You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means :)
Okay.
I think you're supporting Shelby's point in the above post.
:)
The Issue is Not that God WANTS Us to Suffer...
by AGuest 404 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
notverylikely
I think you're supporting Shelby's point in the above post.
Oh. Well if we are keeping it that simple, then faith and science are not opposites, per se, but faith falls outside the bounds of science simply because faith, particularly one in a deity, relies on untestable things. So, no, i am not supporting Shelby. She made a good try, but a swing and a miss.
-
tec
faith falls outside the bounds of science simply because faith, particularly one in a deity, relies on untestable things.
Faith, perhaps, but the things that we believe in on faith - those are what Shelby is talking about. They are only unprovable until they have been proven. Shelby is saying (I'm pretty sure) that these things will one day be proven true. Such as in the case of the world being round when it was previously thought flat. A thousand years from now, science might be able to test and prove spirits, per say. Science is limited to our knowledge and capabilities at the time... and it is kind of arrogant to think that no one is ever going to come along and be amused at the scientific things we thought, same as we do about the round/flat earth...
Tammy
-
notverylikely
Faith, perhaps, but the things that we believe in on faith - those are what Shelby is talking about.
How are those things different? It seems like you're saying "I'm not talking abouta ham sandwich, I'm talking about bread, mayo, mustard, lettuce, tomato and ham all put together".
They are only unprovable until they have been proven.
Perhaps she (or you) should give examples that don't fail at the first test then :)
Flying, for instance... the guy 3000 years ago could have all the faith he wanted, but if he jumped off a cliff he would fall and die despite all the faith in the world. Until someone did a lot of work and tests and proved it, the faith didn't mean anything. Faith is the opposite of doing something.
Shelby is saying (I'm pretty sure) that these things will one day be proven true.
Unlikely, to prove something requires evidence, testing, doing something. Faith requires nothing.
Science is limited to our knowledge and capabilities at the time... and it is kind of arrogant to think that no one is ever going to come along and be amused at the scientific things we thought, same as we do about the round/flat earth...
Oh, I never said we were at the pinnacle of human knowledge. But, using your example, we are amused at the things people thought and wrote down 2000 years ago.
-
AGuest
Pick one, Shelby. You quote scripture when it's convenient whenever it matches whatever dream/voice you had last night and reject it whenever it suits you. You put your faith it in often enough when it supports your POV.
Sorry, but I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place, dear NVL (peace to you!). If I tell you/others what I see and hear… but you can’t find it written in the Bible, then I’m making it up. As I have stated, there are some things in there that are right, accurate, and true. And there are very many things that are not. But, how about, when you and I are communicating I DON’T use the Bible? I would LOVE to just share what I am given... openly, honestly... WITHOUT having to "back it up" with the Bible. Like my account to you regarding some of what I saw occur while in the void (although, technically, that’s in the Bible, too…), just not in depth...
Tell me, has God/Jesus told you which parts of the bible are right and which aren't?
God, no. Christ… as things come up, yes.
Can you ask, I would really like to know.
If there's something in particular, my Lord's word to you is to go to that account, and before reading ask the Father (go through my Lord to get in, first, though) to grant you a portion of His holy spirit, through my Lord... and that He "open" your ears. Then LISTEN to my Lord's voice as HE reads with/to you. He will TELL you, "No, child, that is NOT accurate. It does NOT say that..." or "Read it again, child." "Here, let me read and you follow me." You can do this just as easily as I can, and I say, go for it. I mean, why go through ME? Who the heck am I? Wouldn't you prefer to have it directly from the Source... so that you can TRUST it? Do it, dear NVL. Just ask...
he did in three cases, so clearly he can in some cases.
Which I stated. Rare, but it happens. I only NOW of three cases, but there most assuredly could be more…
And he knew what Jesus would do before he was born before there was flesh. So clearly he CAN.
Can, yes. Did... nope, dear one. Instead, He chose NOT to know... and hoped. He had FAITH… in His Son. But He didn’t know. He chose not to. Like a lot of folks choose…
No, the exact opposite of science.
I disagree. It’s just that because it takes longer than MAN would like, nothing “is” for those who lack faith… until “science” says it “is.” Until they can see, touch, taste, smell, or hear it… with the senses of their flesh. Faith, however, transcends the flesh. It is not limited only to what that "vessel" will allow one to "know."
Not like that at ALL. At the time the man 3000 years ago believes that, it's 100% true that man cannot fly.
I disagree. It’s 100% true that man does not yet know HOW to fly. Doesn't mean he can't. Had he possessed that knowledge THEN… he well could have. That the technology and/or materials didn't exist to allow them to realize that truth is beside the point. Your position is that because we don’t know it, don’t know of it, don’t know how to do it… it isn’t, can’t [ever] be, won’t [ever] be. But such a man’s vision was real to HIM. Because he could see PAST what his eyes could see. Eventually, someone else saw it, too… and because they didn’t just go sit down (as you would have them) eventually someone made that reality manifest. HE KNEW it… but because others didn’t… he was wrong. What I share with you is real, as well. And will become manifest. Now, if you don’t have the patience to wait for it, fine. But don’t try to punch holes in MY reality… because YOU don’t “see” it.
If we were to take what you just stated as true, as fact, then we might as well give up on seeking a cure to cancer. Because there are those who KNOW the cure is out there. However, at this particular time, right here, right now... cancer cannot be cured. And if what you state is true, it never can/will be.
Can you show an example of man that believed to make it relevant in ANY way?
I am not sure what you’re asking – can you clarify, please? Thank you!
faith is being sure of what is hoped for and sure of what you cannot prove.
