A Question for S.T.Ranger
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2012, 12:30 PM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 11:15 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  In theological debate, one of the first things to understand before making broad conclusions about a group is to first deal with them on an individual basis, then, determine the basis for their professed beliefs, then, if dialogue is possible from a perspective of critical analysis, look at those issues which are distinct that place this person in the group/s.

Or in othe words, look for a personal relationship with god. This atheist got faith, seems you do too; so we ain't gonna have real big disputes. A lot of these other cats go with negative belief, "lack of belief," peeps like you and me don't see it that way, but we gotta let them tell it. Wink

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
17-06-2012, 04:58 PM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2012 05:33 PM by KidCharlemagne1962.)
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(15-06-2012 03:47 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  I really can't get past this statement - "And some of us are just waiting for science to catch up to that which scripture teaches"

If you read the discussion, this is primarily in reference to the spiritual aspect of our existence.

While believers may not be able to offer the "proof" that might satisfy the skeptic, neither can science disprove our beliefs. Accounts of existence after being pronounced dead are very common. While I would not call this evidence myself, it is interesting. As I mentioned earlier, It cannot be denied that the technology of today can pronounce someone dead and then that person "come back to life." Were the doctors or machinery in error? Perhaps.

Which means that error can be found even in this technology, right? And if they cannot properly identify bodily death at all times, why would we be surprised that they cannot identify the spirit of a man?

So, I hope that puts the statement in context. When man is able to deny or validate the spiritual realm, then, if scripture is true, they will have caught up with what scripture teaches.


Science does not deal with the spiritual realm, I jumped the gun on this one by not reading further.
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  How do we catch up?

Well, take for example the fact that scripture records that just prior to performing surgery on Adam, God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Well, there you go: the first instance of anaesthesia, lol. Beats "biting the bullet," don't you agree?


You're kidding, right! Smile
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  Cure disease by animal sacrifice?

Sacrifice was instituted as a temporary atonement for sin, not to cure disease. While ther emight have been sacrifice offered after a disease was contracted, the sacrifice itself was not the curative, God was.

Of course sin can be viewed as a disease, to put it into understandable terms.


Your bible says you can cure Leprosy via animal sacrifice!
(15-06-2012 02:54 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  There is nothing in the bible that the people of the time could not know or have made up and quite a bit they got wrong.

As to the former, it is true they did not have nearly the information available that we do today, yet, according to the command of God, they were given instruction that disease not be spread. I look at this from this perspective: just as we do not explain the property of fire to children, but say, "Don't play with fire," even so God gave instruction that disease not be spread.

Thanks for the reply,

GTY

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(16-06-2012 12:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 10:40 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Honestly, just can't see the fascination, but, to each his own, I suppose.

Sinner! KP duty for you! Big Grin



Nah. I get a lot of that. I consider it is the physical act of having drawn her image for thousands upon thousand of hours has made me the fool I am. Became an integral part of prophethood due to the fact that god is beyond understanding.

My Gwynnie thing is beyond understanding, but the love of it rather than the madness is what communicates.

And I feel the same way of God. While we do not understand everything, is that not to be expected? Man has a hard enough time trying to understand women, how much more difficult to seek to understand God?

(16-06-2012 12:17 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 10:40 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  And concerning the Prophets, I would say eternal life as opposed to eternal separation is a pretty good exchange for the temporary tribulation that many of them went through.

"Eternal life" is a contradiction in terms. Prophets got the same deal I got - my Gwynnies - thinking I need more, ain't thinking. Less with the Gwynnies, obviously. Big Grin

In scripture we see "life" to be represented in a number of ways. Believing that the spirit of man is immortal, rather than Eternal (as only God is), I hold to the belief that all men will "live" forever. However, the "Life" offered through the death of Christ exceeds mere existence, and describes relationship with God...forever. As opposed to those that will forever be separated from God, though they do not cease to exist.

