The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Reply

Morgan Freeman

  • What logic? Please outline the steps.

  • I see what you are saying but I would contend that our constant search for what we call general knowledge is at least loosely tied to finding a creator (or whatever beginning you may choose to ascribe too) that holds all the answers. Does something/an answer exist?? Sure it exists but would still be 'nothing' as it relates to what I think GoodNews is suggesting about the greater road ahead. I would also suggest to your second point about 'searching for answers themselves'; I liken that to standing in a dark room that you have never been in before. You use your knowledge of life you had before being in that room to do what? Find answers, but more importantly why? To sit down? To not fall over? To turn on the lights? etc.....Similarly in life you search and search for answers but not just to find the answer but to find a greater understanding I would suggest. To know the answer as it exists but also to gain understanding of how it plays into the journey. Thus I think the unsatisfactory nature of one unfulfilling answer would lead you to further search and then ultimately find yourself searching for someone/thing with all of the answers.

    obvious troll

  • Msn - I don't want to discourage you from participating in such threads if you have something to offer. Since I'm often the only poster from my point of view I have to ignore a few insults. I really don't mind. I won't ignore anyone b/c, frankly, i think it's cowardly and it takes internet posting way too seriously. To each his own. I make some statements, with posters that I know, in order to elicit an emotional reaction. That's debate 101. I've complimented Bama many times in many threads. I criticized other posters for downvoting him on a couple of threads. I want good things for him and think he has a gift of reasoning. I also enjoy good debate and often will post only to keep a discussion going in a logical and helpful direction. I also learn a great deal from other posters. If you want in and have something to offer then by all means come on in. So far you've only muddied the waters. So congrats to you.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • you called yourself a douche

    signature image
  • No, I was referencing when another poster referred to me as a douche. You made some post which included (as i remember) my calling another poster a baby and tried to make it look like I was being hypocritical in my correcting you on one of your comments. Actually, since you didn't take the time to understand my post in context, you didn't realize that comment (about Bama being a baby) was in response to me being called a douche. I was being hypocritical at all. Can we continue with the good stuff please and from now on try to get me on the merits of the discussion instead of desperately trying to get me on something like this.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • And, in another post I was called a douche. Who cares. Can we move on please?

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • So, are there any absolutes?

    I'll be back later, sorry to have to jump off here.

    This post was edited by goodnews 2 years ago

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • There have to be - if I said, no there are no absolutes, I just made an absolute statement.

    I'm not sure why you are berating this point - I subscribe to the philosophical notion of an objective reality. I told you that already.

  • Absolutely. Doesn't it make sense that if there are "little" absolutes then there must also be ultimate absolutes? I missed your post on objective reality, my humblest apologies. If you're so inclined I'd love to know more about that point of view.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • Goodnews, would you answer this question? You say we should seek out someone that knows all, but wouldn't it be impossible to know if someone knew all unless you knew all yourself?

  • Define little and ultimate absolutes.

  • Goodnews, you waste more time in these threads than I could have ever imagined. Your desire to get unbelievers to "see" and understand you is unscriptural.

    Believe it or not, that's an encouragement. Share the Gospel and get out. Most will hate it. Fact.

  • I'm about 95% in agreement with her. Check the "What would you do if you were the president" or whatever thread the other day. I said the same thing.

    Being a Christian isn't about anything other than regeneration. You are either regenerate or not. I am regenerate by the grace of God alone. I still sin.

    But sin has to be punished infinitely. Christ took it on for those who would "lose their life for Him and His ministry".....those who "save their life will lose it". Galations 2 is an extremely simple teaching on regeneration and righteousness and the dynamic between the two.

    You and others can try and paint me as some religious zealot but I am not. I just know this country is flooded with nominal Christians and its usually very very easy to spot them.

    This post was edited by fsufsu 2 years ago

  • Skimmed the first paragraph of the article.

    Chaning? Can't tell what you're talking about and wont click the article again.

  • Good question, thanks. I start with the logical assumption that having a very small frame of reference, in a universe of immeasurable size and a history of unknowable ends, that we shouldn't, in and of ourselves, be in the business of avering on how much we know. I remember going out to buy my first car. I was sure that the best deal out there was car A. I went to the dealership, drove the car, loved how it looked and drove, and thought I got a great deal. Later, I found out that there were actually a lot bette cars out there with much better deals. Scientists are continually discovering new things that place sacred cows into question. I could go on. So again, if we can't know everything, we should be very skeptical of what we think we know. The only logical escape from this quandry is to somehow become omniscient, or get to know the one who is. Now, to actually answer your question. Any core belief or point of view (religious, scientific,philosophical etc) is going to require some degree of faith. Since we have no control over the sun coming up tomorrow we trust that it will by faith and b/c it is reasonable for us to believe it will. So, we write things on our calendars, put money in savings, etc. What it comes down to is which point of view is most reasonable. There are so many things about the Biblical ethic and philosophy that exude reasonability. The God who speaks there has all the needed bases covered in regards to one who is omniscient, and even surprises with some other unexpected insights. The death and resurrection of Jesus couldn't be made up by a selfish and fallible mankind and yet it ingeniously describes the only fully satisfactory explanation for the problems of mankind and the only solution for our problems and needs. My heart and mind are both greatly satisfied with the gospel, and I'm continually surprised by the Biblical insights. All of this smacks omniscience by the God who also claims omniscience anyway. I don't need to have an MD to trust the doctor. Rather, I learn to trust the doctor as he/she demonstrates it's reasonable to do so. In an even more profound way I've learned to ultimately trust the One who has demonstrated His omniscience even if i don't know everything He does. I say it's very reasonable to do so.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.

  • do you know some of these nominal Christians ? flex.........remember "it is finished"

    signature image
  • You really have no idea what's going on. Of course you are an Osteen Christian so you likely think someone who says they are a Christian but their life reflects nothing of the Bible they are still saved, "They are just struggling"

    The fact that you thought a retort to me using the term "nominal Christians" would be "it is finished" concludes my point on your doctrinal understanding.

    This post was edited by fsufsu 2 years ago

  • Well, I appreciate your encouragement and think you're only trying to help. You won't find me easy to offend. Truth is i share the gospel often and try to live it even more often. And, it's true that many will reject the gospel. However, Paul preached to people where they were. In these threads I simply try to demonstrate the logical fallacy that many have in their points of view. On the street the love and service of God's people speaks the loudest. Jesus often healed or fed someone in conjunction His preaching. The Early Church, in the midst of great [persecution, loved their neighbors, and even their enemies, in an effort to show how different the gospel moves us to live in comparison to the rest of the world in all its arrogance and sarcasm. I try my best to live exactly that way. However, on a board like this it's difficult to demonstrate that to others. In our post-post modern time we absorb a lot of false information and philosophical crap. So, i try to help folks work through all of that if they're willing to be objective and aren't too proud to see things differently. Plus, i also just like debate and always learn from it when other reasonable folks participate.

    signature image

    South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.


  • You do not know if the man is "saved" or not.

    Do not question what you do not possibly have the ability to know.

    All that said and I am sorry to tell you this, but Joel Osteen is the least of the Christian church's problem, you should probably worry a little more about people like Fred Phelps and his church of crazies. Osteen will do far less damage throughout his career than people like Phelps do in one year. I get the distinct impression that you're more concerned with the attention you receive than actually fixing a problem though.

    This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by shoeless7777 2 years ago

    signature image
  • If carrie underwood is for gay marriage let her be. I got nothing wrong with it. How would you like it if someone says you cant go to church on sundays because they just dont like it. Probly wouldnt fly to well with you.

    signature image signature image signature image
  • Love what your saying goodnews. You have to whole sye ten brugencatte and Eric hovind message going and i really think that kind of argument can go a long way in pointing out how they appeal to Gods logic, as a way to say that he doesn't exist.

