The Religion Discussion

[bluesclues]

I am unable to put the insanity into words but I have experienced the same delusions that you and others have sworn by time and time again on this forum. But I know, my salvation was a Catholic one which is a lie because only your Christian salvation is true

Well even if your salvation was Roman Catholic then they would ask you the same questions I did because as a catholic no one is ever saved. Roman Catholic theology is that you are being saved though good works, sacraments, the mass and penance. Salvation as a catholic is never an achieved state but a terminal goal.


So if you were deluded before, how do you know you are not deluded now?

says the resident catholicist? before you continue talkin sheit let me interject. catholicism acknowledges the salvation of Christ, all your minor sins are forgiven. however this is not the same thing as receiving redemption. redemption is received on judgement day. we are advised to be charitable, compassionate and merciful in our way of life especially as it regards to living with others. it follow the pure teaching of Christ which means 'a way of life' and obeying the 10 commandments.

if you dont obey the 10 commandments, you dont get saved, because the commandments is also the law of God and all the prophets. we believe in all the prophets and that none contradict eachother. thus u must obey the 10 commandments to claim you believe in Jesus. using the 2 he provided as a rule and measure for administering law of those 10 commandments.

so let me rephrase the tootoo you was saying. catholics believe that to be true followers of Christ they must also live like Christ, in so doing be a servant of God honouring him with a compassionate way of life towards his creation.

[Slartibartfast]

Lol ok Habit. I not getting into another argument over semantics with you. Let's just say I have experienced a lot more withy faith than the average devout Catholic. How do I know? Because I used to be around them all the time.

Anyway, sidestepping back to the main issue, was wondering what blues think. I agreed with most of what he was saying in terms of forcing beliefs on others but didn't agree with the last point.

[Habit7]

Bluesclues I don't know if what you are saying is any different to what I said. Roman Catholic salvation is a process, not a complete act.

Lol ok Habit. I not getting into another argument over semantics with you. Let's just say I have experienced a lot more withy faith than the average devout Catholic. How do I know? Because I used to be around them all the time.

This is not semantics. You said you experienced salvation, you said it was the same delusions I and others experienced. You refused to even explain what those delusions entailed but...

If you were deluded before, how do you know you are not deluded now?

[meccalli]

Let me say a little on that issue. Its the reason that alot of people come into church, have an emotional experience, say the sinner's prayer and believe they are saved. Then walk out back into the world a month after. I can't recall how much times i've seen it, endless. And i'm talking people who got to the point being that ecstatic with tongues and never changed.
People think they can save' others with their efforts, i think it puts people in a worse position having to turn their backs on something because they didn't fully understand what they were getting into.

You see the Yehoshua says that no one can come to him unless the Father draws him. We can pray for people, but you haven't experienced salvation until you're in the position where God breaks you down, bit by bit over time and breaks your stony heart and changes your entire outlook on life and you are sobbing repentantly because you realise what you are and who God really is, and what he did for you. Everything changes, no man puts that puts his hand on the plough and looks back is fit for the kingdom of God. The holy spirit makes it easier to bear the load.

[bluesclues]

Bluesclues I don't know if what you are saying is any different to what I said. Roman Catholic salvation is a process, not a complete act.

Lol ok Habit. I not getting into another argument over semantics with you. Let's just say I have experienced a lot more withy faith than the average devout Catholic. How do I know? Because I used to be around them all the time.

This is not semantics. You said you experienced salvation, you said it was the same delusions I and others experienced. You refused to even explain what those delusions entailed but...

If you were deluded before, how do you know you are not deluded now?

it's not roman catholic, it's christian. how you go say i believe in jesus, go to church every sunday and kidnapping, killing and raping lil girls in a basement and expect for God to grant u entrance into heaven? hate to break it to you but if you dont understand that the way of life is the true christian faith then by all means, keep passing the collection basket.

"you received for free, give freely as well."

[Habit7]

Roman 6:1-2 What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it?

