love, Content, Goodness, Kindness, Patience, Humbleness... QuoteDont, dont sounds the same as do, do, of course depending on the circumstances, and unto others thing seems a bit egocentric and narscissistic. Do unto others … is an active rule. It requires a conscious action on the part of the follower. Do not do unto others … is passive. The follower is not required to do anything, only to avoid doing things they themselves would find undesirable. While they do indeed appear similar, they are actually very different. >>>>depending on the circumstances. Again, I think we should start a thread on this so that you can hear other opinions than my own. Something to understand as well is that Jesus was talking to those who listen to truth. It is a rule for those who desire righteousness, not a universal truth, but a universal truth for those who desire righteousness."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #138 June 6, 2008 QuoteI think its quite obvious, and to be honest, Im a little tired of explaining this. I must have missed where you ever explained it. All you've done is dismissed an example that refutes your claim. I suppose one could argue that your clinging to an assertion that has been proven false is a testimony to your faith. Quotegood one, so Im assuming you cant explain the connection??? What connection? The one you fabricated for your rhetoric? QuoteOk. So what is it called? I think the word you are looking for is quest. QuoteBelieve me, I got it. There still is not much relevance there as either way, you dont believe you are operating in faith, and I do. Making that claim only offers evidence that you don't understand the scientific method. Quote… mine is baseless and ridiculous … Agreed wholeheartedly. QuoteYou believe faith is zero evidence and I believe it is all the evidence I need. If you want to go through life with no evidence for your beliefs, that is your prerogative. QuoteSome people ask why, how, ect..., some people just accept. Right. That is typically done without any evidence. QuoteI believe I know that about you. It is even more evidence that you dont really know the teachings of Jesus that well. Or, perhaps I understand them them better than you, just not as well as you think you understand them. QuoteOr, you simply believe that what he taught is not moral...probably because it may not be as liberal as you would like? If you understood the teachings of Christ you would understand that he was far more liberal than I am. I'm a far right wing conservative nut compared to Jesus. QuoteIs that why youre trying to eliminate faith? How did you get that from me not caring about how much you love Jesus? QuoteLook at your intent for that answer. It just feels like your running up hill. LMAO! Do you know what slippery slope means? QuoteIf that rule doesnt seem like truth, then you dont listen to truth. Its really just that simple. A perfect demonstration of my point about looking at things from the perspective of science versus the perspective of faith. QuoteBut, I have already explained that I also know as truth that not everyone will believe in that rule. … Peace, Joy, Love, Content, Goodness, Kindness, Patience, Humbleness... I'm not sure what you were rambling on about, but it didn't address my point about the fundamental differences between science and faith. Quotedepending on the circumstances. You just claimed that the golden rule was the truth. Now you're claiming that its trueness depends on circumstances? QuoteAgain, I think we should start a thread on this so that you can hear other opinions than my own. This is a public forum. If anyone wants to offer their opinion, they are free to do so. I'm through with this thread, however. Have fun with it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #139 June 6, 2008 You come off a bit condescending at times and you really dont seem to attempt to understand anything outside of your own understanding. If you did, you would have at least understood something about the spiritual perception that is given through understanding the Gospel. You know a great deal about evolution, nothing about Jesus, but yet you continue to claim that you do. You will be challenged for the rest of your life by those who know him because of this, its not just me. This should be evidence to you that you really need to re-evaluate what it means when you tell people you know the Gospel. Just because someone reads the letters doesnt mean they know the heart of the one who writes them. In any event, this type of conversation is the type that I like and I enjoyed it, so, thank you."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites likearock 2 #140 June 7, 2008 Quote QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. Exactly. That's really all you have to say to disprove this bogus "parallel" between science and religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rynodigsmusic 0 #141 June 8, 2008 QuoteQuote QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. Exactly. That's really all you have to say to disprove this bogus "parallel" between science and religion. I dont really understand why it is so difficult to understand the spiritual aspect of a relationship with a man and his surroundings, that is, there is something good, not just true, but true and good. Or, why scientists don’t believe a mans conviction is stronger becasue he truly believes in something. I was explaining, that faith has other applications that have been and are still used by humans to this day to accomplish what was believed to not have been possible, whether it is or isnt. Its not about what is possible or impossible, it is about a mans conviction to continue because he believes it is possible. It was stated that a belief in something you know you will find is called a quest, heaven forbid we call it faith. To me, a quest is about the search, faith is about finding. Scientist believe they have found, (many of them don’t admit that) now they are trying to disprove (according to our conversation), that is why I say they are acting in faith, or did I miss something? Oh wait, they already disproved the existence of God right? Find a man who says with absolute certainty that he does not believe in even the possibility of the existence of God and I will show you the most ignorant of men, blind to the miracle of life and love. I play guitar with people who are very technical, extremely good players, but, I would rather have a player who plays from his heart than all the best techincal players in the world. There is something very powerful deep within us, something so deep and so great that even science cannot explain it. When that connection is made, you know there is something greater than what is seen and touched. Do I want to bridge the gap? I could care less, because just knowing and hearing is not enough, when you go deeper, its all about the heart, and that has been fascinating science since the beginning. Sure science is fun and exciting at times, but if you want true fascination, you have to go much deeper. I just cant wait for science to bottle up and sell life, then maybe I can bring back my loved ones! Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?? Or maybe I can find some life on ebay?? Come to think of it, im a little short on love this week, I think ill add some of that to the cart as well."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
