Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Bunyip]

I disagree with nothing on the National center for science education page 'Theory and fact.' What I take exception to is your statement that theory is superior to fact, but only on the basis that "facts" in the sense that we are using here, don't really exist just like "faith" doesn't really exist, both are just words that express a high level of confidence in the way in which a replicate trial will go.

I disagree with nothing on the National center for science education page 'Theory and fact.' What I take exception to is your statement that theory is superior to fact, but only on the basis that "facts" in the sense that we are using here, don't really exist just like "faith" doesn't really exist, both are just words that express a high level of confidence in the way in which a replicate trial will go.

Theory is the ultimate graduation point of a body of evidence, it is how the facts are explained. There is nothing superior to theory in science. Would you like a citation?

 

[Sapiens]

... Based on past experiences, usually involving the Holy Ghost. Faith can literally move mountains if there is sufficient faithful involved and God does the moving. "And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.True faith brings miracles, visions, dreams, healings, and all the gifts of God that he gives to his Saints. By faith one obtains a remission of sins and eventually is able to dwell in God’s presence. A lack of faith leads one to despair, which comes because of iniquity. ....

Faith, even the faith of multitudes can not seen to develop the get-up-and-go to heal a single amputee ... so much for your faith moving mountains ... that'll be the day!

 

[McBell]

Faith, even the faith of multitudes can not seen to develop the get-up-and-go to heal a single amputee ... so much for your faith moving mountains ... that'll be the day!

bull pucky!
It is clear that it takes much much less faith to move entire mountains than it does to regrow an amputees missing limb.
Or perhaps it is because those with the faith do not sufficiently want the amputee to regrow anything?

 

[Cephus]

You are so wrong. I don't know if the sun will rise tomorrow. Just because it did yesterday doesn't mean that it will tomorrow.

If the sun doesn't rise, that means something has gone really, really wrong and every single possibility really means that everyone on Earth is dead and thus not available to see if the sun rose or not. Therefore, in any way that matters, we know the sun will rise, otherwise it just won't matter.

 

[Serenity7855]

If the sun doesn't rise, that means something has gone really, really wrong and every single possibility really means that everyone on Earth is dead and thus not available to see if the sun rose or not. Therefore, in any way that matters, we know the sun will rise, otherwise it just won't matter.

You are evading the point that we exercise faith that the sun will rise tomorrow with the consequences if it doesn't.

 

[Serenity7855]

bull pucky!
It is clear that it takes much much less faith to move entire mountains than it does to regrow an amputees missing limb.
Or perhaps it is because those with the faith do not sufficiently want the amputee to regrow anything?

As I made perfectly clear, God would have to move the mountain at his will. He cannot intervene by replacing limbs as if he did our trial of faith would become knowledge and the plan would fail. He has been known to perform miracles that are either attributable to him or coincidence though, thus retaining faith. I have witnessed these miracles and I have seen the looks of amazement on doctors faces when they cannot explain where the cancer has gone. So, regrowing limbs for amputees is a miracle that is to obvious, and quite frankly anyone who is prepare to criticise religion should really know that, but cancer, or such the like, does not necessarily point to a miracle. The old plan of redemption is pretty water tight, isn't it. You should try reading up on it rather then waste your time on here delivering one liners intended to offend. That way you could contribute using knowledge instead of quoting anti theist sites and atheists on here. You might then be able to enter into constructive debate rather then just forcibly asserting your offensive opinions with such venom.

 

[Dr. Strange]

I used it as a discriptive word. What made you think otherwise. I have used many words in my post why do you select this word to question. As it happens it is in scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:40
There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.

Definition
heavenly, spiritual, divine, eternal, sublime, immortal, supernatural, astral, ethereal, angelic, godlike, seraphic gods and other celestial beings

"There is another pretty obvious indicator that Adam was in a state of perfection. A point of continuity that must be maintained other wise the entire plan would be a sham. God is perfect both physically and intellectually. He is omnipotent and omniscient. He cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection. That being the case he could not have dwell upon this earth that is a haven of imperfection and create a human being from the imperfect soil of the ground. The Garden of Eden was in a state of perfection, or, as some call it, Celestualised, in order for God to come here and create a man from the perfect dust of the celestualised earth. There was no other way that He could do it. But there was a problem. A celestualised body does not need to reproduce as it will live for an eternity. So how would we get our time on earth?"

