Think about what you just said

[bigG]

I avoid the whole scientology thing, so I can't call you "scientological" or not.

I do find it odd when scientists attack people in similar fashion to clerics of the church in the past.

I also see a lot of quasi-science attempt to prove a point instead of actually learning something. I'm afraid this is becoming more common as time goes on; just as people trying to verify their religion per the book into which its written. That's begging the question.

[chrisber]

Thank you for clarifying the scientology comment. I had no idea how it applied within the context of the conversation.

As I understand it

[bigG]

The Bible is amazing, as are many other books of faith and observable nature (that's why I referenced the Tao). I'm not saying your arguments regarding science and Bible are begging the question per se. They are creating parallels and correlations. Good stuff. The idea that the Bible is correct because it says it is is begging the question. It's taking for truth what is assumed in the first place.

I see quasi-science as you say, but to add that quasi science is that which deviated from the scientific process and focuses on proving something instead of learning from the process itself, and what it yields. Maybe I should refer to that as pseudo-science. Bad syntax on my part.

[chrisber]

BigG,

Regarding:

[bigG]

I have faith in God, but not faith that the Bible is necessarily His word. The essence of nature is in things that can't be named.

In terms of faith, I have God. I just have trouble choosing one holy book over another. I chose none. It is interesting that the three major Western religions take truth in the Old testament (as Christians call it.) Good reading.

I fell if God made me, than he needn't put a book on this earth, as it would exclude some of His most important followers.

[chrisber]

Regarding your statement

[bigG]

BigG stands for a James Brown reference to Gravity, a name I got while teaching in a Black neighborhood.

I meant,"I feel that if God made me..." My bad.

Jesus fulfilled 350 prophecies according to the New Testament, which is only considered Bible to Christians and, no doubt, a source of popularity for the Bible among Christians. Another reason for continuous circular arguments for Him being the Son of God. The probability only exists if you believe JC did those things. The Quran paints him as a prophet but the Son of God? That's a lot of BigG to hold water.

In the end it's about faith and belief in many things non-evidentiary. It's important to have a spiritual life for the sake of wellness.

Wrench in the gears to call the Bible "His book/word." Though many believe that, I only look for the lessons and I do tend to parallel them with others. Human to do so, me thinks.

If you believe those words are "His", I'd have to say you have the faith in the book. IMHO, it often distorts one from His more simplistic messages; by which we , as humans, have internalized. I wish I was as strong at the statistical side as you are. I'm envious, really. In terms of language, things don't always translate so well, and faith in the ability of people to convey such deep messages has to be strong. I have less faith in those sources. Then again, I read things that are translated from Chinese, Arabic, Sanskrit, among others, and am deeply moved. Then again, most of those don't claim to be word of God. I just worry that the creator would need such documents to bring His message when he is our essence and might leave out those illiterate, or untouched by His word. It's a quandary that I admit to having no solid answers; despite the words of the Bible.

The evolution of the Bible and Christianity is fascinating to say the least. I'd hate to eliminate the human part of the equation, though. Constantine basically chose the "best" story of resurrection from what was to be called Constantinople in Turkey. There wasn't agreement on many things in the scriptures and their meanings. It is faith that says it happened for a reason and came out true to God's word. Again faith is a good thing in terms of spiritual health.

I thought the WWJD thing a few years ago was a very worthwhile idea. Though I may not see him as the Son of God, I try to emulate his logic. Such simple logic seems to have withered over time. Even on here, I hear hate for the poor, painting them as parasitic rats, like Hitler did to Jews, I read posts that are driven by disdain more than any brotherly love (I'm not saying I'm not guilty) and a lack of forgiveness, that is the ultimate show of love for one's humankind. It's disturbing to say the least; leading me to think that many think they know God's intentions, desires for us, and that the person is doing God's work by such actions. The Old Testament is brutal at its nicest; while the New is a revelation to me, in terms of potential peace among people. That peace seems reserved to only those who believe both Old and New. I fins that circular and hypocritical; and , most importantly, contrary to the message of JC. Would He forgive me for not believing He is the Son.  Would he , or God himself, judge me as less for not believing so? Hope not. In the words of the great one, Popeye, "I yam what I yam." I do trust that whatever you call my creator, He/She/It gave me the tools to do right in the end, and to remedy the many things I screw up.

