Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Most Russian Orthodox Don't Read Bible!
27 views
Skip to first unread message
nickk - not the imposter
Jun 17, 2013, 6:16:07 PM6/17/13
to
Most Russian Orthodox Don’t Read Bible, Pray, Go to Church – Poll
© RIA Novosti. Alexei Panov
18:07 17/06/2013
MOSCOW, June 17 (RIA Novosti) – About 64 percent of Russians identify themselves as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, but many of them have never read the Bible and rarely go to church or pray, a recent poll showed.
Some 52 percent of Russian self-identified Orthodox Christians said that they have never read the New Testament, the Old Testament or other key scriptures, while 24 percent said that they are rare church-goers, and 28 percent hardly ever pray, according to poll results released by the country’s Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) on Friday.
The survey, conducted back in April this year across 43 Russian regions, is partly based on the template of a poll carried out in the United States in 2005 by Newsweek and Beliefnet, the Russian Kremlin-backed pollster said in a report on its website.
The FOM results showed that there are more non-believers in Russia (25 percent) now than in the US back in 2005, when just 6 percent of Americans said they were not religious.
The Russian pollster noted that only 57 percent of those who identified themselves as Orthodox Christians said they believed that the universe was created by God. Some 43 percent think that heaven and hell truly exist, while another quarter believe in reincarnation.
The total number of all Russians surveyed who believe in the universe's divine origin was some 46 percent, while in the US that figure was 80 percent.
In the US, 67 percent of all people who took part in the poll said that they believed souls go either to heaven or hell, while in Russia that number was lower – 34 percent.
The FOM survey, which comprised answers given by 1,500 Russians, has a margin of error of 3.6 percent.
Last week, Russia’s lower house of parliament passed a bill in its final reading that will make offending religious believers’ feelings a criminal offense punishable by up to three years behind bars. The initiative, proposed in the wake of the Pussy Riot trial last year in which three young women were convicted of “hooliganism incited by religious hatred” and sentenced to prison terms for performing a punk protest in Russia’s main Orthodox church, was slammed by critics as taking Russia back to the Dark Ages.
A separate opinion poll conducted by the FOM earlier this year showed that 45 percent of all Russians believed that offending religious believers’ feelings should be a criminal offense. Twenty-two percent said it should not be a crime, and 33 percent could not answer the question.
© RIA Novosti. Alexei Panov
18:07 17/06/2013
MOSCOW, June 17 (RIA Novosti) – About 64 percent of Russians identify themselves as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, but many of them have never read the Bible and rarely go to church or pray, a recent poll showed.
Some 52 percent of Russian self-identified Orthodox Christians said that they have never read the New Testament, the Old Testament or other key scriptures, while 24 percent said that they are rare church-goers, and 28 percent hardly ever pray, according to poll results released by the country’s Public Opinion Foundation (FOM) on Friday.
The survey, conducted back in April this year across 43 Russian regions, is partly based on the template of a poll carried out in the United States in 2005 by Newsweek and Beliefnet, the Russian Kremlin-backed pollster said in a report on its website.
The FOM results showed that there are more non-believers in Russia (25 percent) now than in the US back in 2005, when just 6 percent of Americans said they were not religious.
The Russian pollster noted that only 57 percent of those who identified themselves as Orthodox Christians said they believed that the universe was created by God. Some 43 percent think that heaven and hell truly exist, while another quarter believe in reincarnation.
The total number of all Russians surveyed who believe in the universe's divine origin was some 46 percent, while in the US that figure was 80 percent.
In the US, 67 percent of all people who took part in the poll said that they believed souls go either to heaven or hell, while in Russia that number was lower – 34 percent.
The FOM survey, which comprised answers given by 1,500 Russians, has a margin of error of 3.6 percent.
