God/Jesus Loves You

[RkyMtnThunder]

[QUOTE=DBruleU;1649942]I'm simply saying Jesus would not have a problem with self-defense...which this conversations started with. He is not a pacifist, nor ever was.

/QUOTE]




Forgive me for being confused here.

But when Judas betrayed Jesus and brought the Romans down on him - why did he not defend himself? Why did he not allow his fellow disciples to defend him?

Why did he not organize local groups to defend themselves from the persecution and oppression of Roman rule?

You are making Jesus sound like some kind of freedom fighter holy warrior.

I view Jesus as one of THE major historical pacifist figures. The original hippie flower child - talking peace & love to power, anti-violence, anti materialism, beard, sandals and everything.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.

And Captain America doesn't swing that shield for nothin', nor does Wolverine have those claws just to pick pimentos out of olives!

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by Taco John

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?

That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?


So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?

I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?






and its stuff like this that make theological debates interesting to me. I wonder if people can actually see what they are saying sometimes

[mosca]

We should be grateful for all the charities that exist to help the needy. Whether they are religious, secular, or outright atheist is irrelevant.

[alkemical]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?

That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?


So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?

I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?






and its stuff like this that make theological debates interesting to me. I wonder if people can actually see what they are saying sometimes

That's more or less how i see it. I've spent time in different reality tunnels and it's amazing at how seemless the brain bridges the gaps.

The thinker thinks, the prover proves.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?
That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?
I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?
and its stuff like this that make theological debates interesting to me. I wonder if people can actually see what they are saying sometimes

I'm pretty sure that he knows what you are getting at here, because that is the point that he is making with his posts.

It's not good or bad to believe a particular thing. That distinction is up to the believer by his own rationalization. Both the theist and the atheist sit in this same boat, and science is only one of the many paddles to drive the vessel.

[Deacon Blue]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

Good thing I don't belong to that then.

I don't agree with much the catholic church does. Especially the Pope's new decree that the only way to be saved is through the catholic church. As if the church has anything to do with saving someone.

Protestants aren't right according to him.

Like I said in another thread that thing got blown WAY out of proportion.

Here's the last part of Dominus Iesus:

“Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.

I think the allegory is that Peter may have had a weapon, but when things got heated - he laid it down...honoring Jesus request

peace > violence....no matter the circumstance

But hey, thats what I get from that aspect of the story...if others see it differently, more power to em.

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

I think the allegory is that Peter may have had a weapon, but when things got heated - he laid it down...honoring Jesus request
peace > violence....no matter the circumstance
But hey, thats what I get from that aspect of the story...if others see it differently, more power to em.

What happens when he unsheathed the sword is beside the point. Peter had been with Jesus quite some time by then, and he was carrying a sword. Why would Peter carry a sword at all?

[OregonBronco]

Originally Posted by Taco John

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?

Here's the difference between scientific method and religion, though:

They are using the best evidence available to try and fill the gaps. When those gaps are filled, the theory will change to reflect the new evidence. Science starts with a question and tries to find an answer based on the evidence available. Religion starts with a question, makes up an answer, then tries to find evidence to support it. Religion and the scientific method are polar opposites.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I don't know anyone who would call themselves a social darwinist. Nobody wants that label. Likewise, there aren't a lot of Aryans who will call themselves Nazis.

I'd wager that you know more athiests who subscribe to some form of social darwinism though than you think you do. In fact, you'll find a lot of Americans (even those who would call themselves Christians) who subscribe to the belief, though they would never call it that. Listen to Rush Limbaugh for any amount of time and tell me he isn't a social darwinist. Of course, he'd deny it. But the label isn't the important thing here... It's how you apply your beliefs.

I can agree with that (that is, your point about applying one's beliefs versus simply making a profession of belief). In my experience, I have never noticed the actions of my atheist firends and aquaintances as being more selfish/less charitable than my theist friends and aquaintances. In some cases, quite the contrary. My friend Brad, for example, spent three years with the Peace Corps. He also volunteers time reguarly to one of the local Elementary schools. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but I think what you are talking about is something more specific to individuals (such as your friend) rather than something representing a greater trend. Your example of Limbaugh proves my point, as he is a professed Christian who always whines about the religion being persecuted. I'd wager you know more atheists who practice altruism and humanism than you think.

