Momma Angel wrote:[
Thank you for answering me. That makes complete sense to me and I do appreciate it.
I can only tell you that through studying the Bible, speaking with others, applying the principles of the Bible, and continuing to learn, I have come to know certain things.
You would get no argument from me on that. I am just about certain that you do KNOW certain things.
But none of those things are the things you are accepting on faith.
Those things...you do not know!
Quote:
Now, I will admit that I cannot offer scientific proof to you or anyone else concerning this process. As I have pointed out, some of the definitions of know do not call for scientific proof. So, I would say that one would have to use the definition of the dictionary that fits them.
Simply because the dictionary has definitions of the word "know" that do not have a need for scientific proof...does not mean that you can pretend that you KNOW stuff that you are merely guessing about.
Specific question, if I may:
Are you claiming that you KNOW there is a God...that you KNOW the God is a personal God...that you KNOW the God is accurately described in the Bible...that you KNOW we can ascertain what pleases and offends the God by what we read in that book...and that you KNOW we can ascertain what the God expects of humans by what we read in that book?
Momma Angel wrote:Questioner,
Yes, it probably does happen quite often that I misunderstand. That is why I ask questions. Others have often misunderstood me also. It's a pretty universal thing in my opinion.
I saw no questions asked, I saw you put down three non-related points meant to essentially dismiss what was being discussed.
Quote:I offered evidence that I was told I should use. I was told I should use that evidence by a 'scientist'. I used that evidence. It was not accepted. Why was it unacceptable?
This was explained, fairly thoroughly, by me. Read above a bit, and if you still don't get it i'd be more than happy to attempt a rephrasing for you.
Quote:Rolling your eyes? You did not agree with that statement? You don't agree that it might be hard (at least for some) to misread a tone in a post?
I'm sure it's quite possible to misread a tone. I don't think at all that that's what you did, and I certainly didn't need to hear a tone to tell me that you were outrightly dismissing what I offered with your clever little 3-pointer that addressed absolutely nothing of what was said.
Thus here we are, you still not understanding my points, and the entire discussion derailed. All because of one unecessary post.
Frank,
I have already stated my position on all of this over and over again. You do not agree with me. I do not agree with you. Isn't that good enough for you? Will you not be happy until I say you are right?
Oh and in my post up there about misreading tones, I meant 'easy' to misread them.
Questioner,
I explained why I posted those points. I apologized for any misunderstanding.
I said truce? I thought that would be the end of it.
Momma Angel wrote:
Quote:Intrepid,
I do agree with you on your definitions. I was pointing out that "according to the dictionary" we can ascribe the word know to our statements.
I, for one, hate it when you have to explain each and every word that you speak or post. I would think the general message would be good enough but I find that not to be the case.
The dictionary (depending on which one) does indicate that know can be; well-infomed; well-instructed; to perceive with certainty; to understand clearly and many more.
I used the word know as it pertained to my faith in this or some other thread that Frank was on (could only be religion threads ;-) ) and I was driven into the ground on it. I have now revised my "know" to that which I had written above. Although, the dictionary definition
could describe our thoughts, it is probably best to use the word faith and not use know with it. That way, folks who do not understand your meaning cannot misconstrue your intent.
Momma Angel wrote:Questioner,
I explained why I posted those points. I apologized for any misunderstanding.
I said truce? I thought that would be the end of it.
Sorry MA, but saying truce at the end of a paragraph containing questions or your perspectives on what was said doesn't signify an end of it. If you ask questions I'll answer them and give my own feedback. That's how this works.
I'm not angry, I still have respect for you and your beliefs. Is that enough of a truce?
Intrepid wrote:Momma Angel wrote:
Quote:Intrepid,
I do agree with you on your definitions. I was pointing out that "according to the dictionary" we can ascribe the word know to our statements.
I, for one, hate it when you have to explain each and every word that you speak or post. I would think the general message would be good enough but I find that not to be the case.
The dictionary (depending on which one) does indicate that know can be; well-infomed; well-instructed; to perceive with certainty; to understand clearly and many more.
I used the word know as it pertained to my faith in this or some other thread that Frank was on (could only be religion threads ;-) ) and I was driven into the ground on it. I have now revised my "know" to that which I had written above. Although, the dictionary definition
could describe our thoughts, it is probably best to use the word faith and not use know with it. That way, folks who do not understand your meaning cannot misconstrue your intent.
Intrepid,
I understand you completely. I am being a little stubborn in my sticking to this. I admit that. However, I am having a very hard time understanding something. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.
The 'scientists' seem to want proof or evidence. They want it from a source they will accept. I provided that evidence from a source they said they accepted. Once provided, it was not accepted.
To me, this is along the same lines as what they say about our interpreting the Bible. It seems to me that this is what they are doing with the dictionary and I don't understand it.
Is it just that I believe on faith and from those beliefs I know? Aren't there just things in life you know?
Again, this is my perception. I ask questions until I understand. Can you help?
Questioner,
Works for me!
Momma Angel wrote:Intrepid wrote:Momma Angel wrote:
Quote:Intrepid,
I do agree with you on your definitions. I was pointing out that "according to the dictionary" we can ascribe the word know to our statements.
I, for one, hate it when you have to explain each and every word that you speak or post. I would think the general message would be good enough but I find that not to be the case.
The dictionary (depending on which one) does indicate that know can be; well-infomed; well-instructed; to perceive with certainty; to understand clearly and many more.
I used the word know as it pertained to my faith in this or some other thread that Frank was on (could only be religion threads ;-) ) and I was driven into the ground on it. I have now revised my "know" to that which I had written above. Although, the dictionary definition
could describe our thoughts, it is probably best to use the word faith and not use know with it. That way, folks who do not understand your meaning cannot misconstrue your intent.
Intrepid,
I understand you completely. I am being a little stubborn in my sticking to this. I admit that. However, I am having a very hard time understanding something. Perhaps you can clarify this for me.
The 'scientists' seem to want proof or evidence. They want it from a source they will accept. I provided that evidence from a source they said they accepted. Once provided, it was not accepted.
To me, this is along the same lines as what they say about our interpreting the Bible. It seems to me that this is what they are doing with the dictionary and I don't understand it.
Is it just that I believe on faith and from those beliefs I know? Aren't there just things in life you know?
Again, this is my perception. I ask questions until I understand. Can you help?
As an aside, I have often times heard christians utter phrases like "I know
in my heart that god exists." This is something that can't really be refuted. Essentially it states their beliefs in a more profound way, while not egging on the scientists.
Questioner,
LOL. I am so glad that this is something you might more readily be agreeable to (?). Not sure that's the correct word.
I have said that and oh boy, did Frank jump on me for that one!
I appreciate you so much for posting this. I am glad that you understand (as it appears you do) what someone means when they say that.
Momma,
I understand what you are saying, but being stubborn is not the tact to take when you want to make a valid point.
It is reasonalbe to ask for proof of something. Some things can be easily proven and some cannot. You can prove that a candle melts as it burns because you can see the evidence. You now that a flower grows from a seed because it can be seen over a course of time. You cannot prove that God exists through the same evidence. Sure, we can postulate that He provided the earth that the seed is planted in and the rain that nourishes the seed and the sunshine that is needed to grow. We cannot, however prove it. We know that the flower grows, but we cannot show how God did it. Either way.
The bible has been intrepreted many times, in many ways. We take the basics and work with them... that is our faith. We cannot expect everybody to understand this any more than we can expect to understand their point.
Some have written that they were faithful as children or young adults and then fell away from Christianity. In my case, I did not accept it as a child and young adult. I accepted it later. Faith is difficult to explain to others that do not accept it. It is never my intent to force my faith upon others. That is not fair. Everybody has to either accept or reject that which they know and live with the consequences at the end.
Intrepid wrote:Momma,
I understand what you are saying, but being stubborn is not the tact to take when you want to make a valid point.
It is reasonalbe to ask for proof of something. Some things can be easily proven and some cannot. You can prove that a candle melts as it burns because you can see the evidence. You now that a flower grows from a seed because it can be seen over a course of time. You cannot prove that God exists through the same evidence. Sure, we can postulate that He provided the earth that the seed is planted in and the rain that nourishes the seed and the sunshine that is needed to grow. We cannot, however prove it. We know that the flower grows, but we cannot show how God did it.
The bible has been intrepreted many times, in many ways. We take the basics and work with them... that is our faith. We cannot expect everybody to understand this any more than we can expect to understand their point.
Some have written that they were faithful as children or young adults and then fell away from Christianity. In my case, I did not accept it as a child and young adult. I accepted it later. Faith is difficult to explain to others that do not accept it. It is never my intent to force my faith upon others. That is not fair. Everybody has to either accept or reject that which they know and live with the consequences at the end.
And that is why I consider you a mentor. Thank you.
My, my, have we been busy today.
Found this article in Geotimes. I'll let you folks discuss it.
Believing vs. Knowing: Faith's Role in the Evolution Debate
Lee J. Suttner
The Holy Scriptures tell us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
-St. Augustine
To this day, nearly six decades later, I have memories of my parish priest's occasional visits to religion classes in the early grades of my school, St. Mary's, in rural eastern Wisconsin. Those moments that I remember most vividly were when he came to warn us about a distinguished and supposedly all-knowing college professor someday attempting to convince us to accept the evil and atheistic idea that we had evolved from lower animals. As he predicted, I did go on to have many such encounters. Ironically and to my continuing amusement, as a geology professor (albeit not very distinguished and certainly not all-knowing), I am now the cause of such encounters.
