...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
You can make whatever subjective point you want. However it won’t make words mean what you want them to. The fact is that dictionaries are right and people who apply their own meaning to words are wrong. They may be happy in their ignorance but they remain ignorant. Facts are rather inflexible things. That is why they can be relied upon.
True but they also tend to have more than one definition.
Still, going with the dictionary definition of something is always a good place to start.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Yes, it is.
Irrefutable facts are subject to interpretation?
How are mathematical facts, for example, subject to that?
1+1 = 2 right?
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Here's a simple example.
A person is dirty and STINKS! The person smells HORRIBLE! People around gag. You mention how dirtyman stinks to high heaven and the person there says, "Prove it!"
What is there to prove??
Still, the "fact" is that someone is filthy dirty and stinks, yet you have someone disputing it....just because. (They prove just to be a waste of time)
A great example of how facts CAN be limited to what is observable AND how that observation is to be interpreted.
Anyone around that person well not deny that fact that he stinks, to them.
That someone may find that stench "ok" is another matter of course.
That the person in question is so comfortable with the stench that he/she can't smell it is also a fact.
None of that changes the FACT of that persons stench to all those involved the only difference is how that stench is interpreted.
Again, this is not the case with irrefutable facts.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
Geocentricity had a LACK of data on it's side, not a plethora of facts.
Hindsight being 20-20.
fact [fækt] n
1. an event or thing known to have happened or existed 2. a truth verifiable from experience or observation 3. a piece of information get me all the facts of this case 4. (Law) Law(often plural) an actual event, happening, etc., as distinguished from its legal consequences. Questions of fact are decided by the jury, questions of law by the court or judge 5. (Philosophy) Philosophy a proposition that may be either true or false, as contrasted with an evaluative statement (Law) after (orbefore) the factCriminal law after (or before) the commission of the offence an accessory after the fact as a matter of fact, in fact, in point of fact in reality or actuality fact of life an inescapable truth, esp an unpleasant one
the fact of the matter the truth
There are of course irefutable facts,like mathematical facts for example.
...and that applies to religion as well as politics.. if someone simply believes such and such is true, it doesn't really matter whether you "prove" it or not.
people will believe what they want to believe..
I don't think its about Facts as much as how people interpret them.
Look at geocentricity VS helicentricity.
BOTH had facts on their side, it was how they were being intrepreted that caused the difference.
At one point geocentricity had more facts on it's side even.
A fact (derived from the Latinfactum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is whether it can be proven to correspond to experience. Standard reference works are often used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.
why were we so suprised people did not join in droves!
what an awful message we shared......
I understand what you are saying EP and I apologise if I offended you or anyone else, truly that was not my intent.
You have given me much to consider and, as always, I thank you and the other non-believers in this thread ( and DD too of course) for pointing out how you understood what I was writing.
I think that I have been on here long enough that most know how I care about them and people in general so I hope that you can forgive me for how I have come across on stating this opinion.
Again, to any I have offended I am truly and deeply sorry, it was not my intent.
DD:
So, are works efficacious or not? Are Humans able to become righteous by making righteous choices?
Become righteous by making righteous choices?
No, I don't think so. I think that through Christ and with His Grace we understand what is right and WITH Christ was can try to be as righteous as possible and by that I mean doing what is right out of Love and not with the intent of getting a recompense of some sort.
why were we so suprised people did not join in droves!
what an awful message we shared......
I know that sometimes with the going back and forth some posts get overlooked, but I wanted to point out what I posted before:
Post 11246 of 11250
Since 6/22/2009
i got a whiff of that too.
now I will step back again and watch
So, my view that all humans need to be fixed because we are not living up to our potential and my belief that this fix is only available from God is racist and/or homophobic?
Is that what you two are suggesting?
We are all equal and ALL broken, including believers of course. I am pretty sure that I made that clear when I said no one is better than anyone else.
Being a CHristian is accepting that and the knowledge that only God through Christ can Fix that.
It doesn't mean you ARE fixed or superiour to anyone else, it means you have accepted that you need fixing and God is the fixer.
Just to be clear once again, I am not saying that a believer is better than a non-beleiver or that a believer is fixed and the non-believer is broken.
What I said above is how I see us ALL, in need of redemption/fixing and that can only be done through Christ.
That is my opinion and view and I apolgise if it gives the impression that I am making believers out to be superiour.
I am not.
Is this the view of everyother CHristian?
Nope and as I stated before, outside the denominations that are universalists and/or inclusives it is correct that the predominate view is that believers are saved and those that aren't are not saved.
It should be noted though that worshipping God doesn't mean one is saved, as Christ said "Many will come calling saying Lord, Lord and I will say I Knew you Not" ( paraphrasing).
why were we so suprised people did not join in droves!
what an awful message we shared......
PSac - its perfectly simple. You said that a christian is made fully human when they accept christ.
Logically it follows that they were previously not "fully human".
Please explain very simply how I can be not fully human, and yet not in any way inferior to a christian.
All I have seen so far is obfusaction.
Hi Cofty,
I said that a person is made fully human AS GOD INTENDED when they accept Christ, that process of becomeing fully human AS GOD INTENDED doesn't just happen with a "snap of the fingers' of course butI think the issue is what do I mean when I say "fully human as God intended".
To be fully human as God intended is to be One with God, much like Adam and Eve were before the fall, a other- centred relationship of love with God. God made us in His image and if God is a Triune God then God is a relational being, a being of "other-centred" love and if we are mad ein His image and made to abide in Him then we are only fully human as God intended when we do just that, Abide in Him.
It doesn't make those that do not abide in him any less human, it makes them seperate and apart from God and not fully human as GOd intended them to be because God intended them/us to be WITH Him.
Much like a person that has never loved or been loved and as such has never experienced a realtionship of that sort is "missing something" YET they are still as human as anyone who HAS expereinced love.
In regards to my question about if humans need to be fixed:
I asked the same question at a birthday party of a friends ( his little one just turned 3) and the strange part is that all the people there said Yes, humanity is in need of a fix.
They all stated various views from the acceptance of violence, to hunger and exploitation of people, to what some view as a moral decline, the point was that I didn't need to expand on the question or make it clear so I am not sure why the question seemed so hard to answer here.
why were we so suprised people did not join in droves!
what an awful message we shared......
It means you don't know what the question means and therefore have no reason to expect an answer until you can form a meaningful question.
Sound like a cop- out BUT I will give you the benfit of the doubt that I wan;t able to phrase the question in a way that you could answer it.
I won't highjack the thread any longer.
why were we so suprised people did not join in droves!
what an awful message we shared......
I view it that way because that's what it is.
You asked me if YOU needed fixing, if YOU were borken.
I replied directly at you and you got gays and browns from that.
Are you gay and brown?
I found that you twisted what I directed at you under the context of what we two were discussing, to imply racism and homophobia.
I am sure you were trying to make a point, I just hope it wasn;t suggesting that I am homophobic or racists, was it?