[OregonBronco]

Originally Posted by BroncoInferno

I can agree with that (that is, your point about applying one's beliefs versus simply making a profession of belief). In my experience, I have never noticed the actions of my atheist firends and aquaintances as being more selfish/less charitable than my theist friends and aquaintances. In some cases, quite the contrary. My friend Brad, for example, spent three years with the Peace Corps. He also volunteers time reguarly to one of the local Elementary schools. It's anecdotal evidence, sure, but I think what you are talking about is something more specific to individuals (such as your friend) rather than something representing a greater trend. Your example of Limbaugh proves my point, as he is a professed Christian who always whines about the religion being persecuted.

It's all about the individual. I'd wager that if you took a sampling of of Christians vs a sampling of atheists, you'd get the same proportions of a-holes and really nice people. Religion is as much an indicator about a person's inner worth as is whether or not they like ice cream. There's no correlation.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by angryllama

What happens when he unsheathed the sword is beside the point. Peter had been with Jesus quite some time by then, and he was carrying a sword. Why would Peter carry a sword at all?

IMO

Because Peter is not perfect. Peter is human.

Jesus, representing the voice of divinity (but not divinity himself IMO) tells simple human to put passionate irrationality aside and stand down in the face of violence.


Kind of hard to have that interchange if Peter left his sword at home.



But again, this is merely my perception and opinion on this allegorical story.

[baja]

The irony here is the posts themselves given the title of the thread.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by angryllama

Here's an interesting question...

In the garden of Gethsemane, Peter was carrying a sword. Jesus told him to put it away so that he could be taken into captivity.

Why did Peter have a sword?

Surely he wasnt carrying it for looks.

I would imagine Peter carried a sword in order to protect himself. He might have had other survival uses for it as well.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by OregonBronco

Here's the difference between scientific method and religion, though:

They are using the best evidence available to try and fill the gaps. When those gaps are filled, the theory will change to reflect the new evidence. Science starts with a question and tries to find an answer based on the evidence available. Religion starts with a question, makes up an answer, then tries to find evidence to support it. Religion and the scientific method are polar opposites.

If only what you posted were true, this would be a lot closer to a perfect world.

Science has become much more dogmatic than that.

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by Taco John

You're saying that the theory of Darwinism has ruled out all other possibilities

No. Evolution isn't ruling anything OUT, it merely has ruled itself IN. Any other theory that is better able to explain the facts and make equally powerful predictions is invited to compete with evolution's dominance as the prevailing theory of biological diversity. But, frankly, I can't name a single competing theory that qualifies as such. Can you?

Originally Posted by Taco John

and is the only one remaining possibility? Even with all of its problems?

What problems?

Originally Posted by Taco John

Darwinism might be the best explination that is currently popular, but it's hardly bullet-proof.

And who is claiming that it is? Every time I have a discussion regarding evolutionary theory, I try to remind my readers that like EVERY scientific theory, evolution is open to falsification. That's one of the things that MAKES it a scientific theory. The reason evolution is in the exhaulted position it is today is because for nearly 150 years, no one's been able to falsify it. Doesn't mean it won't happen in the future --all good science holds out for that possibility--but what it does mean is that it hasn't happened yet. Thus, evolution remains the foundation of all modern biological study.

Originally Posted by Taco John

You have to ignore a lot of evidence and even missing evidence to come to the conclusion that it is the only one remaining possibility.

Really? Enlighten me. What other possibilities are there and what weight of evidence do they hold?

Originally Posted by Taco John

Sounds like denial to me. You don't want to be painted with "believing" something. You want to come across as more rational and grounded, and say that you accept something based on the prevailing thought.

