I don't understand that at all. I don't know how a calendar date can be materialistic?Accurate according to contemporary materialist modes of thinking? no.
I don't understand that at all. I don't know how a calendar date can be materialistic?Accurate according to contemporary materialist modes of thinking? no.
Just thus second cleared ... d'you suppose it's a traffic thing? Always seems about this time in the afternoon that I have problems.
it never does to underestimate the hidden dangers of 'routine maintenance' ...
I knew someone who was an engineer at the British naval base in Gibraltar. He was doing a bit of maintenance according to the schedule, when he hung his soldering iron on a makeshift hook to sneak out for a quick cigarette. Apparently someone nudged something which inadvertently caused the soldering iron to move which caused a blob of solder to drop which caused a short circuit which knocked out the island's radar systems which triggered a NATO fleet alert which led to an all-stations stand-to which upset a Russian destroyer one of the boats was following which led to some tense moments and almost triggered WWIII ...
And, from what I recall, he was told to 'keep your bloody trap shut' and the incident was passed off as a component failure or something ...
unfortunately this is an epidemic amonst critics of all religions. The problem is they all get their information from somewhere. For instance I've read many sources that claim Matthew is an expanded copy of Mark. Wikipedia has a long article about how all 4 gospels are copies of one another with "additional" information added. I can actually see this as being possible, but I wouldn't tout it as fact. The other problem is the amount of evidence out there that is reliable is widely varied in its depictions of pretty much any topic. For instance that none of the scrolls of Mark match, neither do the ones of Matthew, Luke, or John. Or the exclusion of books such as the Epistles of Timothy and Thomas. Who told man not to include these. The questions are endless and with the access to information now, everyone acts like a expert. There are good evidences for each of the questions above (not definitively correct, but certainly logical options).Oh yes. I remember that type of reception well. That was one of the most frustrating experiences I had in college when I spent a whole semester studying the Gospel of Matthew. When I used what I'd learned from that class to talk with some people in my dorm who were bashing Christianity, they dismissed instantly everything I had to say and kept referring to one questionable and unreliable source they saw on Reddit that was clearly anti-Christian and written solely to undermine without any textual support.
unfortunately this is an epidemic amonst critics of all religions
It is true that ignorance and bigotry play a big role in people's opinions of religions. That isn't all of it though. A big problem from my point of view, is that presuppositions are made about religious facts and then the logic of the argument taken from that point on is considered sound. Trouble is it is only sound IF one accepts that the original prepositions are indeed factual.
For instance, the miracles in the New Testament. For those who believe they actually happened, they rest on a supposition that the laws that govern the universe can be broken. That is a hefty supposition to accept since we have not one single example that such laws are mutable. Not one.
Or that the written Koran is word for word verbatim of what Mohammad said, even though for many generations his words were passed down orally.
This rests on an assumption that each generation passed on to the next the precise words over and over again. This also is a hefty supposition to accept. Anyone who has ever played the game of telephone knows that ten people sitting right next to each other cannot pass verbatim the sentence begun by the first person.
less than 1 generation... a few years as a matter in fact, and there are actual documents that show how many people agreed without any errors. Records that showed who learned what and from who. My friend has his certification in 2 narrations. (different dialects that the Prophet (PBUH) taught) and his documents show all the way back to the Prophet (PBUH). The idea that there are mistakes has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times in both documentation, grammar, literary styling, History, and several other Quran studies.Or that the written Koran is word for word verbatim of what Mohammad said, even though for many generations his words were passed down orally.
But is it fair to also say that your presupposition that these cannot be proven true also causing you to miss an open line of logic? There are some If's, I will agree. But the evidences can also help to guide that.A big problem from my point of view, is that presuppositions are made about religious facts and then the logic of the argument taken from that point on is considered sound. Trouble is it is only sound IF one accepts that the original prepositions are indeed factual.
I agree with most of what you say, except that I don't believe people SHOULD BE looking for THEIR religion, but rather THE CORRECT RELIGION. I'm not saying anyone here has to accept mine as the correct one, but rather that they believe whatever they do is correct.Isn't that where Faith plays a major role DA? We don't know for sure probably 65% of History is accurate. History is mostly one sided as far as I am concerned. There were so many translations and omissions to the bible that I believe an accurate account of what really happened is lost, or very well hidden and protected. Ignorance? I'm sure. Arrogance? Yep that too.. Bigotry? Yep I'll even buy that.. But what is even worse IMO is that people are so bogged down in dogma when it comes to religion that they forget to think for themselves and find THEIR Christianity or any other religion. People are so used to being led by the church that they forget they are the church.....
The idea that there are mistakes has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times in both documentation, grammar, literary styling, History, and several other Quran studies.
Isn't that where Faith plays a major role DA?
But what is even worse IMO is that people are so bogged down in dogma when it comes to religion that they forget to think for themselves
Absolutely. My point was that the veracity of some arguments are based on prepositions - without accepting the preposition, the argument falls apart. This is hardly limited to theology, of course.
Very much agreed. Even worse though is that an awful lot of people don't want to have to think for themselves. They prefer to have someone else do the thinking for them, and they follow blindly along. This goes well beyond just theology as well!
less than 1 generation... a few years as a matter in fact, and there are actual documents that show how many people agreed without any errors. Records that showed who learned what and from who. My friend has his certification in 2 narrations. (different dialects that the Prophet (PBUH) taught) and his documents show all the way back to the Prophet (PBUH). The idea that there are mistakes has been proven beyond reasonable doubt many times in both documentation, grammar, literary styling, History, and several other Quran studies.
take your game telephone, now have 1 person tell 10 people (and don't let anyone say anything to anyone until they know it by heart) then those 10 people tell 60 people. some even crossover and tell some of them 2x. and so on. Also remember that 2 generations of this exercise can still check their understanding with someone who taught their teacher. and with each other to check if anyone is making a mistake.
The other issue is they weren't trying to whisper this into each others' ears. They were open and speaking clearly. This makes the telephone game's main issue mute.
But is it fair to also say that your presupposition that these cannot be proven true also causing you to miss an open line of logic? There are some If's, I will agree. But the evidences can also help to guide that.
I agree with most of what you say, except that I don't believe people SHOULD BE looking for THEIR religion, but rather THE CORRECT RELIGION. I'm not saying anyone here has to accept mine as the correct one, but rather that they believe whatever they do is correct.
Darnit... I forgot to end the sentence with false...Ooops. I believe you meant quite the opposite!
I didn't say look for their religion, I said look for their Christianity, there is a difference. looking for religion would assume that one is without one and is looking for one. Looking for their Christianity is one that is a Christian, yet has not found their personal relationship with God....
This is where I got caught up..think for themselves and find THEIR Christianity or any other religion.
unfortunately this is one of the reasons both evangelism (or honest discussion of attempting to help someone with their journey in life) and Interfaith are both so difficult in public/semi-public discussions. Most people believe what they do because someone told them to believe that way.Absolutely. My point was that the veracity of some arguments are based on prepositions - without accepting the preposition, the argument falls apart. This is hardly limited to theology, of course.
Very much agreed. Even worse though is that an awful lot of people don't want to have to think for themselves. They prefer to have someone else do the thinking for them, and they follow blindly along. This goes well beyond just theology as well!
This is where I got caught up..
If we go with what you said in the later post, you are saying that people should strive to improve their relationship with God by doing as he commanded (presumably). This is the true fundamental of all Abrahamics. Do as God commanded (Islam is defined as such, a submission to his will). In essence... I agree. And there is much to do to accomplish that if you attempt to do all that was commanded in the Bible.