i read alot of debates on this subject and it seems no-one really gets anywhere about anything. i mean, isnt the point of a statement or a rebuttal, to somehow prove your line of reasoning so the other party either concurs or both party's agree to disagree. its exhausting reading this stuff sometimes.
Considering it to be spiritual matters, it doesn't necessarily have to follow logic. If you're going to vie any supernatural idealisms, how are you supposed to hold proper logic if it's solely sourced from personal convictions? (That shouldn't be read as a bias against holding beliefs, I do hold a lot of ungrounded thoughts 😉)
I would like to say the same for those that don't hold such idealisms. However, considering that logic is manmade, it is logical to say that there is no point in holding such beliefs because there's nothing to prove them within physical contexts that can be observed/discovered/ etc. But there's a system that's manmade, and spirituality almost inherently details something outside of man realm.
So it's a nice catch 22, a back and forth of i believe. The only thing that can be considered a debate is when people are genuinely trying to learn of each other's convictions and there's respect and tolerance- and even then it's just a conversation 😉
Originally posted by ua41Logic is man made?
Considering it to be spiritual matters, it doesn't necessarily have to follow logic. If you're going to vie any supernatural idealisms, how are you supposed to hold proper logic if it's solely sourced from personal convictions? (That shouldn't be read as a bias against holding beliefs, I do hold a lot of ungrounded thoughts 😉)
I would like to say the same fo ...[text shortened]... ictions and there's respect and tolerance- and even then it's just a conversation 😉
Originally posted by avalanchethecatMaybe "He" doesn't want to shut us all up.
Maybe one day He'll post here to shut us all up...
I see these debates as much theism vs atheism as science vs religon.
I believe we need to get a handle on both to progress with our understanding.
Fabian has repeatedly told us that science and religon do not mix. I believe there is scope here to move furthur in our understanding and that one will always be reflective of the other(ie. science and religon).
So why the trouble embracing science AND religon (or spirituality)?
Originally posted by karoly aczelAbsolutely dude! There may really be something worth looking inside for - I just don't think scripture is of any help in finding it.
Maybe "He" doesn't want to shut us all up.
I see these debates as much theism vs atheism as science vs religon.
I believe we need to get a handle on both to progress with our understanding.
Fabian has repeatedly told us that science and religon do not mix. I believe there is scope here to move furthur in our understanding and that one will always ...[text shortened]... . science and religon).
So why the trouble embracing science AND religon (or spirituality)?
Originally posted by avalanchethecatWell apparently scipture helps some people. But only to a point,surely.
Absolutely dude! There may really be something worth looking inside for - I just don't think scripture is of any help in finding it.
For me it is just a place of cross-refrencing and shelved in with other classic examples of disinformation.
Originally posted by bot 6I've had a lot of debates end while we both walked away saying we have said
i read alot of debates on this subject and it seems no-one really gets anywhere about anything. i mean, isnt the point of a statement or a rebuttal, to somehow prove your line of reasoning so the other party either concurs or both party's agree to disagree. its exhausting reading this stuff sometimes.
all we could or would say on a matter and we agree to disagree. Nothing wrong
with that. Personally, I've learned a lot here, but we do show our hearts here too,
how we treat one another as well.
Kelly
Originally posted by ua41It may not HAVE to follow logic, but it should.
Considering it to be spiritual matters, it doesn't necessarily have to follow logic.
I'm, first and foremost, a truth seeker. I'm called a Christian because I believe what the Bible says, but I believe what the Bible says because it's proven itself to be the truth. And I arrived at that conclusion by means of logic.
For example, in 586 BC Ezekiel wrote, in great detail, that the city of Tyre would be conquered. In 332 BC (254 years later), Alexander the Great conquered Tyre and Ezekiel's description was an accurate description of how he did it. Since no man can see into the future, logic would say that Ezekiel had input from some intelligent source beyond man.
Logic can, and should, be used to establish one's faith in God. The "problem" is that the evidence is so plentiful that it's taken for granted and dismissed.
Originally posted by TheScrawnyPawnThe truth is indeed difficult to accept for many. Like the prophet who returned to "GOD" in a fiery chariot with the face of a lion. Or when the same prophet visited "GOD"s spaceship which contained an altar. I believe the account is an accurate description of an alien abduction NOT some omnipotent being. That is logic, plain and simple.
It may not HAVE to follow logic, but it should.
I'm, first and foremost, a truth seeker. I'm called a Christian because I believe what the Bible says, but I believe what the Bible says because it's proven itself to be the truth. And I arrived at that conclusion by means of logic.
For example, in 586 BC Ezekiel wrote, in great detail, that the city ...[text shortened]... problem" is that the evidence is so plentiful that it's taken for granted and dismissed.