Religion

[Spelunker]

Wouldn't it be "Londoners and Englishmen and Catholics and Christians?"

 

Yep, that's correct! Yay, history class. World religions are so interesting.

[TikindiDragon]

Wouldn't it be "Londoners and Englishmen and Catholics and Christians?"

Yes it would. *edits*

[Riverwillows]

It's why we call them "Protestant" beliefs, because they all in their time "protested" the way the Catholic church was doing things, and branched off to form their own ideals.

[Strange Core]

Mind referencing those proofs?

well, I only have a handful, both from the Old Testament, but I'll post it anyways

 

Well, first of all (this is a minor proof), in Genesis. the Bible provided definite, positive statements expressed with AUTHORITY, unlike the many scientific theories there are. For example, in Genesis chapter 1, "In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth". There's no "MAY have been created by.." or "we MAY well suppose...". and then continuing through Genesis, there is "God said, 'Let there be light', and there was light." No theories, just authoritative, positive statement. The Bible is not UNSURE.

 

Another proof is that the prophecies in the Bible actually came to happen. I'll be posting one example, which is part of the longest prophecy in the Bible: The one revealed to Daniel. The prelude is found in the 10th chapter of the book of Daniel, wherein it was stated that the prophecy came to Daniel in the third year of the reign of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1).

 

The first verse of the 11th chapter of Daniel is a continuation from the last verse of the 10th chapter. The angel says to Daniel, "Behold", there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than them all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia. And a mighty king shall stand up, that shall rule with great dominion, and do according to his will" (Daniel 11:2-3)

 

Actually, there were 12 more kings in the Persian Empire, but only the first four following Cyrus were of importance for he purpose of this prophecy. They were Cambyses, Bardiya, Darius, and Xerxes. It was the last, Xerxes, who was richest of all and stirred up war with Greece. Then King Philip of Macedonia planned a great war to conquer the Persian Empire, with an army made up of mostly Grecians. He died before his plans were completed, but his son, Alexander the Great, took over his plans and invaded Persia. Notice now the verse 4 of the 11th chapter of Daniel: "And when he shall stand up, his kingdom shall be broken, and shall be divided toward the four winds of heaven; and not to his posterity, nor according to his dominion which he ruled: for his kingdom shall be plucked up, even for others beside those". This happened as well, for we history tells us that Alexander died, it left the empire leaderless and Alexander had no legitimate heir. And as depicted in the prophecies, 4 new kingdoms arose, successors to Alexander's.

 

Whew, that was a lot to type

 

 

Sources: "Bible", "Proof of the Bible", and Internet

[Spelunker]

I can disprove all of those.

 

1 and 2- madmen and lunatics are also absolutely certain about what they are doing. Certainty has nothing to do with fact. Scientific theories are worded as they are to leave room for improvement.

 

3- The Bible was written after the time of Daniel. The prophecy could very well have been added in afterwards.

 

It is a document written by believers of the faith. There is no way to prove 100% that the Bible is truthful about all that is says.

Edited April 8, 2013 by Spelunker

[TikindiDragon]

@ Strange Core: In these kinds of discussion I'm afraid the Bible cannot be used as proof of it's own factual basis. To someone who doesn't believe in the Bible (note, I am not one of them, this is an FYI) then saying "Thise Bible is true because [X] in the Bible says so." is an illogical argument. You have to reference external proofs.

 

Although, with regards Kings, Chronicles and Daniel, it should be noted that there are figures named in them that for years were known nowhere except in the Bible. Until archaeologists turned up evidence in the Middle East, that is. I believe Nebuchadnezzar II was one of these figures. Given that large parts of that section of the Old Testament were historical recrods of the Hebrew nation, and given that several of the figures mention have been independantly identified, it's not unreasonable to say that the braod picture of history painted there is, indeed, accurate.

[Strange Core]

@ Spelunker: that minor proof from Genesis points out that it made "sure" that it's true. Scientific theories about how Earth came to be have never been proven. They're still "theories"

@ Tikindi Dragon: what do you mean by "external proofs"? If you don't believe in the Bible then I can't yet see how I can prove it..,

 

 

 

[Spelunker]

No, Tikindi was saying that they DO believe in the bible, but just FYI, people who don't believe in the Bible won't take the book itself as proof.

