erin_tonkin
Member
Well how else are you supposed to have a relligion. Religion is all about faith and believing. What religion has been absolutely 100%proven?
It appears that there is nothing I can do from here, as you've just retreated to the 'faith' defence. Thankyou for wasting my time.erin_tonkin said:Well how else are you supposed to have a relligion. Religion is all about faith and believing. What religion has been absolutely 100%proven?
Agnosticism.erin_tonkin said:Seriously answer my quuestion what religion doesnt rely solely on faith???
Agnosticisim requires the greatest ammount of faith of all. That God doesnt exist. How could you think that in a world as complex as ours?withoutaface said:Agnosticism.
Are you trying to say that because our world is complex, it must've had a creator? Because that sounds an awful lot like Intelligent Design...erin_tonkin said:Agnosticisim requires the greatest ammount of faith of all. That God doesnt exist. How could you think that in a world as complex as ours?
I don't think you understand the point I was making. Scientists SEE the sun, you and I SEE the sun. NOBODY has seen God, because apparently if you saw God you'd die.erin_tonkin said:on the sun it was merely an example.
but you still have faith it will rise. faith through knowlege. the bible like your scientists tells me that God exists. I believe it like you believe them. And i trust it like you trust them.
Thats faith
Knowing believing and trusting
you understand the conccept
just because someone knows it doesnt mean they have control. God knows WHAT we will do but he didnt MAKE us do itvolition said:So you do believe in all 3? Well, I think you're wrong. How can it be possible for humans to have free will and for God to still know everything that we are going to do? It's either one or the other. Now, since God created the world (your belief, not mine), if he truly is omniscient, he must have known everything that would have happened, right up until now and even into the future. So it's not a question of "god knowing, and not forcing us to anything", because in effect, when he 'created the world' he must've known what would happen (if he's omniscient), so he really WAS causing us to do these things. It really is one or the other, take your pick
Do you believe in the bible literally? Because if you do, there are many many conflicting issues here. For example, God creates light before he creates the stars in the sky. How is that possible?
knowledge is through the biblevolition said:I don't think you understand the point I was making. Scientists SEE the sun, you and I SEE the sun. NOBODY has seen God, because apparently if you saw God you'd die.
When you speak about 'faith through knowledge', where's your 'knowledge' part? I've shown you my 'knowledge' for believing in the Sun, so its ok for me to believe that the Sun will rise in the morning. Where's this 'knowledge' that your faith comes from? And if you're going to say 'the bible', then prove to me that its valid.
and what is wrong with intelligent design?? Designer = Godvolition said:Are you trying to say that because our world is complex, it must've had a creator? Because that sounds an awful lot like Intelligent Design...
thats not what agnostic is at all. The belief structure that is agnostic is that there are some things that we are not able to know, specifically, if there is a god or not. if i remember how it breaks down right, it would be that a- would mean not, and gnostic is, i think, tied to knowledge. but not entirely sure tahts the right word its linked to. In no way is it the belief that god doesn't exist, just the belief that we don't have the ability to know.erin_tonkin said:Agnosticisim requires the greatest ammount of faith of all. That God doesnt exist. How could you think that in a world as complex as ours?
its totally different. you believe the bible and its view of god because it says that it is the correct theological standpoint.erin_tonkin said:but you still have faith it will rise. faith through knowlege. the bible like your scientists tells me that God exists. I believe it like you believe them. And i trust it like you trust them.
number one, even if one assumes that the bible, in its original incarnation, was fully accurate, there have been many errors as it has been translated over the years. For example, I recall reading that the Red Sea was never parted. Its a mistranslation and that it was actually, i believe the Reed Sea, which is not any clearly esablished body of water, but is thought to have been a relativly small and shallow body.erin_tonkin said:knowledge is through the bible
which is a historically proven book
proove to me that it isnt....
what about innocent until proven guilty. It is a highly respected text among historians not just christians. It has been supported by many other texts as well. There is bucketloads of evidence if you care to searchdavin said:number one, even if one assumes that the bible, in its original incarnation, was fully accurate, there have been many errors as it has been translated over the years. For example, I recall reading that the Red Sea was never parted. Its a mistranslation and that it was actually, i believe the Reed Sea, which is not any clearly esablished body of water, but is thought to have been a relativly small and shallow body.
that is not the point of the story. Even if you are correct which i doubt, the point is that God saved his people from slavery
number two, if i recall correctly, the Bible says, in its history of the earth, taht it is...i think 6000 years old? However that number is in no way even close to being accurate. As that falls under a historical context, that is wrong.
I dont knoww where you got that figure from but i dont think it was from the bible.
number three, the burden of proof is not up to others to show that the bible is wrong, its up to you to show that it IS historically accurate. If i say i can fly, does that mean i can up until the point you disprove my claim? No, I would have to prove I can fly because the burden of proof is on me in that case.