meta user
network profile
| bio | website | johansens.us |
|---|---|---|
| location | Michigan | |
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 1 year, 7 months |
| seen | Feb 17 at 21:51 | |
| stats | profile views | 62 |
|
Apr 5 |
comment |
Why are there fourteen stations of the cross? Not all numbers have numerological significance. I saw a cartoon a while ago with the caption "Overanalyzing". It shows a policeman telling a detective, "We had a murder two months ago, another murder a month ago, and two murders this month." And the detective replies, "Hmm, 1, 1, and 2, the first three numbers of the Fibonacci sequence ..." |
|
Apr 5 |
answered | How does Absalom's death foreshadow Christ? |
|
Apr 5 |
comment |
What is agreed upon in all Christain denominations? Right on, Thomas. A religion is a set of beliefs. If we define a Christian as someone who believes X, Y, and Z, then it proves nothing to say, Look at that! All Christians believe X, Y, and Z! It's like those arguments I often hear where someone says, Everyone knowledgeable about this subject agrees with me and says X. Then someone on the other side says, What about Dr Jones and Dr Miller? They're experts in the field and they say not-X. And the first person replies, Oh no, they're totally unqualified, as is proven from the fact that they believe crazy ideas like not-X. |
|
Apr 5 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? @Marc By what standard is historical research not "evidence"? Sure, we cannot have the same level of confidance in an historical statement as we can in a scientific statement. But surely you would not claim that scientific evidence is 100% definitive. Scientific claims often turn out to be mistaken. Even well-established facts can be overturned, like Newtonian physics was shown to be only a close approximation, and was replaced with special relativity. If you only accept something as true when it is proven 100% unquestionably so, then you're probably limited to "I think, therefore I am". |
|
Apr 3 |
comment |
In light of Mark 10, how can Christians in good conscience purchase luxury items? As Jim says, you're off on a different subject. Maybe you should post a question if you want to discuss that. I don't want to go into a long discussion, but a quick 2 cents: No one doubts that the Earth's resources are finite, but "finite" is not the same as "about to be exhausted". If I had a billion dollars in the bank, that's a finite amount of money. But I'd have to try very hard to spend it all in my life. |
|
Apr 2 |
answered | In light of Mark 10, how can Christians in good conscience purchase luxury items? |
|
Apr 2 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? @Marc It wasn't my intent to be argumentative. I simply asked rhetorical questions. You began by saying that if a statement cannot be studied empirically or logically, that it cannot be said to be true. I disagreed, offerring the example of historical questions. You replied that it would be impossible to say that such a statement was true. I take it you were referring to my reference to historical statements. I disagree. Historical statements are just as objectively true or false as scientific statements. There is objective true other than science and logic. |
|
Mar 30 |
comment |
How does the Bible describe the gender roles? IMHO this question is way too broad to be answerable. People have written books on small subsets of this question, like "women in missions", "roles within the family", etc. I see others have tried to answer, but I would suggest you ask more specific questions. |
|
Mar 30 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? So you're saying that it is impossible to know anything about history because historical questions cannot be empirically tested? It is impossible to know anything about art because the quality or meaning of art cannot be empirically tested? That there is no point in even discussing any subject other than science or math because they are not empirically testable? |
|
Mar 30 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? But my point is: The fact that a statement is untestable given present technology or whatever circumstances, does not mean that the statement is not objectively true or false. "Can't prove it" and "not a factual question" are not the same thing. Also, "cannot be proven by scientific experiment" is not at all the same as "cannot be proven". For example, I may be able to prove a statement by historical research, or logical deduction. |
|
Mar 28 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? Suppose I say, "There is intelligent life on the planet Rigel IV." Assuming we can define "intelligent life", etc, that statement is objectively true or false. With our current technology we have no way of determining whether it is true or false, but that doesn't alter the underlying reality. Similarly, if I say, "There is a God", then assuming we can define "God", this is objectively true or false. Whether you find the arguments on either side convincing doesn't alter the fact that it is true or false. Even if you are convinced we cannot know the answer, there is still an answer. |
|
Mar 28 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? @Marc I meant that I disagree with your assertion that a statement must be logically or empirically verifiable to be "true". Statements about history are neither, and yet are objectively true or false. Sure, multiplicity of sources would be one grounds for evaluating that. Though of course it's possible for one person to be telling the truth and ten people to be lying, so we can't judge truth simply by taking a vote of the witnesses. But that's a different issue. And there are many historical events known to us from only one source. |
|
Mar 24 |
answered | What is God's definition of forgiveness? |
|
Mar 24 |
comment |
What are the “correct” steps for a layman to be a Christian? Well, hmm, if you believe my answer to be inaccurate, why can't you simply tell me in what way it is inaccurate, rather than this vague "you need to read the Gospels"? Maybe if you made a clear statement of your objection I would concede that I have made a mistake. But "I think you're wrong but I refuse to say how or why" doesn't lead to a productive conversation. |
|
Mar 24 |
answered | Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? |
|
Mar 24 |
comment |
Are there truths that can only be known through spiritual means? I don't see how that follows. Maybe it's a matter of definitions. If I read in a history book that Julius Caesar led a war in Gaul, that statement is objectively true or false. But there's no way I could prove it empirically or by logical deduction. As it happened in the past, it is too late to perform any experiment to study it. And it is not a mathematical or philosophical proposition that could be deduced by logic. |
|
Mar 24 |
answered | Why didn't God send Jesus during Noah's time instead of The Flood? |
|
Mar 23 |
comment |
Does Scientology claim to be Christian? As I understand it -- and I don't claim to be an expert on Scientology by any means -- Scientology's concept of God is as an impersonal force and not as a being with a consciousness and a personality. More like "the Force" of Star Wars than the Christian, Jewish, or Moslem idea of God. |
|
Mar 23 |
comment |
Does the act of sex constitute marriage in God's eyes? Luke 2:5 refers to Mary and Joseph as "betrothed", not married, at the time they left for Bethlehem. So unless they got married on the trip or immediately upon arrival, they were not married when Jesus was born. Though just thinking about it now, it would not be unreasonable to speculate that they might have gotten married just before leaving: It would be a rational thing to do. And by the way, Matthew 1:25 says they did not have sex until after Jesus was born. |
|
Mar 23 |
comment |
Does the act of sex constitute marriage in God's eyes? I don't doubt that one could be legally married and/or be married in a church service, but not be married in God's eyes, or vice versa. Like if someone gets married just so he/she can legally enter a country that gives preference to spouses of citizens, but the two never live together, never sleep together, etc, it's purely a legal sham, maybe God wouldn't consider that a "real marriage". Or maybe he would. But even granting such a possibility just means we are conceding that marriage may NOT be defined by legal paperwork. It doesn't prove it IS defined by sex. |