[chrisber]

I meant,"I feel that if God made me

I think you were correct with

[bigG]

I don't have a God, she has me. She didn't have a kid, either (to my knowledge). JK, of course. I guess the easiest way for me to say it, is that I believe in most Gods, and see the scriptures I've read from each as more inclusive than exclusive; just as I see an afterlife without the exclusivity painted by many a Christian. Many a faith has passed over planet earth. I'd be a little ignorant to say that one faith is correct and the others hogwash.

I don't think it a straw man at all to say that you're figuring of probability is based on events not necessarily based on evidence, but a book that claims itself as fact, and the word of God.

I never said God had no word on earth. I believe he has many, and not just the one you believe is His. It's the lessons I take from and the minutia that I avoid in the New and Old testaments, Quran, Torah, Poli Cannon, etc. I do separate my faith from one particular scripture. You don't. No sweat, we can still live in peace.

[littleguy301]

getting back to the topic

This is a question for anyone that coaches.

Have you ever coached a kid that wrestles a girl and while you are coaching you say something that may not be taken right because your wrestler is wrestling a girl. I mean normal lingo in a match but you might raise eyebrows since it is a girl?

[chrisber]

Continued

[chrisber]

In response to your most recent post...

I don't think it a straw man at all to say that you're figuring of probability is based on events not necessarily based on evidence,

Then you could calculate those that you believe are based on evidence.

but a book that claims itself as fact, and the word of God.

The Book does indeed claim to be the Word of God.

I do separate my faith from one particular scripture. You don't.

My faith is in the Word which includes "all" scripture.

[bigG]

Oh, so you're okay with the Q'uran, Torah, etc. Well, then we're good. I guess "scripture" to you only applies to the Christian sort. If not, then you can see the beauty in all "scripture." I see the good in most, even the Book of Mormon (dang interesting).

I don't believe any of the many miracles He supposedly performed are based on evidence. Nor do I think Mohammad got flight lifted by a dragon.

Not saying the bible is not his word; but that one must take into context those words as "His" word, IMHO, is not exclusive to the Bible, per se.

[chrisber]

Posted on: Today at 06:56:22 AM
Posted by: bigG
Insert Quote
Oh, so you're okay with the Q'uran, Torah, etc. Well, then we're good. I guess "scripture" to you only applies to the Christian sort. If not, then you can see the beauty in all "scripture." I see the good in most, even the Book of Mormon (dang interesting).

I don't believe any of the many miracles He supposedly performed are based on evidence. Nor do I think Mohammad got flight lifted by a dragon.

Not saying the bible is not his word; but that one must take into context those words as "His" word, IMHO, is not exclusive to the Bible, per se.

I see your first sentence as assumptive, somewhat convoluted and it appears to be setting up another straw man fallacy or possibly a snare. I find that The Q'uran, also transliterated Qur'an, Koran, Al-Coran, Coran, Kuran, Quran, and Al-Qur dramatically conflicts with the Old Testament upon which you state that it was based. Okay is not a word I would use to describe my feelings or beliefs regarding the Quran. I have been caught in snares (figuratively speaking) in the past and I probably will be in the future but I rest assured (Romans 8:39).

Regarding the Torah: The word Torah has a range of meanings and since you didn

[bigG]

And also with you. I can't force myself into believing, wholeheartedly, translations of translations. Then to believe in handpicked history such as Constantine's choice of the resurrection story; as he had several "eyewitness" accounts from which to choose. Maybe it's the cop in me; but my faith in eyewitness accounts is low. Even lower when they took place so long ago and had to survive the filters of history.

You essentially choose which scripture to believe as he gives us free will. So why would those things that you believe be necessarily truth for me?