This belief is not just rejected by unbelievers, but by many among modern Christendom. Annihilation is becoming an increasingly popular doctrine embraced by many. The reason? The thought that God would separate from Himself those that have rejected Him seems "cruel." Misconceptions about hades lead to the embracing of "soul sleep" and misconceptions about Hell lead to embracing annihilation. It just seems too terrible for the God Who is love to inflict judgment that would place people in a place of suffering. However, to deny God the right to judge and impose sentence and not to see this as we would the imposition of a sentence by an earthly judge seems contradictory. It is okay for a human judge to put a man in prison for thirty years for embezzling money, but for God to separate from Himself those that willingly reject Him is...cruel.


(16-06-2012 12:21 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 11:15 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  Not everything.

Just as pain is not hypothetical when someone tells you they are in it, it is real, though you don't experience it.

Experienced the pain of death and have five stents to prove it. Morphine didn't help, but an image of my Gwynnies in my brain did. So when I say everything else is hypothesis, what I mean is... Dodgy

I am sorry to hear of your heart problems. But I would have to place those "pains" in the category of "the pains of life." Had you been dead, you would not, according to your belief, have felt them.

Consider the true "pain of death" in a temporal sense, since there is for most "unbelievers" nothing apart from physical existance: the pain of your loved ones...left behind. They are the ones that suffer "the pain of death."

If an existance apart from the temporal were considered, we could look at remorse, grief, lost opportunity. Of course that would be found in a biblical sense, where "life after death" is clearly established.


(16-06-2012 12:30 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(16-06-2012 11:15 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  In theological debate, one of the first things to understand before making broad conclusions about a group is to first deal with them on an individual basis, then, determine the basis for their professed beliefs, then, if dialogue is possible from a perspective of critical analysis, look at those issues which are distinct that place this person in the group/s.

Or in othe words, look for a personal relationship with god. This atheist got faith, seems you do too; so we ain't gonna have real big disputes. A lot of these other cats go with negative belief, "lack of belief," peeps like you and me don't see it that way, but we gotta let them tell it. Wink

How can it be denied that atheists have faith? While it may be directed on something other than a belief in God or in gods, it is no less faith.

Negative belief is hypothetical, and I have yet to see anyone on this forum express "negative belief."

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes S.T. Ranger's post
19-06-2012, 08:13 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(17-06-2012 04:58 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 03:47 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  If you read the discussion, this is primarily in reference to the spiritual aspect of our existence.

While believers may not be able to offer the "proof" that might satisfy the skeptic, neither can science disprove our beliefs. Accounts of existence after being pronounced dead are very common. While I would not call this evidence myself, it is interesting. As I mentioned earlier, It cannot be denied that the technology of today can pronounce someone dead and then that person "come back to life." Were the doctors or machinery in error? Perhaps.

Which means that error can be found even in this technology, right? And if they cannot properly identify bodily death at all times, why would we be surprised that they cannot identify the spirit of a man?

So, I hope that puts the statement in context. When man is able to deny or validate the spiritual realm, then, if scripture is true, they will have caught up with what scripture teaches.


Science does not deal with the spiritual realm, I jumped the gun on this one by not reading further.
Well, take for example the fact that scripture records that just prior to performing surgery on Adam, God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Well, there you go: the first instance of anaesthesia, lol. Beats "biting the bullet," don't you agree?


You're kidding, right! Smile

Sacrifice was instituted as a temporary atonement for sin, not to cure disease. While ther emight have been sacrifice offered after a disease was contracted, the sacrifice itself was not the curative, God was.

Of course sin can be viewed as a disease, to put it into understandable terms.


Quote:Your bible says you can cure Leprosy via animal sacrifice!

As to the former, it is true they did not have nearly the information available that we do today, yet, according to the command of God, they were given instruction that disease not be spread. I look at this from this perspective: just as we do not explain the property of fire to children, but say, "Don't play with fire," even so God gave instruction that disease not be spread.

Thanks for the reply,

GTY


I guess this...

Quote:"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing"


...was the intended reply.