  • Concepts that are reasonable reasonable do not require faith. They require reason.

    Your example here is flawed. The sun has shown no indication that it could ever "not come up" the next day. The use of science and reason has taught us how the sun's light reaches us, how the earth moves around the sun, how bright the sun will be in the future, and even how many billion years in the future we expect the sun to expand to the point when it engulfs Earth completely. But for the next few billions of years, the fact is that the sun will come up. Anything else would be completely contrary to common sense and the last thousand years of progress in astronomy.

    That is not a faith based belief. That is a scientific conclusion based on evidence; a fact. Such sure conclusions can be altered, but only by a vast degree of new evidence. Simply because an alternative is imaginable (let alone possible) does not mean the sensible conclusion requires faith. Facts don't require faith; faith is being 90% sure the sun will be there tomorrow and illogically ignoring the other 10%. And even that type of "faith" would be confidence based on probability. Not the religious type of "faith", which does not present palpable evidence or testable hypotheses.

    Even if one sided with Pascal's Wager and decided to have faith in a specific religion, that would present infinitely low probabilities. Think of every religion and religious concept that has existed in worldwide society. Think of the religions that may have existed before, but are unknown today. Think of the religions that do not yet exist, but may exist in the future. Religious concepts that may exist on other planets, but not this one. Add in an infinite number of religious concepts that do not yet exist and will never be created/discovered by any society. Every one of those concepts has another possible religion that professes exactly the opposite concepts. Any infinite number of other non-religious concepts could explain the universe ("It's all a dream/illusion", "We're components of a computer program", etc.) Any of those could potentially explain our ultimate purpose.

    Total? Millions, billions, trillions of possible supernatural concepts to believe in. Odds any of us are correct, or can possibly ever be correct? 1 over infinity, at best. It becomes illogical to have a faith based belief without harder evidence. To say that compares to the supposed "faith in science" is crazy.

    This post was edited by Cuba Gooding Jr 2 years ago

    signature image signature image

    Next question.

  • Entirely ignorant post. Fred Phelps is a nominal Christian. You just proved yourself wrong. He says he is a Christian and the fruit of his spirit is the opposite of that listed in Galations 5:22. If he is "saved" then the God of the Bible doesn't exist because Yahweh promised something far different when His Spirit moves.

    Osteen is the least of the "church's" problem? Wrong. He's the embodiment.

    The "church" in America has a wretched reputation because it's been flooded with unsaved. Directly related to false doctrine preaching about salvation and regeneration. Osteen preaches the postmodern, church building, humanistic doctrine of "giving your life to Christ". The Bible explicitly explains that God moves on a man and your life is now His.

    So if well more than hundreds of thousands of people are thinking they got saved at that one church conference a few years back when they felt guilty and wanted to go to Heaven (everyone does, duh) but their lives are bitter fruit trees then that IS the "church's" problem in America. Although, scripturally, we know that the Church is united because Christ prayed for it to be. The regenerate are beautiful, united, obedient, constantly being sanctified, and they study the Bible to have it mold their theology not studying the Bible to mold it to their theology.

    Christianity was never meant to be popular, the gospel is so watered down in America so as to up attendance, and the doctrine of man pervades nearly every preaching in well over half the churches. And the results are evident. Unbelievers stand back and watch as the "Church" reflects Christ about as well as a mud puddle reflects one's own face. Yet, in your infantile understanding of theology and doctrine you think the "church's" biggest issue is some pagan in the mid-west? No one even gives a crap about him. Even Christian haters don't count him against my Christ. They know those folks are lunatics. But when they look around at mega churches and other smaller churches who's doors open and the lost flood out of them after a weak gospel message or some story telling and life lessons message on Sundays they are repulsed.

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by fsufsu 2 years ago

  • CHRISTIAN FIGHT!!!!!

    catfight

    popcorn

    signature image