Smart scientists who believed in God.

[terraricca]

stu

Quote

Truth is a personal opinion about the world.

you right ,but then it is also related on how much you know about the world is it not ??

Quote

I live by what can reasonably said to be true.

you right ,but again, is this way not based on what we believe to be reasonable to US ,and again now rely's on the knowledge we have come to acquire in this world,right ??

so it seems to me that what is reasonable to us may not be reasonable at all to the wisdom of it all,

just a thought

Pierre

[Proclaimer]

Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 23 2011,22:02)

All statutes are law. The statutes in the old testament are secondary laws that go further and expand upon the commandments.

Not taking sides here, but if all statutes are essentially further explanations to laws, then they wouldn't be laws in their own right, but would certainly be part of law as a whole.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 24 2011,20:01)

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 23 2011,17:50) The fact that you can rebel is proof enough. Nice to know the consequences though. However, you are free to not believe and not believe the consequences. It is called free will. With it you can face the truth, or live in your own dreamland temporarily. Truth is a personal opinion about the world. I live by what can reasonably said to be true. Stuart

Truth is not a personal opinion. It exists even if we do not believe it.
If you deny the existence of the Moon, then it doesn't go away.

If we think something is true and it is not, then it is not true.
Simple as that.

And good to see that you are now acknowledging that your science is basically a personal opinion.
So you agree that it is a belief and that your belief is part of a system of teaching called Evolution.

A belief + a system of support for that belief =

[princess]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2011,07:11)

Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 23 2011,22:02) All statutes are law. The statutes in the old testament are secondary laws that go further and expand upon the commandments. Not taking sides here, but if all statutes are essentially further explanations to laws, then they wouldn't be laws in their own right, but would certainly be part of law as a whole.

Just so I have this straight, statues aren't really laws, just kinda like guidelines.

So is it alright to break a statue as long as it doesn't cross over to break a law?

[princess]

Quote

Truth is not a personal opinion. It exists even if we do not believe it. If you deny the existence of the Moon, then it doesn't go away. If we think something is true and it is not, then it is not true. Simple as that.

Using a simple visual as the moon, one could see a face on the moon, the other cannot, to one it is true to the other it is not. So both are true, just one does not see as the other does.

[Proclaimer]

I don't know. My comment was made under the condition that “statutes in the old testament are secondary laws that go further and expand upon the commandments” .
This may or may not be the case.

If it was, then I assume that breaking a further definition of a law could be the same as breaking the law itself.
It might depend on how central the statute was. e.g., if the law says, “thou shalt not kill” and a statute says that abortion is considered murder, then it would result in breaking the law. If a statute said that accidental death wasn't considered murder, then that would be different.

Wikipedia makes this distinction between laws and statutes.
NOTE: Not necessarily Old Testament Laws.

A statute is a formal written enactment of a legislative authority that governs a state, city, or county.[1] Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or declare policy.[1] The word is often used to distinguish law made by legislative bodies from case law, decided by courts, and regulations issued by government agencies.[1] Statutes are sometimes referred to as legislation or “black letter law”. As a source of law, statutes are considered primary authority (as opposed to secondary authority).
Ideally all statutes must be in harmony with the fundamental law of the land (constitutional).

[Proclaimer]

Also taken from Wikipedia.

In biblical terminology, a Statute (Hebrew chok) refers to a law given without a reason. The classic example is the Statute regarding the Red Heifer.
The opposite of a chok is a mishpat, a law given for a specified reason, e.g. the Sabbath laws, which were given because “God created the world in six days, but on the seventh day He rested”.　(Genesis 2:2-3)

[Proclaimer]

Quote (princess @ Nov. 25 2011,08:34)

Quote Truth is not a personal opinion. It exists even if we do not believe it. If you deny the existence of the Moon, then it doesn't go away. If we think something is true and it is not, then it is not true. Simple as that. Using a simple visual as the moon, one could see a face on the moon, the other cannot, to one it is true to the other it is not. So both are true, just one does not see as the other does.

The one who doesn't see a face on the moon is correct. The moon doesn't have a face.

