What Percent Out Of A 100 Are You Convinced That The God Of The Bible

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1324164809' post='2352924']
The teaching on an 'eye for the eye' is often misinterpreted, particularly by Christians who have very limited knowledge of how Jews have approached Scripture. If you look at ancient Jewish rabbinical commentaries (the Mishnah) on that verse, you can see that it's not an injunction to take revenge, but to tailor the punishment to fit the crime. Every single one of the rabbis except Eliezer took this to mean that if one person took out another's eye, he was to repay the mutilated person the [i]worth[/i] of that eye. How to determine an eye's worth was obviously a matter of debate. Could it be done financially, with the assailant being made to pay a fine? Could it be measured in terms of years in prison? Or in service, with the assailant having to spend a fixed period trying to make amends for his crime? How?

Jesus' teachings flow from this principle of repayment. He tells us that the response to any wound we receive must be pure compassion - and that makes perfect sense. If someone murders your sister, nothing that the murderer does can ever make up for her loss. If ancient sages struggled to quantify the value of an eye, how can we assign a value to a person's life? But compassion can't be quantified either - which makes it the only viable response to people who have hurt us. We meet unquantifiable pain with infinite love.

It's the same when we ourselves have done terrible things. It's our sorrow (which includes sincere compassion for the people we've hurt) that brings us back to God. There is nothing we could ever do to make up for our sin. It's not quantifiable. So instead we turn to something unquantifiable - the mercy of God, and the compassion that this inspires in us. An eye for an eye.

As for hating enemies, all Jesus did there was to show us who are our enemies truly are. Not other human beings, but the darker thoughts and feelings that lie within our own selves. We all have the potential to be just like the people we're inclined to dislike or even hate. We need to remember that.
[/quote]
Yeah, I am well aware of other interpretations. Scripture has a multitude of layers of meaning. I've even heard that in Jewish times to offer the other cheek was to insult the person that hit you. And obviously if a drug crazed thug is going to poke you in the ribs with a knife for your wallet, you're not going to offer him your other cheek. What I'm getting at is just what you wrote, people misinterpret scripture and Jesus was putting it back on track.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324168542' post='2352946']
I don't subscribe to a god of the gaps.
How many stars and planets are there estimated to be in our universe?
How many universes could there be in all of existence?
[/quote]
Do you subscribe to a tree having a root?
If you fire 10 to the billionth shots from a shot gun at the moon will you ever hit it?

[stevil]

Yes, trees have roots.
I don't think it is physically possible for buckshot from a normal shot gun fired from the earth at the moon to hit it. I'm sure this would be a very simple scenario for scientists and mathematicians to prove that it is impossible.

Can you prove that it is physically impossible for life to exist without a god creator?

[Laudate_Dominum]

You don't need a physical experiment. You could work it out with Newtonian mechanics and I'm sure the speed of a bullet is a couple orders of magnitude below the Earth's escape velocity.


ETA: Full-disclosure: I only scanned the last post in this thread before replying and therefore do not presume to be making a contribution to any discussion. It's 4:00 AM here and I'm just spamming PM for teh lulz anyway.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[Jesus_lol]

speed of a 30 caliber bullet is gonna be around 2300 feet per second or 0.5 miles per second. faster ones can manage a mile per second.
escape velocity is V = square root of ((2 * Gravitational constant * Mass of planet) / distance from center of gravity/planet)

works out to about 11.2km per second(7 MilesPerSecond) is the necessary speed for a ballistic(non propelled) object to break free of earths orbit and come to a complete stop in space, past the pull of earths gravity. that speed plus a little bit aimed in the right direction would make it to the moon.

but that is about 14 times faster than an average long distance rifle bullet travels, and probably close to 30 times as fast as the average shotgun load.

so im not sure what the question was, but thats the answer for it.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324203468' post='2353257']
speed of a 30 caliber bullet is gonna be around 2300 feet per second or 0.5 miles per second. faster ones can manage a mile per second.
escape velocity is V = square root of ((2 * Gravitational constant * Mass of planet) / distance from center of gravity/planet)

works out to about 11.2km per second(7 MilesPerSecond) is the necessary speed for a ballistic(non propelled) object to break free of earths orbit and come to a complete stop in space, past the pull of earths gravity. that speed plus a little bit aimed in the right direction would make it to the moon.

