fossilise_apostle wrote:
somehow i don't think anybody responds to exorcism.
I've been involved in exorcisms of both person and place. Though the nature of demons is probably outside the scope of this thread and my reply. If anyone needs, I'd be happy to do what I can to help you fight them. It's really best not to let them in in the first place.
To summarize, I've observed demons cause some very real problems (e.g. places they touched hemorrhaged a few days later), and though the medical problems persisted a few days, the demons themselves were done once exorcized from the area. In a possession instance, I've observed a real change in the person's life.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
whats better, scientifically researched, empirical evidence, or assumptions based on a superstitous book?
What if both agree? Then your hatred for the Gospel may cause you to overlook or dismiss scientifically researched empirically evidenced ideas. Are you a scientist? I had assumed from your discussion that you were more interested in medical metaphysics, but on this page you seem much more interested in science. What is your course of study? I've found that the more I study objective, empirical science, the more it confirms Biblical principles. This has been especially true in psychology and sociology, and has occured to a lesser extent in geology, astrophysics, and somatic medicine. So your compiling all of these subjects and a hundred more into "science" as a general concept leaves me in the dark as to what study your passionate discussion arises from. Are you a biologist? A medical student? A historian? An Immam?
fossilise_apostle wrote:
the bible is in no way an accurate historical document.
Like your compilation of various subjects into "science," the compilation of the 66 books into the "Bible" has the result of your noticing that some of it is not historical. Guess what? You're right! Half of Daniel, Leviticus, Revalation, Psalms, Proverbs, SoS, and everything Paul wrote are not historical at all. The Bible contains many kinds of literature; some of which is historic, some poetic, some prophetic, and more! There are historical documents that have been canonized, Such as Exodus and Luke, but to believe that a particular Psalm is historic would be, as you suggest, silly.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
jesus healed jack * (we're all adults).
No, we're not. I am, but many members of this forum are children. Don't worry, I had a (bad) pastor who made the same mistake. Please have respect for the children, and I'll do the same.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
its a book filled with fables and myths. if you are going to believe that crap, you know doubt believe in noahs ark, and don't even try to argue that with me, i'll rip it to shreds.
The ark is probably not in the scope of this thread, so I have no desire to argue it with you. As for the myths, there are a few myths in the Bible. Lazarus the beggar and the rich man, for example, or the man who stole the sheep from his neighbor who had only one. If the whole book were fables, however, then why are you so apparently angry? Should you not simly be laughing at us or feeling sorry for us? Your harsh words don't add anything to my experience of this forum. I have tried to answer your questions with grace; at least those parts that I could construe as questions. If instead, all your questions are answered by the sources you've cited, then why have you pursued this thread? I thought it started out very interesting and that you brought up things that we needed to think about! And I said as much in my previous posts. But if you're here as a speaker and not as a discussion participant, then I think you've already made your point. Your case has been heard. You don't need to go on insulting honest questioners and dissenters who've been gracious enough to listen as much as they speak.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
and not all cults are based on christianity. scientology for example.
I stand corrected. I had not been exposed to non-messianic cults.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
and religion was around far before jesus hit the scene. the greeks and egyptians come to mind. but believeing in greek gods is crazy right?
And yet the foundations of philosophy, science, and democracy come from those "crazies." Maybe theistic principles are not opposed to intelligence after all.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
why would a god create old bones?
The question you ask is a separate question from "can he create old bones." The intersection of the two questions is "did God create old bones." And since your blind faith in carbon-dating and sedentary layers is so strong, I won't try to argue them with scientific, empirical principles in this thread. You are a man of strong faith, I can only guess that this is the origin of your title "Fossilize Apostle."
fossilise_apostle wrote:
and to think he spoke to moses all the time.
I've often been jealous! God spoke with Moses as a man speaks with a friend. Maybe I need 40 or 80 years in the wilderness to pique my hearing.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
you only have to look into the distance to see the curve of the earth.
And I only had to look at the demon possesed man to see the results of posession and the results of exorcism. You here advocate observation over the education of the day, and elsewhere advocate education over observation. As a student of educational psychology, I conclude that you have a different, third source of information that guides whether you believe one or the other in each instance. What is your third source? What is your guiding principle? You'd mock me if I said my guiding principle was the Bible, but I suspect your guiding principle is a hatred of the Bible. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me and tell me what it is that makes you sometimes believe education and other times believe observation.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
Scientists change their minds, that's what so great about them. They can admit their mistakes. ... scientists collect evidence, BEFORE coming to a conclusion.
As someone who's studied philosophy of science, I notice that you've misinterpreted the basic principle. Science is an ongoing study, any principle (theory) of which is subject to upheaval when the research directs. For example, a skeleton recently found in the mountains of Turkey is radically reworking the basics of post-African human evolution. The correct "moral" to take away here is that you don't need to "believe" science. There's no reason to be dogmatic about it. I encourage you to grow beyond the need you have to use scientific principles as if they were absolute truth. This is not a statement from a religious viewpoint, this is the stance adopted by a secular graduate school education in science and philosophy.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
Quote:
I think the first option I presented is definitely plausible
no it isn't
Easy there, buddy. Plausibility, like ontology, is a little more delicate and less dogmatic than you give it credit for. You don't have to agree with a viewpoint to see the merit of the position. Historically, it's the Christians who have been viewed as the dogmatic, single-minded oafs; this perception has given opponents of Christianity an advantage. You are single-handedly forfieting that advantage here!
fossilise_apostle wrote:
and now to your stupid comment. that would mean "light" was created 3 million years before the sun!
Actually, your lack of knowledge of big-bang physics is showing. According to science's current understanding of primordial physics, space itself was opaque with light for several seconds after the big bang, millions of years before the first star. That light is still floating around, although the expansion of space has changed the wavelength and now you pick it up on your TV as static/snow. If there were not light before there were stars, then when you changed your TV to a channel that wasn't there you'd get black. Therefore, the fact that light existed before the sun is not only the view in the Bible, it is actually the view accepted by science. Your refusal to believe it establishes the statement I made in the second sentence of the second paragraph of this post.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
why would the years go quicker for your god? i'd imagine they go exactly the same, per us.
Easy there, buddy. Time doesn't go the same for any different frame of reference, and time is an artifact of space. Einstein, special relativity. Hawking acknowledges Constantine in
A Breif History of Time that if God created the uuniverse, he would not be subject to time which is only in the universe. It's OK for you not to know science, but it's not OK for you to be ignorant of your ignorance.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
... but actually edited by later christians.
You come across as having an Islamic education. Muslims are taught to belive in the Gospel of Thomas to the exclusion of the other Gospels, and believe that the documents were changed after Mohammed's time. But your hate for God (or the idea of God) is evident, so you can't be a Muslim. Are you from a Muslim background? Has something happened to make you so angry? This is the same as my question about your guiding principle above.
Actually, in retrospect, a better question for challenging faith would have been "Did Muhammed have epilepsy?" since the man's seizure-like trances are the basis for the Koran and the Islamic tradition. I will not pursue it here, because it would just open a can of worms. But it raises the same questions about human perceptions of God as the original question here.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
WHO CARES about the evidence? not me! and not you either.
While evidence is not my guiding principle, I do care about it. Learning from education and observation both is good.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
maybe you've been possesed as well?
Didymus, I believe you've just been complimented.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
i seem to be the only one showing any sign of intelligent research here.
I do try! It takes time. And research is driven by a question, not an answer. This discussion has run low on questions, so of course it's going to run low on research.
Didymus wrote:
I'll have you know I graduated at the top of my class in college, summa cum laude. I currently hold a Master's Degree.
Me too. I was surprised at how big the diploma is for a Master's. It won't fit on the fridge.
Didymus wrote:
While I might disagree with IJ and Ups, at least I can do that with them in a friendly manner.
Yeah, they're pretty cool with me too. The discussions with them usually result in a thread worth reading by others with the same questions and ideas.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
and where's your research? quote the bible and cannot expect to be taken seriously. we're looking at real evidence here folks.
I expect to be taken seriously because I earn your (rhetorical you) respect by my attitude and contributions to the discussion, not because of my sources. The fact that someone has done some research (even if it's not by your favorite author) should earn some respect. I've tried to take you seriously and treat you like an equal; will you do the same for me?
Didymus wrote:
Answer a fool according to his folly...
On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, others lurking in the forum can gain edification from your honest and gracious contributions. I don't fault you.
StrongCanada wrote:
I refuse to have a discussion with someone who calls me stupid.
Wise words from our neighbor from the North.
StrongCanada wrote:
we SHOULD have our beliefs challenged, because it is only then that we can strengthen ourselves and what we believe in.
Or come around to the truth. Strengthened or corrected: either way, the benefit is apparent! Those that won't open up to being challenged will never have either.
StrongCanada wrote:
and of all the things in Jesus' nature THAT'S what I consider most important; He was loving, patient, kind, and good. ANYONE can learn from Him, scientist or Christian
And anyone who does learn from him will learn there's more to learn. Anyone who won't learn from him will not learn from anything else either. That's not a personal attack, it's just a proverb I made up because it seems consistent.
loplop wrote:
if it was my forum, this would be lockd by now... it is silly.
I second that emotion.
loplop wrote:
how do i know this??? i was there, at the exorcism.
Satan has two good strategies: make people follow him or make people disbelieve in him. They are opposites with the same results. One he's doing in Africa, and one in the West. C.S. Lewis anticipated the rise of the new age movement when he discussed in
The Screwtape Letters the chance for the devil to perfect the scientific demoniac (though he used a different term).
loplop wrote:
God created science.
