Support for belief in Noah's flood, not evidence.

Yes, a lifetime wouldn't be enough time to cover it all. I like to hold on to my foundations and root systems attached, namely Christianity. I'm biased, but I'm also a guy who finds truth appealing. This all makes for an interesting life given the way my religious roots are so often deemed irrelevant and untrue.

Truth.matters. Ill suggest my religion is true, or at least in its truest form, being understood as it was, as opposed to how we sometimes like to apply it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhapd

we can do a couple of threads on this?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We could probably fill a board with this, but I'm not opposed to a couple threads for discussion. Let me know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A word of caution: claiming a belief is true - without supporting it and without entertaining challenges to it - may be considered preaching, and is against site rules. Doesn't mean you can't discuss it, but it does mean it's a discussion, not a speech. Y'all probably know this, but it cant hurt to state it for posterity.

 

Yeah, it might be a lengthy discourse and it may end up boarding on the preaching side of the coin given enough opportunity. It may be best to keep it within secular lingo as to not upset the atheist base whom are most likely to give it that type religious credence, at least as it being viewed as any sort of preaching.

We can even poke fun at the clergy if need be. That may mask it enough to be tolerated.

 

Wait, can everyone see this thread? Please disregard the above stated. I'll be as forthright as needed.

 

Sense of humor aside. Truth is truth.no matter where it comes from. I'm a man who thinks it best to not turn away from it once it's known. The bible teaches that much. I'll suggest it is true.

 

Truth be told, I was never too fond of religion, although I've held on to my religious roots for as long as they've been established. They're dug in too far to uproot and well, I've grown fond of the system and adventure attached. Anyway, Dave, I'll keep your words in mind and be sure to return the favor when I'm able.

 

You misunderstand.

In the context of SciFo, Spirtiualism/Religion does not corner the market on preaching; preaching is about stating beliefs without support, without entertaining challenges to those beliefs, and generally not engaging in a dialogue - i.e. it tends to be a one-way conversation.

Preaching can as easily occur in Pseudoscience fora about such things as microtubules, in Alt theories about 'magnitive' time, or in UFO fora about such things as bug-eyed aliens.

This is where you may get into trouble.

"Truth is truth" is a truism - a deepity. It sounds great but is vacuous. It is no deeper than "red is red". And red is subjective.
The same holds for "what is known". That translates to "what is believed" by you.

That is not to say there aren't facts, and it's not to say there isn't an objective reality, but you will have pretty tough time defending how your beliefs are any more true than anyone else's beliefs. And - should you try to - you will be challenged to defend it with more than faith and belief. If you don't defend it, then it may be construed as preaching. Certainly, the passage I quoted, above, is flirting with it.

I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm just giving you heads up that SciFo expects "critical analysis" and "clear thinking" in all areas of debate.

http://www.sciforums.com/threads/sciforums-site-rules.142880/

 

Or they may view this post as a red flag. Warning: Troll on board!

 

yes I will start a new one. Not right now though, I do not want my first thread on the forum to be about religion!

 

That's exactly my point, Dave. I may as well be an atheist, science oriented, or in the secular camp, but given I was brought up a Christian, I choose to utilize the teachings as they pertain to, or potentially pertain to life - practically speaking. You see, when I utilized the term God, I use it as a term to connote a supreme authority, namely the all encompassing universe. My interests are not only in practical, objective relevancies on earth but also the cosmos. Terrestrial beings we may be, and although you likely don't believe in angels, I'll suggest celestial entities likely exist also. You might call them aliens. It's just difficult and improbable to think we're the only life forms in existence.

So, truth matters. Objective truth matters, and as an individual, my subjective truths matter to me, although I doubt you'd find much interest in them, unless you enjoy strip clubs and loud music.

Truth is truth, just like red is red. Nothing deep or mystic about this. It's just true.

 

Yeah, maybe but I'm not. Decent discussion is sometimes difficult to come by, and I'm certainly not above humor. As a matter of fact, I use it often to get through the day to day, although it's not nearly as mundane as it once was, I find stimulation to be elusive. I mean, the type I find beneficial.

 

That the typical dime I find far too many still spinning on. History is what it is. I don't recall reading about the promotion or laws that demand people stoning homosexuals. I do recall reading about old laws about adulterous types. My guess is people were far too promiscuous back then or the men were too hypocritical to allow their woman the same liberties they had, or maybe they used the stoning law to rid the ones they didn't like. I don't know. What I do know is it was suggested that laws were in place that allowed the stoning of adulterous woman. Jesus seemed to be at odds with that particular law. I can't say I blame him. Apparently they were a bunch of high minded pricks.

So, they ended up hating the man, apprehended him, hung him on a cross with nails, and killed him. I guess he died, and his spirit remained. Hell, they didn't even recognize him after the fact, if it truly happens. Again, it's written down and has been considered a truthful event for a couple thousand years now. Or, maybe he was just beaten so badly that he was unrecognizable and then placed in the tomb to die. That's likely what happend. They say an angel moved the stone from in front of tomb, so I reckon he was able to leave then.

Angels? I guess he or whoever it was would have been considered one, given the ability to move the stone on his own, not to mention freeing a relatively innocent man just for standing up for what was just.

 

There are potential labels for such.

Richard Dawkins has occasionally called himself a "cultural Christian": http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7136682.stm

Douglas Murray has referred to himself as both a "cultural Christian" and a "Christian athiest".

Thomas Jefferson, via removing supernatural and other potential bogus elements from his so-called "Jefferson Bible", was arguably a kind of "philosophical Christian", at best viewing Jesus as a moral sage: "I am a Christian in the only sense in which he (Christ) wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence, & believing he never claimed any other.”[1]

- - - footnote - - -

[1] SEP - Jefferson, Religion & Morality: Though chary of sectarian religion due to the empleomania of sectarian clerics and a sharp critic of Christianity in his youth, “Christianity,” deterged of its political trappings and metaphysical twaddle, in time became special to Jefferson. [...] Jesus’ teachings make up the greatest moral system, and Jesus is “the greatest of all the [religious] reformers.”

[...] Christ was neither the savior of mankind nor the son of God, but the great moral reformer of the Jewish religion ... Even after he purged the Bible of its corruptions—in his own words, after he plucked, in an oft-used metaphor, the diamonds from the dungheap ... to try both to make plain Jesus’ true teachings and to give a credible account of the life of Jesus, Jefferson did not completely follow Jesus’ uncontaminated teachings.

[...] Jefferson finds the notion of three deities in one inscrutable, and therefore physically impossible. Here he falls back on his naturalism. He allows nothing inconsistent with the laws of nature, gleaned through experience. The sort of Unitarianism Jefferson promotes is not a religious sect, but instead a manner of approaching religion.
_

 

Labels are not important.
Dawkins is an important intellectual granted but let's focus on details

 

Christian Evolutionist is yet another, which I myself prescribe to. I am aware of the Jefferson Bible. I've read it only contains what's written in red.

 

What exactly does that mean?

 

"Theistic evolution (also known as theistic evolutionism or God-guided evolution) is a view that God acts and creates through laws of nature."
https://www.google.com/search?q=christian evolutionist