The one who sees a face on the moon is correct if you say that there is a pattern that looks like a face. In that case the one who says there is no such pattern is wrong if there is indeed a pattern that looks like a face.

[Ed J]

Quote (princess @ Nov. 25 2011,08:26)

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2011,07:11) Quote (TimothyVI @ Nov. 23 2011,22:02) All statutes are law. The statutes in the old testament are secondary laws that go further and expand upon the commandments. Not taking sides here, but if all statutes are essentially further explanations to laws, then they wouldn't be laws in their own right, but would certainly be part of law as a whole. Just so I have this straight, statues aren't really laws, just kinda like guidelines. So is it alright to break a statue as long as it doesn't cross over to break a law?

Hi Princess,

I'll put it into words that you can relate to.

The statutes were ceremonial law (blood sprinkling, ect.),
while, in contrast, the ten Commandments are our civil law.
The statutes pointed to Christ and now are no longer needed.

Hope this helps.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[princess]

Edj,

I will have to agree with you on both accounts, that was my understanding also. Even that being said, some of the statues did not change regarding dress, gender roles, foods. So why are the not adhered to now?

[princess]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2011,08:56)

Quote (princess @ Nov. 25 2011,08:34) Quote Truth is not a personal opinion. It exists even if we do not believe it. If you deny the existence of the Moon, then it doesn't go away. If we think something is true and it is not, then it is not true. Simple as that. Using a simple visual as the moon, one could see a face on the moon, the other cannot, to one it is true to the other it is not. So both are true, just one does not see as the other does. The one who doesn't see a face on the moon is correct. The moon doesn't have a face. The one who sees a face on the moon is correct if you say that there is a pattern that looks like a face. In that case the one who says there is no such pattern is wrong if there is indeed a pattern that looks like a face.

So both are correct in seeing the moon, just how they interpret what they see is different.

Whose view is greater?

[Proclaimer]

Neither is greater, but the one who can see the pattern can see something the other cannot.
But then, the other guy might be able to see a pattern resembling a horse .

[Ed J]

Quote (princess @ Nov. 25 2011,11:50)

Edj, I will have to agree with you on both accounts, that was my understanding also. Even that being said, some of the statues did not change regarding dress, gender roles, foods. So why are the not adhered to now?

Hi Princess,

Because the statutes were a shadow picture of Christ.
They were done to show us God's authenticity of Christ.

God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org

[princess]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2011,21:06)

Neither is greater, but the one who can see the pattern can see something the other cannot. But then, the other guy might be able to see a pattern resembling a horse .

Which is well known that you can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

[Stu]

Quote (t8 @ Nov. 25 2011,07:15)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 24 2011,20:01) Quote (t8 @ Nov. 23 2011,17:50) The fact that you can rebel is proof enough. Nice to know the consequences though. However, you are free to not believe and not believe the consequences. It is called free will. With it you can face the truth, or live in your own dreamland temporarily. Truth is a personal opinion about the world. I live by what can reasonably said to be true. Stuart Truth is not a personal opinion. It exists even if we do not believe it. If you deny the existence of the Moon, then it doesn't go away. If we think something is true and it is not, then it is not true. Simple as that. And good to see that you are now acknowledging that your science is basically a personal opinion. So you agree that it is a belief and that your belief is part of a system of teaching called Evolution. A belief + a system of support for that belief =

I'd ask you to go back and read carefully what I wrote. You are confusing truth with that which is true. The point of my post was to distinguish between them.

If you would like more help to understand the difference, then please ask. As always, I am only too happy to help!

Stuart

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 25 2011,06:27)

stu Quote Truth is a personal opinion about the world. you right ,but then it is also related on how much you know about the world is it not ?? Quote I live by what can reasonably said to be true. you right ,but again, is this way not based on what we believe to be reasonable to US ,and again now rely's on the knowledge we have come to acquire in this world,right ?? so it seems to me that what is reasonable to us may not be reasonable at all to the wisdom of it all, just a thought Pierre

I don't see christianity as a reasonable belief system. Virgins don't give birth to humans and humans don't walk again after being successfully executed. They are not true statements.