Or, "All truth is God's truth." Then God doesn't have to take credit for bad science.
loplop wrote:
i wont argue thet christianity is a cult, by definition it is, a jewish cult,
Sect. Christianity is a sect of Judaism, not a cult.
loplop wrote:
the whole conversation just seems to, for some time have been devoid of any open and honest discussion, at least from some peoples perspectives, so i hope to encourage that again
Acknowedged. I don't know if I contribute enough to save this thread from the imminent lock.
InterruptorJones wrote:
The next time you use language like this, I'm deleting the entire post.
IJ to the rescue! "All things in moderation, especially moderation." --W.C. Fields
JoeyDay wrote:
Claiming that the Gospel of Thomas is the only credible document regarding Jesus' life is tantamount to claiming that the Gettysburg Address is the only autobiographical document we have concerning Abraham Lincoln.
I just quoted that because it merited quoting, not because I have a comment.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
the intelligent design theory is metaphysical, designed to prove the existence of god. it is not a valid scientific theory.
Of course it's metaphysical. Metaphysics is the set of guiding principles through which physics is pursued. ID is not designed to prove God, it's the opposite: designed to accomodate a God-concept to prevent public education from preaching metaphysical ideas pungent to the community. Scientists who preach metaphysics (e.g. Carl Sagan, who said "Evolution isn't a theory, it's a fact") make themselves look stupid even to other scientists. ID allows the public school to not have to do that self-deprication.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
you are, by nature, only going to shoehorn the evidence to fit your beliefs.
Again, she has a guiding principle. Something neither you nor I are above.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
prescription drugs, while not perfect, are the best thing we have. what do you mean by healing?
Agreed about the perscription drugs, and why I'm not into all that "herbal remedy" stuff. By healing I think she meant divine, miraculous, instantaneous healing.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
Quote:
the fact tacticus mentioned he had been put to death and his followers still beilieve proves it happened,
possibly, but it doesn't mean he was raised from the dead.
You're right; it's not
proof but
evidence.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
Quote:
all other "cults" have never found reason to lie about a ressurection of their dead leader to still believe, why would the early christians, and then DIE for that lie.
are you saying that other leaders have been ressurected?
I think she's probably implicating that other leaders haven't been successfully lied about in the manner you described.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
your link is from a christian propaganda website, less concerned with the truth, than with protecting it's own misconceptions.
While I'm not familiar with the website, you accusations could be leveled against every scientist you've cited. Be careful using that kind of ammo because it can come back around and bite you in the rear. I prefer to use the kind of artillery that can not harm me when I argue, unless I need to be harmed. So, either you have not considered that, or you acknowledge at some level that you need to to have your faith challenged youself.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
anyway, back to my previous point. i believe it is entirely possible the jesus had epilepsy. it's either that or dinosaurs and humans lived together.
I was about to accuse you of a nonsequitur, but then I thought about it and you're right. Either divine revalation is in the Word of God and the Word become man, or there's no such thing. Good observation! I don't know why you're so convinced that humans and dinosaurs were seperated, after all, Discovery Magazine just had an article on fossilized placental mammals found in Australia that date back to the Dinosaur era when evolutionists had previously thought this was impossible. Again, good scientists are open to new evidence. Be a good scientist.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
most creationists including the answers in genesis website would love to have us believe that dinosaurs and humans lived together.
Though probably not like Fred Flintstone and Dino.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
about the apostles, (of which i am clearly one),
You're certainly a disciple of something, but I don't know what cxriteria of apostleship you're applying to yourself. If you like, I can address you as "the self-proclaimed apostle."
fossilise_apostle wrote:
it is not hard to find messed up people and make them believe.
You're starting to make a believer out of me: that if someone's messed up that they'll believe something rediculous.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
lets face it, the idea that there is a man up there who loves you and will except...
"Accept." Common mistake.
fossilise_apostle wrote:
...I belive the one great foible of man is intelligence. look at the animals, they roam around, no idea that they are going to die. they are (for the most part) happy.
OK, now you're just making things up. I'm not saying that as an insult, I simply want you to realize that animals, in their native environment, are not particularly happy. As far as I can tell, the things that make humans happy don't do much for them. In fact, the only time I perceive animal happiness is a pet who's being treated well by its owner! It is man's intelligence that gives him the power to be happy, and it is man's intelligence that gives animals the power to be happy. You're right that intelligence creates the capacity for sadness, but you miss that it is intelligence that creates the capacity for the happiness you would want.
I came into this thread and made comments commending you for bringing up the philosophical question of the nature of our knowledge of truth (ontology), could anything anyone knows be the result of brain chemistry rather than logical conclusions? You also begged us to ask whether people believed things for reasons other than historical facts. After observing your apparent mental state, and your motivations for beliving things, I believe that you've more than proved those items to me.