Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

for yall in South Florida

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
So instead of believing it's just an allegory, you think that God changed the laws of physics just to illustrate a point? Not that he couldn't do it if he wanted, but just why would he do that? Just accept it for what it is....an allegorical story meant to illustrate a point. Get it? Oh yeah, you don't get it.
 
Herman Bloom said:
So instead of believing it's just an allegory, you think that God changed the laws of physics just to illustrate a point?
Seems like a stretch, don't it?

In case there's any confusion, I do believe the story of Jonah is an allegory, as is much of the Old Testament. I can't understand how people take a 40-day flood, a talking snake, and a burning bush literally.
 
Typhoon

I can understand it. These are people who will believe ANYTHING as long as it's easy to believe. Again, the dangers of fundamentalism....
 
So instead of believing it's just an allegory, you think that God changed the laws of physics just to illustrate a point? Not that he couldn't do it if he wanted, but just why would he do that? Just accept it for what it is....an allegorical story meant to illustrate a point. Get it? Oh yeah, you don't get it.

Actually it isn't changing all that much. There is archeological confirmation of a prophet named Jonah whose grave was found in northern Israel In addition, some ancient coins have been unearthed with an inscription of a man coming out of a fish's mouth. (Source--N. Geisler and T. Howe, "When Critics Ask")

Also there are reports of men during recent times (last couple of hundred years) that they were in fact swallowed by a whale and lived to tell about it. However I believe they are all unconfirmed reports.

I think it really happened with a real whale that existed. Why not?
 
If a whale was in the eastern med then he really was lost. Maybe Jonah was swallowed by one of those giant sturgeons, just sucked right up.
 
BUMP BUMP

I Bump because (corresponding to the 'Where will you end up' thread):

***For a discussion on why evolution as the explanation of our existence is nothing more then faith filled assumptions see the beginning (I think) few pages.

Feel free to copy and paste from here so we don’t have spend time typing it all out again. If you have a specific question about any logic used in the discussion, I am all ears.
 
Timebuilder said:
Well, you generally have two choices: to read something that is "biased toward Christianity" or you can read something that is "biased against Christianity".


Well science doesn't allow bias toward religion over time. If its wrong its wrong period. There has been few readings biased against christianity that have been proven wrong but many that are with christianity proven wrong.

Faith is the very antithesis of reason, injudiciousness a critical component of spiritual devotion. And when religious fanaticism supplants ratiocination, all bets are suddenly off. Anything can happen. Absolutely anything. Common sense is no match for the voice of God . . .

It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, "mad cow" disease, and many others, but I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.
Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven — and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.


I find it ironic that there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"

Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.
Now in practice, of course, individual scientists do sometimes slip back into the vice of faith, and a few may believe so single-mindedly in a favorite theory that they occasionally falsify evidence. However, the fact that this sometimes happens doesn't alter the principle that, when they do so, they do it with shame and not with pride. The method of science is so designed that it usually finds them out in the end.
Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around — because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence.


Consider: a man believes — beyond any doubt — that his god is the only god, is all-powerful and all-knowing, has created him and the entire universe around him, and is capricious, jealous, vindictive, and violent. That same god offers the man a choice between burning in eternal agony in a fully-defined hell, or living forever in a variety of paradises — some of which involve streets of gold and others an ample supply of virgin delights. Is there any choice here? Will the man fail to carry out any command or whim of this deity? How can we doubt that religion is a compulsory system that absolutely rules its adherents? It's a tyranny, a trap, a disaster of infinite size and scope. I'll have none of it.

Examine the notion of a "loving god." This god only loves you if you follow the rules. No questions, no doubts, no objections, are allowed. "Because I said so, that's why." He/she/it loves you as a farmer loves a draft-animal; you're useful, you obey, and you're docile. If you stray, your firstborn will be murdered, if you don't follow a capricious order, you're a pillar of salt. This is "love"? If so, I'll take indifference.

Unlike the religious, who have it all cut-and-dried, predigested and served up to them, I'm willing to be shown. But I will not entertain the argument of threats and fear, I will not fall for the "we don't know everything" throw-down, and I haven't the time to argue the endless anecdotal tales of which the faithful are so fond.

What do I believe in? I believe in the basic goodness of my species, because that appears to be a positive tactic and quality that leads to better chances of survival — and in spite of our foolishness, we seem to have survived. I believe that this system of aging and eventually dying — a system that is the result of the evolutionary process, not of conscious effort — is an excellent process that makes room for hopefully improved members of the species, in an increasingly limited environment. I believe that if we don't smarten up and get a sense of reality and pragmatism, our species will do what they all eventually do: it will cease to exist, prematurely. I also believe that we will get smart, because that's a survival technique, and we're really pretty good at that....