If someone claims to be converted yet continues in a lifestyle of sin, then they are considered a false convert. Christians dont put themselves into sin knowing that it will be covered by God's grace.

bluesclues let's talk about this after. I was addressing slartbartifast's claims and I'm waiting his reply.

[Slartibartfast]

I think we both know my stance and we won't agree on it unless you experience salvation and humility before God. My standard and reference is the Bible.

Was replying to the way it was used in context here. It implies it is something experienced by the living. I have experienced mostly everything ordinary Christians and Catholics have to experience (never got exorcised so I won't say everything) therefore anything that he says there is to experience while living I have already experienced (in this context only of course, unless you can define exactly what "salvation" looks like)

ELI5 for H7
So have I experienced salvation in the context where I need to die and go to heaven... no
Have I experienced the "salvation" of repenting from your bad ways and coming to Christ like a sheep to his shepherd with all of the humility, awe and wonder attached... yes

More stuff to try to break down what I am saying into bite size pieces small enough for you.

but you haven't experienced salvation until you're in the position where God breaks you down, bit by bit over time and breaks your stony heart and changes your entire outlook on life and you are sobbing repentantly because you realise what you are and who God really is, and what he did for you.

See... this use of the word salvation can happen when you are alive (and yes I did experience this)

Well even if your salvation was Roman Catholic then they would ask you the same questions I did because as a catholic no one is ever saved. Roman Catholic theology is that you are being saved though good works, sacraments, the mass and penance. Salvation as a catholic is never an achieved state but a terminal goal.

This use of the word salvation cannot happen while you are still alive

semantics
sɪˈmantɪks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

See this is what the word semantics mean.

[Habit7]

So were you deluded?

[Slartibartfast]

So were you deluded?

not any more than you are

[MG Man]

ImageUploadedByTriniTuner1417788033.023395.jpg (71.11 KiB) Viewed 1962 times

[Habit7]

So were you deluded?

not any more than you are

How would you know, if you are deluded?

[meccalli]

And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the Nile, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation.

Really doesn't matter what you think of it, that's God. That's why you have the choice now to decide whether you want to live in eternity with him or cut your losses. God won't force you to be tortured by living with his antics for eternity.

[Habit7]

ImageUploadedByTriniTuner1417788033.023395.jpg

There is no innocent person before a Holy God, all bear the corruption of Adam and God is just in ending the life of any of His creation. Whether a foetus or an old man, God will end your life.

Furthermore the plagues weren't just against Pharaoh, it was against the ppl of Egypt who enslaved the family that saved them from famine and who killed all their children as population control of which Moses escaped and was used by God to free his people.

[Slartibartfast]

So were you deluded?

not any more than you are

How would you know, if you are deluded?

First rid yourself of "faith"*

*what ever your meaning for it is in the context of you religious beliefs

[MG Man]

dontcha just love how christians can so casually justify murder and genocide?
Moses freed god's people....who were the other people?

[Slartibartfast]

Habit can I ask you some questions. Simple yes or no unless otherwise specified would be good, just to help me understand your faith a little better.

Do you fear God?
Are there thoughts, words and actions that you avoid in order to not offend God?
What are some things that you can do that you think God would see as perfect acts (i.e. nothing wrong with them)? If you believe this is not possible you can say so (this does not have to be yes or no)
Do you believe that God has the right to do whatever he wants to do with you?
Do you ever think that maybe God is wrong and you are correct?
Do you feel that you can be happy and complete without God?

[Habit7]

dontcha just love how christians can so casually justify murder and genocide?
Moses freed god's people....who were the other people?

But as an atheist where do you get the objective moral right to say that murder and genocide is wrong? What moral apprehension did Israel violate that both you and them are under and who gave it?

BTW no one said God's people, they were Moses' countrymen.

Habit can I ask you some questions. Simple yes or no unless otherwise specified would be good, just to help me understand your faith a little better.

You just bounced from pillar to post just to answer what you said you experienced and what mental state you believe others are in (which you never answered yet) but you want yes and no answers from me? I have always answered you but it seems like you don't like to be in the hot seat but you sure like to evaluate others

[Slartibartfast]

I answered everything you asked. Looking forward to your answers to my questions.