Perhaps because I was raised in a strong faith-based environment, I possess a unique appreciation for the critical need to prevent turning the evolution-versus-creationism/intelligent design debate into one of anti-religion versus religion. It is a lose-lose argument for both sides and will simply widen the destructive wedge separating believers, nonbelievers and the agnostics in between. Belief in evolution does not preclude belief in God. But belief is the key word. Fully understanding the concept of belief is fundamental to arguments for keeping creationism and its clever smokescreen, intelligent design (as my father used to say, giving a slow horse a new name doesn't make it run faster), out of the science classrooms of all of our schools, not just the public ones.
Believing something to be true because of faith and knowing that something is true because of empirical testing are fundamentally distinct. For many people, faith is a wonderful gift, permitting them to believe whatever they want about a natural phenomenon; it does not, however, permit them to know the phenomenon. For example, faith permits some people to believe that an almighty being ?- God ?- created them in his image. But faith cannot permit them to know, to empirically prove, that humans instead did not create God in their image, as those without faith often choose to believe. Not recognizing the difference between believing and knowing prevents constructive and intellectually honest debate over faith-based teaching in the science classroom.
Scientific theories expressing what we think to be true at any given time about something as complex as evolution derive from the scientific method, a process in which testing is a fundamental ingredient; it has nothing to do with faith or reliance on some higher faith authority that tells us what to believe as truth. Believing instead of knowing something to be true can lead people to potentially dangerous acts, seemingly justified by their faith.
Religion and especially the concept of an almighty force or forces in nature appeal to many people because they supply easy-to-understand answers to questions that lack easy-to-provide testable answers ?- for example, how did it all begin and how will it all end? These questions have been around since humans first experienced volcanism, earthquakes and all sorts of other natural processes that were unexplainable within their existing framework of knowledge.
Scientists thrive on unanswered questions. Without puzzles to solve, they would have no careers. But those people who have not had a sound foundation in the process of scientific discovery cannot comfortably live with the unknown. These same individuals become dangerously disruptive to science education when they demand that their faith-based answers to these questions share equal status in science classrooms with empirically testable theories.
In spite of claims by the intelligent designers, no reputable scientist can call on the existence of an almighty guiding force to explain the incredible complexity and order of evolution just because of a lack of total understanding of this complexity and order right now. This notion is no different than creating a god of fire to explain volcanoes, as done millennia ago. Full and open pursuit of scientific truth abruptly ends in our schools when faith is invoked in this way.
For example, we do not now know all the details of genesis. Perhaps space/time is infinite with no boundaries, as Stephen Hawking suggests ?- we just don't know, regardless of what those with faith in a creator would like for the faithless to believe. But scientists do not throw up their arms in despair and appeal to a higher being for an answer. (In their own lives, they may make a personal choice to use the beauty and complexity of something like evolution to strengthen their belief in an almighty being, which is perfectly acceptable, but should have nothing to do with their advancement of scientific knowledge in the minds of others.) Thousands of years of knowledge accumulation attest to the fact that with time, answers to even the most difficult questions about nature as we know them today may be discovered.
It seems that fundamentalists, and now more and more mainstream religious people, fear the teaching of evolution in the absence of creationism/intelligent design because they lack sufficient confidence and faith in the existence and power of their deity to be manifest without empirical proof. They believe that if their deity is taken out of the physical mechanism of genesis, belief in its existence among children in our schools will be threatened ?- how sad, selfish and shortsighted.
All people who feel that way should read Christianity and the Age of the Earth, written by geologist, evangelist and self-proclaimed "creationist" Davis A. Young. He presents cogent arguments that Christian evangelism will be significantly hindered by creationists' attempts to defend their faith by falsely interpreting geologic evidence and thus arguing error on behalf of faith.
Suttner is the Emeritus Robert Shrock Professor of Geological Sciences at Indiana University in Bloomington.
xingu,
I was understanding of this and I was even agreeable to it up until the following made me pause:
"It seems that fundamentalists, and now more and more mainstream religious people, fear the teaching of evolution in the absence of creationism/intelligent design because they lack sufficient confidence and faith in the existence and power of their deity to be manifest without empirical proof. They believe that if their deity is taken out of the physical mechanism of genesis, belief in its existence among children in our schools will be threatened ?- how sad, selfish and shortsighted. "
I think if this had been left out, I would probably be more agreeable to its concept. But, again, describing religious people of having fear and lack of sufficient confidence and faith is taking it a bit too far. And saying it is sad, selfish and shortsighted sounds pretty judgmental. But, if this is the way the writer believes, it's what the writer believes.
I caught the 'it seems part'. But I still feel this is a pretty wide brush doing the painting.