 

Tell me how the Bible was proven then.

All I see are lots of statements with no concrete evidence.

[TikindiDragon]

@ Tikindi Dragon: what do you mean by "external proofs"? If you don't believe in the Bible then I can't yet see how I can prove it..,

I told you I believe in the Bible (although there's a good chance I interpret it differently, but that is by-the-by). I'm trying to help you understand for when you are talking to other people who don't.

 

If you want to prove to someone that doesn't already believe in the Bible that the Bible is true, then you have to prove it using things that are not the Bible itself. 'External' supporting and corroborating evidence.

 

From a scientific/evidential standpoint A cannot prove that A is true. In order to prove that A is true you require B and C.

 

So in discussions with non-Believers you cannot use the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible. And if you wish to engage non-Believers in discussion then you need to understand this.

 

Edited to add: You're also having a serious understanding fail about the difference in use of the word 'Theory' in scientific vs non-academic circles. Scientific theories have been rigorously tested, peer reviewed, and have a large amount of supporting evidence. This is not in any way like Anya's "I've got a theory... it could be bunnies."

Edited April 8, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[kiffren]

@ Spelunker: that minor proof from Genesis points out that it made "sure" that it's true. Scientific theories about how Earth came to be have never been proven. They're still "theories"

@ Tikindi Dragon: what do you mean by "external proofs"? If you don't believe in the Bible then I can't yet see how I can prove it..,

Make sure that you really understand what you mean when you say they are still "theories".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force."

 

Theories are not hypothesis (educated guesses). When you are just chatting with someone, the word theory is generally used as a guess. You could say you have a theory about something when you mean that you have little more than a guess about it. In the scientific community, that is not the case. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that has stood the test of time and many many many brilliant people attempting to disprove it. A theory in science is built after many hypothesis and is tested through whatever experimental methods we have access to. Data is compared to them, etc. If anything does not align with a hypothesis, then that hypothesis is considered incorrect and a new hypothesis must be formed.

 

In general, scientific theories are accepted as fact by the brightest minds in the world. The thing about science is that if it gets proven wrong, then that is ok. Because now we know something else about the universe. We used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. That well known fact, or scientific theory, was proven wrong and the new fact, scientific theory, is that the earth revolves around the sun. This is now a "proven" (and widely accepted) theory (as far as we know), yet it is still "just a theory".

 

Edit: Grammar.

Edited April 8, 2013 by kiffren

[PointOfOrigin]

@ Tikindi Dragon: what do you mean by "external proofs"? If you don't believe in the Bible then I can't yet see how I can prove it..,

 

Using Bible to prove the Bible would be same as me, using Harry Potter to prove that everything in the Harry Potter books happened.

[Strange Core]

I told you I believe in the Bible (although there's a good chance I interpret it differently, but that is by-the-by). I'm trying to help you understand for when you are talking to other people who don't.

 

If you want to prove to someone that doesn't already believe in the Bible that the Bible is true, then you have to prove it using things that are not the Bible itself. 'External' supporting and corroborating evidence.

 

From a scientific/evidential standpoint A cannot prove that A is true. In order to prove that A is true you require B and C.

 

So in discussions with non-Believers you cannot use the Bible to prove the truth of the Bible. And if you wish to engage non-Believers in discussion then you need to understand this.

 

Edited to add: You're also having a serious understanding fail about the difference in use of the word 'Theory' in scientific vs non-academic circles. Scientific theories have been rigorously tested, peer reviewed, and have a large amount of supporting evidence. This is not in any way like Anya's "I've got a theory... it could be bunnies."

(checks post again)

 

Oh, right I must have misread, sorry

 

@ Spelunker: I have already posted all I know I can't prove it at present time, not with my knowledge of the Bible and experience in discussions, honestly

 

@ Tikindi Dragon: Seriously, no, I don't really want to discuss the truth of the Bible with non-believers. Either we'll just go in circles or I'll run out of what to say.