And I would agree with this. However, for millennia theologians have also been explaining the unknowable in terms not only worth knowing, but in a manner where it becomes understandable. This can be seen directly in the work of Theologians, where, while you may not agree or adhere to the explanation, it becomes evident it is for some "worth knowing" that they might have a platform to oppose it.

Right?

It is just a matter of having looked at the explanations offered and examining them in more than a cursory glance.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 08:16 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(19-06-2012 08:13 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I guess this...

Quote:"For centuries, theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms of the not worth knowing"


...was the intended reply.

And I would agree with this. However, for millennia theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms not only worth knowing, but in a manner where it becomes understandable. This can be seen directly in the work of Theologians, where, while you may not agree or adhere to the explanation, it becomes evident it is for some "worth knowing" that they might have a platform to oppose it.

Right?

GTY

Nope my PC at home went bat crap crazy, I'll repost later (at work now).

" Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous."
David Hume
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 08:39 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(17-06-2012 04:58 PM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(15-06-2012 03:47 PM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  If you read the discussion, this is primarily in reference to the spiritual aspect of our existence.

While believers may not be able to offer the "proof" that might satisfy the skeptic, neither can science disprove our beliefs. Accounts of existence after being pronounced dead are very common. While I would not call this evidence myself, it is interesting. As I mentioned earlier, It cannot be denied that the technology of today can pronounce someone dead and then that person "come back to life." Were the doctors or machinery in error? Perhaps.

Which means that error can be found even in this technology, right? And if they cannot properly identify bodily death at all times, why would we be surprised that they cannot identify the spirit of a man?

So, I hope that puts the statement in context. When man is able to deny or validate the spiritual realm, then, if scripture is true, they will have caught up with what scripture teaches.


Science does not deal with the spiritual realm, I jumped the gun on this one by not reading further.
Well, take for example the fact that scripture records that just prior to performing surgery on Adam, God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam. Well, there you go: the first instance of anaesthesia, lol. Beats "biting the bullet," don't you agree?


You're kidding, right! Smile

Sacrifice was instituted as a temporary atonement for sin, not to cure disease. While ther emight have been sacrifice offered after a disease was contracted, the sacrifice itself was not the curative, God was.

Of course sin can be viewed as a disease, to put it into understandable terms.


Your bible says you can cure Leprosy via animal sacrifice!
As to the former, it is true they did not have nearly the information available that we do today, yet, according to the command of God, they were given instruction that disease not be spread. I look at this from this perspective: just as we do not explain the property of fire to children, but say, "Don't play with fire," even so God gave instruction that disease not be spread.

Thanks for the reply,

GTY

Hello KidC, I did not catch at first that you responded within the quotes, at east I could not find a post where they were answered outside of this one. I have changed the color to highlight the responses.

My responses, in order, would be:

1-Indeed science does not deal with the spiritual realm, but, I believe they would like to, though they speak of it in different terms: see here for an example. I would not know a source that you would consider to be reliable in discussing such things, so I simply present search results for your consideration. Keep in mind I am not saying the spiritual realm is the fourth dimension, only using this as an example of what science sees as a ptoential area of discovery which is not impossible, or, it might be better to say, it is something that is considered a possibility.


2-No...I am not kidding. I view scripture to parallel instruction given to children. The knowledge revealed is according to the desire of the instructor (parents in the example of children, God in regards to the revelation of knowledge found in scripture), who will instruct according to how they best see fit for proper understanding. For example, do you teach basic math or algebra to children? In the case of disease, instruction is given without great detail, but the result is just as the result of teaching kids, don't speak to strangers. We don't need to get explicit of the horrors of this world with them, it is a matter of "Don't do this because there are consequences that can be extremely harmful to you if you do." You would not get explicit because, frankly, there is knowledge most of us do not feel children should have at a tender age.


3-No. Scripture teaches that repentance and substitutionary sacrifice were a prescribed method for the forgiveness of sin, though Christ is direct in correcting the error that all disease or adverse physical conditions are the result of sin.