Momma Angel wrote:Questioner,
LOL. I am so glad that this is something you might more readily be agreeable to (?). Not sure that's the correct word.
I have said that and oh boy, did Frank jump on me for that one!
I appreciate you so much for posting this. I am glad that you understand (as it appears you do) what someone means when they say that.
Well the reason that I did...was because when one says, "I know it in my heart"...it is a substantive acknowledgement that it is not KNOWN.
One does not know things in one's heart.
Saying that you do is really doing nothing more than saying "I do not really KNOW it, but I am not going to acknowledge that I do not."
Actually, Intrepid is doing a very good job (haven't read everything he has written yet) of trying to explain this to you.
I SUSPECT that you do not KNOW any of those items I mentioned and questioned up above. Nothing you have said in any thread thus far would cause any intelligent person to suspect any differently. You almost certainly are expressing "belief" and "faith" as knowledge.
It ain't gonna fly.
Momma Angel wrote:xingu,
I was understanding of this and I was even agreeable to it up until the following made me pause:
"It seems that fundamentalists, and now more and more mainstream religious people, fear the teaching of evolution in the absence of creationism/intelligent design because they lack sufficient confidence and faith in the existence and power of their deity to be manifest without empirical proof. They believe that if their deity is taken out of the physical mechanism of genesis, belief in its existence among children in our schools will be threatened ?- how sad, selfish and shortsighted. "
I think if this had been left out, I would probably be more agreeable to its concept. But, again, describing religious people of having fear and lack of sufficient confidence and faith is taking it a bit too far. And saying it is sad, selfish and shortsighted sounds pretty judgmental. But, if this is the way the writer believes, it's what the writer believes.
I caught the 'it seems part'. But I still feel this is a pretty wide brush doing the painting.
Go on to read his reasoning:
Quote:He presents cogent arguments that Christian evangelism will be significantly hindered by creationists' attempts to defend their faith by falsely interpreting geologic evidence and thus arguing error on behalf of faith.
This is a valid, if somewhat blunt point. We've even seen this partially evident in this forum. Christians arguing what the modern world accepts as evidence (geologic dating, progression of evolution yadda yadda) really only hinders the cause of christianity. It, not the scientists, are the artists behind the very broad brush.
There is also, in my opinion, a loophole in the thinking that evolution excludes creationism. This is, however, an entirely fanciful opinion, one based on there being a supreme being of some sort.
MA..earlier in this thread, you mentioned that you saw evidence (perhaps you even said "proof") of the existence of God EVERY DAY.
Why don't you share the things you saw today, yesterday and the day before that....that you see as evidence or proof of the exitence of God...and allow us to form a better opinion of whether or not you actually are seeing evidence and proof...or simply ascribing every day events to a deity.
Particularly to those several questions I asked that you declined to deal with here.
Questioner,
That makes sense. I am not one that believes evolution excludes Christianity. I don't have enough knowledge of the theory of evolution itself to totally discount it. I also only know what the Bible says about creation.
And just as in the case of the Big Bang Theory, as maybe this is the way God created things?
Frank,
That is not a discussion I care to get into with you. Nothing I could offer you in my experience as God showing His presence to me everyday would satisfy you because I do not have your scientific proof and I believe you know that.
What you call everyday events to you may not be everyday events to me.
MA
Well that may be his opinion but there is an element of truth in this. Fundamentalist, conservatives, both political and religious, all have a my way or no way agenda. There's no half-ways and no compromise. Hence all of the bible must be true and literal because if not then how does one decide what is true and literal and what is allegorical and myth. It's an all or nothing deal.
It's bad enough trying to agree on a common interpretation the Bible among literalists; it will be next to impossible to come to a consensus if it were left up to individuals to decide what will be interpreted as allegorical or literal. So to keep it simple, because politics has shown us that people love simple ideas, make it literal.
xingu wrote:MA
Well that may be his opinion but there is an element of truth in this. Fundamentalist, conservatives, both political and religious, all have a my way or no way agenda. There's no half-ways and no compromise. Hence all of the bible must be true and literal because if not then how does one decide what is true and literal and what is allegorical and myth. It's an all or nothing deal.
It's bad enough trying to agree on a common interpretation the Bible among literalists; it will be next to impossible to come to a consensus if it were left up to individuals to decide what will be interpreted as allegorical or literal. So to keep it simple, because politics has shown us that people love simple ideas, make it literal.
xingu,
You seem to be saying, and correct me if I misunderstand here, that ALL fundamentalists and conservatives are alike. They are not. Just as not all people with red hair are alike, people of a certain race are alike, etc.
No matter how it may be shown that this is not the case, it is dismissed. I have been called a fundamentalist and a conservative. I am all for compromise! I don't believe all of the Bible is literal. I believe you must use discernment in reading the Bible. So, there is at least one in those two categories that is NOT LIKE the others.