Last week, Russia’s lower house of parliament passed a bill in its final reading that will make offending religious believers’ feelings a criminal offense punishable by up to three years behind bars. The initiative, proposed in the wake of the Pussy Riot trial last year in which three young women were convicted of “hooliganism incited by religious hatred” and sentenced to prison terms for performing a punk protest in Russia’s main Orthodox church, was slammed by critics as taking Russia back to the Dark Ages.
A separate opinion poll conducted by the FOM earlier this year showed that 45 percent of all Russians believed that offending religious believers’ feelings should be a criminal offense. Twenty-two percent said it should not be a crime, and 33 percent could not answer the question.
RVG
Jun 17, 2013, 6:48:10 PM6/17/13
to
Le 18/06/2013 00:16, nickk - not the imposter a écrit :
> Most Russian Orthodox Don’t Read Bible, Pray, Go to Church – Poll
>
> © RIA Novosti. Alexei Panov 18:07 17/06/2013
>
> MOSCOW, June 17 (RIA Novosti) – About 64 percent of Russians identify
> themselves as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, but many of
> them have never read the Bible and rarely go to church or pray, a
> recent poll showed. Some 52 percent of Russian self-identified
> Orthodox Christians said that they have never read the New Testament,
> the Old Testament or other key scriptures, while 24 percent said that
> they are rare church-goers, and 28 percent hardly ever pray,
> according to poll results released by the country’s Public Opinion
> Foundation (FOM) on Friday.
>
Consider that Church Slavonic is not only a dead language, it's always
> Most Russian Orthodox Don’t Read Bible, Pray, Go to Church – Poll
>
> © RIA Novosti. Alexei Panov 18:07 17/06/2013
>
> MOSCOW, June 17 (RIA Novosti) – About 64 percent of Russians identify
> themselves as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, but many of
> them have never read the Bible and rarely go to church or pray, a
> recent poll showed. Some 52 percent of Russian self-identified
> Orthodox Christians said that they have never read the New Testament,
> the Old Testament or other key scriptures, while 24 percent said that
> they are rare church-goers, and 28 percent hardly ever pray,
> according to poll results released by the country’s Public Opinion
> Foundation (FOM) on Friday.
>
been a completely artificial "sacred" language built from scratch that
nobody never understood.
During the 90s religion was the "in" thing, like tasting the forbidden
fruit, so everybody wanted to be baptised, go to church, even become
priest, etc. because it had been previously forbidden.
Then like all trends and fashions, it became a habit, and then came
Putin alongside his buddy Alexei II.
Considering that Putin is like Sarkozy + Le Pen * 50 but with an IQ
significantly superior to Bush's, people now see the Orthodox Church as
part of the scenery. Putin + Church is the default choice if you don't
positively choose an alternative - and no realistic one is in view.
Perhaps the next election will bring a Putin Lite president, much like
in Iran, but Russia is slowly but surely back-pedalling to the
Middle-Ages. The few intellectuals that haven't emigrated yet are, quite
strangely, Jews. Funny thing for example that the orthodoxest movie of
the Putin era, The Island, has been written and directed by a Jewish
film-maker.
The USA is the anomaly: the survival of such strong religious beliefs in
an otherwise developed country is a contradiction. Compared to Canada
the percentage of believers in the USA just shows that most of people
are unable to grasp any rational thinking - yet they use the latest
technologies that prove science and modern philosophy to be right.
I personally believe that US religion is a form of pornography in an
otherwise puritan society that likes to see itself as moral in a
Christian way.
This is radically strange and foreign even from European protestant
countries like Germany and Holland.
--
"Shut your eyes and see."
