Religion III

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What are you doin' over here: Take a wrong turn?

I think you do not like to examine rapture, different bibles and different setups for the occurrence right. Basically not in your lifetime and different timelines. So this is the place for it and the question was . . . .

Did this thread revolve around and become Religion III because of rapture? I mean was it not the basis for the thread?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by fast4522

I think you do not like to examine rapture, different bibles and different setups for the occurrence right. Basically not in your lifetime and different timelines. So this is the place for it and the question was . . . .

Did this thread revolve around and become Religion III because of rapture? I mean was it not the basis for the thread?

Not that I know of. You'd have to go to page 1 of this thread and start reading. As I recall, this one was started because the first two became bogged down with too many posts.

[fast4522]

So I do not think that you answered anything in post one of this thread. I came here to see what you might say.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Actor

I would have thought it was higher. I think your figure is low because you do not include any of the unaffiliated, whereas I would include some of them, although I do not know how many.

I think Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. For example, filmmaker George Lucas identifies as a Buddhist-Christian. The "Force" in Luca's Star Wars franchise has many elements of Buddhism. Siddhartha Gautama, the original buddha, has been called "the atheist who became a god."

I agree re:Buddhism and was surprised about it's inclusion.

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Depends on whether one considers the bible to be the literal, infallible word of God — God’s primary method of communicating with man. Or, like the Catholic Church, one considers the bible to be little more than popular literature — inspirational but not the foundation for one’s religion. (E.g., the Catholic Church maintains that the Pope, the bishop of Rome, is the successor of Saint Peter, although they don’t necessarily maintain that Saint Peter was ever the bishop of Rome, or that he was ever in Rome.)

If you believe the former, then, one should hold the story to a higher standard. The details shouldn’t be "fuzzy,” it’s too important.

This isn't even close to what Catholics believe, but this site is an exercise in providing background so as to even agree on what is at issue. Quite wearying.

[Actor]

"Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to the rigid certainty of the Bible instead. There is something comfortable about a view that allows for no deviation and that spares you the painful necessity of having to think." -- Isaac Asimov

[porchy44]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Depends on whether one considers the bible to be the literal, infallible word of God — God’s primary method of communicating with man. Or, like the Catholic Church, one considers the bible to be little more than popular literature — inspirational but not the foundation for one’s religion. (E.g., the Catholic Church maintains that the Pope, the bishop of Rome, is the successor of Saint Peter, although they don’t necessarily maintain that Saint Peter was ever the bishop of Rome, or that he was ever in Rome.)

If you believe the former, then, one should hold the story to a higher standard. The details shouldn’t be "fuzzy,” it’s too important.

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

This isn't even close to what Catholics believe, but this site is an exercise in providing background so as to even agree on what is at issue. Quite wearying.

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

― Fulton J. Sheen

But there is a catechism which spells out the Church's beliefs...
https://www.usccb.org/sites/default/...catechism/422/

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by fast4522

So I do not think that you answered anything in post one of this thread. I came here to see what you might say.

Might say about what?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

"Science is uncertain. Theories are subject to revision; observations are open to a variety of interpretations, and scientists quarrel amongst themselves. This is disillusioning for those untrained in the scientific method, who thus turn to the rigid certainty of the Bible instead. There is something comfortable about a view that allows for no deviation and that spares you the painful necessity of having to think." -- Isaac Asimov

And this is why so many hate the bible. Science is UNCERTAIN -- as uncertain as life itself; conversely the testimony of the Lord is sure (Ps 19:7), and God's children can rest assured that God's Word will never fail; it's a sure and steadfast anchor for the soul (Heb 6:19). God is the Promise Maker and the Promise Keeper. The Word of God is as immutable as God himself.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And this is why so many hate the bible. Science is UNCERTAIN -- as uncertain as life itself; conversely the testimony of the Lord is sure (Ps 19:7), and God's children can rest assured that God's Word will never fail; it's a sure and steadfast anchor for the soul (Heb 6:19). God is the Promise Maker and the Promise Keeper. The Word of God is as immutable as God himself.

The Bible is also uncertain. That is why there are so many different denominations. Your church did not come along until around 1500 years after the supposed crucifixion of it's supposed redeemer. So supposedly the church was wrong for 1500 years.

As Asimov points out the big difference between science and religion is that the scientists know that science is uncertain and they accept that, whereas the religious must believe in "immutability" else they have nothing.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Bible is also uncertain. That is why there are so many different denominations. Your church did not come along until around 1500 years after the supposed crucifixion of it's supposed redeemer. So supposedly the church was wrong for 1500 years.

As Asimov points out the big difference between science and religion is that the scientists know that science is uncertain and they accept that, whereas the religious must believe in "immutability" else they have nothing.

Shirley U. Jest. You're as ignorant of the bible as you are of bacteria.

P.S. The Church doesn't = the bible. The bible is certain. Fallible believers, who comprise the church, not so much.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Shirley U. Jest. You're as ignorant of the bible as you are of bacteria.

I may be ignorant of bacteria, after all it's not my field. But I trust that my family doctor is quite knowledgeable of bacteria.

Studies have revealed that atheists are more knowledgable of the Bible than the average Christian. See PEW research. As for Asimov

https://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide...ks%2C77&sr=1-3

Originally Posted by boxcar

P.S. The Church doesn't = the bible. The bible is certain.

An untestable hypothesis. Those who wrote the Bible know this. That's why they put "thou shalt not put God to the test" in the Bible.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Fallible believers, who comprise the church, not so much.

So you admit that.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Shirley U. Jest. You're as ignorant of the bible as you are of bacteria.

P.S. The Church doesn't = the bible. The bible is certain. Fallible believers, who comprise the church, not so much.

Straw Man argument if ever there was one.

Was the church wrong for 1500 years. Yes or no?

[Richie]

Originally Posted by Actor

The Bible is also uncertain. That is why there are so many different denominations. Your church did not come along until around 1500 years after the supposed crucifixion of it's supposed redeemer. So supposedly the church was wrong for 1500 years.

As Asimov points out the big difference between science and religion is that the scientists know that science is uncertain and they accept that, whereas the religious must believe in "immutability" else they have nothing.

completely false, you have never read the bible

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

I may be ignorant of bacteria, after all it's not my field. But I trust that my family doctor is quite knowledgeable of bacteria.

Studies have revealed that atheists are more knowledgable of the Bible than the average Christian. See PEW research. As for Asimov

https://www.amazon.com/Asimovs-Guide...ks%2C77&sr=1-3

An untestable hypothesis. Those who wrote the Bible know this. That's why they put "thou shalt not put God to the test" in the Bible.

So you admit that.

Yeah...Athiests are so knowledgeable of the bible, they don't have the first clue what it's message is.

Btw...were those "studies" peer-reviewed?

What's an "untestable hypothesis" that a book = people? So...you're a book, are you? Anything in your book other than empty pages?