[ruffneck_12]

Lets just hold hands and get along
Nobody is right, nobody is wrong
All ah we does sheit brong

[MG Man]

BTW no one said God's people, they were Moses' countrymen.

Furthermore the plagues weren't just against Pharaoh, it was against the ppl of Egypt who enslaved the family that saved them from famine and who killed all their children as population control of which Moses escaped and was used by God to free his people.

so moses was used by god to save Moses' people, or god's people?

Why didn't god find a hero to save other slaves?
Why not African slaves too?

[Habit7]

I answered everything you asked. Looking forward to your answers to my questions.

Please remind me of your answers for the following.

Please explain the salvation you claimed to have experienced.

If a non believer was to ask you how to experience the salvation you claim to have possessed, how would you direct them?

If your were deluded before, how are you sure you are not deluded now?

[Slartibartfast]

Please explain the salvation you claimed to have experienced.

Below is a where I explained that I replied to it in context, went into detail and showed where the context you were using was different.

I think we both know my stance and we won't agree on it unless you experience salvation and humility before God. My standard and reference is the Bible.

Was replying to the way it was used in context here. It implies it is something experienced by the living. I have experienced mostly everything ordinary Christians and Catholics have to experience (never got exorcised so I won't say everything) therefore anything that he says there is to experience while living I have already experienced (in this context only of course, unless you can define exactly what "salvation" looks like)

ELI5 for H7
So have I experienced salvation in the context where I need to die and go to heaven... no
Have I experienced the "salvation" of repenting from your bad ways and coming to Christ like a sheep to his shepherd with all of the humility, awe and wonder attached... yes

More stuff to try to break down what I am saying into bite size pieces small enough for you.

but you haven't experienced salvation until you're in the position where God breaks you down, bit by bit over time and breaks your stony heart and changes your entire outlook on life and you are sobbing repentantly because you realise what you are and who God really is, and what he did for you.

See... this use of the word salvation can happen when you are alive (and yes I did experience this)

Well even if your salvation was Roman Catholic then they would ask you the same questions I did because as a catholic no one is ever saved. Roman Catholic theology is that you are being saved though good works, sacraments, the mass and penance. Salvation as a catholic is never an achieved state but a terminal goal.

This use of the word salvation cannot happen while you are still alive

semantics
sɪˈmantɪks/
noun
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

See this is what the word semantics mean.

If a non believer was to ask you how to experience the salvation you claim to have possessed, how would you direct them?

I'll tell them if they didn't experience it by now then I can't help them (I was raised in a strict catholic home and my "salvation" was a direct result of the influence of my upbringing and childhood). So unless they can go and be born into a strict catholic home I can't help them because I would not have taken the path they would need to take.

If your were deluded before, how are you sure you are not deluded now?

Slightly different wording to how you asked it before but here is where I answered it

First rid yourself of "faith"*

*what ever your meaning for it is in the context of you religious beliefs

Now how about you answers to my questions. Or would you like to make a site step hattrick

Do you fear God?
Are there thoughts, words and actions that you avoid in order to not offend God?
What are some things that you can do that you think God would see as perfect acts (i.e. nothing wrong with them)? If you believe this is not possible you can say so (this does not have to be yes or no)
Do you believe that God has the right to do whatever he wants to do with you?
Do you ever think that maybe God is wrong and you are correct?
Do you feel that you can be happy and complete without God?

[meccalli]

so moses was used by god to save Moses' people, or god's people?

Why didn't god find a hero to save other slaves?
Why not African slaves too?

God's people which Moses was a part of as well, he caused a hebrew son whom Pharaoh sought to exterminate, to be brought up as a prince of Egypt, educated in all their ways, culture of rituals, magic and gods. And God drew him out once again, to leave all the riches that was there to be taken and lead an ungrateful, annoying people that were the Israelites.