See, you’re in error there, dear NVL… because like everyone else, you stop short. Faith… is the assured expectation of thing hoped for… the EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION OF REALITY. It is just not “beheld”… i.e., not experienced with the senses of the physical man.
Science rests on the ability to prove.
Which is my point: if "science" can't prove it... it ain't so. Which ain't so.
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means :)
I don’t think you know what she means…
BTW - I am VERY glad to have made you… well, glad… dear Glad! Peace to you!
And to you, again, dear NVL.
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
tec
I said:Faith, perhaps, but the things that we believe in on faith - those are what Shelby is talking about.
You said :How are those things different? It seems like you're saying "I'm not talking abouta ham sandwich, I'm talking about bread, mayo, mustard, lettuce, tomato and ham all put together".
I say:
Um.. what? I think we are having a failure to communicate here :)
Faith is believing in something/someone that IS or WILL BE... but that we do not have proof of.
Lets take the flying example. The guy believed that man could fly. He had faith that man could fly. Couldn't prove it, couldn't even do it yet... but here we are, and man can fly with the tools and technology that we have discovered along the way. So the thing he believed on in faith was proven to be true. Just not in his day and age. But that doesn't make it any less true.
I said: They are only unprovable until they have been proven.
You said:Perhaps she (or you) should give examples that don't fail at the first test then :)
What's the first test again?
Flying, for instance... the guy 3000 years ago could have all the faith he wanted, but if he jumped off a cliff he would fall and die despite all the faith in the world. Until someone did a lot of work and tests and proved it, the faith didn't mean anything. Faith is the opposite of doing something.
Not really. Didn't the wright brothers believe they could fly? And didn't they set out proving that they could - because of their belief?
Unlikely, to prove something requires evidence, testing, doing something. Faith requires nothing.
See above. Faith in God, however, might require nothing, depending upon how you read it. But that faith, motivated by love, then motivates deeds to go along with that faith. So faith might not require deeds, but it does compel them. Faith first, then deeds. Just like the wright brothers.
Oh, I never said we were at the pinnacle of human knowledge. But, using your example, we are amused at the things people thought and wrote down 2000 years ago.
This is true. We're amused at the ideas doctors had (if we even deign to call them doctors) for cures and healing and ailments. We are amused at ideas that women possessed the intelligence of a child. Etc.
(and yes, I am being deliberately obtuse on this last point )
Tammy
-
notverylikely
Sorry, but I’m stuck between a rock and a hard place, dear NVL (peace to you!). If I tell you/others what I see and hear… but you can’t find it written in the Bible, then I’m making it up.
Peace to you my dear Shelby!
I am just asking which parts are inspired and right and which aren't. It just seems mildly suspiciuous that when you get backed into a corner on scripture you just happen to get insight on to what's right or not. I mean, YOU are the one picking which scriptures are real or not. Clue the rest of us in :)
I disagree. It’s 100% true that man does not yet know HOW to fly. Doesn't mean he can't.
Oh, BS, my dear. If I don't know how to make shakshuka, then I can't. I can learn how, but until I do, I can't. If you don't know how to snowboard, then you don't. You might be able to learn, but until then, you can't.
See, you’re in error there, dear NVL… because like everyone else, you stop short. Faith… is the assured expectation of thing hoped for… the EVIDENT DEMONSTRATION OF REALITY.
Oh, look who suddenly decided to use the WT translation. Let's continue that scripture....the evident demonstration of reality THOUGH NOT YET BEHELD. Look who stopped short this time, my dear :)
Which is my point: if "science" can't prove it... it ain't so. Which ain't so.
Sounds like a thing you a hoping for, a reality, though not yet beheld :)
I don’t think you know what she means…
Then that makes the three of us in this conversation.....
-
poopsiecakes
mmmmmmm shakshuka
...sorry to interrupt. Carry on.
-
notverylikely
So the thing he believed on in faith was proven to be true. Just not in his day and age. But that doesn't make it any less true.
Yes it does. If he decided to jump off a cliff he would go splat. 3000 years later it might be true, but at the time, it wasn't. It was entirely baseless faith. He had no math, no physics, no nothing on which to base his faith. Is that the kind of faith you are suggesting you have? Besides which, you can thing something MIGHT be possible without having faith in it :)
What's the first test again?
The whole idea of what's provable and what's not...
Not really. Didn't the wright brothers believe they could fly? And didn't they set out proving that they could - because of their belief?
Oh you. They worked out how birds could fly and tested it with scale models to see if it was doable and worked their way up. Based on the information and tests from the scale model, math and physics suggested it could be done and they set out to do it. They didn't just have faith and jump off a cliff in the first thing they built running on a faith engine. In fact, they built several tethered gliders models working out the physcis and aerodynamics.
Oh, and quit confusing desire with faith. They wanted, desired to build and airplane. That is not the same as faith.
But that faith, motivated by love, then motivates deeds to go along with that faith. So faith might not require deeds, but it does compel them. Faith first, then deeds. Just like the wright brothers.
I don't think they were motivated by faith or love. However, their DESIRE (not faith) to build an airplane DID require doing something. Exactly the opposite of faith.
This is true. We're amused at the ideas doctors had (if we even deign to call them doctors) for cures and healing and ailments. We are amused at ideas that women possessed the intelligence of a child. Etc.
Woman, next time you have your menstrations you shall be unclean and unable to post for seven days! At least according to ancient medical wisdom :)
-
tec
Then that makes the three of us in this conversation.....
Wha...?
Heyyyyyyy.....!!!
(clever and witty tonight are we?)