How does your usage of "celestualised" in your above statement relate to 1 Corinthians 15:40?

 

[Robert.Evans]

Sheldrake had some sort of breakdown, quit his day job and ran away to an ashram run by a monk. He is a spiritualist with a publishing contract and a persecution complex, hardly a scientists to be quoted on the subject of science, not even a creditable critic of science.

Sheldrake's book, Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home (1999), covered his research into proposed telepathy between humans and animals, particularly dogs. Sheldrake suggests that such interspecies telepathy is a real phenomenon and that "morphic resonance" (a lamarkian concept of genetically passed down learning) is responsible for it.

Before the publication of Dogs That Know When Their Owners Are Coming Home, Richard Wiseman, Mathew Smith, and Julie Milton independently conducted an experimental study with an allegedly telepathic dog mentioned in the book and concluded that the evidence gathered did not support telepathy. They also proposed possible alternative explanations for Sheldrake's positive conclusions involving artifacts and bias resulting from experimental design.

(thanks to wiki): Rupert Sheldrake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are unduley harsh on the man I think. He is still a scientist, and certainly not anti-science.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I disagree with nothing on the National center for science education page 'Theory and fact.' What I take exception to is your statement that theory is superior to fact, but only on the basis that "facts" in the sense that we are using here, don't really exist just like "faith" doesn't really exist, both are just words that express a high level of confidence in the way in which a replicate trial will go.

So you do believe in faith then... and all the time you were having me on... naughty! They are words that ''express a high level of confidence'' = faith.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, science is evidential - no faith required.

haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

EVOLUTION IS FACT, PROVEN:

Take for example evolution. Evolution is a fact, it is a real, proven , observed phenomenon. ?The theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. Theories explain the facts, they are how all of the facts learned by testing hypothesis are explained.
.

EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT, NOT PROVEN:

All theories, including gravity and evolution are unproven. If you do not understand science and what scientific terms mean, please refrain from conversations about science and from use of such terms.

Let battle commence. I side with evolution being correct but unproven.... as it is too big a subject to prove after the fact.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, you've posted a link to what you BELIEVE to be a plan of redemption, you have not demonstrated that there actually is a real, existent plan of redemption because you've neither produced any evidence that there is a God who could, or would redeem anyone, or anything that people need redemption from. You have to get it through your head that your BELIEFS and REALITY are not necessarily the same thing and until you can prove, with objective evidence and not just empty claims and blind faith, that any of these things are actually so, you've got nothing to be proud of.

Just because it says in a book that you happen to be emotionally attached to that something is true, that doesn't mean it's true. It requires objective and independent validation. Got any? Didn't think so.

God proves not man. You set up a false argument to bring into your world. Incorrect.

 

[Serenity7855]

"There is another pretty obvious indicator that Adam was in a state of perfection. A point of continuity that must be maintained other wise the entire plan would be a sham. God is perfect both physically and intellectually. He is omnipotent and omniscient. He cannot dwell in the presence of imperfection. That being the case he could not have dwell upon this earth that is a haven of imperfection and create a human being from the imperfect soil of the ground. The Garden of Eden was in a state of perfection, or, as some call it, Celestualised, in order for God to come here and create a man from the perfect dust of the celestualised earth. There was no other way that He could do it. But there was a problem. A celestualised body does not need to reproduce as it will live for an eternity. So how would we get our time on earth?"

How does your usage of "celestualised" in your above statement relate to 1 Corinthians 15:40?

