@jimthio Re: The personal rant in say version 3 of your history question ... I think you're coming at the whole thing from the wrong end of the stick starting with peripherals and conclusions and comparing them to your world view rather than examining premises and the core to figure out of they are true.
If you want to chat about that feel free to ping me in here sometime.
It's off topic for the QnA format but on a personal level but we could talk about it on a personal level here.
Sorry. As you see I am a christian moving away to atheism or judaism. Too many questions
Too many thing I am suspicious
I prayed when I am poor and God (or my self through suggestion) have made me rich again. If God is real I want to know.
I think even if God is real, too much religious doctrines are well, just political trick. Either case it's worth learning. After all, christian doctrines change all the time. 300 years ago we put people with different beliefs on the wheel. I guess it's not far fetch to say that most of our doctrines are not true.
@JimThio I would say it's ridiculously far fetched, but we're comparing apples and oranges. In my head I have some of the core teachings of Christianity that have not only not changed in the last 2k years but they can even be dated before that. I think you're thinking of a thousand peripheral things about how people who claim to be Christian live out or apply what they claim to believe which of course varies wildly.
Also a heads up ... bad language is off limits in this chat, so is name calling. You can express all kinds of dissenting opinions but you have to do it with clean language.
@JimThio Hm, ok yes... except the things it predicts about religion don't match up with what's at the core of Christianity. It matches a lot of what people end up doing with it, but not the teachings themselves.
Look I got to go. I think I cleaned up the question. It seems that the answer is yes. Most christians would think that God want us to get married even though marriage contain unfair and pretty silly terms that not biblical anyway. That seems to be the answer isn't it?
@JimThio I think it's way more complicated than that. "Not Biblical" cannot be defined as "anything the Bible doesn't specifically spell out", so none of the things you are saying as "not biblical" ... what is Biblical is submission to authorities. Not Biblical would be not submitting to authorities.
Yes, we have to comply to the law even when it's silly or unfair, up to the point where it crosses a moral line that makes us sin / act non-Biblically (as defined as contrary to God's law, not just not mentioned), then we have to be objectors.
But even in our objection we have to submit to the consequences of our actions.
If you want to examine Christian marriage figure out what we mean by covenant and how that is different than contract and how the Christian idea of marriage has more to do with representing how Christ deals with the church than it does any agreement between mutually consenting parties.
@JimThio It also doesn't say "thou shalt not scalp your neighbor if they intrude on your property", but we pretty generally understand it to mean that would be bad behavior.
It says plenty about sex and marriage in general to paint a picture, and sex outside of marriage is outside the frame of the canvas it paints on.
@JimThio True. Neither is sex outside of marriage. People don't belong to themselves, they are created beings and by right belong to their maker. When they take it upon themselves to act outside of his design to please themselves rather than please the one they are by rights subject to, you introduce a victim. Somebodies rights are violated. Somebody is sinned against. That's what makes it a sinful act.
And who is that somebody who are victim of sex outside marriage?
Actually evolutionary psychology has a totally shocking but far more natural explanation. As I observe, christians are more devoted against sex outside marriage than against far more serious sin against God, like making false prophecy (like Benny Hinn). Exactly as predicted by EP.
@JimThio I just answered that. God is. By trying to play outside of his rules you violate his rights as sovereign, creator and Lord.
@JimThio I'm glad you recognize that as false prophecy, but don't neglect the fact that there are Christians who make a big deal about that on exactly the same grounds that they object to illicit sex -- because it falls outside the boundaries given by God. For action or for teaching. And it's not for you to judge what is a 'more serious' sin, that's up to God to say and an awful lot about how much he detests both sexual sin and false teaching.
Got to go. Good bye Caleb. Thanks for the time. Anyway, you may want to consider that EP says that the victim of sex outside marriage is competitors (not God). If that's true, then it would naturally explain why there are more religious people that oppose sex outside marriage than those opposing false prophecy. They're not victim of false prophecy. They're victim of competition if people have sex outside marriage.
Viruses are quite nasty germs. They are basically raw bits of genetic information (DNA/RNA) with a protein coating. The way viruses work is that when they somehow end up inside a suitable living cell, the cell starts duplicating the virus until it dies.