James Joyce, Ulysses
http://www.jamendo.com/en/list/a122027/a-winter-in-babylon
http://rvgmusic.bandcamp.com/
http://soundcloud.com/rvgronoff
RVG
Jun 17, 2013, 6:53:57 PM6/17/13
to
Le 18/06/2013 00:48, RVG a �crit :
> Le 18/06/2013 00:16, nickk - not the imposter a �crit :
>> Most Russian Orthodox Don�t Read Bible, Pray, Go to Church � Poll
>>
>> � RIA Novosti. Alexei Panov 18:07 17/06/2013
>>
>> MOSCOW, June 17 (RIA Novosti) � About 64 percent of Russians identify
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/05/23/conservative-controlled-mississippi-seeks-to-toss-women-in-prison-for-miscarriages/
> Le 18/06/2013 00:16, nickk - not the imposter a �crit :
>> Most Russian Orthodox Don�t Read Bible, Pray, Go to Church � Poll
>>
>> � RIA Novosti. Alexei Panov 18:07 17/06/2013
>>
>> MOSCOW, June 17 (RIA Novosti) � About 64 percent of Russians identify
>> themselves as belonging to the Russian Orthodox Church, but many of
>> them have never read the Bible and rarely go to church or pray, a
>> recent poll showed. Some 52 percent of Russian self-identified
>> Orthodox Christians said that they have never read the New Testament,
>> the Old Testament or other key scriptures, while 24 percent said that
>> they are rare church-goers, and 28 percent hardly ever pray,
>> according to poll results released by the country�s Public Opinion
>> them have never read the Bible and rarely go to church or pray, a
>> recent poll showed. Some 52 percent of Russian self-identified
>> Orthodox Christians said that they have never read the New Testament,
>> the Old Testament or other key scriptures, while 24 percent said that
>> they are rare church-goers, and 28 percent hardly ever pray,
///"".
Jun 17, 2013, 7:42:50 PM6/17/13
to
"The USA is the anomaly: the survival of such strong religious beliefs in
an otherwise developed country is a contradiction. Compared to Canada
the percentage of believers in the USA just shows that most of people
are unable to grasp any rational thinking - yet they use the latest
technologies that prove science and modern philosophy to be right."
RVG
Jun 18, 2013, 6:17:19 AM6/18/13
to
Le 18/06/2013 01:42, /// "". a ï¿œcrit :
Science and philosophy are based on questioning and rejection of all
tradition, beliefs and dogmas.
Don't hold for granted anything that you haven't experienced and
explained by reason alone.
Faith is doxa, ie belief. It relies on myths and dogmas that have been
forced in you only because they were part of your family/country
environment.
You're Christian because you were born in a Christian family/country.
Were you born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim and hold Islam as the
one true faith as spontaneously as you presently hold Christianity.
But it's just brainwashing and habits based on them. There's no
opposable content that you can demonstrate or explain objectively. The
mystical experiences are mere daydreams and fuzzy feelings caused by
natural processes, like deprivation or food, sleep and sexual gratification.
tradition, beliefs and dogmas.
Don't hold for granted anything that you haven't experienced and
explained by reason alone.
Faith is doxa, ie belief. It relies on myths and dogmas that have been
forced in you only because they were part of your family/country
environment.
You're Christian because you were born in a Christian family/country.
Were you born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim and hold Islam as the
one true faith as spontaneously as you presently hold Christianity.
But it's just brainwashing and habits based on them. There's no
opposable content that you can demonstrate or explain objectively. The
mystical experiences are mere daydreams and fuzzy feelings caused by
natural processes, like deprivation or food, sleep and sexual gratification.
//"".
Jun 18, 2013, 1:23:13 PM6/18/13
to
> "The USA is the anomaly: the survival of such strong religious
> beliefs in an otherwise developed country is a contradiction.
> Compared to Canada the percentage of believers in the USA just shows
> that most of people are unable to grasp any rational thinking - yet
> they use the latest technologies that prove science and modern
> philosophy to be right."
>
> It is the false dichotomy, faith vs. science and philosophy.
"Science and philosophy are based on questioning and rejection of all
tradition, beliefs and dogmas."
No, in fact they are themselves the same as cultural products. Philosophy
> beliefs in an otherwise developed country is a contradiction.