God made his promise to Abraham, that's why they are special.
Galatians 3.16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

Well I recall, it was a Christian man by the name Wilberforce and other men who followed the Lord's words who played the major part in ripping down the construct of race to an extent that led to all the free coloured people who can walk around freely today-whose ancestors were sold by their own people and capitalised upon by European capitalists.

[maj. tom]

Hello Habit 7 and other valued staunch Creationists.

I was wondering about this a couple days ago and wondered what you thought about it. Modern scientific mankind has striven to explain the geological processes of weathering and plate tectonics/matching fossils on different continent borders/planetary volcanism that we have been able to observe empirically over the last 100 years, and match it to a scientific theory that works out quite well because it also matches every foundation of the entire scientific process of the theory of matter as well as many other scientific theories of explanation of the natural world. That's how remarkable a scientific theory is, it actually fits in with other theories on completely different subjects without conflict. If there is conflict, then it's time to re-examine that theory. You of course understand what "theory" means scientifically.

Is there a hypothesis you can give on all these observations based on your 6 to 12 thousand year old earth that will not conflict with any other current scientific theory that you currently accept? I assume that you do accept certain scientific explanations of things, like the theory of matter/atoms, thermodynamics/energy transfer, time... even modern germ and pathology theory. I would like to hear your views. if you have posted this before on this thread, please link it when you have the time. Weathering, plate tectonics and volcanism.

Thank You.

[Chimera]

Hello Habit 7 and other valued staunch Creationists.

I was wondering about this a couple days ago and wondered what you thought about it. Modern scientific mankind has striven to explain the geological processes of weathering and plate tectonics/matching fossils on different continent borders/planetary volcanism that we have been able to observe empirically over the last 100 years, and match it to a scientific theory that works out quite well because it also matches every foundation of the entire scientific process of the theory of matter as well as many other scientific theories of explanation of the natural world. That's how remarkable a scientific theory is, it actually fits in with other theories on completely different subjects without conflict. If there is conflict, then it's time to re-examine that theory. You of course understand what "theory" means scientifically.

Is there a hypothesis you can give on all these observations based on your 6 to 12 thousand year old earth that will not conflict with any other current scientific theory that you currently accept? I assume that you do accept certain scientific explanations of things, like the theory of matter/atoms, thermodynamics/energy transfer, time... even modern germ and pathology theory. I would like to hear your views. if you have posted this before on this thread, please link it when you have the time. Weathering, plate tectonics and volcanism.

Thank You.

God works in mysterious ways

Thank you

[Slartibartfast]

Ok... either habit trolling again or getting licks is his fetish...

[Habit7]

You want yes and no answers from me but offer enough grey to make a politician blush.

I ask you to explain the salvation you experienced. My context is irrelevant, your experience is being questioned.

Well if that is how you experienced salvation then isn't it subjective and unique to you? According to the catholic catechism that is not how one become a catholic so I think your experience is insular.

How do you know that your answer is not part of your prior delusions?



This is how you answer questions without dodging

Habit can I ask you some questions. Simple yes or no unless otherwise specified would be good, just to help me understand your faith a little better.

1. Do you fear God?
2. Are there thoughts, words and actions that you avoid in order to not offend God?
3a. What are some things that you can do that you think God would see as perfect acts (i.e. nothing wrong with them)? b. If you believe this is not possible you can say so (this does not have to be yes or no)
4. Do you believe that God has the right to do whatever he wants to do with you?
5. Do you ever think that maybe God is wrong and you are correct?
6. Do you feel that you can be happy and complete without God?