I also believe in puppy-dogs and a child's sparkling eyes, in laughter and smiles, in sunflowers and butterflies. Mountains and icebergs, snowflakes and clouds, are delights to me. Yes, I know that this perception is the result of hard-wiring in my brain, along with the added input of experience and association, but that does not subtract a bit from my appreciation of phenomena. I know that others, both of my species and not, may not share my awe and acceptance of these elements that so please me, because they have different needs and reactions. A cloud is a mass of condensed water-vapor in the atmosphere, I know. But it can be a sailing-ship, a demon, an eagle, if I allow myself to be a human being, and though many will doubt it, I frequently do.


peace.
 
likeitis:

Say what you want bro and whatever you believe is cool with me. But your long post about your beliefs shows all the more how much of a religion it is. There is just as much evidence to prove that God is for real as there is to prove evolution is for real, actually a lot more. Add the individual spiritual evidence and you have 100% fact. But do we really need to go through another 13 plus pages in proving that again?

Maybe you can answer my question since no one else has. What did we evolve from and then what did that evolve from?

If it is so concrete how come no one has given a logical answer about that yet?
 
Consider: a man believes — beyond any doubt — that his god is the only god, is all-powerful and all-knowing, has created him and the entire universe around him, and is capricious, jealous, vindictive, and violent.

These descriptions made about a human would be a real indictment. Aside from "capricious", the rest can be ascribed to our view of a God that is all powerful, and the Creator of the universe. We are fearful of power, want to dodge any judgement and pain to ourselves. If anyone is right having these aspects, would it not be ONLY God?

Science relies heavily on faith. Things like gravity, that we can only appreciate as an observation, with no explanation. We are confident that we can design devices that would not work without the presence of gravity, and rely on the biased expectation that gravity will be there today, tomorrow and the next day. Yet, we have no idea of what manner of force gravity might be, how to reproduce it, control it, manage it, it's all a mystery. We have faith that because the earth has so-and-so mass we can expect to observe so-and-so amount of gravitational strength. And that is where, aside from some really interesting thought about the orientation of nuclear particles, is where it ends.

Our relationship to God is not so much like a man to his draft animal. If we were draft animals, He would be relying on us for work, and He does not need us to provide for Him. Specifically, we are like sheep, and He is the good shepard. Rather than being insulted, which I think is an element in your complaint, we instead should be humbled by this comparison. Instsead of being willful, we should be obedient. We are not. When God says "stop this behavior", many will trust their own human reasoning, and say "we have a right to be doing this". The result? Two cities completely destroyed to set everyone else straight, no pun intended. A woman's elements transmuted to sodium chloride because she disobeyed God's directive. This is the account we are given.

The short observation is that science is an empirical study of God's creation, with man wandering through the elements and forces like the children we are, asking, testing, and getting our fingers burned. Headstrong and willfull, we are convinced our feces are becoming less pungent with every discovery and process we patent. We are only fooling ourselves. God decided a long time ago to dictate how our relationship to Him will progress. He has that right as our Creator. Without Him, we would not even exist to hold a fossil in our hand and say "look here!", extremely pleased with ourselves.

There are many beliefs, and some say that they are all mutually correct. This is ecumenicalism, and it is wrong, as if God is somehow "confused". Some say that no belief besides science is worthy (you, my friend?) and that is wrong, since the Bible tells us that "it is He that has made us, and not we ourselves".

So, He has the right, as the Creator, to act any way He wants. Like a parent and a two year old, He has simple guidlines that do not preclude scientific discovery, but instead form a framework in which to view our discoveries. It's His ball, and His game. We can play it, and play it well, or lose big time. That's the freewill choice we have, like it or not. You can complain about it, but it will do you no good. You can be angry, and say that you should be able to touch and measure such a God, and hold Him to your standards of personality, and make Him a big, friendly neighbor like Wilson on tool time: always friendly and wise, unwilling to hurt a single person. That "Wilson" god is not OUR God. Our God is all powerful, and the master of all of His creations, including us. He knows we are simple compared to Him, so He made the rules simple, starting with "Ten" rules and enlightening more from there.

We are wise to meet Him on His terms: (paraphasing) *have faith in me, and salvation through the sacrifice of my son. Study my word, and make it a part of your life. Be humble, and obey. You are my sheep. The best is yet to come, for those who will follow.*

If this seems too simple, we are simple. Compare the capacity of a single celled organism to a city block full of Cray computers, and you do not yet have an accurate comparison of man to his God.

We are wise to follow.
 
So...the guy uses an AgCat, that explains why it sounded like a radial.
Ok, i think that answered my initial question.
 
crash-proof said:
...that answered my initial question.
I'm sorry, what was the question? :D

Just think, Crash, if you hadn't been that curious about the Holy Skywriter, this whole circus wouldn't have happened!

(I don't blame you: I'd have asked about it too.)
 
By the way, this...
crash-proof said:
Anyone know anything about this fruitloop?
...is what got you in trouble with the Bible crowd!
 
I got nothin against fruitloops, honestly. They taste great.
 
"Fruitloop".

If Siegfreid and Roy ever sponsor an aerobatic team, this would have to be their signature maneuver.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom