NationStates Jolt Archive

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?

Coincidence? No, just word-play.

Hypotheis: Does Satan exist? Ahmmm well? I can't test it.

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?

No. Good in the first sense means correct. Good in the second sense means living as God would want one to (even though there are doctrinal objections to that explanation).

Also, science is amoral (not immoral). It just says what is in the natural world. Technology (the application of science) can be moral or immoral.
Satan is utterly depraved. He can't get more evil.

Science brought us evolution so...



:eek: ;)

Well, that assumes not only that Satan exists as a force of evil but also what he tempts us with is evil; many of the things considered "Satanic" are laughable and not a threat to anyone's well-being, and the things that remain (like murder) are condemned almost universally. There is no "Satan" in Hinduism, but they still see murder and rape as evil; the same is true in most of the pre-Christian polytheistic religions, Shinto, animist traditions, Taoism and virtually all other systems.

Also, Satan is not the same in Christianity and Judaism; in the Torah, he is an angel of God tasked with tempting people and testing their faith while in the Gospels and writings of the apostles he has transformed from angel under the dominion of God to a dualistic enemy of God...he's totally different even between various Christian denominations and between Islam and the Judeochristain tradition.

Coincidence?

No. Satan is meant as a symbol for things that challenge dogma.

Hypotheis: Does Satan exist? Ahmmm well? I can't test it.

You could build a Doom-style teleportation device and accidentally open a portal into a plane of eternal torment, then run in and see if theres a Satan around ;)

No. Good in the first sense means correct. Good in the second sense means living as God would want one to (even though there are doctrinal objections to that explanation).
Living as God would want one to is morally correct.

I am very proud to be a satanist. Erm, I mean scientist. Yeah. :cool:

Science brought us evolution so...



:eek: ;)

Evilution is wrong. By adding up the ages of every one in the bible you can see the world is only about 6000 years old. Thats not enough time for evilution to happen. Plus its just a way for athiests and satanists to make people think that theirs no God. That way theyll have abortions and gay sex.

Clearly satan wants scientists to spread evolution so people will have abortions and gay sex.

Living as God would want one to is morally correct.

Yes, and? That's how the word good came to be applied to things not normally asscoiated with morality.

Clearly satan wants scientists to spread evolution so people will have abortions and gay sex.

But then the people listening to him will die out...

Ever try turning sicence on Satan.Anyone remember this link?http://www.psc.edu/~deerfiel/Jokes/pchem.html
;)

Clearly satan wants scientists to spread evolution so people will have abortions and gay sex.

That must be it. And race mixing, don't forget the race mixing.

But then the people listening to him will die out...

Oh, I imagine a few heteros will be kept for ... erm, breeding purposes. After all, if all humans are gone, Satan's out of a job, isn't he?

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?

Stop now.Science is the reason you have a computer and the internet.That,and Al Gore.In fact,Al Gore recognises science's part in the creation of the internet he has personally sent a threat to anyone denouncing science.

http://uncyclopedia.org/images/8/8a/Stfualgore.jpg

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?

What are you sure?

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: A fictional carector made up to scare us into beliving in a concept of God that makes no sense at all.

Satanists: A bunch of wankers of their own ego.

There now that makes more sense.

I believe that Science and religiona re the same.

OOC: I've come back from my self-exile.

Satan: A fictional carector made up to scare us into beliving in a concept of God that makes no sense at all.

Scare us by teaching "it may sound sensible, logical and right, but if it contradicts the Bible it is evil". The persons thinking him up really were bloody brilliant - knowing that there would be people capable of reasoning against the words of the Bible.

I believe that Science and religiona re the same.

SCIENCE: A way of finding things out and then making them work. Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does RELIGION, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong. There is a lot more Science than you think.

-- From A Scientific Encyclopedia for the Enquiring Young Nome by Angalo de Haberdasheri (Terry Pratchett, Wings)

Scare us by teaching "it may sound sensible, logical and right, but if it contradicts the Bible it is evil". The persons thinking him up really were bloody brilliant - knowing that there would be people capable of reasoning against the words of the Bible.


Yeah perhaps or perhaps it is just a wrong interpretation of what Satan is.

The word Satan means advesary, so perhaps the original satan was just a word that meant block to finding God; whatever form that block may take.

Living as God would want one to is morally correct.

Which has nothing at all to do with science.

Science, as has been pointed out, is amoral, meaning that morals are entirely beside the point. Science simply exists.

Clearly satan wants scientists to spread evolution so people will have abortions and gay sex.

I miss jesussaves...:(

Yes, and? That's how the word good came to be applied to things not normally asscoiated with morality.

:) ...And, so they are in the same context.

Telling whats fact and whats ficition is completly differant from finding out who's been "good" and who's been "bad".

That's a great comparison and makes total sense. The only thing I would change about it is that I would mention that science actually exists and Satan does not. :)

Which has nothing at all to do with science.
Of course not. It has to do with correctness.

Of course not. It has to do with correctness.

__________________
Faith is believing that witch cannot exist.


No, not if you are using correct to mean true as opposed to false.

Science has to do with the correctness of hypothesis. Morality is strictly a value judgement and cannot be proven to be correct or incorrect.

If you are using correct to mean good as opposed to bad, then yes, morality has to do with correctness, as it is a value judgement, where science is neither good nor bad, it simply is.



By the way, since Wiccanism IS a faith, for Wiccans faith is believing that witch CAN exist... and much like science, the witch can be proven to exist. I will refrain from comment on whether the same holds true for God.

Perhaps you meant to say "Faith is believing that which cannot exist."? And, frankly, that sentiment is wrong too. Faith is believing that which cannot BE PROVEN to exist. Your way, God cannot exist.

Which (not witch) I suppose would be ok by many (although witches do believe in Gods, so not ok by them).

Faith is believing that witch cannot exist.


Saetan believes Witch, who is Dreams Made Flesh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Jewels_Trilogy) exists.

No, not if you are using correct to mean true as opposed to false.

Science has to do with the correctness of hypothesis. Morality is strictly a value judgement and cannot be proven to be correct or incorrect.

If you are using correct to mean good as opposed to bad, then yes, morality has to do with correctness, as it is a value judgement, where science is neither good nor bad, it simply is.
But that's not what "correct" means; it means conforming to fact or truth; accurate. Both the scientific "good" and the moral "good" conform to another thing that is held as true, so the word is used in the same context in both phrases; and neither "good" says anything about the actual truth of the thing they are conforming to, only that it is true that they do conform.

By the way, since Wiccanism IS a faith, for Wiccans faith is believing that witch CAN exist... and much like science, the witch can be proven to exist. I will refrain from comment on whether the same holds true for God.

Perhaps you meant to say "Faith is believing that which cannot exist."? And, frankly, that sentiment is wrong too. Faith is believing that which cannot BE PROVEN to exist. Your way, God cannot exist.

Which (not witch) I suppose would be ok by many (although witches do believe in Gods, so not ok by them).
The pun in my sig merely states a belief held by some in a humorous double-entendre.

:) ...And, so they are in the same context.

No, one context evolved out of the other.

No, one context evolved out of the other.

How so?

How so?

Because correct idea (good science) does not equal correct behavior (moral). Technology (the application of knowledge) can be correct behavior (moral). One sense of good is entirely in reference to the idea being in agreement with what is. The other sense is in reference to the behaior meeting what is expected (usually by a deity). We have no other word for the second sense, but we do have another word for the first sense: true. Therefore, (though I admit it is not necessary) it makes sense that the context in the first reference evolved from the context of the second.

Since the answer to the question, "Is my behaviour moral?" has no measurable consequences, why should we care?

No. Good in the first sense means correct. Good in the second sense means living as God would want one to (even though there are doctrinal objections to that explanation).

Also, science is amoral (not immoral). It just says what is in the natural world. Technology (the application of science) can be moral or immoral.
Satan is utterly depraved. He can't get more evil.

Says one theory. However, if that is true, and God is the inverse, (can't be any more good), and God is all powerful, then, by logic, Satan should not be.

Continuing the theory, examine the story of Job. Satan there is shown both to speak to God, and to be subservient to God's will.

Says one theory. However, if that is true, and God is the inverse, (can't be any more good), and God is all powerful, then, by logic, Satan should not be.

Continuing the theory, examine the story of Job. Satan there is shown both to speak to God, and to be subservient to God's will.

Who said Satan was all powerful? :confused:

Yes, I agree with the Bible.

Still missing point. :confused:

Who said Satan was all powerful? :confused:

By be, I meant exist, as in, God should not allow the existence of a completely evil being.

Yes, I agree with the Bible.

Still missing point. :confused:

The point was that it makes no sense for A) Satan to exist B) An all powerful God to exist C) For Satan to be completely evil and D) For God to be completely good.

By be, I meant exist, as in, God should not allow the existence of a completely evil being.

You're telling God what He should do?

The point was that it makes no sense for A) Satan to exist B) An all powerful God to exist C) For Satan to be completely evil and D) For God to be completely good.

What if God is being long-suffering, as the Bible says He is? We cannot claim to know the mind of God beyond what He has revealed in the Bible. Or we can, but we oughtn't.

You're telling God what He should do?

Actually, I'm telling you what a hypothetical being of infinite power and goodness should do.



What if God is being long-suffering, as the Bible says He is? We cannot claim to know the mind of God beyond what He has revealed in the Bible. Or we can, but we oughtn't.

Long suffering? What does that mean, anyways? He's putting up with Satan?

Actually, I'm telling you what a hypothetical being of infinite power and goodness should do.

So you're telling God what He should do.


Long suffering? What does that mean, anyways? He's putting up with Satan?

Basically. For what reason? His glory. That's why anything happens. But that's another topic.

So you're telling God what He should do.

You're god? I've being meaning to ask you, what's up with acne?




Basically. For what reason? His glory. That's why anything happens. But that's another topic.

So... God's a glory hound?

You're god? I've being meaning to ask you, what's up with acne?

:confused:




So... God's a glory hound?

That's a strange, if not crude way of putting it.

:confused:


Well I don't see how else telling you something equates to telling God something.




That's a strange, if not crude way of putting it.

What would you call someone who does everything for the purpose of his own glory?

I have to go to class, I'll be back in about 3 hours. Sorry for the delay!

One sense of good is entirely in reference to the idea being in agreement with what is. The other sense is in reference to the behaior meeting what is expected (usually by a deity).
What they are in agree with is irrelevant; it is the fact that they are in agreement that makes them "correct".

We have no other word for the second sense, but we do have another word for the first sense: true. Therefore, (though I admit it is not necessary) it makes sense that the context in the first reference evolved from the context of the second.
I'm not seeing it.

Well I don't see how else telling you something equates to telling God something.

You made a statement about what God should do. Since He sees the heart, You told Him directly what to do.



What would you call someone who does everything for the purpose of his own glory?

A mere human I would call an ass. But God can do what He wants (and He only wants to do what is in His nature). End of story, from a Biblical standpoint.

What they are in agree with is irrelevant; it is the fact that they are in agreement that makes them "correct".


I'm not seeing it.

I think you're being too general with your definitions.

You made a statement about what God should do. Since He sees the heart, You told Him directly what to do.


So, whenever you say something, you say it directly to God?

My, that has to be embarrassing.

"What? I'm so good at what? Hey stop that! That's not in the Bible! Don't make me get Smitey!"




A mere human I would call an ass. But God can do what He wants (and He only wants to do what is in His nature). End of story, from a Biblical standpoint.

Ah, so he's a self centered spoiled glory hound.

But that's not what "correct" means; it means conforming to fact or truth; accurate. Both the scientific "good" and the moral "good" conform to another thing that is held as true, so the word is used in the same context in both phrases; and neither "good" says anything about the actual truth of the thing they are conforming to, only that it is true that they do conform.


The bold is mine, to point out that "fact" and "truth" hold different meanings here.

A belief may be held as true but not be based in fact, that is hard evidence.

Science works in facts; morals works in beliefs. So once again, the two do not equate. We can use the same word (correct) to describe both, but the word has multiple meanings, no matter how many ways you try to show it does not.

Yes, in fact, the SENSE of the word is similar, in that the things in question conform to some other thing, but I am speaking to the original question about Science and Satan when I point out that the MEAT of the word is vastly different.

And so, in comparing Science to Satan, you are effectively trying to compare apples to Tuesday. No comparison (in the manner you posited originally) exists.

That must be it. And race mixing, don't forget the race mixing.

Who'll think of the Norwegian children?

*sniffs*

So, whenever you say something, you say it directly to God?

My, that has to be embarrassing.

"What? I'm so good at what? Hey stop that! That's not in the Bible! Don't make me get Smitey!"

Something tells me God's not laughing. Neither am I, but my humor doesn't mean anything.


Ah, so he's a self centered spoiled glory hound.

If we belong to God (He created us, so surely we do), then He can use us for whatever purpose He wants to use us.

something tells me that many of the people who read that are laughing - as are all the rest of the omnipitant deities and supernaturals out there... :D

Ah, I love when a religious person so obviously shows their fear of science. They know that they are losing. Within the coming decades, humankind will create sentient life, both electronic and biological. God is dead. Man is God.

Only the most personal religions, like Buddhism and Deism, will survive the century, and if I am wrong, greater men than I have been wrong about such things before me.

Only the most personal religions, like Buddhism and Deism, will survive the century, and if I am wrong, greater men than I have been wrong about such things before me.

Thank God!

also i didnt notice the second part of your post before...

If we belong to god does that make us his slaves?

What about those that dont believe in god - or believe in other gods? Can they be tried/punished or killed for trying to "escape" their slavery?

Can god free us from this slavery? what happens to those who have been empancipated?

also i didnt notice the second part of your post before...

If we belong to god does that make us his slaves?

What about those that dont believe in god - or believe in other gods? Can they be tried/punished or killed for trying to "escape" their slavery?

Can god free us from this slavery? what happens to those who have been empancipated?

Umm, no. The relationship between Creator and creature is not the same as master and thrall.

And because some people try to break that relationship (though they could never suceed in breaking it, merely changing it), they deserve death. For God requires of His creatures all praise and honor, but Man refuses to give it (natural Man, of course).

Did you just advocate death - in the form of murder i assume - for those that dont believe and worship god the way you do? (the way you understand all should?)

Thank God!

However, those men did not have the New Genesis nearly on the horizon, as we do. The only thing that could possibly save Old Religion is a severe economic downturn, enough to bring a screeching near-halt to scientific progress and industrial output. There are certain issues that exist today that, if not solved in the coming years, could bring about this 2nd Dark Age. I assert, though, that any man who wishes for such a thing is a traitor to humanity.

Did you just advocate death - in the form of murder i assume - for those that dont believe and worship god the way you do? (the way you understand all should?)

Hell=Death. Learn all you can about you enemy.:)

Did you just advocate death - in the form of murder i assume - for those that dont believe and worship god the way you do? (the way you understand all should?)

Physical death? No. But all, even the child conceived this very moment are already spiritually dead, the result of their sin. God in His mercy protects us from the full penalty (the torment of hell) for a time.

However, those men did not have the New Genesis nearly on the horizon, as we do. The only thing that could possibly save Old Religion is a severe economic downturn, enough to bring a screeching near-halt to scientific progress and industrial output. There are certain issues that exist today that, if not solved in the coming years, could bring about this 2nd Dark Age. I assert, though, that any man who wishes for such a thing is a traitor to humanity.

Well, I'm a traitor then, and happy to be so.

Hell=Death. Learn all you can about you enemy.:)

And Christians are the intolerant bigots who hate everyone who disagrees with them?

And Christians are the intolerant bigots who hate everyone who disagrees with them?
I don’t know why you would say that in response to that particular quote of me. I was merely explaining what you meant by death. As far as I can recall from my Christian upbringing, death without Christ means eternal separation from God in hell, in other words death, while salvation gives eternal life in heaven. I’m fairly certain things haven’t changed since then.

In response to your rhetorical question, I assure you that I hate no one that I am aware of. Hate is such an inefficient emotion.

I don’t know why you would say that in response to that particular quote of me. I was merely explaining what you meant by death. As far as I can recall from my Christian upbringing, death without Christ means eternal separation from God in hell, in other words death, while salvation gives eternal life in heaven. I’m fairly certain things haven’t changed since then.

In response to your rhetorical question, I assure you that I hate no one that I am aware of. Hate is such an inefficient emotion.

I was responding to your statement that one should know his enemy. I was half-joking. As for hate being an inefficient emotion, I'm not sure how to take that.

I was responding to your statement that one should know his enemy. I was half-joking.
Whole jokes often have truths or opinions behind them, half-jokes just don’t mask them as well, or at all.
As for hate being an inefficient emotion, I'm not sure how to take that.
It should not be hard for one of your faith to imagine one not hating one’s enemies, shouldn’t it? Hate consumes far too much time, thought and energy merely to produce more iterations of itself.

It should not be hard for one of your faith to imagine one not hating one’s enemies, shouldn’t it? Hate consumes far too much time, thought and energy merely to produce more iterations of itself.

I didn't say I disagreed with the result; I'm just unsure about the reasoning behind it.

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?
Science does not make observations. Science is a method of making observations. Science does not devise hypotheses or tests, it is merely the basis for the devising of those.

Umm, no. The relationship between Creator and creature is not the same as master and thrall.

And because some people try to break that relationship (though they could never suceed in breaking it, merely changing it), they deserve death. For God requires of His creatures all praise and honor, but Man refuses to give it (natural Man, of course).


Errr... nope... I don't belong to your God, and I don't deserve death. I will not praise and honor your God, at best I will ignore her. So far, it is a state of affairs that has worked out quite well, and, I am sure, will continue to do so.

Just a suggestion, but in a discussion such as this, do not assume your beliefs are the empirical truth and that they apply to everyone. Understand that they are fine for YOU, but do not appy to me. You might try prefacing some of your statements with "I believe...", and you might also think about what that means, and maybe realize that you have no possible way of KNOWING, so it is just belief, and as such is personal and not universal.

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?

It could be a coincidence...if Satan existed, that is.

The whole Christian argument regarding Satan is one of the main reasons why I long ago decided the entire religion was deluding itself.

It could be a coincidence...if Satan existed, that is.

The whole Christian argument regarding Satan is one of the main reasons why I long ago decided the entire religion was deluding itself.
Hmmm... which Christian argument? I don't know any two Christians who would agree entirely about the nature of Satan (or his existence, for that matter).

Hmmm... which Christian argument? I don't know any two Christians who would agree entirely about the nature of Satan (or his existence, for that matter).

Exactly my point.

A religion that can't even agree on the true nature of it's foe will certainly never agree on the true nature of it's idol...a recipe for eternal conflict and strife if ever I saw one.

Ever try turning sicence on Satan.Anyone remember this link?http://www.psc.edu/~deerfiel/Jokes/pchem.html
;)

good bit of reasoning

Harmonia Mortus Redux;11650500']You could build a Doom-style teleportation device and accidentally open a portal into a plane of eternal torment, then run in and see if theres a Satan around ;)

Don't forget the cool music!

Errr... nope... I don't belong to your God, and I don't deserve death. I will not praise and honor your God, at best I will ignore her. So far, it is a state of affairs that has worked out quite well, and, I am sure, will continue to do so.

Just a suggestion, but in a discussion such as this, do not assume your beliefs are the empirical truth and that they apply to everyone. Understand that they are fine for YOU, but do not appy to me. You might try prefacing some of your statements with "I believe...", and you might also think about what that means, and maybe realize that you have no possible way of KNOWING, so it is just belief, and as such is personal and not universal.

There is a difference between being able to know and being able to prove.

And my beliefs are the truth. Not because I believe them, but because God's Word says so. I know they ar true by faith and therefore I can speak with the highest authority. Just as you can are able to speak against it with the highest authority if you truly believe by faith that I am wrong.

There is a difference between being able to know and being able to prove.

And my beliefs are the truth. Not because I believe them, but because God's Word says so. I know they ar true by faith and therefore I can speak with the highest authority. Just as you can are able to speak against it with the highest authority if you truly believe by faith that I am wrong.

Quoted for Arrogance.

Quoted for Arrogance.

With a capitial 'A'? Ooo, that's some primo arrogance...

Quoted for Arrogance.

How do you mean?

As in you want to emphasize my arrogance?

"for arrogance" can mean a bunch of different things.

With a capitial 'A'? Ooo, that's some primo arrogance...

Capitals make more serious.

*nods*

How do you mean?

As in you want to emphasize my arrogance?

"for arrogance" can mean a bunch of different things.

In this case, only one meaning.

It was arrogant...so I quoted it.

Capitals make more serious.

*nods*

Damn straight. And Edwardis, it was a blisteringly stiff-necked approach to take to a debate.

In this case, only one meaning.

It was arrogant...so I quoted it.

Oh, okay. And there was no arrogance implied in the sentence at all. There is no merit to my beliefs because I believe them. And anyone who truly believes something should speak as if it is true. Even is you think that morality is relative or that there is no absolute truth (which makes no sense whatsoever, because it is an attempt to state an absolute truth) or whatever, because it is true for the person who says it. I don't agree with any of those theories, but even by them, one can still say what is, not that one thinks.

Damn straight. And Edwardis, it was a blisteringly stiff-necked approach to take to a debate.

That's me. A stiff-necked Presbyterian.

Oh, okay. And there was no arrogance implied in the sentence at all. There is no merit to my beliefs because I believe them. And anyone who truly believes something should speak as if it is true. Even is you think that morality is relative or that there is no absolute truth (which makes no sense whatsoever, because it is an attempt to state an absolute truth) or whatever, because it is true for the person who says it. I don't agree with any of those theories, but even by them, one can still say what is, not that one thinks.

Anyone who truly believes anything, should have the wisdom to know that no matter how much devotion they can muster, they are infinitely human, and hardly capable enough to say that thier tiny little idealogy is absolute truth.

Absolute truth is not susceptible to debate.
There can be no other possibilities.

As God may not exist, he does not fall into this category, let alone your particular views of him/her/it/Burt Convey.

Anyone who truly believes anything, should have the wisdom to know that no matter how much devotion they can muster, they are infinitely human, and hardly capable enough to say that thier tiny little idealogy is absolute truth.

Absolute truth is not susceptible to debate.
There can be no other possibilities.

As God may not exist, he does not fall into this category, let alone your particular views of him/her/it/Burt Convey.

Of course absolute truth is not open to debate. But the belief about it is.

And if all are infinitely human, then you are hardly capable of saying that your tiny little ideology about how one should speak about ideologies is absolute truth and followed by everyone. Which is basically what you're telling me.

Of course absolute truth is not open to debate. But the belief about it is.

And if all are infinitely human, then you are hardly capable of saying that your tiny little ideology about how one should speak about ideologies is absolute truth and followed by everyone. Which is basically what you're telling me.


Im afraid your ranting, and really not making very much sense.

Let me put it to you another way.

Your own bible, is almost two thousand years old, and has been translated from one language to the other, and finally into English.
Do you think that all of the original intention was retained?
Many of the verses have entirely different meanings, even in Greek, let alone Hebrew.

Knowing this, how can you assume your particular views of God are absolute truth?

Then..

Would it not be arrogance, in the extreme to proclaim that your idealogy, and yours alone, is the true path to Heaven?

If God truly exists, then he is something that you will never truly understand, simply because you are fallible, and flawed as any other human.

Your own bible, is almost two thousand years old, and has been translated from one language to the other, and finally into English.
Do you think that all of the original intention was retained?
Many of the verses have entirely different meanings, even in Greek, let alone Hebrew.

They found with the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Bible has never changed anything other than the loss of an article or the changing of a preposition to make it more natural.

Person A makes a mistake in translation, and so do persons B and C. But they don't make the same mistakes, so we know where mistakes were made.

Knowing this, how can you assume your particular views of God are absolute truth?

By faith. You probably hate this answer, but it's the only one I have. Because it's true. I know by faith. I can't prove it, but no one can disprove it.

Would it not be arrogance, in the extreme to proclaim that your idealogy, and yours alone, is the true path to Heaven?

No, becaused Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one can come to the Father but through Him. Seems pretty exclusive, doesn't it?

If God truly exists, then he is something that you will never truly understand, simply because you are fallible, and flawed as any other human.

What you really mean is that I will never full understand God. And even that is open to debate. I can't remember where the verse is but it says that we will know Him (God) then (in heaven) as He knows us now. How does He know us now? Perfectly. And so we will know Him perfecty. But that is not an interpretation shared by all Christians, so...