Do you really need for me to explain? There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. The terrestrial is the state of fallen mankind and the celestial body is physically perfect. It is heavenly, spiritual, divine, eternal, sublime, immortal, supernatural, astral, ethereal, angelic, godlike. It is the same condition that the earth was in, or, at least the Garden of Eden was in, prior to the fall. After the fall it became hidden from the world - and Adam and Eve entered the terrestial world that was in a state of corruption, imperfection. 1 Corinthians 15:40 tells us of this phenomenon. I have taken that description and compared it to the physical condition of the Garden of Eden.

But the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another; now between these two species of bodies, in respect of qualities, there is a very great difference; the glory of the heavenly bodies is much greater than the glory of the earthy bodies that are compounded of the elements.

The glory of the celestial is one - The splendor, beauty, dignity, magnificence of the heavenly bodies differs much from those on earth. That is one thing; the beauty of earthly objects is another and a different thing. Beautiful as may be the human frame; beautiful as may be the plumage of birds; beautiful as may be the flower, the fossil, the mineral, the topaz, or the diamond; yet they differ from the heavenly bodies, and are not to be compared with them. Why should we deem it strange that there may be a similar difference between the body as adapted to its residence here and as adapted to its residence in heaven?

1 Corinthians 15:40 Commentaries: There are also heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one, and the glory of the earthly is another.

 

[Serenity7855]

You're obviously not a Trinitarian then, yes?

How can I be. It, like God incarnate, has no mention in scripture. It is 100% man made and therefore false doctrine.

So he doesn't know that which is unknown? There are things that can be unknown to God?

There is nothing that can be known that is unknown to God. An example is free agency. He cannot know what you are going to decide before you make the descision.that is pre-destination and an enemy to the plan of redemption. And free agency. He is Alpha and Omega, knowing the beginning from the end but it is impossible for him to know what is going to happen to the individual in between.

How would a good Christian define it?

How do you define a good Christian? I am defining it as physically perfect.

I'm not going to quibble over the "how." It's enough to have created, isn't it?

No. God is omnipotent but he can only do that which can be done. For example, he cannot create something from nothing. He is not a magician. He took the elements that were and organised them, just as he did with the intellegences that were and formed them into spirits.

Nope. I'm suggesting that he intentionally created beings that he knew would sin (because he would have foreseen it prior to the act of creation) and then blamed his creation for doing what he'd intended.

You can say it but you would be wrong. God can not tell the future as it would affect free agency and thwart the plan of salvation. No doubt God must have anticipated what Eve might have done, there was no certainty, he practiced faith

And why gild the lily, right?

Absolutely

And meanwhile, to assert that Man's Fall was what God intended all along (see your conclusions below) is perfectly sound Christian doctrine?

That man should fall was an essential part of the plan. Without it mankind would have never existed and Adam and Eve would still be in the Garden of Eden twiddling their thumbs and playing scrabble. If the fall did not take place in the way it did then an alternative method would have been used to cause the fall.

Are they mine, or are they straight out of Christian theology? We can examine them each in turn if you'd like and you'll be free to explain how they're not. If you like.

I have been teaching Christianity for many years. In that time. I have. Become confident in my ability to rise to any critique of my faith, indeed, I thrive on the stimulation of the challenge. Christian theology is based on mans interpretation of scripture. Scriptures are for individual and not congregations. I will see in them things which you cannot see, and visa versa. A. single verse can have a thousand meanings to a thousand people all having different needs. It is a book of commandments .

You have not demonstrated that. You've merely asserted it.

No, but you have.

So your definition of perfection encompasses a lack of shame at one's god-given nudity?

Men and women in our day and age do not walk around naked. Not because they are ashamed at the size or shape of their gentiles but because it is embarrassing and shameful to be seen naked by the opposite gender. The body is beautiful, intended for the eyes of those they love and not for the eyes of potential sexual deviants, another reason why we cover ourselves, to prevent sexual sins, ether by consent or not. Your point is mute

Is it at all remarkable that the Bible shows Adam & Eve sampling the Arbitrarily Forbidden Fruit before they could get around to the "be fruitful and multiply" bit?

