A question about the Old Vs. New testament God

To keep the music chat from being un-interupted send all political opinons here. This is fortwayneMUSIC.com after all.

Moderators: MrSpall, bassjones, sevesd93, zenmandan

Morphine Child
SuperStar
SuperStar
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:27 am

Post by Morphine Child »

A few good points by the previous two posters. ^

I read Timeline by Michael Crichton years ago, and one point that always stuck in my mind was his statement on "time". Time was created by us for us. We cannot travel in time, because it's merely a human concept, and it only exists because we make it exist. Time does not progress, we progress, trees progress, rocks progress, other animals progress, all living things progress in age. That is the true measurement of things.

So again, as Garr said, we're lumping something outside of our realm into something that is a creation of our own. An infinite being would have to be. It doesn't make sense for it to change or "progress", because it would have to just be and just is.
"My friend says he wants to die. He's in a band, they sound like Pearl Jam, the clothes are all black and the music is crap."

Steven Wilson

NoteScribe: Premier [url=http://www.notescribe.net]Note Software[/url]
deek
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:31 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by deek »

Religion is similar to a concept I recently read in a mathematics article. It was debating the nature of math, whether it is out there to be discovered or is a product of human invention. Religion fits that mold quite succinctly...
[url=http://www.deeksworld.com]deek's World[/url]
Garr
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:22 pm
Location: Fort Wayne
Contact:

Post by Garr »

science/religion. is there really any difference?
There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary. . .

. . .and those who don't.

[url]http://www.garrmusic.com[/url]

Check out these sites:

[url=http://www.OhSoHumorous.com]OhSoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.TopDailyMemes.com]TopDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.RandomDailyMemes.com]RandomDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.BestDailyMemes.com]BestDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FortWayneMusic.om]FortWayneMusic.om[/url]
[url=http://www.Kwalis.com]Kwalis.com[/url]
[url=http://www.SoHumorous.com]SoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FailUniversity.com]FailUniversity.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FaceFullOf.com]FaceFullOf.com[/url]
[url=http://www.NuZuDu.com]NuZuDu.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FireFlyGoods.com]FireFlyGoods.com[/url]
[url=http://www.ThePeopleBlog.com]ThePeopleBlog.com[/url]
[url=http://www.StealMyMemes.com]StealMyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.DontStealMyMemes.com]DontStealMyMemes.com[/url]

More to come...
deek
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:31 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by deek »

Garr wrote:science/religion. is there really any difference?
Yeah, science requires proof, religion requires faith.
[url=http://www.deeksworld.com]deek's World[/url]
Garr
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:22 pm
Location: Fort Wayne
Contact:

Post by Garr »

science doesn't require proof. it requires the absence of contradicting examples. that is not the same as proof. it's faith that there is no other result to a tried and tested experiment.

the scientific method is a great start, but it relies solely on the idea that no examples to disprove a law, rule, or theory have been discovered or reported. it's faith that the next time an apple disconnects from the tree it will fall to the ground because every other time it did.

humans have faith in the fact that they are not mistaken and that they have found empirical and flawless results, but that proof can never be determined because we created all the systems by which our experiments are tested and/or evaluated. hardly objective.
There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary. . .

. . .and those who don't.

[url]http://www.garrmusic.com[/url]

Check out these sites:

[url=http://www.OhSoHumorous.com]OhSoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.TopDailyMemes.com]TopDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.RandomDailyMemes.com]RandomDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.BestDailyMemes.com]BestDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FortWayneMusic.om]FortWayneMusic.om[/url]
[url=http://www.Kwalis.com]Kwalis.com[/url]
[url=http://www.SoHumorous.com]SoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FailUniversity.com]FailUniversity.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FaceFullOf.com]FaceFullOf.com[/url]
[url=http://www.NuZuDu.com]NuZuDu.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FireFlyGoods.com]FireFlyGoods.com[/url]
[url=http://www.ThePeopleBlog.com]ThePeopleBlog.com[/url]
[url=http://www.StealMyMemes.com]StealMyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.DontStealMyMemes.com]DontStealMyMemes.com[/url]

More to come...
deek
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:31 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by deek »

Yeah, that's a stretch and I think you are just wanting to debate semantics at this point...and examples that "don't contradict" or support are still providing a proof for the theory.

Having faith in a god is not the same as having faith that if I walk outside, I won't melt...but maybe they are the same in your book?

I'd like to see you complete any science course being this argumentative:)

PS And based on YOUR prior posts in the past, there is no such thing as a fact... :) Mr. Semantics...
[url=http://www.deeksworld.com]deek's World[/url]
Garr
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:22 pm
Location: Fort Wayne
Contact:

Post by Garr »

Well, I don't believe it's a stretch. I find science and religion almost identical. There is just more concrete evidence to support one's belief in the teachings/preachings of science than in most religions.

Look how many times science has been wrong. Faith, to me, is faith, but like many things there are varying degrees of it. I don't believe that we, as imperfect beings, can prove anything. We can only accumulate evidence to support what we think is true. Just because we can't disprove something doesn't automatically make it true.

I love science, don't get me wrong. I understand the human need to classify and name and explain things. I also see how our last 500 years has gone as far as a track record is concerned. Not the best, if you ask me (which you didn't). If I had to choose a religion, I would chose science (not Scientology), but science. It progresses. It grows. It provides (sometimes) well thought postulates to complex circumstances.

And. . .if you're going to bring up my past points, I never said there is no such thing as a fact. What I argue is that a fact can be true or false and that just because something is stated as fact does not require it to be true.

Fact: A statement of being.
Opinion: A statement of belief.
There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary. . .

. . .and those who don't.

[url]http://www.garrmusic.com[/url]

Check out these sites:

[url=http://www.OhSoHumorous.com]OhSoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.TopDailyMemes.com]TopDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.RandomDailyMemes.com]RandomDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.BestDailyMemes.com]BestDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FortWayneMusic.om]FortWayneMusic.om[/url]
[url=http://www.Kwalis.com]Kwalis.com[/url]
[url=http://www.SoHumorous.com]SoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FailUniversity.com]FailUniversity.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FaceFullOf.com]FaceFullOf.com[/url]
[url=http://www.NuZuDu.com]NuZuDu.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FireFlyGoods.com]FireFlyGoods.com[/url]
[url=http://www.ThePeopleBlog.com]ThePeopleBlog.com[/url]
[url=http://www.StealMyMemes.com]StealMyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.DontStealMyMemes.com]DontStealMyMemes.com[/url]

More to come...
deek
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:31 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by deek »

Garr wrote:Well, I don't believe it's a stretch. I find science and religion almost identical.
Okay...well, I didn't say YOU believe what you wrote was a stretch. Gold and lead are almost identical, too. What's your point?
Garr wrote:We can only accumulate evidence to support what we think is true. Just because we can't disprove something doesn't automatically make it true.
Okay, so apparently you would find it more accurate to put an asterisk on everything we know and have discovered because you can't disprove it...yet. Good luck with that. Its great for producting word count on a messageboard, but I don't think its all too practical once you move away from your computer...

Where the hell has this thread spiralled down to??? Oh, that's right, at one point we were talking about hell and pagans...and then something about the OT and NT, I think :)
[url=http://www.deeksworld.com]deek's World[/url]
Garr
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:22 pm
Location: Fort Wayne
Contact:

Post by Garr »

I think it's arrogant to assume we really know anything about anything. I would asterisk the entire catalog of human knowledge. Absolutely. I'm not trying to disprove anything, so that's not the issue. The issue is that knowledge is so subjective that while it's worth having, it's faith to believe what you know has any validity at all. 600 years ago, people knew the earth was flat, until someone made a discovery. 300 years ago, there were only five elements until Mendeleev did his thing. So what you know today, means almost nothing because who knows what you'll know tomorrow?