Scripture is clear that God, not the sacrifice itself (found in the Levitical Economy), was the means of healing through remission. Each passage should be examined in context, though, to determine the intent. The sacrifices of the First Covenant were a picture of the One Sacrifice that was to come, that is, the death of Jesus Christ in the place of the sinner.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 08:41 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(19-06-2012 08:16 AM)KidCharlemagne1962 Wrote:  
(19-06-2012 08:13 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  I guess this...



...was the intended reply.

And I would agree with this. However, for millennia theologians have been explaining the unknowable in terms not only worth knowing, but in a manner where it becomes understandable. This can be seen directly in the work of Theologians, where, while you may not agree or adhere to the explanation, it becomes evident it is for some "worth knowing" that they might have a platform to oppose it.

Right?

GTY

Nope my PC at home went bat crap crazy, I'll repost later (at work now).

Hello KidC, I think the error was on my part, I did not catch the responses within the post, and have responded to them, but, to be honest, I have to admit that I think that was the oversight...lol.

Okay, thanks for the response, and look forward to those ahead.

GTY
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 09:13 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(19-06-2012 08:08 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  In scripture we see "life" to be represented in a number of ways.

No, we don't. Tongue And there's another thing. Your writing style is very reminiscent of bible study. You're gonna get a lot of resistance on that alone, regardless of content. I'm thinking.

I see stuff in terms of wave/particle duality. Discreteness from differentiation. The moments of our lives are like particles, the set of those particles being "I." When there ain't no more "I," there ain't no more differentiation. What remains of hoc will just be what is remembered, those memories themselves encapsulated in discrete "I"s. After that, undifferentiated waveform. It is this undifferentiated waveform that is congruent with god. It is the "I Am" that provides for a sense of continuity between the points of our existence. It is in this manner that I am an atheist. That being "without god" is an absurd concept; but if everybody is "with god," there ain't nothing to talk about. Big Grin

...and, no. Immortality and eternal life both imply a forwarding of the sequence of being into the infinite. Another concept I find absurd. Here's another place where my Gwynnies has utility. I can't imagine being with her foreverz... I meet her, she smiles at me, my head explodes - it's only like a coupla minutes, and it's "clean-up in aisle 4." But I look at her image, like when I'm drawing her; and alla sudden it'll be later. That's not forever, that's eternity. The only solution set that makes any sense is as Girly tells it - we are all god.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
19-06-2012, 10:04 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
(19-06-2012 09:13 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(19-06-2012 08:08 AM)S.T. Ranger Wrote:  In scripture we see "life" to be represented in a number of ways.

No, we don't. Tongue And there's another thing. Your writing style is very reminiscent of bible study. You're gonna get a lot of resistance on that alone, regardless of content. I'm thinking.

I see stuff in terms of wave/particle duality. Discreteness from differentiation. The moments of our lives are like particles, the set of those particles being "I." When there ain't no more "I," there ain't no more differentiation. What remains of hoc will just be what is remembered, those memories themselves encapsulated in discrete "I"s. After that, undifferentiated waveform. It is this undifferentiated waveform that is congruent with god. It is the "I Am" that provides for a sense of continuity between the points of our existence. It is in this manner that I am an atheist. That being "without god" is an absurd concept; but if everybody is "with god," there ain't nothing to talk about. Big Grin

...and, no. Immortality and eternal life both imply a forwarding of the sequence of being into the infinite. Another concept I find absurd. Here's another place where my Gwynnies has utility. I can't imagine being with her foreverz... I meet her, she smiles at me, my head explodes - it's only like a coupla minutes, and it's "clean-up in aisle 4." But I look at her image, like when I'm drawing her; and alla sudden it'll be later. That's not forever, that's eternity. The only solution set that makes any sense is as Girly tells it - we are all god.

No derail, just peaking. Pretty much the nutshell info, here.
Carry on. Drinking Beverage

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-06-2012, 10:08 AM
RE: A Question for S.T.Ranger
Problem #2.

If all ya gots is one book, maybe ya shoulda read some more.

The humans who wrote that shit, argued about it, re-wrote, and then marketed it ain't no smarter than my cousin.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: