Yes, I still believe in God. The first word only agrees so far as Science is the only method of proving things. Since I've had spiritual experiences that prove (to me) the existence of God, it would be pure folly on my part to think otherwise (you may claim it was hallucination, except in matters of prophesy its fulfillment can be confirmed by multiple sources). For me it's based on experience. The provability of God isn't a factor for me since He can't be proven OR disproven.
True, but the main point is that God's existence can't be disproved by science any more than it can be proven by that same science. It's not something science can test, so you shouldn't be implying that God absolutely does not exist. That's just a stupid claim since there's no proof EITHER WAY.
Your extreme use of absolutes and biased assumptions reveals your closed-mindedness. And as far as the ancients never getting anything right, you're definitely wrong there. As one example, Erastosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes). There are many other examples of the intelligence of the ancients.
And claiming that God's non-existance requires no proof is the same as saying that extra-terrestrial life (be it microscopic or whatever) does not exist, simply based on the lack of evidence that it does.
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I wasn't arguing that Christians aren't capable of using holy texts to justify stuff. It happens all the time, unfortunately. But regardless of how many professed Christians justify their actions by questionable means, Christianity itself still doesn't rely on set rules and regulations, no matter how people (even Christians) try and twist it.
I also wasn't proposing that Christians are intrinsically superior to anyone. We can be just as bad as anyone else ("For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."). However we also believe that true grace isn't such a rarity, since we believe that it comes from God and in great abundance ("...but are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."). Though if you were referring to grace shown by humans, I would agree that it is (unfortunately) incredibly rare.
I also agree that mere claims to faith mean little. But the Bible agrees that mere claims of faith are worthless ("As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."). True faith moves one to action, while a mere claim of faith is of no value.
Your post seems to assume that all religions rely on strict legalistic following and interpretation of laws written in holy books, which is theologically not the case in every religion. Christianity would be one example of an exception to your statement, since it does not rely on strict adherence to law. It is instead based on faith and grace.
I know I'm replying to my own post, but oh well. I'll get over it. Anywho, I did finally find information on this on Memory Alpha. It is on the small of Data's back. I was right! Huzzah! Ok, no more caffeine...
http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Deactivation_switch
Data's off switch was on the list. But they said it was on his leg. I was always under the impression that it was on his lower back. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other? Memory Alpha seems to have no information on his off switch, and it's left me feeling rather downcast...
"links not provided, I'm lazy and cranky besides Google needs the ad revenue"
Huh?! Google needs the ad revenue? Have you seen their stock prices lately?
I accidentally read that headline as "Giant Atmospheric Whales Filmed Over Iowa." I immediately panicked and ran off and grabbed a towel and a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"...
Thanks for clarification. As a hardcore trekkie, I was thoroughly confused about the meaning of this "football" and "athletic contest" until you mentioned Kal-if-ee. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some meditation I must undergo to see if I can't purge this blasted ponn farr blood fever...
"You see, 'fixing the earth' is a complex affair, especially if you're not going to cop out and either eliminate humanity or return us to hunter-gatherer technology levels."
You forgot leaving the planet. Just put everyone in a big ship and find another habitable planet to screw up while we wait for Earth to heal. Then we move back here and screw things up again. Sure, moving all of humanity isn't practical (yet, and probably never), but so what?;-)
This pollution may be just fine and dandy with Indiana, but what about the other states that border the Great Lakes? I live in Michigan and I don't want to see Lake Michigan become like Lake Erie once was...
"it's not even an afterthought: kill the little green men, wipe them out, colonize."
It's people who think like that who are the reason aliens would never contact us. Our species is just too violent and greedy. Why not instead try and peacefully co-exist with them? Maybe they'd even be able to help us survive.
Oops. Discussion on that "Humans hardwired..." was closed quite a while ago, but I never got around to replying on that. I know this is kind of strange, but I didn't want to just leave it hanging. So here I go with my FINAL statement on that issue:
"That is the problem. There is research that shows alcoholism does hinder raising a child. Having marital problems (i.e. adultery) also hinders raising a child. But there is no research showing that homosexual parents have trouble raising children."