Damn. Will you people ever begin to LISTEN to a person is saying instead of JAMMING words down their throat? When did I ever say I accept evolution because it is a "prevailing thought"? I said I accept it based upon the overwelming evidence in favor of evolution (and the lack of ANY valid dissenting opinion) and because it makes the best sense out of ALL the available facts as well as upon its astounding predictive power. If you're going to represent what I said, represent it accurately.

Originally Posted by Taco John

But in the end, it's still just a belief, because it's not a knowing. If you don't know something, but you accept something based on your faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, it's still nothing more than "belief."

Ok. Given that definition I believe in gravity. Don't know about for sure, but I sure have enough evidence to believe it's true. Let's go ahead and equate that with religion, shall we?

Or how about electromagentic theory? Guess I can only believe in the interrelationship between electric fields, magnetic fields, electric charge, and electric current.

You see, because unlike religious assertions that claim to KNOW for a fact that God created Adam and Eve, or that morality derives from a Supreme Being, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections. Thus, you can never state -in the venacular you choose-- to KNOW anything about evolution, gravity or electromagnatism. You can only believe in these things. Is that what you're tryng to say, Taco? Or does evolution get special treatment in this department? You can KNOW that gravity is force of nature (even though it is only a theory) but you can't KNOW that decent with modification has occurred. Is that really what you want to argue?

Originally Posted by Taco John

And for the record, that's all Darwinism is: faith in the prevailing interpretation of the evidence, despite the gaps that exist in the theory. Perhaps you believe that those gaps will be filled in due time? Or, excuse me, perhaps you accept that those gaps will be filled in due time?

What gaps?

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?


That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?

Of course I'm aware of that. It's the other side of the same coin.

So by making this statement as if it were truth, are you willing to accept them making similar statement as if it were truth as well?

I mean - is it good or bad to believe in something despite gaps in the theory/ideology?!?

I'm not here to make good or bad judgements. I'm just recognizing what is, and accepting it for what it is. Science relies on belief and faith just as much as religion does. And often times, like religon does, Science gets it wrong.

[RkyMtnThunder]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Of course I'm aware of that. It's the other side of the same coin.





I'm not here to make good or bad judgements. I'm just recognizing what is, and accepting it for what it is. Science relies on belief and faith just as much as religion does. And often times, like religon does, Science gets it wrong.

I dont agree with that.

Maybe pseudoscience like cryptozoology relies on belief and faith as much as religion does....that might be more accurate

[orangeatheist]

Originally Posted by RkyMtnThunder

You do realize that is the same argument an atheist would make in regards to believers?

That believers have faith in something despite gaps that exist?

You mean that one, gigantic gap between saying god exists and proving it? Or the related one that asserts there's an Intelligent Designer and providing the evidence of how, why and what it designed?

Hardly the "same coin" Taco believes it is.

[OregonBronco]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Science has become much more dogmatic than that.

I don't that that's anymore true now than it has been in centuries past. The world is filled with people who want to maintain the status quo and will try to silence anyone who threatens that. Look at the pressure put on Galileo by the church. Look at what Bush has done to silence stem-cell research. This has been the case for as long as science, politics and religion have coexisted. Eventually someone comes along and makes a new discovery that shakes up the community. Science can at least admit that it was wrong when enough evidence comes to light (even though it may take a while).

When has religion ever admitted it was wrong about its explanations for why things happen? Never. To admit one piece of the puzzle is wrong is to throw the whole thing away. Religion can't adapt to the changing world and new ideas, that's why everyone was so pissed off about the prospect of the DaVinci code.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

He (Jesus) wasn't a pacifist by any means.

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Can you give us even one example?

Or are you just trying to make Jesus who you want Him to be?

[DBruleU]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Do you have any evidence to support this?

Can you give us even one example?

Or are you just trying to make Jesus who you want Him to be?

My gosh...just read the posts I've made. The Scriptures for one.

It's you who makes Him who you want him to be.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by DBruleU

My gosh...just read the posts I've made. The Scriptures for one.

Which scriptures, specifically, support your claim that Jesus was not a pacifist?

Can you give us examples?

Originally Posted by DBruleU

It's you who makes Him who you want him to be.

Can you give an example of when I've done this?

Didn't think so.