 

I'm beginning to see what you're trying to tell me about scientific theories, but what I'm trying to talk about was theories specifically about Earth formation (it's the only one I know that's mentioned in the bible as well, as when God created Earth). If scientific theories about it are tested and have large amount of supporting evidence, then why are there multiple theories on how Earth came to be? Multiple theories accepted? It means that they can't prove that any of them is true. Not now, maybe not ever.

[Riverwillows]

I saw this quote today. Thought it was rather cool.

 

[catstaff]

I'm beginning to see what you're trying to tell me about scientific theories, but what I'm trying to talk about was theories specifically about Earth formation (it's the only one I know that's mentioned in the bible as well, as when God created Earth). If scientific theories about it are tested and have large amount of supporting evidence, then why are there multiple theories on how Earth came to be? Multiple theories accepted? It means that they can't prove that any of them is true. Not now, maybe not ever.

(Italics in the quote are mine, for emphasis.)

 

It means that there is evidence that supports more than one possibility.

 

Maybe it was an asteroid impact that killed off the dinosaurs. Maybe it was a really, really huge volcanic eruption. Maybe it was a combination of the two. (Note: these are examples off the top of my head. I do not now, nor have I ever, particularly care what killed the dinosaurs.)

 

The point is, scientific theory keeps looking for more and more evidence to corroborate it, even if it ends up proving itself wrong. Because scientists know how little we (humanity in general) really know. Using the dinosaur example, scientists observed that the die-off happened in the blink of an eye, geologically speaking, so they started looking for other clues as to why that happened. Back in the 1930s or so, the evidence they'd found pointed to rapid climate change, possibly a worldwide drought, so that was the accepted theory. (Ever see the original Fantasia? This shows up as part of the animation for Stravinsky's Rite of Spring.) Sixty to eighty years later, we have better technology and more knowledge in general, and now the accepted theory is that it was probably an asteroid strike likely in combination with an already-changing climate.

 

 

[lightbird]

Apparently, for women to fart loudly is against the modesty teachings of Islam and needs a ban: http://wadiyan.com/2013/03/08/islamic-city...e-in-indonesia/

 

/prepares a box of facepalms and leaves thread

[Mtntopview]

I'll take about 12 of those face palms please!

[FaolainnStorm]

Apparently, for women to fart loudly is against the modesty teachings of Islam and needs a ban: http://wadiyan.com/2013/03/08/islamic-city...e-in-indonesia/

 

/prepares a box of facepalms and leaves thread

Ummm, that's not a real newspaper, y'know, just saying.

 

FS

[PointOfOrigin]

Apparently, for women to fart loudly is against the modesty teachings of Islam and needs a ban: http://wadiyan.com/2013/03/08/islamic-city...e-in-indonesia/

 

/prepares a box of facepalms and leaves thread

That site has this poll on the side:

 

Should Obama spank Michelle, like a true American Husband?

 

Yes

No

I am Gay

 

... I wouldn't take it very seriously.

[High Lord November]

I'm beginning to see what you're trying to tell me about scientific theories, but what I'm trying to talk about was theories specifically about Earth formation (it's the only one I know that's mentioned in the bible as well, as when God created Earth). If scientific theories about it are tested and have large amount of supporting evidence, then why are there multiple theories on how Earth came to be? Multiple theories accepted? It means that they can't prove that any of them is true. Not now, maybe not ever.

 

The reason we have multiple theories in general is because we don't have ALL of the information. Obviously we weren't there, so we can't say for sure. Similar to policework. Based on all the fact and evidence they have, they have to piece together what happened. Because they weren't actually there themselves, there are multiple ways that they could get the same results.

 

Alternatively: there are lots of different ways to reach the number 12 using math, but there is only one number 12. We are trying to find out which method that was used to reach 12.

 

There are lots of plausible ways the Earth could have formed, but the result is that it formed. We have to figure out with what we have. (the composition of the earth and surrounding planets, etc.)

 

 

It means that they can't prove that any of them is true. Not now, maybe not ever.

 

Oh no no no no no. We will weed out the more 'incorrect' or implausible ones with new evidence until there is no evidence left to be found, or one is proven as far as it can be proven.

