subgenius wrote:relevance achieved by you entering into any discussion about him
Entering into a discussion about Thor doesn't make him real.
subgenius wrote:as is the case with a discussion about this story of Abraham...the point being relevant because it is inseparable from that story....one can not extricate the "supernatural" from that story, because that is the story.
The fact that people invest belief in unfalsifiable faith claims doesn't mean said claims are true. That's why they're called "unfalsifiable".
subgenius wrote:the only question of relevance is the one about your involvement in the discussion to begin with.
Entering into a discussion about Yahweh doesn't make him real, either.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. --Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess. --Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
subgenius wrote:i am thoroughly aware of his views on God and other things....my sig line stands for itself and echoes a sentiment i share with Mr Feynman. While i understand that most of you guys on this board have the ring firmly pierced through thy nose, you must understand that I am an exception to your "mob" mentality...funny how free-will can do that to a person. Saying one thing that may ring true does not mean that everything said will ring true... ...likewise... ... Just because i agree with one position he took does not mean I am obliged to agree with every position he ever took.
My point is that you missed HIS point. The full quote:
Richard Feynman wrote:We have many studies in teaching, for example, in which people make observations and they make lists and they do statistics, but they do not thereby become established science, established knowledge. They are merely an imitative form of science-like the South Sea Islanders making airfields, radio towers out of wood, expecting a great airplane to arrive. They even build wooden airplanes of the same shape as they see in the foreigners’ airfields around them, but strangely, they don’t fly. The result of this pseudoscientific imitation is to produce experts, which many of you are-experts. You teachers who are really teaching children at the bottom of the heap, maybe you can doubt the experts once in a while. Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
When someone says science teaches such and such, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach it; experience teaches it. If they say to you science has shown such and such, you might ask, “How does science show it-how did the scientists find out-how, what, where?” Not science has shown, but this experiment, this effect, has shown. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments (but we must listen to all the evidence), to judge whether a reusable conclusion has been arrived at. . I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television words, books, and so on are unscientific. That doesn’t mean they are bad, but they are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.
Think about it. You have taken one phrase out of Feynman's talk (out of context) and are using it to bolster your own incompatible views. Feynman would be rolling in his grave if he thought your sig line mattered (I'm quite sure he wouldn't).
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Plus, in this particular case I don't find any link of "law" (a real idea in the relation of people) and of "sin" (a senseless object defined by religion) with a stupid and inhuman command of killing my progeny --- or any other human being.
Jesus came into this world to save the lost ---- that includes you. Jesus did this by filling the requirements of the Law and being the final sacrifice. Any validity of the Book of Mormon rests on the validity of the Bible. The Bible stands entirely on its own merit ----------- as if the Book of Mormon never existed. It is my prayer that God awakens you to the truth of His Word found in the Holy Bible.
LittleNipper wrote:The Bible stands entirely on its own merit -----------
------------- or falls.
Again, Your comment has nothing to do with the savage command to kill Your progeny.
by the way would You kill Your son IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES?
- Whenever a poet or preacher, chief or wizard spouts gibberish, the human race spends centuries deciphering the message. - Umberto Eco - To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin. - Cardinal Bellarmine at the trial of Galilei
Plus, in this particular case I don't find any link of "law" (a real idea in the relation of people) and of "sin" (a senseless object defined by religion) with a stupid and inhuman command of killing my progeny --- or any other human being.
Jesus came into this world to save the lost ---- that includes you. Jesus did this by filling the requirements of the Law and being the final sacrifice. Any validity of the Book of Mormon rests on the validity of the Bible. The Bible stands entirely on its own merit ----------- as if the Book of Mormon never existed. It is my prayer that God awakens you to the truth of His Word found in the Holy Bible.
Nipper, you're putting the cart before the horse by preaching the Bible to someone who doesn't first believe in the Bible. You're wasting your time unless you first provide a reason to accept the Bible as a divine record. Without that crucial first step, preaching the Bible to Ludwig will be as ineffective as me preaching the Book of Mormon to you.
On the other hand, you're not the only fundie who makes this mistake. Servant does it too, either overtly or as a subtext. The two of you should consider going back to Bible study and working on a way to plug this hole in your strategy to convert us heathens.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. --Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess. --Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
LittleNipper wrote:The Bible stands entirely on its own merit...
That's simply not true. By itself, the Bible is just another collection of mythology like the Quran or the Bhagavad gita. This is why you need to complete that first crucial step of explaining why the Bible should be accepted as a divine record by nonbelievers like Ludwig and myself.
Surprise, surprise, there is no divine mandate for the Church to discuss and portray its history accurately. --Yahoo Bot
I pray thee, sir, forgive me for the mess. And whether I shot first, I'll not confess. --Han Solo, from William Shakespeare's Star Wars
Quasimodo wrote:Think about it. You have taken one phrase out of Feynman's talk (out of context) and are using it to bolster your own incompatible views. Feynman would be rolling in his grave if he thought your sig line mattered (I'm quite sure he wouldn't).
actually you think about it....i did not take anything out of context....i did not, nor have not, used that sig line to bolster any view...except for the view it clearly states (imho). You are imposing your own prejudices on my motivation for, and for that matter my interpretation of, its meaning.
and that meaning echoes the larger "context" of Feynman's sentiment...a sentiment that to many posters on this board reject.
so, my sig line is simply a means to initiate a person to discover that "context" and perhaps realize what he is promoting....a rather obvious notion that "blind faith" exists within science as well.
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
LittleNipper wrote:The Bible stands entirely on its own merit...
That's simply not true. By itself, the Bible is just another collection of mythology like the Quran or the Bhagavad gita. This is why you need to complete that first crucial step of explaining why the Bible should be accepted as a divine record by nonbelievers like Ludwig and myself.
Absolutely untrue. The Bible is full of both historic fact and prophetic revelations, that nonbelievers are compelled to accept, willfully ignore or attempt to disprove. Other books simply do not contain the amount of prophetic information that has come to plain rational fruition. No other book has been studied or attacked for as long, or as persistently as the Bible has. Only the Bible has received the sheer amount of both acclaim and attempted vilification --- because only the Bible is worthy of either full consideration or total denial. Only unadulterated Christianity attempts to share The Good News without demanding absolute control and manipulation of the will of the general population. Yes, the Bible says that only through Christ may one come to God. But the Bible does not insist that one can be saved by following specific religious ritual. And nowhere in the Bible does it say that one must believe in Jesus, go to a specific church, or then be put to death. The separation from God is clearly a decision made between an individual and God. The historic development of the biblically influenced United States provides a testimony (which was a highly influenced product of the Protestant Reformation ---- the rebirth of persistent evangelical missionary work, personal biblical study, and seeking a personal relationship with the Almighty God. The "Christian" does not seek to become God nor improve God's attributes, nor is a keeper of HIDDEN knowledge/tallents. The "Christian" does see himself as needing salvation because of his fallen and imperfect nature, and as an emissary to inform others of God's love and salvation ------------ because the "Christian " is fully aware of his own original state as one being lost and in need of ONLY God's redemption.