jcd11235 0 #127 June 3, 2008 Quote I knew you would say that. It is the only argument you have after that what I said. However, you said that it is the person who doubts that has the faith, so essentially, if you take your argument, the one who doubts is the one who believes. This does not seem rational to me. What you seem to not understand is that in the example you provided, what was believed to be impossible was, in fact, possible (i.e. it was not known to be impossible). Twist it however you like, but that is the unavoidable fact of your example. Quote Are you serious? Faith manifests itself through reality. Goodness, this is the very essence of spirituality. There you go again, assigning qualitative characteristics when you have no facts with which to back up your argument. Please, give us a concrete example of how "faith manifests itself through reality." Quote Many people have died believing something was possible, but never saw it realized. Keeping faith in that belief was the only thing that kept them going. They gave their lives for a belief they had faith in. Thanks to thier progress and perseverance, others either were or werent able to see it through as possible or impossible. You would agree that many a hypothesis has never been proven? Once again, you are failing to grasp the difference between understanding something is possible but not knowing how to do it, and taking something on faith. Quote If you were serious about discovering the historical aspects of the existance of Jesus, I dont think you would make such a comment. I do of course understand that Jesus' divinity must be taken on faith, and have said that is the very reason why we have this manifested reality (fruit of the spirit). Becuase the power of the spirit operates in faith, just as the power of an idea operates in the same way. "Evidence" is found along the way in both instances and through understanding, keeps us on the path of perseverance and progression. And now you create your own definition of evidence. There is a very small amount of historical evidence of questionable credibility that there was an historical Jesus, There is no credible evidence of his divinity. The way your belief makes you feel is not credible evidence. Quote Forgive me, but you dont seem to be capable of reasoning outside of your own understanding … Let me get this straight. You are claiming I'm not capable of reason? Okay, sure, whatever. Quote doesnt this go against Confuciousism? No.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #128 June 3, 2008 Quote Quote I knew you would say that. It is the only argument you have after that what I said. However, you said that it is the person who doubts that has the faith, so essentially, if you take your argument, the one who doubts is the one who believes. This does not seem rational to me. What you seem to not understand is that in the example you provided, what was believed to be impossible was, in fact, possible (i.e. it was not known to be impossible). Twist it however you like, but that is the unavoidable fact of your example. Quote >>>>Im not twisting anything. This is not about what is possible or impossible. I made the statement that faith is not about doubt but belief. I believe you may be the one twisting it, dont you? How about a yes or a no instead. I say that statement is true, so that is a yes from me. Quote Are you serious? Faith manifests itself through reality. Goodness, this is the very essence of spirituality. There you go again, assigning qualitative characteristics when you have no facts with which to back up your argument. Please, give us a concrete example of how "faith manifests itself through reality." >>>>The good works of Mother Teresa. Quote Many people have died believing something was possible, but never saw it realized. Keeping faith in that belief was the only thing that kept them going. They gave their lives for a belief they had faith in. Thanks to thier progress and perseverance, others either were or werent able to see it through as possible or impossible. You would agree that many a hypothesis has never been proven? Once again, you are failing to grasp the difference between understanding something is possible but not knowing how to do it, and taking something on faith. Quote >>>>There seems to be no difference. Not knowing how to do something and still believing it is possible (whether it is or isnt) is taking something on faith. A belief for something you do not have faith in is not a strong belief. Believing in something you do have faith in is what inspires perseverance, which is a powerful aspect of the human spirit. Either way, there is an example of belief with or without faith. Quote If you were serious about discovering the historical aspects of the existance of Jesus, I dont think you would make such a comment. I do of course understand that Jesus' divinity must be taken on faith, and have said that is the very reason why we have this manifested reality (fruit of the spirit). Becuase the power of the spirit operates in faith, just as the power of an idea operates in the same way. "Evidence" is found along the way in both instances and through understanding, keeps us on the path of perseverance and progression. And now you create your own definition of evidence. Quote >>>>Really, how? Is it not true that a crime scene investigator may start with only a "hunch" or idea, and then gather information (evidence) as he seeks to prove it? In the same way, a scientist makes an educated guess and seeks to prove that with evidence. Either way, evidence is not always found until the hypothesis or idea is layed out. This is similar to when two people are united through marriage. There is very little "evidence" that will say whether or not they will last forever, but as they progress in thier faith (or sincere belief in one anothers love) they gather more and more "evidence" or reasons why they love one another, sometimes discovering new and exciting things that strengthen their love in the process. You say evidence is only something you can see and touch, yet you build your whole hypothesis around a theory, denying that evidence could be defined as something other than what you can see and touch, by boldly declaring that feelings are not evidence of belief. Quote There is a very small amount of historical evidence of questionable credibility that there was an historical Jesus, There is no credible evidence of his divinity. The way your belief makes you feel is not credible evidence. >>>>I dont know how you can say that and this at the same time...."Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future".... >>>>Feelings are not credible evidence of belief? What do you think love is? Quote Forgive me, but you dont seem to be capable of reasoning outside of your own understanding … Let me get this straight. You are claiming I'm not capable of reason? Okay, sure, whatever. Quote >>>>Outside of your own understanding it seems, yes. "We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #129 June 3, 2008 QuoteIm not twisting anything. Yes, you are. QuoteThis is not about what is possible or impossible. Yes, it is. QuoteI made the statement that faith is not about doubt but belief. You created an arbitrary difference. QuoteI believe you may be the one twisting it, dont you? No. QuoteThe good works of Mother Teresa. Her actions manifested in good works. It took much more than faith. QuoteThere seems to be no difference. Only because you refuse to see. QuoteA belief for something you do not have faith in is not a strong belief. What are you talking about, now? I believe the sun will appear over the easter horizon in the morning. It's a strong belief. It is not a faith based belief. The belief is based on my understanding of the earth's rotation on its axis. QuoteEither way, there is an example of belief with or without faith. There's nothing like a good contradiction. Or are you just claiming my belief that the sun will rise in the morning a weak belief? QuoteReally, how? Is it not true that a crime scene investigator may start with only a "hunch" or idea, and then gather information (evidence) as he seeks to prove it? No, that's how religious faith works. A crime scene investigator would gather evidence, and form a hypothesis based on that evidence. The hypothesis fits the evidence, not vice versa. QuoteIn the same way, a scientist makes an educated guess and seeks to prove that with evidence. Either way, evidence is not always found until the hypothesis or idea is layed out. Again, the evidence comes first. The hypothesis is then formed to rationally explain the evidence. QuoteThis is similar to when two people are united through marriage. There is very little "evidence" that will say whether or not they will last forever, but as they progress in thier faith (or sincere belief in one anothers love) they gather more and more "evidence" or reasons why they love one another, sometimes discovering new and exciting things that strengthen their love in the process. That's not similar at all. That would make as much sense as claiming that a career in law is just like a skateboard. The two have nothing to do with each other. QuoteYou say evidence is only something you can see and touch, yet you build your whole hypothesis around a theory, denying that evidence could be defined as something other than what you can see and touch, by boldly declaring that feelings are not evidence of belief. Yes, I'm funny that way. A vague emotion isn't evidence of anything, except maybe a vague emotion. QuoteI dont know how you can say that and this at the same time...."Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future".... It's easy. Cosmologists aren't lacking evidence to support their hypotheses. They just are not in denial about there being unanswered questions thus far in science. That's a very different situation from having no evidence at all. QuoteFeelings are not credible evidence of belief? What do you think love is? Do you need evidence of a belief?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #130 June 3, 2008 QuoteI made the statement that faith is not about doubt but belief. You created an arbitrary difference. >>>>How about answering with a yes or no instead. QuoteThere seems to be no difference. Only because you refuse to see.Quote >>>>Again, perhaps you can explain it better. QuoteEither way, there is an example of belief with or without faith. There's nothing like a good contradiction. Or are you just claiming my belief that the sun will rise in the morning a weak belief? >>>>What are you saying? If you had no faith that it would rise, your belief would be weak, whether is rises or not. However, through understanding, you know it will (provided nothing supernatural or indescribable happens) This is not a very good example. The truth is that if someone believes, truly believes (has faith) in something, it will inspire him to progress and persevere even in the face of failure and persecution. If they dont truly believe, their belief is weak. This is proven as true throughout history. QuoteReally, how? Is it not true that a crime scene investigator may start with only a "hunch" or idea, and then gather information (evidence) as he seeks to prove it? No, that's how religious faith works. Quote A crime scene investigator would gather evidence, and form a hypothesis based on that evidence. The hypothesis fits the evidence, not vice versa. >>>>Of course your right. The hypothesis is educated, but evidence is found along the way after the hypothesis was set. That is the point. Sometimes whether a guess is educated or not, the hypothesis is made merely as a foundation to collect more evidence to prove it. The crime scene detective would, form a hypothesis, which is educated based on the evidence, then seek to prove it. QuoteIn the same way, a scientist makes an educated guess and seeks to prove that with evidence. Either way, evidence is not always found until the hypothesis or idea is layed out. Again, the evidence comes first. The hypothesis is then formed to rationally explain the evidence.Quote >>>>Yes, and again, the hypothesis is not proven true at the beginning. If it was, it would not be a guess, but a fact. All the evidence is not in to prove it yet, showing that evidence is not always required before a guess is made (to be proven true), either educated or not. QuoteThis is similar to when two people are united through marriage. There is very little "evidence" that will say whether or not they will last forever, but as they progress in thier faith (or sincere belief in one anothers love) they gather more and more "evidence" or reasons why they love one another, sometimes discovering new and exciting things that strengthen their love in the process. That's not similar at all. That would make as much sense as claiming that a career in law is just like a skateboard. The two have nothing to do with each other. >>>>I disagree. I think metaphors and parables can be and have been used to explian things throughout the search for wisdom. QuoteYou say evidence is only something you can see and touch, yet you build your whole hypothesis around a theory, denying that evidence could be defined as something other than what you can see and touch, by boldly declaring that feelings are not evidence of belief. Yes, I'm funny that way. A vague emotion isn't evidence of anything, except maybe a vague emotion.Quote >>>>And of course a vague emotion is just random, it comes and goes when it pleases and has nothing to do with what has impacted the thought process, possibly even due to a belief? QuoteI dont know how you can say that and this at the same time...."Just because cosmologists don't know with any certainty about critical points in the universe's past or future".... It's easy. Cosmologists aren't lacking evidence to support their hypotheses. They just are not in denial about there being unanswered questions thus far in science. >>>>How do you not see that you are operating in faith? You believe these questions will be answered and that is why you are progressing, persevering, and even outright denying even the slightest possiblity that something other than your theoretical explanation could be responsible for those "unanswered questions". Life is a miracle, it seems to be the most prevolent yet evasive force to us. It shows wisdom and many other qualities that represent it as more than possible that a perfect creator is responsible for its existence, no matter where it is found. Anyways, I would not want to live forever in a world run by man.Quote That's a very different situation from having no evidence at all.Quote >>>>Or possibly having all the evidence you need? You see faith as having no evidence, but you dont see faith as having all the evidence you need to proceed, progress, and persevere...the very thing you are doing by chasing evidence to support a theory based on an idea (after the educated guess). QuoteFeelings are not credible evidence of belief? What do you think love is? Do you need evidence of a belief? >>>>No. It doesn’t appear so. A feeling is an expression of a belief, but is not required to believe. The real question should be do you think that something you believe is true