How you can base your personal truth on tenets that are not reasonably true is beyond me, but apparently some people can.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 27 2011,05:35)

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 25 2011,06:27) stu Quote Truth is a personal opinion about the world. you right ,but then it is also related on how much you know about the world is it not ?? Quote I live by what can reasonably said to be true. you right ,but again, is this way not based on what we believe to be reasonable to US ,and again now rely's on the knowledge we have come to acquire in this world,right ?? so it seems to me that what is reasonable to us may not be reasonable at all to the wisdom of it all, just a thought Pierre I don't see christianity as a reasonable belief system.  Virgins don't give birth to humans and humans don't walk again after being successfully executed.  They are not true statements.   How you can base your personal truth on tenets that are not reasonably true is beyond me, but apparently some people can. Stuart

stu

again you right in what you say,this is why we believers in God call this FAITH ,i do not think their is any other name for it ,

but why would this be called reasonable understanding to us and not to many others this i think is the right question,?

like we have talk about this before ,

the believe in the begining before the big bang or before creation there was God ;
in my opinion are just two different believes with two differente outcome,

and it is the outcome that we all consider not the faith of it ,

this is were i think we split apart ,

what you say Stu ??

Pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 27 2011,13:44)

Quote I don't see christianity as a reasonable belief system.  Virgins don't give birth to humans and humans don't walk again after being successfully executed.  They are not true statements.   How you can base your personal truth on tenets that are not reasonably true is beyond me, but apparently some people can. Stuart stu again you right in what you say,this is why we believers in God call this FAITH ,i do not think their is any other name for it , but why would this be called reasonable understanding to us and not to many others this i think is the right question,? like we have talk about this before , the believe in the begining before the big bang or before creation there was God ; in my opinion are just two different believes with two differente outcome, and it is the outcome that we all consider not the faith of it , this is were i think we split apart , what you say Stu ?? Pierre

I can think of other names to call faith, but they are not very complimentary to the faithful.

There is no such thing as “before” the big bang.

Stuart

[terraricca]

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 28 2011,00:56)

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 27 2011,13:44) Quote I don't see christianity as a reasonable belief system.  Virgins don't give birth to humans and humans don't walk again after being successfully executed.  They are not true statements.   How you can base your personal truth on tenets that are not reasonably true is beyond me, but apparently some people can. Stuart stu again you right in what you say,this is why we believers in God call this FAITH ,i do not think their is any other name for it , but why would this be called reasonable understanding to us and not to many others this i think is the right question,? like we have talk about this before , the believe in the begining before the big bang or before creation there was God ; in my opinion are just two different believes with two differente outcome, and it is the outcome that we all consider not the faith of it , this is were i think we split apart , what you say Stu ?? Pierre I can think of other names to call faith, but they are not very complimentary to the faithful. There is no such thing as “before” the big bang. Stuart

Stu

You know that that is not true ,the cause of the big bang his the thing that comes just before of it ,

And that is the ? Dark matter

pierre

[Stu]

Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 27 2011,18:40)

Quote (Stu @ Nov. 28 2011,00:56) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 27 2011,13:44) Quote I don't see christianity as a reasonable belief system.  Virgins don't give birth to humans and humans don't walk again after being successfully executed.  They are not true statements.   How you can base your personal truth on tenets that are not reasonably true is beyond me, but apparently some people can. Stuart stu again you right in what you say,this is why we believers in God call this FAITH ,i do not think their is any other name for it , but why would this be called reasonable understanding to us and not to many others this i think is the right question,? like we have talk about this before , the believe in the begining before the big bang or before creation there was God ; in my opinion are just two different believes with two differente outcome, and it is the outcome that we all consider not the faith of it , this is were i think we split apart , what you say Stu ?? Pierre I can think of other names to call faith, but they are not very complimentary to the faithful. There is no such thing as “before” the big bang. Stuart Stu You know that that is not true ,the cause of the big bang his the thing that comes just before of it , And that is the ? Dark matter pierre

How can the word “before” have any meaning in a situation in which time does not exist?

If you think you understand this, I promise you don't.

I don't exempt myself from that, but I can still see the irrelevance of the idea of “before”.

What about dark matter?

Stuart

[Author]

Posts