but that is about 14 times faster than an average long distance rifle bullet travels, and probably close to 30 times as fast as the average shotgun load.

so im not sure what the question was, but thats the answer for it.
[/quote]
Miles are yucky. But props.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324192772' post='2353236']
Yes, trees have roots.
I don't think it is physically possible for buckshot from a normal shot gun fired from the earth at the moon to hit it. I'm sure this would be a very simple scenario for scientists and mathematicians to prove that it is impossible.

Can you prove that it is physically impossible for life to exist without a god creator?
[/quote]
But you walk past a large tree in the park, you've never seen if it has a root. There are two possibilities. 1/The tree happens per chance to be balanced and happens per chance that it is in a position of null air flow. 2/ It has a large tap root that holds it upright. Which is more plausible? Do we need to dig the tree up to prove it has a root or do we accept the overwhelming probability that this is how it works. The idea of all this Physics, Chemistry, Dynamics Biology resulting in such a complex existence being per chance seems far less plausible to me than a tree with no root standing by sheer balance in the wind shade. We are not just talking about a few gaps in 'per chance creation' needing a gap filler God but if drawn as a flow chart the apex is missing without God.
Firing a gun at teh moon was to demonstrate that I don't think it matters how many Universes there are with how many stars. To find one with conditions such as these is still improbable. And no I can't prove any of that! I also don't need to prove that I can't prove it, I can make the assumption by the fact that if I could apply J_lols maths and prove it, then there would be no such thing as an atheist.

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324204534' post='2353259']
Miles are yucky. But props.
[/quote]
Definitely! Km please!

Edited December 18, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324204534' post='2353259']
Miles are yucky. But props.
[/quote]

yeah i prefer metric for most things. however most gun specifications are in imperial (gauge, caliber, feet per second, shot size, etc) so it made sense to continue that way.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324204767' post='2353260']
Firing a gun at teh moon was to demonstrate that I don't think it matters how many Universes there are with how many stars. To find one with conditions such as these is still improbable. And no I can't prove any of that! I also don't need to prove that I can't prove it, I can make the assumption by the fact that if I could apply J_lols maths and prove it, then there would be no such thing as an atheist.
[/quote]

ok, maybe i fell asleep in physics, but i missed the part where earth having a strong gravitational field proved the existence of God.

Well, that was simple. someone should message Dawkins.



[quote]
Definitely! Km please!
[/quote]

ok then, max speed for bullet being about(in head calculations here) 0.8-1.6km per second. escape velocity being 11.2 km per second, over that speed would reach the moon, not accounting for friction in our atmosphere and orbiting debris

Edited December 18, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324205074' post='2353262']
yeah i prefer metric for most things. however most gun specifications are in imperial (gauge, caliber, feet per second, shot size, etc) so it made sense to continue that way.
[/quote]
Guns + imperial units? I blame 'Merica. No worries.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324020813' post='2352106']
Discrepancy in the order of creation?

[b]Genesis 1:20-21 and 26-27[/b] Birds were created [b][i]before[/i][/b] Adam.
[b]Genesis 2:7 and 2:19[/b] Birds were created [b][i]after[/i][/b] Adam.

[b]Genesis 1:24-27[/b] Animals were created [b][i]before[/i][/b] Adam.
[b]Genesis 2:7 and 2:19[/b] Animals were created [b][i]after[/i][/b] Adam.

[b]Genesis 1:26-27[/b] Adam and Eve were created at the [b][i]same time[/i][/b].
[b]Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22[/b] Adam was created first, woman sometime [b][i]later[/i][/b].

[/quote]
Since no one has got me on the back foot at the moment or flaming me i got bored and for interest sakes I decided to look at some more of your references.
In the first & second it just says that the animals were brought to Adam to see what he would call them. It does not say they were made after him.