is enough to allow a belief to take root? That is, "Is truth a feeling"?"We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #131 June 4, 2008 Quote How about answering with a yes or no instead. How about asking a yes or no question if you want a yes or no answer. Quote Again, perhaps you can explain it better. Probably. Quote What are you saying? If you had no faith that it would rise, your belief would be weak, whether is rises or not. However, through understanding, you know it will You're wrong about the belief being weak due to not relying on faith. You're right about it being from understanding rather than faith. Quote Yes, and again, the hypothesis is not proven true at the beginning. Rarely will a hypothesis ever be proven true. Science proves very few things. One of the defining characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that it is disprovable. If you want proof, study mathematics. If it was, it would not be a guess, but a fact. All the evidence is not in to prove it yet, showing that evidence is not always required before a guess is made (to be proven true), either educated or not. Quote I disagree. I think metaphors and parables can be and have been used to explian things throughout the search for wisdom. I agree, they have. Plato's Allegory Of The Cave is one of my favorites. The difference is that most metaphors and parables are chosen or created due to be analogous in many ways. Quote And of course a vague emotion is just random, it comes and goes when it pleases and has nothing to do with what has impacted the thought process, possibly even due to a belief?[/relief] I think most emotions affect our thought processes. That doesn't mean they qualify as evidence of anything. Quote How do you not see that you are operating in faith? You believe these questions will be answered and that is why you are progressing, persevering, and even outright denying even the slightest possiblity that something other than your theoretical explanation could be responsible for those "unanswered questions". Whoa. Back up. Scientists don't deny possibilities of something other than their own explanation. There are currently, in fact, several competing theories of the "end" of the universe. Generally speaking, they all explain the observed phenomena/evidence equally well. As more phenomena/evidence is observed, some will be discarded or adapted. That's not faith. That's science. Quote "Is truth a feeling"? No.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #132 June 5, 2008 How about asking a yes or no question if you want a yes or no answer. >>>>Do you think faith is about belief and not doubt? Quote Again, perhaps you can explain it better. Probably. >>>>I respect your views and would sincerely like for you to explain the differece between faith and belief, and how they dont have anything to do with one another. I believe there is such a thing as conviction when it comes to belief, and that it is an inspiring influence. Quote What are you saying? If you had no faith that it would rise, your belief would be weak, whether is rises or not. However, through understanding, you know it will You're wrong about the belief being weak due to not relying on faith. You're right about it being from understanding rather than faith. Quote >>>>See, I dont believe so. Belief in a direction you have faith in gathers understanding along the way and strengthens your faith in the process, at least thats pretty much what Jesus says. He says faith starts out small and grows. To me this is similar to a theory which gathers understanding and grows, whether it will be proven or not. The difference is that science changes the theorys as the evidence comes in...but that doesnt mean that the original theory did not help them persevere and progress through understanding. The theory was based on some sort of belief or idea. >>>>"Your wrong..." That is because your example was poor and not in line with the conversation at hand. You used an example of surety, becasue the sun always rises. Quote Yes, and again, the hypothesis is not proven true at the beginning. Rarely will a hypothesis ever be proven true. Science proves very few things. One of the defining characteristics of a scientific hypothesis is that it is disprovable. If you want proof, study mathematics. >>>>Of course, so you agree that evidence is found after the hypothesis is set as well? Both the evidence gathered to form the hypothesis and the evidence gathered to support it is gathered against an unproven threory. Yet, scientists still proceed, progress, and persevere in it. Quote I agree, they have. Plato's Allegory Of The Cave is one of my favorites. The difference is that most metaphors and parables are chosen or created due to be analogous in many ways. Quote >>>>I believe that the analogy of a wedding and faith in what is unseen or unknown works. Quote I think most emotions affect our thought processes. That doesn't mean they qualify as evidence of anything. Quote >>>>See, that is interesting to me, because I believe the thoughts inspire the emotions, and that the thoughts themselves are inspired by influence. This may be another one of our primary differences in our perceptions. Whoa. Back up. Scientists don't deny possibilities of something other than their own explanation. There are currently, in fact, several competing theories of the "end" of the universe. Generally speaking, they all explain the observed phenomena/evidence equally well. As more phenomena/evidence is observed, some will be discarded or adapted. That's not faith. That's science. Quote >>>>You hinted that those with faith are in denial about certain "unanswered questions", so I went with the flow. You and I simply disagree in the applications of faith. Science is searching for answers, so naturally the questions are the most important. In regards to the spirit, searching for answers is about the individual. The greatest question should be how important is the answer, and is it really that evasive? Quote "Is truth a feeling"? No. >>>>Do you believe it can be? This may be another primary difference in our perceptions. I believe it can. I think there is something within us that connects us to truth, and that it may express itself through a feeling, of course, depending on the individual. For example, most people like the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"..."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #133 June 5, 2008 QuoteDo you think faith is about belief and not doubt? No. It is about belief, but the "not doubt" is irrelevant and has nothing to do with faith in the context you've used it. QuoteI respect your views and would sincerely like for you to explain the differece between faith and belief, and how they dont have anything to do with one another. All faith is based on belief. Not all belief is based on faith. It is a similar relationship to that between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. QuoteSee, I dont believe so. Belief in a direction you have faith in gathers understanding along the way and strengthens your faith in the process, at least thats pretty much what Jesus says. He says faith starts out small and grows. Tell us, what exactly did Jesus say about the scientific method or about the earth revolving around the sun? If he didn't address either of these two issues, why are you bringing him up? QuoteTo me this is similar to a theory which gathers understanding and grows, whether it will be proven or not. The difference is that science changes the theorys as the evidence