1. Yes in one sense but no in another, see explanation here http://youtu.be/omPlyhmoUbw
2. Yes, they are what the Bible calls sins
3. None, all my righteous deeds are like a filthy garment before God (Isaiah 64:6)
4. Yes, Psalms 115:3 But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases. Daniel 4:35 ... But He does according to His will in the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
5. No. I have to rely on autocorrect to spell properly and believe God created the universe but then think I am right and God is wrong, how preposterous!?! (corrected by autocorrect) Even if I believe that then I would be wrong again because if I believe in an omniscient being that can be wrong, therefore it is not God. The God of the bible “who is perfect in knowledge” (Job 37:16), and “knows everything” (1 John 3:20) is never wrong.
6. Yes. There are many ppl who receive happiness and completion in other religions, but the God of the bible offers that and more not just in the temporal sense but eternally. Furthermore He shows the reason why I don't experience it (my sin) what he has done to redeem from this loss (his work on the cross) and how I can glorify Him as God, which is not the ma-centered goal as just being happy and complete. Thus I can joyfully agree with the psalmist:
Whom have I in heaven but you?
And there is nothing upon earth that I desire besides you. My flesh and my heart may fail,
but God is the strength of my heart
and my portion for ever. (Ps. 73:25–26)

[MG Man]

Habit7, really? William Wilberforce is yuh best defense?
Free saleves via the religion that spake of how to treat your slaves?

[Habit7]

Hello Habit 7 and other valued staunch Creationists.

I was wondering about this a couple days ago and wondered what you thought about it. Modern scientific mankind has striven to explain the geological processes of weathering and plate tectonics/matching fossils on different continent borders/planetary volcanism that we have been able to observe empirically over the last 100 years, and match it to a scientific theory that works out quite well because it also matches every foundation of the entire scientific process of the theory of matter as well as many other scientific theories of explanation of the natural world. That's how remarkable a scientific theory is, it actually fits in with other theories on completely different subjects without conflict. If there is conflict, then it's time to re-examine that theory. You of course understand what "theory" means scientifically.

Is there a hypothesis you can give on all these observations based on your 6 to 12 thousand year old earth that will not conflict with any other current scientific theory that you currently accept? I assume that you do accept certain scientific explanations of things, like the theory of matter/atoms, thermodynamics/energy transfer, time... even modern germ and pathology theory. I would like to hear your views. if you have posted this before on this thread, please link it when you have the time. Weathering, plate tectonics and volcanism.

Thank You.

DFC I didn't know who you were addressing in your post to so I left it out there for who else wanted to tackle it but I guess I will have to take up the challenge.

What you have there is undeniable and it’s not that if I carry that back to the YEC camp, the fellow scientists there are going to wonder in amazement and think "wow, we never saw that before!" The issue is that from inception of our science education, we have always been taught that science is based on laws and principles of testable, repeatable facts. But sometime around high school or even before we begin to ask Origin questions and here we are lead down a worldview.

In the 19th century geologists seeking to interpret their findings and to date their material came to the understanding of a theory called uniformitarianism. This is basically the understanding that the same process and time we observe things occurring currently, is the same process and time they were occurring when they were formed. So a geological feature took 100 years today, means it took 100 years to form yesterday. So to mesh that with relative dating (dating material relative to proximal material), if radioactive isotopes of an element were found in material, then they would observe the radioactive decay today, and extrapolate that this rate of decay and believed that it occurred at the same rate yesterday. Hence we have million year old rocks, and thereby million year old formations, and million year old features and some of the stuff you have on that list. Also this uniformitarianism is applied to other sciences and we get today's rates applied to yesterday's materials and we get all kinds of ages, etc.

All of that to say, we have been taught a naturalistic worldview. Where we believe everything that we can observe can be explained by naturalistic forces all happening and at constant, sustained rate.

Creationists however believe that unlike a CSI team trying to piece together the evidence to give an interpretation, we have a signed confession with and accompanying explanation. While the Bible is not a science text, they believe that it is a historical narrative about how God, a supernatural being, created the earth supernaturally while setting up naturalistic laws and principles to govern its existence, but in by no means restricting Himself to them. So creationists don't view science through the lens of naturalistic reasoning, but with the understanding primarily of a historic account that speaks of spontaneity, cataclysm and inconsistent rates of process.