Whereas bacteria serve many useful purpose...
Personally, I think it's fine. It's not asking about what science says, but about what YEC beliefs say. I'll leave a comment about that, since Mark is disagreeing.
@Richard Sure it does. It's asking what scientific theory YEC's subscribe to. The answer provided gives a scientific answer. It's no different than the questions about what YECs think of the existence of a historical flood.
What Christians think of scientific theories isn't doctrinal or exegetical
I would imagine that a geological event on the scale of a global flood would leave extensive evidence in its wake. To what extent can phsyical data be interpreted as consistent with the idea of a global flood?
It doesn't seem to be asking about the YEC view of things. Simply the evidence.
I guess the difference that I see is that an answer to a scientific question could be argued on a scientific basis. An answer to a doctrinal question, such as the views of virus per YEC, wouldn't be as argumentative because all comments would be "Well, that's what they believe".
I agree that the answer isn't on-topic for the question, though.
And maybe not on-topic for C.SE as it seems to be a more scientific answer...
... The more that I think about it, the more I see this as a borderline case, because of the answers that it will draw.
@Richard I think the question needs to be substantially revised to make it clear it's looking for the doctrinal/Biblical basis for the belief (or lack thereof) of Viruses. Setting it up based on current scientific theories invites people to argue against them. Christianity.SE is not the place to argue against science.
@MarkTrapp Agreed, should be edited to be looking for doctrinal basis. Possibly with a mod note that scientific question are on topic and answers should be limited to doctrinal basis rather than scientific ones.
@dancek Right, that's what I mean about setting context. Dropping that would make the question less... supported(?) solid(?)
The first two paragraphs leave open the validity of the answer provided: instead of answering to the doctrinal belief of YECs, it answers to the premise that viruses are bad with pseudoscientific backing
@dancek I think the question could still be relevant. Consider that the Bible doesn't talk (to my knowledge) specifically about things that are microscopic. So, asking about YEC doctrines regarding all things microscopic is still interesting and on-topic.
@dancek What about replacing the opening paragraphs with something like, "I'm wondering what role viruses have in the world according to YECs. They seem to be wholly bad, but do YECs consider them to be good?"
The really screwy thing about YEC and OEC (from a C.SE view, at least) is that it takes science and doctrine and mixes them all up into this jumble of a mess. YEC doctrines seem to be practically scientific theory. That confuses these issues of on-topic and off-topic entirely.
@Richard there should be a *EC.SE! (or perhaps not)
@Richard I think as long as questions like this are kept in the framework of "What is the doctrinal/Biblical basis for YEC's belief about X?" or "What is YEC doctrine for X?" they should be fine. Without that, I think you get into YEC's version of proselytizing
@Richard I've put some thought into it, and I was raised strongly YEC and could honestly say I believed it for a long time, I've come to the realization that 1. it matters very little in the long run 2. its mostly used a point of separation and contention and 3. I don't understand enough of the science or doctrine to make actual conclusions so I'll read up on it when its relevant, but it doesnt' affect my life day to day so its not important
@dancek yeah, I remember one of the things was whatever your belief applying the urgency of (pre?)millennialism to your interactions with people and the poor. It was sort of a live in the now with all the best things from the different view points
I'm getting a little confused by the following statement in the FAQ:
Answers are to be judged based on how well they represent the view or tradition they claim to speak for, not whether or not you agree with that position.
It is marked with bold text, thus it should be considered as importa...
I've started a site proposal for a Question and Answer site about Logic for anybody that has had to explain what a logical fallacy is in comments to answers (or more commonly around these parts: questions). It's a discipline exercised across many fields (and SE sites like here, Hermeneutics, Philosophy, Skeptics, etc) but there isn't a place to actually ask or answer questions about logic itself right now.
@Flimzy I don't know, it's just a thought because I'd rather link to an SE site than waste my breath explaining for the tenth time in a day what a presupposition is. It's actually a pretty big field because it used as the basis for literally dozens of other formalized fields and informally in all sorts of places. There might be some interesting crossover between linguistics and logic that could be on-topic.
I'm not sure this would be productive, but you could spend years doing analysis of "is this logical or not" on people's stuff. Sort of like code-review. Not sure that's a good idea actually, but it's a thought.