In the third it says that man and women were made in his image not that this was concurrent.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1324205380' post='2353263']
ok, maybe i fell asleep in physics, but i missed the part where earth having a strong gravitational field proved the existence of God.

Well, that was simple. someone should message Dawkins.


[/quote]
Lol What? better give Language a miss and stick to maths.

Edited December 18, 2011 by Mark of the Cross

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+bullet"]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+bullet[/url]

[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=escape+velocity"]http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=escape+velocity[/url]

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324192772' post='2353236']
Can you prove that it is physically impossible for life to exist without a god creator?
[/quote]
Yes.

The bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, and bacterial chemotaxis. Therefore, the King James Bible is absolute truth.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324209002' post='2353271']
[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=speed+of+bullet"]http://www.wolframal...speed+of+bullet[/url]

[url="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=escape+velocity"]http://www.wolframal...escape+velocity[/url]
[/quote]

thanks for the double check, though im not sure why they used rimfire .22lr as a typical bullet, its about half as fast as most(many versions arent even supersonic), and weighs about 2-3 times less than most

Edited December 18, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324204767' post='2353260']
But you walk past a large tree in the park, you've never seen if it has a root. There are two possibilities. 1/The tree happens per chance to be balanced and happens per chance that it is in a position of null air flow. 2/ It has a large tap root that holds it upright. Which is more plausible? Do we need to dig the tree up to prove it has a root [/quote]
Yes, this is exactly what people did. They dug up trees and examined them, they came to an understanding on how they work by examining, observing and testing. Not by philisophical analysis alone.

[stevil]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1324209497' post='2353273']
Yes.

The bacterial flagellum, blood-clotting cascade, and bacterial chemotaxis. Therefore, the King James Bible is absolute truth.
[/quote]
It seems you disagree with the incremental benefits of evolution. There are many theists that agree with evolution.
I understand that still much ground is to be made within this theory, but it has never been disproven. Trying to find gaps and fill them with god is not a method of discovery, it is a method of stubborn ignorance.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324237810' post='2353340']
Yes, this is exactly what people did. They dug up trees and examined them, they came to an understanding on how they work by examining, observing and testing. Not by philisophical analysis alone.
[/quote]
So to you every tree is an unknown unless you dig it up and prove it has a root. I think it is common practice even in solid science to project conclusions from data or it's absence. Do scientists regard the Higgs Boson exists or not?
[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1324238056' post='2353342']
It seems you disagree with the incremental benefits of evolution. There are many theists that agree with evolution.
I understand that still much ground is to be made within this theory, but it has never been disproven. Trying to find gaps and fill them with god is not a method of discovery, it is a method of stubborn ignorance.
[/quote]
I believe in evolution... to an extent. I use it to fill in the gaps where I can't explain things by God alone. Lets call it the gap evolution, where I have stubborn ignorance of the existence of God and need something to replace it.

[stevil]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324240881' post='2353357']
So to you every tree is an unknown unless you dig it up and prove it has a root. I think it is common practice even in solid science to project conclusions from data or it's absence. Do scientists regard the Higgs Boson exists or not?
[/quote]
In terms of trees, we categorise them. Each varity, we then define what we believe to be common amongst trees of each variety. When then test these definitions by examining further trees of the same variety, we then expect the same definition holds for all trees of the variety. If someone proves with evidence that the definition does not hold true in all cases, we then redefine. This is the process of discover in order to find out the truth about reality. We don't start with the answers, we observe and also come up with theories but endevour to prove them before regarding them as fact.

With regards to Higgs Boson, this is a theory which hasn't been proven yet, although I have heard that the recent development is that they are close to proving HB. Regardless of proof, I'm am sure there are likely to be some scientists whom belive in Higgs Boson.

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1324240881' post='2353357']
I believe in evolution... to an extent. I use it to fill in the gaps where I can't explain things by God alone. Lets call it the gap evolution, where I have stubborn ignorance of the existence of God and need something to replace it.
[/quote]
Here you are employing the age old argument of "Burdon of proof".
I call the information we have on gods a god theory, and I would put the burdon of proof onto the theory rather than against the theory.

[MarysLittleFlower]

100%