I couldn't remember most of the storyline so I was basically just there for the visuals and action. Actually in that context the movie was fire. I'll buy the blue-ray's too.
Glad they have more sense than us. I like to think we are the dumbest most backward group on earth. Gives a better outlook. Not holding my breath tho. WA Aboriginal elders ask State’s discrimination watchdog for permission to ban visiting Christians trying to convert the community https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/wa-a...tNaa-GVTJJUhzL2zWezNVgTKpn6xA8SI9JGc5qapngEJ8
Ok this is free same topic https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/aust...ng-to-convert-them-to-christianity/ar-BBZ6jeo
Well as a Christian, it's certainly a BELIEF of mine. But I'm guessing we'll differ on whether it's a fact. Here's the Google definition of fact: a thing that is known or proved to be true. Assuming you're okay with this definition, I'd say the matter hinges on whether the resurrection is "proved to be true." Then the question becomes what standard of proof you will accept. Without diving into a long answer detailing the proof (and sparing you the ultra-long post), I'll state that there is sufficient evidence to meet my standard. I also believe (that word again!) my threshold for belief is acceptably high. In fact, I believe there's sufficient evidence to meet any reasonably objective standard of proof. So I would also call it FACT. And it is upon this fact that I base my belief. We could also discuss the role of FAITH in all this (it is sometimes misunderstood and/or misrepresented). But this is probably enough for now.
Me too. I'm building a circuit. It actually has to work correctly....lol By the way you failed, but you're still cool.
So if I don't pick your preferred answer I fail, regardless of any proof or logic in support of my position? And without any reasoned explanation on your part? Pretty much just summarily and arbitrarily? Excellent logic! Apropos of nothing, are you familiar with the concept of confirmation bias? Btw, you're still cool too IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Any attempt I make at humor here is solely meant to lighten the mood. I take these discussions seriously. It is NEVER my intention to belittle or insult. If you have a problem with my sarcasm, let me know and I'll drop it.
I'm not thin skinned, say what you want. There is no bias to it. I'm simply using the criteria of science. Example: People thought that the heavier an object was the faster it fell. This is what the western world thought from Aristotle to Galileo. Actually I thought that too until I studied Physics. Galileo proved this to be wrong by testing the Hypothesis. He actually dropped two objects from a building that had very different weights(from the same height). Both objects hit the ground at the same time. The experiment was duplicated may times over by others and the same result happened. It's not rocket science but it is science. I performed the same experiment myself in a physics lab. Once I seen the results, I changed my previous belief. So if you can't meet that criteria then you have no proof, therefore it's a belief. This isn't a standard that I made up. This standard lifted the world from the dark ages. Your standard is.........? and it has done what for the world?
Okay... But we're discussing an alleged historical event. Historical events cannot possibly be proven or disproven with the scientific method. They're unrepeatable by nature. You cannot prove *scientifically* that King John signed Magna Carta in 1215 or that the Holocaust actually occurred. The best we can do with science is to use it to support or refute a position by touching on testable hypotheses surrounding the historical event in question.
Nice try but you can't prove that anything that dies can come back, by Jesus's will or not. Science say's once dead, it's dead. Also if Jesus is alive he can actually visit us today, because he is supposedly alive today.
I don't need to prove that anything that dies can come back, not scientifically anyway. You're absolutely correct that science dictates that such is impossible. That's precisely what makes it a miracle. The question then becomes whether there is sufficient (non-scientific) evidence to believe that the miraculous actually occurred. I hold, again, that there is such sufficient evidence. Before you object, keep in mind that science cannot possibly answer this one way or the other; it is simply outside the realm of the natural to address the supernatural. In fact, if you insist on a strict materialist worldview (i.e., nothing exists except matter and it's movements and modifications, basically all that science can "prove"), there are simply things that you can never speak to with conclusive authority, such as: morality, beauty, the proper use of science, historical truth, existential truth, experiential truth, and (of course) the supernatural. The material is not all there is, my friend. Nor is science the only way to *know*. And you're right, Jesus *can* come visit us. We Christians believe that He absolutely will.
And that makes it a belief. Nothing wrong with that at all, it's just that tho a belief. The "supernatural" is a belief. Is there any evidence that anyone in the bible existed at all? Any grave sites we can visit? Any proof outside of the Bible??
I don't believe in Islam either but at least there is evidence that Muhammad actually existed. Buddha too. LOL lmao
I stated from the beginning that it was a belief, a belief supported by fact. True, it's not necessarily supported by *scientific* fact, but it is supported by fact. Again, science isn't the only way to know something is true. A belief need not be scientifically supported if there's sufficient alternate support. For example, you don't rely on science to prove that you love your family or that your favorite music is any good. Yet you still believe that you love your family and that your favorite music is good. You believe based on non-scientific fact. Belief and fact are not mutually exclusive. In fact, where logic rules, belief follows fact. Are you possibly conflating the terms "belief" and "faith?" It wouldn't save your argument at all, but it would make a little more sense. And yes, there is extra-biblical proof of the existence of biblical figures. Fun fact though, here are some people whose exact final resting places are still unknown (meaning they didn't exist?): Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Mozart, and Alexander the Great.
If by biased you mean subjective, I somewhat agree, especially as related to beauty. But I strongly believe there is such a thing as objective morality. I'd guess that you do too (but maybe I'm wrong). I think I believe in objective beauty too. That's a good subject for further thought.
Facts don't require any belief or faith, so you can put them together. Beliefs and facts are mutually exclusive. Music is subjective, love is also arguable depending on what type of love you are talking about. My mother has proved her love for me by actions so you lose there, that hypothesis has been tested. On the other hand, romantic love can be described different ways. Some say it's just a chemical reaction or feeling, idk but it's arguable. You're reaching bruh. Most of the stuff you are tossing out are subjective human constructs of the mind others are possibly that. You can say I have beliefs too but I don't conflate them with facts. I like my music. I simply have the opinion that it is good. No debate (other than purely for fun) when someone disagrees there.
Beauty possibly has a fraction of objectivity, that makes it subjective. A fraction doesn't meet the criteria. Most people can agree on morality to a certain extent but when you get to a certain level it becomes subjective as well. So morality is subjective.