Not at all. They did not have that knowledge until they ate from the tree of, guess what, yes, KNOWLEDGE.

I think you eventually get around to offering a post-hoc rationalization of this later.

No point in mentioning it then, is there?

They didn't cover their intellect. They covered their (as you've put it) "physically perfect" bodies.

No, that is not what I said. As perfect beings they felt no shame. Shame is an emotion of fallen man who knows they are naked. When Adam and Eve stood in perfection they had no shame. They may not have had genitals for all I know. They had no need for them.

Did God know in advance that they'd eat the forbidden fruit or not? Is he omniscient or not?

No, he did not know for a certainty. Yes, he is omniscient, knowing all that can be known.

If you're willing to assert that he didn't know what Adam and Eve would do, you'll need to explain what the Bible means when it states that God knows all.

It means that God knows everything that can be know. That is not a hard concept to perceive, surely.

Rather than lamely offer up unsubstantiated accusations, could you please explain which false doctrine(s) they're based on? Thanks in advance.

I would hardly describe it as lame but that is a reflection on your people skills, not mine. I have covered one such false doctrine in the trinity and God incarnate. Another is the idea that salvation is all we need to return to God in heaven. They omit to mention exaltation. That is false doctrine .

But remain unable to breed (see below).

Correct

According to what you eventually get around to claiming below, they'd be immortal ... but sterile. Correct?

No, where did that come from. They were immortal but sterile, where did that come from. The may not have had gentiles at that point. They would have no idea what they were and if they did procreated their children would be perfect like them. How could we be tried and tested with no knowledge of good and evil?

And yet God had already blessed them and urged them to be fruitful and multiply? Please explain how humans can do that without an awareness of their reproductive organs.

Simple, they could. They had to eat of the fruit to gain that knowledge. Eve had to sin for the plan to be initiated. So, you are here because Eve took a fancy to that fruit.

 

[Serenity7855]

So you're arguing that God had created man immortal? And urged him to reproduce? That's a population disaster in the making.

No, he did not urge him he commanded him because there had to be a contravention of the law for a sin to be commited

And what are we to make of a verse like the following if we accept that God had made mankind immortal? Observe:

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." ~ Genesis 3:22

Different tree,having different fruit.

Sorry my friend. It isn't so much that you aren't making sense (although you most certainly aren't) ... it's that the poorly cobbled together hodgepodge of religious mythology that you adhere to makes no sense.

If I make no sense why are you responding to my post?

If the religious mythology that I adhere to makes no sense why are you responding to my post?

So you're saying that man's fall was part of the plan? Or was God surprised by it?

It was the trigger that fired the bullet.

Q. - Which "one of us," exactly?

All those who possessed knowledge of good and evil.

So he exists physically? And of course, if he is omniscient, then please explain how he didn't know in advance that humankind would eat the forbidden fruit.

I think that I have above.

Yet he's willing to extend grace to an undeserving humanity via the blood sacrifice of his human manifestation so that they can spend eternity together basking in his all-round swellness?

Yes, he must really love us.

Yet prior to the fall, God had urged mankind to reproduce? Sorry. Your religion's creation myth breaks down upon scrutiny.

Word are easy to write but explanations are by far harder. Can you explain this with evidence.

So you're willing to concede that the fall of humanity was all a part of the plan? If that's so ... how could God hold it against Adam and Eve if they were simply fulfilling The Plan®?

Easy, he didn't.

It sounds to me as if sin was a necessity. No sin = no plan. Correct?

Correct.

But he could allow his creations to sin and in fact The Plan® required it? I'm not sure if you realize what you're shovelling here .. but it smells foul.

What I am shoveling, as you so eloquently announced, logical truth.

Based on what you've already offered up, I see that it would have been impossible for humanity to procreate prior to the fall, and the only way to adhere to Commandment #1 would be to break Commandment #2.

That is correct.

Do you see why what you're saying sounds like complete and unvarnished BS?

Once again you show off your eloquent and antagonistic rhetoric. If you think that my words sounds like unvarnished BS then ask me a question that I cannot give a logical answer to. Thus far you have only insulted me.

You're saying that God's second command to his creation was to to break the first. Right?

In order for Adam and eve to procreated they had to receive the knowledge of how to by eating of the forbidden fruit. By eating they would become mortal allowing them to bring to earth the spirits that existed in the pre-existence, the two thirds of the host of heaven that followed Gods plan of redemption. You and me. Yes, you agreed to follow this plan in the pre-existence, alongside of me. I am fulfilling my promise. You are not.

So sin was all built into the plan. In fact, The Plan® required sin to be implemented ... and Jesus (temporarily) dying on the cross to redeem mankind was preordained from the beginning.

How else could we be tested to demonstrate our loyalty to God's plan if we did not have opposition in all things. Jesus Christ volunteered , along side of Satan and his plan, to be the saviour of mankind. My goodness, you really are ignorant to all of this and come here to debate from ignorance.

So it wasn't much of a sacrifice. It was more of a gambit

Was it?

Actually, based on what you're saying, it seems like the serpent was God's chosen instrument in orchestrating the fall.

That is right but the serpent did not know that.

How utterly laughable.

Yes I can see exactly why you would be laughing. That is what a lack of knowledge does. You are unqualified to debate here. You are unfamiliar with the subject matter.

Could you please cite a few sources that echo your stated views on all of this? I'd love to see if what you're apparently advocating here is truly representative of Christian theology, or if it's just your own personal fever dream.

By all means. The Authorised Version of the King James Bible and the Holy Ghost.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.


3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the btruth of all things.

 

[fantome profane]

EVOLUTION IS FACT, PROVEN:


EVOLUTION IS NOT FACT, NOT PROVEN:


Let battle commence. I side with evolution being correct but unproven.... as it is too big a subject to prove after the fact.

It is a semantic debate, it rests on how you define the word "fact". If you think the word "fact" denotes an absolute, then nothing in science is a fact because nothing in science is absolute.

When speaking about scientific "facts" I define "fact" as something that has been demonstrated sufficiently so that to deny it would be absurd. So for me evolution is a fact, and nothing is absolute.

Does that make sense to you?

 

[Desert Snake]

^Gravity, is a 'fact'. It isn't a 'theory', like some have stated. What causes it and a scientific methodology for complete accuracy in predicting the affects of gravity, might entail theories, but gravity itself is, much like Santa Claus, a "fact".
This...differs from 'theories'. Big time.

 

[JerryL]

As I made perfectly clear, God would have to move the mountain at his will. He cannot intervene by replacing limbs as if he did our trial of faith would become knowledge and the plan would fail. He has been known to perform miracles that are either attributable to him or coincidence though, thus retaining faith.

Would an example of "attributable to him or coincidence" be an undead Jesus inviting Thomas to put his hands in the crucifixion wounds? Would the pillar of fire and parting of the waters by Moses be viewable as "coincidence"?

To hold true what you've said above would require a denial of a great deal of the bible; or an awful lot of reason-bending apologetics to assert something like "he used to but doesn't now because [star trek technobable]"

 

[JerryL]

^Gravity, is a 'fact'. It isn't a 'theory', like some have stated. What causes it and a scientific methodology for complete accuracy in predicting the affects of gravity, might entail theories, but gravity itself is, much like Santa Claus, a "fact".
This...differs from 'theories'. Big time.

"things fall" is a fact. The law of gravity describes the nature of their falling (rates of acceleration) and the theory of gravity creates a model on why.

Since we need to "teach the controversy", we should now discuss "intelligent falling". Perhaps things fall because God makes them fall, rather than because of some fundamental force.

 

[viole]

Only in science does that happen.

I don't think so. After all, science is just disciplined common sense.

Suppose you, and everybody else, see a big flash of light in the sky. Should we just be content with this fact without a theory trying to explain it?

You: Everybody saw a huge flash of light in the sky
Me: What was it?
You: Who cares? That was a fact. It would be silly to have a theory for that.

Ciao

- viole