How does that tie back into the original topic? The discussion was about perspective. The perspective of people in the OT and NT regarding the persona of God. Belief in gravity is no different than belief in God. I can't see, touch, feel, hear, or taste gravity (or magnetism for that matter). Still, I have perceived things that give evidence that gravity is there. Others have perceived things that give them evidence to the divine. No difference, really.

The only real difference I see between science and religion is that science is less resistant to change and new ideas. Science, while structured, is less dogmatic.

However, I don't trust anything that I know, or anyone else for that matter.

Call me Euripides: Question Everything
There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary. . .

. . .and those who don't.

[url]http://www.garrmusic.com[/url]

Check out these sites:

[url=http://www.OhSoHumorous.com]OhSoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.TopDailyMemes.com]TopDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.RandomDailyMemes.com]RandomDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.BestDailyMemes.com]BestDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FortWayneMusic.om]FortWayneMusic.om[/url]
[url=http://www.Kwalis.com]Kwalis.com[/url]
[url=http://www.SoHumorous.com]SoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FailUniversity.com]FailUniversity.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FaceFullOf.com]FaceFullOf.com[/url]
[url=http://www.NuZuDu.com]NuZuDu.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FireFlyGoods.com]FireFlyGoods.com[/url]
[url=http://www.ThePeopleBlog.com]ThePeopleBlog.com[/url]
[url=http://www.StealMyMemes.com]StealMyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.DontStealMyMemes.com]DontStealMyMemes.com[/url]

More to come...
deek
Staff Writer
Staff Writer
Posts: 1060
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:31 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Contact:

Post by deek »

Hey, I love the idea of questioning everything, I really do. But when it comes down to someone asking you what you believe in, they want your perspective, normally a definitive response -- generally speaking -- not a relative view on one's philosophy of all things.

On the cutting edge of science, there is a lot of resistance to change, so I wouldn't say science is less open than religion. Granted, I don't know what religion you are referencing, so maybe it is. Religion as a whole, is changing all the time.

I think its a bit of a cop out to using "knowledge is subjective" as a basis. Obviously everything we (i.e. thinking entities) experience is subjective. So, the whole human race is arrogant because we believe we can observe and learn stuff. Okay. I accept that, but I don't agree.

Anyways, I just still have trouble believing that a book written 3500 years ago, or whatever, is such a point of contention for the human race. OT, NT...its a book...written by people 3500 years in the past... I'll easy put the top 10 humans of 2008 up against the top 10 human of 1492 BC...we'd kick their asses in every measurable event...
[url=http://www.deeksworld.com]deek's World[/url]
Morphine Child
SuperStar
SuperStar
Posts: 460
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:27 am

Post by Morphine Child »

Garr wrote:I think it's arrogant to assume we really know anything about anything. I would asterisk the entire catalog of human knowledge. Absolutely. I'm not trying to disprove anything, so that's not the issue. The issue is that knowledge is so subjective that while it's worth having, it's faith to believe what you know has any validity at all. 600 years ago, people knew the earth was flat, until someone made a discovery. 300 years ago, there were only five elements until Mendeleev did his thing. So what you know today, means almost nothing because who knows what you'll know tomorrow?
To say that what we know today means absolutely nothing is overly dismissive of "what we know". Sure, we don't know nearly what we'll probably know 500 years from now, but every little discovery or step we make in scientific progress is a beautiful thing - whether that "theory" or "hypothesis" falls apart tomorrow or hundreds of years from now is another thing. The fact is, we get one step closer with every little innovation. If it turns out to be crap, then at least we tried it and we know that it doesn't work. If a theory pushes people to be more innovative and expand on that theory in the future then it's served a great purpose. Newtonian theory crumbled under Einstein, but that doesn't mean everything he ever did or said was stupid - it was a stepping stone to where we are today. Einstein's theories may fall apart one day too. That's not because Einstein was a fool or wrong (which I'm not implying that you said or think), but that Einstein was using what he had to reach his conclusions and laying the ground work for people to one day eclipse his work with their own technology and minds. Einstein would have a big ass grin on his face if someone would have torn his work to shreds and come up with something better. He would have been proud, because again, we would be making progress. I prefer the Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan science of, "well, we've taken it this far, I'm excited to see where it goes."

But to say what we know now means nothing because of what we'll know tomorrow is a little overboard. It's all relevant, useful and productive - good or bad.
How does that tie back into the original topic? The discussion was about perspective. The perspective of people in the OT and NT regarding the persona of God. Belief in gravity is no different than belief in God. I can't see, touch, feel, hear, or taste gravity (or magnetism for that matter). Still, I have perceived things that give evidence that gravity is there. Others have perceived things that give them evidence to the divine. No difference, really.
You don't feel, touch, taste or hear gravity, but you experience gravity. Gravity is different in space. We have anti-gravity simulation. I believe that constitutes something of a difference.

Call me Euripides: Question Everything
I guess I can't argue with that too much. Of course, that nullifies everything I just wrote? :)
"My friend says he wants to die. He's in a band, they sound like Pearl Jam, the clothes are all black and the music is crap."

Steven Wilson

NoteScribe: Premier [url=http://www.notescribe.net]Note Software[/url]
Garr
Too Much Free Time
Too Much Free Time
Posts: 4805
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2002 2:22 pm
Location: Fort Wayne
Contact:

Post by Garr »

I am mostly just expressing the near extremes of my ideas regarding this. My actual practice in life, honestly falls somewhat short of this ideal, but it doesn't change what I think.

I don't mean to downplay human existence, but I can't help but come back to the idea that what we know (or think we know for that matter) is little less than a speck on the grand scale of things and that we, respectively, are similarly rated.

Yeah, gravity can be measured, but so can an inch and so can a millimeter and a minute or a second, but all of those measurements are meaningless and arbitrary except to us because we give them meaning.

I think that's what I'm getting at all together. Things have the meaning and importance and validity and realism that you (the individual) give them because of the faith you have in those things. People have faith that mathematics is an accurate measure of value, but numbers are an intangible thing. People have faith that God hears and answers their prayers according to His plan, but again the whole thing is based on the value put into it.
There are 10 types of people in the world.

Those who understand binary. . .

. . .and those who don't.

[url]http://www.garrmusic.com[/url]

Check out these sites:

[url=http://www.OhSoHumorous.com]OhSoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.TopDailyMemes.com]TopDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.RandomDailyMemes.com]RandomDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.BestDailyMemes.com]BestDailyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FortWayneMusic.om]FortWayneMusic.om[/url]
[url=http://www.Kwalis.com]Kwalis.com[/url]
[url=http://www.SoHumorous.com]SoHumorous.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FailUniversity.com]FailUniversity.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FaceFullOf.com]FaceFullOf.com[/url]
[url=http://www.NuZuDu.com]NuZuDu.com[/url]
[url=http://www.FireFlyGoods.com]FireFlyGoods.com[/url]
[url=http://www.ThePeopleBlog.com]ThePeopleBlog.com[/url]
[url=http://www.StealMyMemes.com]StealMyMemes.com[/url]
[url=http://www.DontStealMyMemes.com]DontStealMyMemes.com[/url]

More to come...
bassjones
Staff Member
Staff Member
Posts: 4270
Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 1:36 pm
Contact:

Post by bassjones »

So, Garr, you're essentially an agnostic.

And Christians (and Jews, as well as Muslims) would contend that the Scriptures were only written down by men, while the actual words and thoughts came from God Himself. Christians believe the same about the New Testament while Jews and Muslims obviously don't believe in the deity of Christ and don't believe in the New Testament as a Holy Scripture. The real contention between Jews and Muslims rests on which of Abraham's two sons was the promised son and has rights to the territory. Jews believe it was Isaac while Muslims believe it was Ishmael.
"brad!
...your tunes and your playing sound really great... all the best to you and god bless-
adam nitti" www.myspace.com/adamnittimusic

www.bradjonesbass.com
http://groups.myspace.com/northeastindianabassplayers
www.myspace.com/bassjones
www.myspace.com/whitehotnoise
www.esession.com/bradjones - hire me for your session from anywhere in the world.
Post Reply