comes in...but that doesnt mean that the original theory did not help them persevere and progress through understanding. True, the original hypothesis offers a starting point to look for evidence or form experiments that could disprove said hypothesis, and offer insight into how the hypothesis needed to be modified to accurately explain the evidence & phenomena, or why it needs to be completely discarded. QuoteThe theory was based on some sort of belief or idea. No, it was based on evidence and observed phenomena. QuoteThat is because your example was poor and not in line with the conversation at hand. You used an example of surety, becasue the sun always rises. Sure it was. It was a valid example of belief based on understanding, and not faith. QuoteOf course, so you agree that evidence is found after the hypothesis is set as well? Yes, in an attempt to disprove the hypothesis. QuoteBoth the evidence gathered to form the hypothesis and the evidence gathered to support it is gathered against an unproven threory. No, the evidence is not gathered with intent to support the hypothesis. Evidence is gathered with intent to test the hypothesis. QuoteYou and I simply disagree in the applications of faith. Yes we do. I recognize the fact that faith is useless when seeking answers to explain the world and universe around us or other topics better left to science, such as the origin of of life. QuoteScience is searching for answers … More specifically, science is about finding answers in such a manner that different people in different places will obtain the same answer, every time, without any need for faith. QuoteQuoteQuote"Is truth a feeling"? No. Do you believe it can be? No, the definitions of the words are too different. QuoteThis may be another primary difference in our perceptions. I believe it can. I think there is something within us that connects us to truth, and that it may express itself through a feeling, of course, depending on the individual. That's significantly different from saying "truth is a feeling." If I have an idea, I can express that idea in text, but that text is not the idea. QuoteFor example, most people like the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... Even the Golden Rule has its problems. I once new a female with a fantasy of being raped and murdered. I certainly hope she does not practice the Golden Rule. She would be a serial killer, probably dubbed black widow or something similar by the press. Or, perhaps well meaning Christians, following the Golden Rule, start talking about Jesus and Christianity with everyone they meet. This may be what they would like to have done unto themselves, but it results in annoying (or worse) a large portion of those with whom they start such conversations. Personally, I prefer Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. But while its passive approach reduces the potential for problems, it does not eliminate the potential. What if a shy introvert notices a great accomplishment of an extravert that feeds off of attention. The introvert would not want a big deal made of the accomplishment if it was his own, yet the extrovert might feel slighted if the accomplishment is not acknowledged. In the end, I think Richard Bachman offered the most realistic rule. [I]Do unto others as you want to do unto others.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #134 June 5, 2008 QuoteMSN Quoteupdated 10:31 a.m. ET, Tues., May. 20, 2008 Remember when the shooting of the Quran hit the press. This, not as much. Kind of difficult to find. It is not anywhere on CNN. CNN story: Hundreds of New Testaments torched in Israel "Police in Israel are investigating the burning of hundreds of New Testaments in a city near Tel Aviv, an incident that has alarmed advocates of religious freedom. "Investigators plan to review photographs and footage showing "a fairly large" number of New Testaments being torched this month in the city of Or-Yehuda, a police spokesman, Micky Rosenfeld, said Wednesday. "News accounts in Israel have quoted Uzi Aharon, the deputy mayor of Or-Yehuda, as saying he organized students who burned several hundred copies of the New Testament. The deputy mayor gave interviews to Israeli radio and television stations after word of the incident surfaced about two weeks ago. "Soon he was talking with Russian, Italian and French television stations, "explaining to their highly offended audiences back home how he had not meant for the Bibles to be burned, and trying to undo the damage caused by the news (and photographs) of Jews burning New Testaments," The Jerusalem Post reported. "Aharon told CNN on Wednesday that he collected New Testaments and other "Messianic propaganda" that had been handed out in the city but that he did not plan or organize a burning. Instead, he said, three teenagers set fire to a pile of New Testaments while he was not present. Once he learned what was going on, he said, he stopped the burning."There were lots of commerical media stories on the incident. VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #135 June 5, 2008 QuoteI respect your views and would sincerely like for you to explain the differece between faith and belief, and how they dont have anything to do with one another. All faith is based on belief. Not all belief is based on faith. It is a similar relationship to that between squares and rectangles. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. >>>>Agreed. But the conversation was about whether or not belief was stronger because of faith. I believe the belief can come before understanding and that that is a fundamental aspect of the human search for wisdom. Sometimes a guess is enough, whether it is educated or not, to gain understanding. QuoteSee, I dont believe so. Belief in a direction you have faith in gathers understanding along the way and strengthens your faith in the process, at least thats pretty much what Jesus says. He says faith starts out small and grows. Tell us, what exactly did Jesus say about the scientific method or about the earth revolving around the sun? If he didn't address either of these two issues, why are you bringing him up?Quote >>>>I think its just you and I left in this conversation. Your sun example was not a good one. This is about if someone truly believes something and puts his faith in it, whether or not, through that faith, (sincere belief) he would persevere and progress. The difference in us is that I believe that one can have sincere true belief (faith) and that no matter what happens, he still believes. I am gathering that you dont believe this is true. Love is a very powerful expression of belief. I believe before Jesus that I severely underestimated its power. But to answer your question...Jesus says faith grows, thats why I brought him up...In his words.... >>>>31It is like a mustard seed, which is the smallest seed you plant in the ground. 32Yet when planted, it grows and becomes the largest of all garden plants, with such big branches that the birds of the air can perch in its shade." QuoteThe theory was based on some sort of belief or idea. No, it was based on evidence and observed phenomena. >>>>I believe there is an idea or imaginative flow of thoughts after the observed pheonmena. I believe that when someone is in love that they are full of life. Is love an observed phenomena? Not the emotions or what happens within the brain, but the connection itself? QuoteThat is because your example was poor and not in line with the conversation at hand. You used an example of surety, becasue the sun always rises. Sure it was. It was a valid example of belief based on understanding, and not faith. Quote >>>>We arent talking about belief based on understanding, as I believe that faith is strengthened through understanding and revelations as well. We were talking about whether a belief is stronger by faith, and that I believe those operating in the surety of finding-the-answer-they-have-not-found are operating in faith as well. You disagree, because you dont believe that faith could be applied in that way. What then, is it called when you sincerely believe you will find the answers you have not yet found? QuoteBoth the evidence gathered to form the hypothesis and the evidence gathered to support it is gathered against an unproven threory. No, the evidence is not gathered with intent to support the hypothesis. Evidence is gathered with intent to test the hypothesis. >>>>Whoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. This sincere belief can go on until death, showing that what was found or not found, whether it is true or not, was persevered by and progressed by a sincere belief in the theory. QuoteYou and I simply disagree in the applications of faith. Yes we do. I recognize the fact that faith is useless when seeking answers to explain the world and universe around us or other topics better left to science, such as the origin of of life.Quote >>>>Yes you do, and I see that you are using this useless faith and dont recognize it. Faith is not only for religion, it is a powerful aspect of the human spirit, our ability to say we can and we will, regardless of the outcome. QuoteScience is searching for answers … More specifically, science is about finding answers in such a manner that different people in different places will obtain the same answer, every time, without any need for faith. >>>>To eliminate faith, or to eliminate faith in God? It seems you are convinced that the morality of a believer may be substandard to those who do not believe. What you dont seem to understand is that even if science finds all the answers, I will still love Jesus as the spirit of God and I will continue to share his love with everyone. One thing I have noticed about love, is that it must be believed to be recieved. In any event, the spirit cannot be eliminated by getting rid of believers, it is a deep search that has very little to do with answers and more to do with hope and love. QuoteThis may be another primary difference in our perceptions. I believe it can. I think there is something within us that connects us to truth, and that it may express itself through a feeling, of course, depending on the individual. That's significantly different from saying "truth is a feeling." If I have an idea, I can express that idea in text, but that text is not the idea.Quote >>>>I said truth can be a feeling. And I dont understand the idea-text thing. Could you explain it, it does sound interesting. Because this is close to people who live by the letter of the bible and people who live by the spirit behind the letter. One of the biggest problems in not only Jesus' time, but also in the church today. QuoteFor example, most people like the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"... Even the Golden Rule has its problems. I once new a female with a fantasy of being raped and murdered. I certainly hope she does not practice the Golden Rule. She would be a serial killer, probably dubbed black widow or something similar by the press. Or, perhaps well meaning Christians, following the Golden Rule, start talking about Jesus and Christianity with everyone they meet. This may be what they would like to have done unto themselves, but it results in annoying (or worse) a large portion of those with whom they start such conversations. >>>>I would rather them act like Jesus personally. Personally, I prefer Do not do unto others what you would not want them to do unto you. But while its passive approach reduces the potential for problems, it does not eliminate the potential. What if a shy introvert notices a great accomplishment of an extravert that feeds off of attention. The introvert would not want a big deal made of the accomplishment if it was his own, yet the extrovert might feel slighted if the accomplishment is not acknowledged. In the end, I think Richard Bachman offered the most realistic rule. [I]Do unto others as you want to do unto others. >>>>This sounds like a slippery slope to me. The point was whether or not it is connected as true in what is truth, not whether or not people use it. Jesus did not say that all follow or even listen to truth. The examples you gave against the golden rule might be better discussed on an individual thread. They just dont seem rational to me. Dont, dont sounds the same as do, do, of course depending on the circumstances, and unto others thing seems a bit egocentric and narscissistic. But again, maybe a new thread on that would be an interesting conversation."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #136 June 6, 2008 QuoteBut the conversation was about whether or not belief was stronger because of faith My bad, I thought we had settled that. It isn't. QuoteYour sun example was not a good one. Why not, because it so easily refutes your erroneous claim? It is an excellent example of a belief not based on faith that is stronger than faith based beliefs. QuoteIs love an observed phenomena? Neuroscientists may well be able to observe it. The average person is limited to feeling it. QuoteNot the emotions or what happens within the brain, but the connection itself? Oh, nevermind. Scratch what I said about it being observable. With your restrictions, no, it is unlikely to be observable. QuoteWe arent talking about belief based on understanding … We were talking about belief based on faith versus belief based on anything else, of which belief based on understanding is a subset. QuoteWhat then, is it called when you sincerely believe you will find the answers you have not yet found? I don't think we will ever find all the answers. The more we know the more questions we are able to ask. Even if/when we to discover the UFT/TOE, the number of problems it could be applied to is virtually infinite, so we still couldn't obtain all the answers. QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. QuoteYes you do, and I see that you are using this useless faith and dont recognize it. That's because you still don't understand science well enough to realize it is faithless by design. QuoteTo eliminate faith, or to eliminate faith in God? It seems you are convinced that the morality of a believer may be substandard to those who do not believe. I don't believe there is any correlation between morality and religious faith. QuoteWhat you dont seem to understand is that even if science finds all the answers, I will still love Jesus as the spirit of God and I will continue to share his love with everyone. I never cared enough to consider it. QuoteI said truth can be a feeling. And that would still be nonsensically incorrect. QuoteAnd I dont understand the idea-text thing. Could you explain it, it does sound interesting. To quote Fritjof Capra, "The map is not the territory." QuoteThis sounds like a slippery slope to me. How so? QuoteThe point was whether or not it is connected as true in what is truth, not whether or not people use it. Huh? One more time, in English, please. QuoteThe examples you gave against the golden rule might be better discussed on an individual thread. They just dont seem rational to me. What isn't rational about them? I offered realistic examples of situations for each rule in which obeying the rule does not achieve the desired effect. You're trying to observe the rule from the perspective of one who has faith that the golden rule is absolutely correct. I'm trying to observe the rule like a scientist testing a hypothesis, trying to find scenarios that can disprove its accuracy. Having shared such scenarios with you, you are now trying to justify why the scenarios should be ignored so you don't have to adjust your faith in the golden rule as being absolutely correct, while I simply accept that the golden rule is not absolutely correct, because it makes the assumption that everyone desires the same things. QuoteDont, dont sounds the same as do, do, of course depending on the circumstances, and unto others thing seems a bit egocentric and narscissistic. Do unto others … is an active rule. It requires a conscious action on the part of the follower. Do not do unto others … is passive. The follower is not required to do anything, only to avoid doing things they themselves would find undesirable. While they do indeed appear similar, they are actually very different.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #137 June 6, 2008 QuoteQuoteBut the conversation was about whether or not belief was stronger because of faith My bad, I thought we had settled that. It isn't.Quote >>>>Right, and I disagree. QuoteYour sun example was not a good one. Why not, because it so easily refutes your erroneous claim? It is an excellent example of a belief not based on faith that is stronger than faith based beliefs. >>>>I think its quite obvious, and to be honest, Im a little tired of explaining this. It is simple, you dont believe in the power of faith. QuoteIs love an observed phenomena? Neuroscientists may well be able to observe it. The average person is limited to feeling it.Quote >>>>To me, life would not be worth living without that, and if that makes me an average person, then I am glad I am not a neuroscientist. QuoteNot the emotions or what happens within the brain, but the connection itself? Oh, nevermind. Scratch what I said about it being observable. With your restrictions, no, it is unlikely to be observable. >>>>good one, so Im assuming you cant explain the connection??? QuoteWe arent talking about belief based on understanding … We were talking about belief based on faith versus belief based on anything else, of which belief based on understanding is a subset.Quote >>>>Finish the quote, please. I already agreed with you on this. QuoteWhat then, is it called when you sincerely believe you will find the answers you have not yet found? I don't think we will ever find all the answers. The more we know the more questions we are able to ask. Even if/when we to discover the UFT/TOE, the number of problems it could be applied to is virtually infinite, so we still couldn't obtain all the answers. >>>>Ok. So what is it called? QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws.Quote >>>>Believe me, I got it. There still is not much relevance there as either way, you dont believe you are operating in faith, and I do. Religion and faith don't do that. >>>>You may be suprised. Our perceptions are almost totally different as is evidence in this conversation. Of course you believe mine is baseless and ridiculous, but our thought process is just so different. The questions you ask, are not the questions I ask. Remember, its all based on individualism...how important is the answer??? You believe faith is zero evidence and I believe it is all the evidence I need. This is a very radical difference in perception. Some people ask why, how, ect..., some people just accept. It is about the individuals' desires and what they want out of life. QuoteYes you do, and I see that you are using this useless faith and dont recognize it. That's because you still don't understand science well enough to realize it is faithless by design. Quote >>>>If we disagree, we disagree. To use your words..."you still havent convinced me". You are right of course, I dont know anything about the scientific perception, could it be possible that you may not know about the spiritual perception of the Gospel? QuoteTo eliminate faith, or to eliminate faith in God? It seems you are convinced that the morality of a believer may be substandard to those who do not believe. I don't believe there is any correlation between morality and religious faith. >>>>I believe I know that about you. It is even more evidence that you dont really know the teachings of Jesus that well. Or, you simply believe that what he taught is not moral...probably because it may not be as liberal as you would like? Although, I can testify that I have never been more free. QuoteWhat you dont seem to understand is that even if science finds all the answers, I will still love Jesus as the spirit of God and I will continue to share his love with everyone. I never cared enough to consider it.Quote >>>>Is that why youre trying to eliminate faith? QuoteI said truth can be a feeling. And that would still be nonsensically incorrect. >>>>I disagree. Some things just feel right to me, I believe in a conscience, and I also believe it is quite powerful. QuoteAnd I dont understand the idea-text thing. Could you explain it, it does sound interesting. To quote Fritjof Capra, "The map is not the territory."Quote >>>>Oh. QuoteThis sounds like a slippery slope to me. How so? >>>>Look at your intent for that answer. It just feels like your running up hill. QuoteThe point was whether or not it is connected as true in what is truth, not whether or not people use it. Huh? One more time, in English, please.Quote >>>>If that rule doesnt seem like truth, then you dont listen to truth. Its really just that simple. QuoteThe examples you gave against the golden rule might be better discussed on an individual thread. They just dont seem rational to me. What isn't rational about them? I offered realistic examples of situations for each rule in which obeying the rule does not achieve the desired effect. You're trying to observe the rule from the perspective of one who has faith that the golden rule is absolutely correct. I'm trying to observe the rule like a scientist testing a hypothesis, trying to find scenarios that can disprove its accuracy. Having shared such scenarios with you, you are now trying to justify why the scenarios should be ignored so you don't have to adjust your faith in the golden rule as being absolutely correct, while I simply accept that the golden rule is not absolutely correct, because it makes the assumption that everyone desires the same things. >>>>But, I have already explained that I also know as truth that not everyone will believe in that rule. I dont have to adjust my faith in the rule to understand that. Jesus is clear about this world being evil, he is clear about us all being sinners. He gave us a path of perfect righteousness...it is a path of perfection so that it can be followed, but not attained until death. The level of joy it brings here gives us hope that when we are with Jesus, the joy level will be on a level not even close to being understood here. There is nothing wrong with the rule, it is us with the problem. That includes me. Righteousness is about life to the fullest, the qualites of its fruit are the most sought after in the human existance. Peace, Joy, Love, Content, Goodness, Kindness, Patience, Humbleness... QuoteDont, dont sounds the same as do, do, of course depending on the circumstances, and unto others thing seems a bit egocentric and narscissistic. Do unto others … is an active rule. It requires a conscious action on the part of the follower. Do not do unto others … is passive. The follower is not required to do anything, only to avoid doing things they themselves would find undesirable. While they do indeed appear similar, they are actually very different. >>>>depending on the circumstances. Again, I think we should start a thread on this so that you can hear other opinions than my own. Something to understand as well is that Jesus was talking to those who listen to truth. It is a rule for those who desire righteousness, not a universal truth, but a universal truth for those who desire righteousness."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #138 June 6, 2008 QuoteI think its quite obvious, and to be honest, Im a little tired of explaining this. I must have missed where you ever explained it. All you've done is dismissed an example that refutes your claim. I suppose one could argue that your clinging to an assertion that has been proven false is a testimony to your faith. Quotegood one, so Im assuming you cant explain the connection??? What connection? The one you fabricated for your rhetoric? QuoteOk. So what is it called? I think the word you are looking for is quest. QuoteBelieve me, I got it. There still is not much relevance there as either way, you dont believe you are operating in faith, and I do. Making that claim only offers evidence that you don't understand the scientific method. Quote… mine is baseless and ridiculous … Agreed wholeheartedly. QuoteYou believe faith is zero evidence and I believe it is all the evidence I need. If you want to go through life with no evidence for your beliefs, that is your prerogative. QuoteSome people ask why, how, ect..., some people just accept. Right. That is typically done without any evidence. QuoteI believe I know that about you. It is even more evidence that you dont really know the teachings of Jesus that well. Or, perhaps I understand them them better than you, just not as well as you think you understand them. QuoteOr, you simply believe that what he taught is not moral...probably because it may not be as liberal as you would like? If you understood the teachings of Christ you would understand that he was far more liberal than I am. I'm a far right wing conservative nut compared to Jesus. QuoteIs that why youre trying to eliminate faith? How did you get that from me not caring about how much you love Jesus? QuoteLook at your intent for that answer. It just feels like your running up hill. LMAO! Do you know what slippery slope means? QuoteIf that rule doesnt seem like truth, then you dont listen to truth. Its really just that simple. A perfect demonstration of my point about looking at things from the perspective of science versus the perspective of faith. QuoteBut, I have already explained that I also know as truth that not everyone will believe in that rule. … Peace, Joy, Love, Content, Goodness, Kindness, Patience, Humbleness... I'm not sure what you were rambling on about, but it didn't address my point about the fundamental differences between science and faith. Quotedepending on the circumstances. You just claimed that the golden rule was the truth. Now you're claiming that its trueness depends on circumstances? QuoteAgain, I think we should start a thread on this so that you can hear other opinions than my own. This is a public forum. If anyone wants to offer their opinion, they are free to do so. I'm through with this thread, however. Have fun with it.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #139 June 6, 2008 You come off a bit condescending at times and you really dont seem to attempt to understand anything outside of your own understanding. If you did, you would have at least understood something about the spiritual perception that is given through understanding the Gospel. You know a great deal about evolution, nothing about Jesus, but yet you continue to claim that you do. You will be challenged for the rest of your life by those who know him because of this, its not just me. This should be evidence to you that you really need to re-evaluate what it means when you tell people you know the Gospel. Just because someone reads the letters doesnt mean they know the heart of the one who writes them. In any event, this type of conversation is the type that I like and I enjoyed it, so, thank you."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
likearock 2 #140 June 7, 2008 Quote QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. Exactly. That's really all you have to say to disprove this bogus "parallel" between science and religion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rynodigsmusic 0 #141 June 8, 2008 QuoteQuote QuoteWhoops. either way, its gathered against an unproven theory that is sincerely believed in until there is evidence to disprove it. The difference you still aren't grasping is that scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. They subject them to testing designed specifically to find flaws. Religion and faith don't do that. Exactly. That's really all you have to say to disprove this bogus "parallel" between science and religion. I dont really understand why it is so difficult to understand the spiritual aspect of a relationship with a man and his surroundings, that is, there is something good, not just true, but true and good. Or, why scientists don’t believe a mans conviction is stronger becasue he truly believes in something. I was explaining, that faith has other applications that have been and are still used by humans to this day to accomplish what was believed to not have been possible, whether it is or isnt. Its not about what is possible or impossible, it is about a mans conviction to continue because he believes it is possible. It was stated that a belief in something you know you will find is called a quest, heaven forbid we call it faith. To me, a quest is about the search, faith is about finding. Scientist believe they have found, (many of them don’t admit that) now they are trying to disprove (according to our conversation), that is why I say they are acting in faith, or did I miss something? Oh wait, they already disproved the existence of God right? Find a man who says with absolute certainty that he does not believe in even the possibility of the existence of God and I will show you the most ignorant of men, blind to the miracle of life and love. I play guitar with people who are very technical, extremely good players, but, I would rather have a player who plays from his heart than all the best techincal players in the world. There is something very powerful deep within us, something so deep and so great that even science cannot explain it. When that connection is made, you know there is something greater than what is seen and touched. Do I want to bridge the gap? I could care less, because just knowing and hearing is not enough, when you go deeper, its all about the heart, and that has been fascinating science since the beginning. Sure science is fun and exciting at times, but if you want true fascination, you have to go much deeper. I just cant wait for science to bottle up and sell life, then maybe I can bring back my loved ones! Do you not see how ridiculous that sounds?? Or maybe I can find some life on ebay?? Come to think of it, im a little short on love this week, I think ill add some of that to the cart as well."We didn't start the fire" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