 

And why do multiple theories make it invalid again? Why is that bad? Humans know very, very, VERY little, despite the fact that we like to think we know a lot. Seriously, we're still idiots, and we'll probably always be. At least we have the thirst to learn/find our place in the universe and ask the questions Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How!

 

 

Also, I'm very confused on why you think that the formation of the Earth is a big deal. Did you know that there are innumerable (like, literally innumerable) amounts of planets in the universe? We are talking about trillions, perhaps even quadrillions, of planets. We know how they can form, and different ways they do. Why does it matter with the specific way the Earth formed?

Edited April 11, 2013 by High Lord November

[Obscure_Trash]

@ Tikindi Dragon: Seriously, no, I don't really want to discuss the truth of the Bible with non-believers. Either we'll just go in circles or I'll run out of what to say.

I think you kind of invited discussion with non-believers by saying you had proof. I think the point people were really trying to get across is that they're certainly not going to begrudge you your faith, but your faith is just that. Your faith. Faith is belief without proof and it can be a beautiful thing for people. But it is faith and so you don't have "proof"; you have what you feel. I would hope that nobody here looks down on you for your beliefs, I think we just hope that our point got across: your faith does not need to be proved and in fact can't be proved. That's the inherent beauty in faith, is it not? :3

[Strange Core]

I think you kind of invited discussion with non-believers by saying you had proof. I think the point people were really trying to get across is that they're certainly not going to begrudge you your faith, but your faith is just that. Your faith. Faith is belief without proof and it can be a beautiful thing for people. But it is faith and so you don't have "proof"; you have what you feel. I would hope that nobody here looks down on you for your beliefs, I think we just hope that our point got across: your faith does not need to be proved and in fact can't be proved. That's the inherent beauty in faith, is it not? :3

I see. I wasn't meaning to, but I must have made a... stupid mistake

 

 

 

Well, your point got across fully well. I just have to accept the thing you said

 

My faith doesn't need to be proved, and can't be proved

[TikindiDragon]

I see. I wasn't meaning to, but I must have made a... stupid mistake

 

 

 

Well, your point got across fully well. I just have to accept the thing you said

 

My faith doesn't need to be proved, and can't be proved

No worries It's an easy one to make - especially if you're not used to talking to people who don't believe. Goodness knows I've had enough understanding fails in my time just from cultural US/UK differences without even looking at religious ones.

 

I know some poeple have been put off in the past because the DC community has seemed unfriendly towards their religion. That's actually not the case. There are a few of us here who do believe (both as Christians and as people of other Faiths). We're not the majority, but we're not attacked. You'll only really find serious disagreement when stating matters of faith as being 'truth'. I can say, as a believer, that faith can never be proven as fact. And it's only if you present it as such that you'll find people arguing with you

 

That said if you wish to engage in a Biblical discussion on the origin of the earth then severals of us would be happy to engage you - as long as we make it clear to the rest of the population that we're not attempting to tell them that their understanding of science is wrong

[Riverwillows]

My faith doesn't need to be proved

I say this all the time when approached by Christians who SAY they want to 'discuss' my beliefs, but really only want to tear them down and convert me.

[HeatherMarie]

My faith doesn't need to be proved

LOVE this.

 

I have beliefs, maybe it can be called faith. I believe in God.... but disagree with much of what the Bible says. And honestly I love getting into healthy debates about religion with friends who *know* how to have healthy debates. But defending my beliefs to someone who believes every word of the Bible is The Word? It's stupid, because I will never convince them, and they will never convince me.

 

Despite certain issues I've had with religion, I do know what I believe, and I no longer (used to, but no longer) feel any need to attempt to "prove" anything to anyone.

[High Lord November]

Well, your point got across fully well. I just have to accept the thing you said

 

My faith doesn't need to be proved, and can't be proved

 

Ah, it made me really happy to hear this (It's sorta hard to express because I don't want it to be taken in a different meaning, but that's the simplest way of saying it). It was really refreshing, truthful, and right :3 And you have such a nice way of saying it (and stuff in general), too.

 

Also I'm sorry that my post above came out a bit rude. I didn't mean it that way OTL

Edited April 11, 2013 by High Lord November