the right religion

[waitasec]

Man using their form of science did those things.

what other forms of science are there?

 

[1robin]

that is my entire point.
monoglot is a person who speaks one language.
if god limits himself to one language, a language not all can understand then
1. god plays favorites
or
2. god can only speak one language

why would you want to limit your god like that?

semantics is key when it comes to the semantics of the bible.

I do not know what this is supposed to be. The bible is written in a vast number of languages (over 3,000 which is probably more than any other book) but it is obviously slightly more accurate in it's original Kione Greek (new testament) which just by chance or maybe not is one of if not the most descriptive languages in human history. In the days of google translate, bible software, online hebrew and greek texts with translations into vast numbers of languages, not to mention the fact God promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide born again Christians in the universal language of the spirit then your arguments have no weight.

 

[kjw47]

what other forms of science are there?

Gods precise science.

 

[waitasec]

I do not know what this is supposed to be. The bible is written in a vast number of languages (over 3,000 which is probably more than any other book) but it is obviously slightly more accurate in it's original Kione Greek (new testament) which just by chance or maybe not is one of if not the most descriptive languages in human history. In the days of google translate, bible software, online hebrew and greek texts with translations into vast numbers of languages, not to mention the fact God promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide born again Christians in the universal language of the spirit then your arguments have no weight.

all right i guess i have to spell it out for you....
if god fails to communicate to the human condition in a language that is objectively understood by all...god fails
therefore god can only speak gods language...yet you contend that god expects us to understand his language based on faith...

sorry, my language, my rationality, my understanding, the criteria for which i am to understand this logic does not compute...

so again either god plays favorites, which is of course in favor of those claiming to understand gods language via faith
or god can only speak one language.

 

[waitasec]

Gods precise science.

which is what form?

 

[Astravalon]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

I'm pretty much convinced that life itself is the right path, and that the Divine works with each person according to how He has designed them as individuals. That would certainly explain for me why there is such a variety of belief, with each adherent convinced theirs is the right one. For each one, it is the right belief/religion, at least until their next spiritual growth-spurt occurs.

-

 

[kjw47]

which is what form?

The form that created all things with precision.

 

[Awoon]

there r many religion in the world, but surly there r only one right religion, but how could we reach the right believe, the right path?

Beliefs are what people fight over.

 

[waitasec]

The form that created all things with precision.

do forms have will?


edit:
for clarification...i am referring to an arrangement of parts

 

[1robin]

all right i guess i have to spell it out for you....
if god fails to communicate to the human condition in a language that is objectively understood by all...god fails
therefore god can only speak gods language...yet you contend that god expects us to understand his language based on faith...

I see you have repackaged (slightly) a failed position from a while back. I might have sympathy for the guy in a diamond mine in Chad that has never heard the Gospel. Not from someone who is well aware of plenty of evidence but who's emotion driven bias rejects. Since your acceptance of the truth is a factor then you can't blame it on religion, language, semantics, or technicalities. If God did (and he could) say exactly what is needed in every case to produce belief then you would be an automaton and probably complain about that. He gives more than suffecient evidence which is rejected or accepted based on IMO the heart alone. If your claim was correct it could be shown by statistical methods. as it is God is accepted over a wide range of every concievable factor and so does not support your claim.

sorry, my language, my rationality, my understanding, the criteria for which i am to understand this logic does not compute...

All those things are controlled by the heart.

so again either god plays favorites, which is of course in favor of those claiming to understand gods language via faith
or god can only speak one language.

NOPE

 

[1robin]

do forms have will?

Do you work at semantics R US? Certain forms definately have will. 1040 forms do not.

 

[waitasec]

I see you have repackaged (slightly) a failed position from a while back.

what i would like to know is how can you say that if you yourself said this:

I do not know what this is supposed to be.

you seem to make an awful lot of presumptions based on a lack of understanding...


:slap:

 

[waitasec]

Do you work at semantics R US? Certain forms definately have will. 1040 forms do not.

excuse me if i am trying to be clear..i know that is not your forte...

 

[1robin]

what i would like to know is how can you say that if you yourself said this:


you seem to make an awful lot of presumptions based on a lack of understanding...


:slap:

What? I understood one thing and I did not understand another. I don't see the contention.

 

[1robin]

excuse me if i am trying to be clear..i know that is not your forte...

I was mostly kidding. You seem to prefer discussions that are centered on grammer and assumed hairsplitting logical paradoxes that most of the time IMO have no relevance. You are entertaining however as I have said. That is not an insult either. I prefer claims about the bible. Which of us seems more sincerely looking for the truth and defending it?

 

[waitasec]

I was mostly kidding.

good.

You seem to prefer discussions that are centered on grammer and assumed hairsplitting logical paradoxes that most of the time IMO have no relevance. You are entertaining however as I have said. That is not an insult either.

i'm glad i can entertain... takes the edge off

imo, if one is not clear in their position, then the discourse they are contributing to can be subjected to a nose dive real quick...
it's called learning from experience


as for our friend, i asked him what other forms of science are there and he said; gods....

does that make sense to you? doesn't to me

I prefer claims about the bible. Which of us seems more sincerely looking for the truth and defending it?

i don't see it as a contest. i think we are both sincere.

 

[1robin]

good.


i'm glad i can entertain... takes the edge off

Yes it does.

imo, if one is not clear in their position, then the discourse they are contributing to can be subjected to a nose dive real quick...
it's called learning from experience

Yep but I am not sure that is the driving force behind your posts.

as for our friend, i asked him what other forms of science are there and he said; gods....

does that make sense to you? doesn't to me

No, are you sure that is an accurate description. Of course if God exists then all science is directly attributal to him but that does not have any effect on your question.

i don't see it as a contest. i think we are both sincere.

My statement did not assume a contest just relative sincerity.

 

[waitasec]

Yep but I am not sure that is the driving force behind your posts.

ok...

No, are you sure that is an accurate description. Of course if God exists then all science is directly attributal to him but that does not have any effect on your question.

here

Is the science you are referring to, the unprecise science of men who have polluted the water,air,land and put a huge hole in the ozone layer so that worldwide the weather is all screwed up?

science didn't do those things...man did....

Man using their form of science did those things.

what other forms of science are there?

Gods precise science.

which is what form?

The form that created all things with precision.

do forms have will?


edit:
for clarification...i am referring to an arrangement of parts

science doesn't have a will or intent...it is a method

My statement did not assume a contest just relative sincerity.

if you are sincere, in which case i do not doubt you are, then what does it matter to me...? at the end of the day...we decide for ourselves what we want to get out of it

 

[1robin]

ok...

here

That was my fault. I was agreeing with you but I satated it badly. I just added that last sentence as an after thought it was not to restate my agreement.

science doesn't have a will or intent...it is a method

This is true in my world view but in the case of evolution (which I do not believe) they claim that arrangements of parts can produce a will as well as defy thermodynamics, overcome the LAW of abiogenises, and blindly produce the most complicated arrangement of matter in the universe. That sure looks willful but as I said I do not believe them.

if you are sincere, in which case i do not doubt you are, then what does it matter to me...? at the end of the day...we decide for ourselves what we want to get out of it

I am dropping this because it is a side issue.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

When the some of the smartest people on the planet (Newton, Kepler, Copernicus, Descarte, Pascal, Faraday, Kelvin, Collins) all believe in God your position just isn't.

Argument from authority. Most, if not all, of those figures lived in a time when religion was so pervasive that to not be religious would be tantamount to social, political and professional suicide. It's simply not fair to claim that because a lot of influential and smart people throughout history were theists that theism is therefore intellectually valid, especially when you consider that throughout history people who have openly rejected religious claims that dominate their society have been persecuted, abused, exiled and dismissed by their societies at large. This also fails to take account of the fact that most of those peple lived in a time when understanding of the nature of the Universe and of life is nowhere near what we now understand. Most of those such people believed in God simply because there was no better explanation at the time. It just doesn't seem a coincidence to me that the more we discover about the Universe, the more and more people disbelieve the concept of God.