So like your list o' stuff, I can produce my list o' stuff but we interpret the evidence from two difference worldviews: naturalistic and biblical. Now most scientists who are creationists have studied and excelled at secular universities and have proven to understand the naturalistic worldview, but most naturalists refuse to acknowledge the supernatural so they are incapable of understanding the biblical worldview. But if one rejects the supernatural not only do the reject Special Creation, they also reject Adam & Eve, Red Sea parting, the Incarnation and even Jesus' death and resurrection. And that is the worst thing about the naturalistic worldview, it denies life after death and judgement for one's life on Earth. And if one appears before the judgement seat of Christ without His atoning work applied to their life, they can only expect an eternity of punishment by God, in Hell.

So Dawkins is a figurehead and wikipedia is authoritative and faith is always blind.

non-bias looks so cool

I said Dawkins is NOT a figurehead. Wikipedia is not authoritative but you cannot deny what it is saying here that geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy all point to the earth being billions of years old and there being no global flood as described in the Bible.

Faith is belief in something without proof. If there is proof of something then you do not need faith. Th scientific method does not use faith. So in the context of science, faith can be blind, dumb, and deaf, it would not matter. In science it does not matter what faith is or who has it.

Well whether you want to deny it or not science is developed by figureheads. Their career and legacy plays a major role in validating the idea they present. Becoming distinguish enables your work to be published in the best journals, where it is peer reviewed by other figureheads, whose approval will make it subsequently rise to prominence where along with the idea, you name is taught with it. As demonstrated with Darwin, Newton, Einstein, Hawkins, Hubble, etc who all proposed ideas that have become synonymous with their names.

I see a world covered by predominantly sedimentary rock mostly by fluvial mechanisms, showing rapid deposition, lay down strata after strata with either no erosion between them or unconformities where layer of strata rapidly eroded, reorientated, and new strata is deposited. I see plant and animals fossilised as a result of rapid deposition, the earliest animal fossils being those most affected by high turbidity such as marine arthropods, gastropods, ostracods and other marine invertebrate organisms which make up most of our fossil record. I see rapid deformation of the earth crust as the Bible says "all the fountains of the great deep burst open" and we later observed it to result as plate tectonics. Furthermore, I see sedimentary structures like fossilised raindrop marks or deformed/bent stata without the cracks as brittle rock normal performs but smooth curvatures without the indications of metamorphic deformation by heat and pressure.
At the end of the day we both have the same evidences, it just a matter of which worldview we see it from. There are many others within the field of geology who are not educated by wikipedia but have offered proof for a global flood but does it matter, in your absolute conclusion there is no proof.

Faith is belief in something without proof

You could continue to repeat that until it becomes a creed not different than AdamB rants. Despite the fact that faith has other meanings including trust in evidence, despite so far you have only been able to reference yourself in validating this, despite those of greater scientific accomplishment disagree with you, despite I have laid out my beliefs evidentially and not appealed to blind faith, you remained unmoved. And I am supposed to the religious one? You my friend have a 'commitment' worth admiring.

Cliffs: naturalism believes that everything happened at the rates we currently observe today. Supernaturalism allows for cataclysmic rates of occurrences.

Case in point plate tectonics.

Up until the 1950's the reigning theory for geologists on the arrangement of land masses on the earth was the theory of Continental Drift. Due to the "fit" of continents, the similarity of plant and animal fossils across continental boundaries, the similarity of rock types across continental boundaries, etc. all gave geologists the understanding that there was once one great supercontinent that suffered a break up. This break up however, was believed to be due to the process of continents drifting along a stationary sea floor to is current position today. This and other subsequent phenomena were proven to be false, and the theory of Plate Tectonics was proposed and was met with widespread approval through peer review consistent with the scientific method.

Plate tectonics are cataclysmic. It was a creationist Antonio Snider-Pellegrini that first proposed that continents drifted.

[meccalli]

Habit7, really? William Wilberforce is yuh best defense?
Free saleves via the religion that spake of how to treat your slaves?

I said it.
Wilberforce is a big idiot then amirite? Clearly never read the Bible. Oh...
comprehension.

Forget plate tectonics.
science
ˈsʌɪəns
noun
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

There's lots of preachers in the religious classes persuading students to have faith that some bright and sunny day, abiogenesis will cease to be a philosophical fantastic dream and exist within the grasps of being testable and observable.