That is true. But while I did make the argument that raising a child does have a lot to do with it, whether people should have the right to get married or not should not rest solely on that. Most of my reasons for believing this are religious, so they won't carry much weight with you on this issue, but I thought I'd mention it anyway (this also goes along with your comments later on in that same post).
Alright, well I know this post was kind of pointless (and a few weeks to late), but I felt that our discussion was just left hanging and I didn't like it. Oh, and on the subject of the original slashdot post (humans hardwired to believe in supernatural deity), I would just like to leave my final thought on this matter: I believe that humans have been hardwired by God to believe in Him, both to make faith possible in more than just a spiritual "sense" and also to present additional physical evidence for His existence.
"But even if it does condemn this behavior, it condemns it along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, drunkards, etc. Does that mean that alcoholics should not be allowed to marry? Should people who have sex before marriage not be allowed to marry? Each of these would be just as bad in the eyes of the Bible."
Stop thinking that getting married applies to every sin. It applies to gays because they would be in homosexual relationships. The same problems with marriage do not necessarily apply to drunkards and adulterers.
"I still do not see why homosexuals should not be able to get married."
It seems you don't understand a lot of stuff. We've spent several posts discussing this, yet you still don't understand my points beyond understanding that we disagree.
"Here is Saul/Paul directly refuting the words of Jesus. Paul does this frequently in his writings, as he was trying to build a new religion instead of just expanding on the Jewish faith."
First of all, Romans 7:1-6 is not an analogy. It merely illustrates one way a person can be released from the rule of the law. Secondly, Matthew 5:17-18 and Romans 7:4 are not in conflict with each other. It is true that we die to the law through Christ. It is also true that the law and the prophets are not abolished, but fulfilled through the life and actions of Christ. But Christians have died to the law through Jesus so that their souls are no longer subject to it (the law). This is not to say that the law serves no purpose for believers: Through it we became conscious of sin.
"4 attempts of "qal va-homer" are in Romans 5:10, Romans 5:17, Romans 11:15, Romans 11:24."
You need to clarify how these verses support your claim. I must admit I don't quite understand what you're getting at. I did notice, however, that the first three verses all include something about life from the dead. I can imagine you making an argument that if this is saying that we have spiritual life from the dead, that we cannot be dead to the law. But that's not what it's saying at all: We died to the law through Christ's death, but we live to the new covenant through His resurrection. "But," you might argue, "If we are indeed dead to the law, why is it that Romans 11:24 says that we are grafted into a cultivated olive tree, and that the natural branches will be grafted into their own tree which is also the cultivated tree? This is a contradiction of the rest of Romans." Not true: We are grafted into the cultivated tree which is the new covenant. But while it is a new covenant (and not the law), it is the "natural branches" tree as well, because salvation through Jesus came first for the Jew. But because the Jews rejected Christ (as God knew they would), salvation came also to the gentiles so as to make Israel jealous (please see Romans 11:11).
How is it that you still don't understand? The article was chock full of scripture references. You should have followed them to understand the ultimate intent of the article and be able to distinguish what was true and what was human error. The article did get some stuff wrong (but I gave you the link so you could get a better idea of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments; I guess I shouldn't have just assumed you'd check on all the scripture references to determine what was truly Biblically based). For example: The article references Romans 11 saying that gentiles are spliced into the previously existing Jewish covenant without creating a new one. But if you check on Romans 11 (specifically verses 11 through 24), it says that (using an olive tree analogy) many "branches were cut off because of unbelief." It's talking about the Jews (the "branches") who were cut off from righteousness because they did not believe the new covenant's gospel message.
Anyway, back to the ultimate intent of the article (or if not its intent, the truth contained in it): Christians are no longer bound to the law. This is illustrated in many parts of the Bible, but most clearly in Romans 7:1-6 (quoted below).
"(1)Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the law - that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? (2)For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. (3)So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (4)So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. (5)For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (6)But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
This means that Christians, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, have died to the law and are no longer bound to it. What we are bound to is a new life in the Spirit (which, according to the Bible, does support some Old Testament laws [such as not killing or committing adultery]). However, many of the old covenant laws are still useful for establishing a healthy world view. But this isn't to say you should stone your daughter for committing adultery. Those Old Testament laws you keep referencing were laws which were probably established to keep the Israelites in line through the use of fear and the "purging of evil." But the practice of these laws are set aside because of the sacrifice of Jesus. As Romans 8:1-2 says, "(1)Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, (2)because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." Do you get it now?
"That last little bit is the best response yet. I really hope that you do think about that, because there is a real problem amongst Christians where they decide to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they agree with and which they dont."
I have indeed been thinking and praying about that today, and I came to the realization that I don't personally know enough about Old Testament law and how it relates to the New Testament to really make a logical argument about law. Then a little bit ago I happened to stumble across an excellent article online which talks about the ways in which Old Testament law relates to New Testament living. http://www.new-life.net/oldtest.htm I encourage you to check out the article. I know that it (in conjunction with scripture verses [both Old and New testament] that it cited and that I already knew) helped answer most of my questions about this. I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts on the article.
"I never said men wouldnt want to have sex with multiple partners. But I hold to my contention that not many would want to marry multiple wives. Many men dont want to get married to their first wife because of that fear of commitment."
And I hold to my opinion that, given the option, many men would marry multiple wives.
"Actually, I didnt see anything about God and polygamy. Did I just miss it, or did you forget to add it to your post? (happens to me from time to time)"
Sorry. I mis-referenced that. I shouldn't have said to check on "God and polygamy." Just see the stuff in my more recent post about how certain bits of the Old Testament are superseded by the New.
"Where in the Bible does it state that the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament?"
It never specifically says that anywhere. In fact, Christ himself said, "I have not come to abolish the law but to uphold the law." However, some of the less important aspects of the law are made useless when Christ brings faith, mercy, and grace into the equation. You see, much of the law is unchanging. However there is a willingness, even in the Old Testament, to set aside the more detailed and specific ritual laws (for example: health and social laws). Under the New Covenant, these ritual laws are no longer needed. And all of your examples from a couple posts back used ritual laws as their proof. But I suppose that it is incorrect to say that the New Testament completely supersedes the Old, because it doesn't (example: sin in the old testament is still sin in the new). I shall have to think about that.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I still believe in God. The first word only agrees so far as Science is the only method of proving things. Since I've had spiritual experiences that prove (to me) the existence of God, it would be pure folly on my part to think otherwise (you may claim it was hallucination, except in matters of prophesy its fulfillment can be confirmed by multiple sources). For me it's based on experience. The provability of God isn't a factor for me since He can't be proven OR disproven.
True, but the main point is that God's existence can't be disproved by science any more than it can be proven by that same science. It's not something science can test, so you shouldn't be implying that God absolutely does not exist. That's just a stupid claim since there's no proof EITHER WAY.
Your extreme use of absolutes and biased assumptions reveals your closed-mindedness. And as far as the ancients never getting anything right, you're definitely wrong there. As one example, Erastosthenes correctly calculated the circumference of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes). There are many other examples of the intelligence of the ancients. And claiming that God's non-existance requires no proof is the same as saying that extra-terrestrial life (be it microscopic or whatever) does not exist, simply based on the lack of evidence that it does.
I'd be very interested to hear how you came to that conclusion. Seems to me no one's ever actually proven that...
Yeah, I get what you're saying. I wasn't arguing that Christians aren't capable of using holy texts to justify stuff. It happens all the time, unfortunately. But regardless of how many professed Christians justify their actions by questionable means, Christianity itself still doesn't rely on set rules and regulations, no matter how people (even Christians) try and twist it.
I also wasn't proposing that Christians are intrinsically superior to anyone. We can be just as bad as anyone else ("For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."). However we also believe that true grace isn't such a rarity, since we believe that it comes from God and in great abundance ("...but are justified freely by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus."). Though if you were referring to grace shown by humans, I would agree that it is (unfortunately) incredibly rare.
I also agree that mere claims to faith mean little. But the Bible agrees that mere claims of faith are worthless ("As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."). True faith moves one to action, while a mere claim of faith is of no value.
Your post seems to assume that all religions rely on strict legalistic following and interpretation of laws written in holy books, which is theologically not the case in every religion. Christianity would be one example of an exception to your statement, since it does not rely on strict adherence to law. It is instead based on faith and grace.
It's not looked down on in the church because church-sponsored super bowl parties are often used as a sort of "outreach event" for the community.
I know I'm replying to my own post, but oh well. I'll get over it. Anywho, I did finally find information on this on Memory Alpha. It is on the small of Data's back. I was right! Huzzah! Ok, no more caffeine... http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Deactivation_switch
Data's off switch was on the list. But they said it was on his leg. I was always under the impression that it was on his lower back. Can anyone confirm this one way or the other? Memory Alpha seems to have no information on his off switch, and it's left me feeling rather downcast...
Same here. I use Comcast and I also have been getting quite a few connection errors from time to time.
"links not provided, I'm lazy and cranky besides Google needs the ad revenue" Huh?! Google needs the ad revenue? Have you seen their stock prices lately?
I accidentally read that headline as "Giant Atmospheric Whales Filmed Over Iowa." I immediately panicked and ran off and grabbed a towel and a copy of "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy"...
Uh... no.
Thanks for clarification. As a hardcore trekkie, I was thoroughly confused about the meaning of this "football" and "athletic contest" until you mentioned Kal-if-ee. Now if you'll excuse me, I have some meditation I must undergo to see if I can't purge this blasted ponn farr blood fever...
"You see, 'fixing the earth' is a complex affair, especially if you're not going to cop out and either eliminate humanity or return us to hunter-gatherer technology levels."
;-)
You forgot leaving the planet. Just put everyone in a big ship and find another habitable planet to screw up while we wait for Earth to heal. Then we move back here and screw things up again. Sure, moving all of humanity isn't practical (yet, and probably never), but so what?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81XolzElwR4&NR=1
This pollution may be just fine and dandy with Indiana, but what about the other states that border the Great Lakes? I live in Michigan and I don't want to see Lake Michigan become like Lake Erie once was...
Or maybe they don't contact us because they have a Prime Directive or something similar. http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Prime_directive
"it's not even an afterthought: kill the little green men, wipe them out, colonize." It's people who think like that who are the reason aliens would never contact us. Our species is just too violent and greedy. Why not instead try and peacefully co-exist with them? Maybe they'd even be able to help us survive.
Alright, well I know this post was kind of pointless (and a few weeks to late), but I felt that our discussion was just left hanging and I didn't like it. Oh, and on the subject of the original slashdot post (humans hardwired to believe in supernatural deity), I would just like to leave my final thought on this matter: I believe that humans have been hardwired by God to believe in Him, both to make faith possible in more than just a spiritual "sense" and also to present additional physical evidence for His existence.
How is it that you still don't understand? The article was chock full of scripture references. You should have followed them to understand the ultimate intent of the article and be able to distinguish what was true and what was human error. The article did get some stuff wrong (but I gave you the link so you could get a better idea of the relationship between the Old and New Testaments; I guess I shouldn't have just assumed you'd check on all the scripture references to determine what was truly Biblically based). For example: The article references Romans 11 saying that gentiles are spliced into the previously existing Jewish covenant without creating a new one. But if you check on Romans 11 (specifically verses 11 through 24), it says that (using an olive tree analogy) many "branches were cut off because of unbelief." It's talking about the Jews (the "branches") who were cut off from righteousness because they did not believe the new covenant's gospel message.
Anyway, back to the ultimate intent of the article (or if not its intent, the truth contained in it): Christians are no longer bound to the law. This is illustrated in many parts of the Bible, but most clearly in Romans 7:1-6 (quoted below).
"(1)Do you not know, brothers - for I am speaking to men who know the law - that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? (2)For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. (3)So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man. (4)So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. (5)For when we were controlled by the sinful nature, the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. (6)But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code."
This means that Christians, through the atoning sacrifice of Christ, have died to the law and are no longer bound to it. What we are bound to is a new life in the Spirit (which, according to the Bible, does support some Old Testament laws [such as not killing or committing adultery]). However, many of the old covenant laws are still useful for establishing a healthy world view. But this isn't to say you should stone your daughter for committing adultery. Those Old Testament laws you keep referencing were laws which were probably established to keep the Israelites in line through the use of fear and the "purging of evil." But the practice of these laws are set aside because of the sacrifice of Jesus. As Romans 8:1-2 says, "(1)Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, (2)because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death." Do you get it now?