Ever try turning sicence on Satan.Anyone remember this link?http://www.psc.edu/~deerfiel/Jokes/pchem.html
;)

I just loved this :eek: it made me think :)

They found with the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Bible has never changed anything other than the loss of an article or the changing of a preposition to make it more natural.

Not unless the Dead Sea Scrolls contain unedited, original copies of the Matthew, Mark etc....let alone any of the countless Gnostic texts, or "Apochryphal Texts".




By faith. You probably hate this answer, but it's the only one I have. Because it's true. I know by faith. I can't prove it, but no one can disprove it.

Faith, no matter how strong, does not imply truth.
Lost of people believe in Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.
Those people have the exscuse of being children.....whats yours?





No, becaused Jesus said that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life and that no one can come to the Father but through Him. Seems pretty exclusive, doesn't it?

Thats lovely, but remember that there are many ways to "through Him" besides the one you adhere to.




What you really mean is that I will never full understand God. .

Faith isnt a bad thing, and if it does you good, thats lovely, but remember that insisting that your particular views on God, are the only acceptable ones, is a statement of supreme arrogance.

Why?

Becuase for one...God may be nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

For another, If God DOES exist, your ideas of him come from a very old, somewhat innacurate text, that was written by people who werent present at the events they speak of.
Theres a very, very good chance that your information is flawed.

What does it mean?

Simply keep an open mind.
Too often this is hard for Christians to do.

Not unless the Dead Sea Scrolls contain unedited, original copies of the Matthew, Mark etc....let alone any of the countless Gnostic texts, or "Apochryphal Texts".

The principal is the same.

Faith, no matter how strong, does not imply truth.
Lost of people believe in Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.
Those people have the exscuse of being children.....whats yours?

It makes more sense than having faith in anyone else I've come into contact with.

Thats lovely, but remember that there are many ways to "through Him" besides the one you adhere to.

There's only one Biblical way.

And my beliefs are the truth.
What if I claimed that mine are too... but mine are in direct disagreement with yours?

Not because I believe them, but because God's Word says so.
How do you know that the Bible is god's word?

I know they ar true by faith and therefore I can speak with the highest authority.
I believe that the sky is orange in the middle of the day, this is true by faith and therefore I can speak with the highest authority... and still be factually wrong.

I think you're being too general with your definitions.

No, just context-specific (i.e. "that's what I meant"

The bold is mine, to point out that "fact" and "truth" hold different meanings here.

A belief may be held as true but not be based in fact, that is hard evidence.
Just so. Belief is things that are true. We don't believe in things that are false --nobody does that --although it is certainly possible to believe in things that are unfactual and/or unreal.

Science works in facts; morals works in beliefs. So once again, the two do not equate. We can use the same word (correct) to describe both, but the word has multiple meanings, no matter how many ways you try to show it does not.

Yes, in fact, the SENSE of the word is similar, in that the things in question conform to some other thing, but I am speaking to the original question about Science and Satan when I point out that the MEAT of the word is vastly different.

And so, in comparing Science to Satan, you are effectively trying to compare apples to Tuesday. No comparison (in the manner you posited originally) exists.
The factuality of the subject of comparison takes a second seat in importance to the method each subject employs. The methods of science and Satan are what is being compared.

something tells me that many of the people who read that are laughing - as are all the rest of the omnipitant deities and supernaturals out there... :D

We can only hope. ;)

Physical death? No. But all, even the child conceived this very moment are already spiritually dead, the result of their sin. God in His mercy protects us from the full penalty (the torment of hell) for a time.

Good to know there's no hope!

Science does not make observations. Science is a method of making observations. Science does not devise hypotheses or tests, it is merely the basis for the devising of those.

You're not very good with personification, are you?

It could be a coincidence...if Satan existed, that is.

The whole Christian argument regarding Satan is one of the main reasons why I long ago decided the entire religion was deluding itself.

But if we regard Satan as a symbol representing (variously) temptation to naughtiness, the sins (or bad deeds) of all man, or the trials and tribulation placed before man on his journey through life, then he most certainly does exist, and the comparison holds.

Oh, okay. And there was no arrogance implied in the sentence at all. There is no merit to my beliefs because I believe them. And anyone who truly believes something should speak as if it is true. Even is you think that morality is relative or that there is no absolute truth (which makes no sense whatsoever, because it is an attempt to state an absolute truth) or whatever, because it is true for the person who says it. I don't agree with any of those theories, but even by them, one can still say what is, not that one thinks.
I would disagree. There is merit to your beliefs simply because you believe them --that's how we respect another's religion.

I do agree that anyone who truly believes something should speak as if it is true, and that that is a proper way of expressing both belief and opinion.

"...because it is true for the person who says it" is what relative morality means.

The principal is the same.

Query: what are the underlying principles of the Bible and the dead sea scrolls then ? The Bible is basicly a list of commandments with some clarifying stories in between. Some commandments seem to be the logical result of a greater principle, but other commandments then provide exceptions to the rule.

If you have indentified a set of major principles from which every single commandment in the Bible follows logically you have a very good shot at sainthood. At the very least.

What if I claimed that mine are too... but mine are in direct disagreement with yours?

One of us has to be wrong. Or both of us could be wrong.

How do you know that the Bible is god's word?

Faith

I believe that the sky is orange in the middle of the day, this is true by faith and therefore I can speak with the highest authority... and still be factually wrong.

You're a fool for thinking it and your faith is misplaced, but you should still speak with authority about it.

Good to know there's no hope!

If there were no hope, I wouldn't be arguing with you trying to get you to see that hope.

Query: what are the underlying principles of the Bible and the dead sea scrolls then ? The Bible is basicly a list of commandments with some clarifying stories in between. Some commandments seem to be the logical result of a greater principle, but other commandments then provide exceptions to the rule.

If you have indentified a set of major principles from which every single commandment in the Bible follows logically you have a very good shot at sainthood. At the very least.

I meant the principal for seeing that the Bible has remained consistent for the past nearly 2 millenia (more for the OT) is the same whether we're talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls or other writings.

Science: Makes observations about the empirical world around us. Devises hypothesis and tests to determine if the hypothesis can be disproven. In performing a number of tests, if the hypothesis cannot be disproven it is accepted as good.

Satan: Makes observations about the spiritual world around us. Devises tests to tempt witting or unwitting souls in their faith. In performing a number of tests, if the person is not tempted they are accepted as good.

Coincidence?
I've always found it telling that Satan is the being who tempts humans to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, and God is the being who forbids humans to acquire knowledge, yet Satan is supposedly the bad guy. If I were ever to accept the Biblical stories as factual and accurate, I would definitely side with Satan rather than with God.

If there were no hope, I wouldn't be arguing with you trying to get you to see that hope.
If we are spiritually dead, then there is no hope of recovery. Conversely, if there is hope of recovery, then we are not spiritually dead.

If we are spiritually dead, then there is no hope of recovery. Conversely, if there is hope of recovery, then we are not spiritually dead.
Christian mythology often centers on people rising from the dead. Hell, the whole idea seems to be about getting to live after you die. That kind of mucks up the terminology a bit.

Christian mythology often centers on people rising from the dead. Hell, the whole idea seems to be about getting to live after you die. That kind of mucks up the terminology a bit.
Yeah; I prefer the Rastafarian version, that interprets it as never dying. "Rasta nuh die."

If we are spiritually dead, then there is no hope of recovery. Conversely, if there is hope of recovery, then we are not spiritually dead.

Are we are most certainly dead. Ephesians 2:1

And we would remain so, unless we are given new life.

Yeah; I prefer the Rastafarian version, that interprets it as never dying. "Rasta nuh die."

Why not the Nac Mac Feegle version, that claims we are dead and that this is heaven. After all, there is booze to drink and rumbles to be had.

There is a difference between being able to know and being able to prove.

And my beliefs are the truth. Not because I believe them, but because God's Word says so. I know they ar true by faith and therefore I can speak with the highest authority. Just as you can are able to speak against it with the highest authority if you truly believe by faith that I am wrong.

Circular logic. God is true because God says so. A very weak way to make a point.

It has nothing to do with any one person's belief... there are so many that are different, and they are all just that, beliefs. And "truth" is so subjective (in this case) as to be meaningless overall.

Are we are most certainly dead. Ephesians 2:1

And we would remain so, unless we are given new life.
Potentiality does not defy reality.

Potentiality does not defy reality.

And it is reality that there is hope of new life.