> Compared to Canada the percentage of believers in the USA just shows
> that most of people are unable to grasp any rational thinking - yet
> they use the latest technologies that prove science and modern
> philosophy to be right."
>
> It is the false dichotomy, faith vs. science and philosophy.
"Science and philosophy are based on questioning and rejection of all
tradition, beliefs and dogmas."
is in fact a redo of cultural ideology which is the content of which you
speak.
"Don't hold for granted anything that you haven't experienced and explained
by reason alone."
"Faith is doxa, ie belief. It relies on myths and dogmas that have been
forced in you only because they were part of your family/country
environment. You're Christian because you were born in a Christian
family/country. Were you born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a Muslim and hold
Islam as the one true faith as spontaneously as you presently hold
Christianity."
process is found your views about faith and science and philosophy, no?
"But it's just brainwashing and habits based on them. There's no opposable
content that you can demonstrate or explain objectively. The mystical
experiences are mere daydreams and fuzzy feelings caused by natural
processes, like deprivation or food, sleep and sexual gratification."
then science stands mute and dumb, no? Philosophy is such a culturally
sodden mess as to be useless for the purpose.
You have in only more words expressed that with which we began. It is a
false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and philosophy.
RVG
Jun 18, 2013, 3:02:48 PM6/18/13
to
Le 18/06/2013 19:23, // "". a écrit :
>> "The USA is the anomaly: the survival of such strong religious
>> beliefs in an otherwise developed country is a contradiction.
>> Compared to Canada the percentage of believers in the USA just
>> shows that most of people are unable to grasp any rational thinking
>> - yet they use the latest technologies that prove science and
>> modern philosophy to be right."
>>
>> It is the false dichotomy, faith vs. science and philosophy.
>
> "Science and philosophy are based on questioning and rejection of
> all tradition, beliefs and dogmas."
>
> No, in fact they are themselves the same as cultural products.
> Philosophy is in fact a redo of cultural ideology which is the
> content of which you speak.
Source ?
>> "The USA is the anomaly: the survival of such strong religious
>> beliefs in an otherwise developed country is a contradiction.
>> Compared to Canada the percentage of believers in the USA just
>> shows that most of people are unable to grasp any rational thinking
>> - yet they use the latest technologies that prove science and
>> modern philosophy to be right."
>>
>> It is the false dichotomy, faith vs. science and philosophy.
>
> "Science and philosophy are based on questioning and rejection of
> all tradition, beliefs and dogmas."
>
> No, in fact they are themselves the same as cultural products.
> Philosophy is in fact a redo of cultural ideology which is the
> content of which you speak.
Philosophy starts with both Socrates' question: "What really is ?" and
Descartes': "What can I be absolutely certain of ?"
Science adds the method, also provided by Descartes who elaborated over
William of Occam.
>
> "Don't hold for granted anything that you haven't experienced and
> explained by reason alone."
>
> That would include faith, no?
>
Husserl pushed one step further, saying that "the thesis of the world
[ie considering that the world exists] is also a belief".
> "Faith is doxa, ie belief. It relies on myths and dogmas that have
> been forced in you only because they were part of your
> family/country environment. You're Christian because you were born in
> a Christian family/country. Were you born in Saudi Arabia, you'd be a
> Muslim and hold Islam as the one true faith as spontaneously as you
> presently hold Christianity."
>
> Pointing out the obvious as to place of birth is trivial. But in the
> same process is found your views about faith and science and
> philosophy, no?
>
to beliefs. One only needs language and the ability to form articulate
thought. That's why logic was invented, as a formal language describing
the value of truth of any assertion even prior to any empirical content.
In high-school my first year of philosophy was dedicated to learning how
to ask questions that are actually relevant, and not the fruit of
slogans, habits or other beliefs repeated under various forms by a lazy
intellect.
> "But it's just brainwashing and habits based on them. There's no
> opposable content that you can demonstrate or explain objectively.
> The mystical experiences are mere daydreams and fuzzy feelings caused
> by natural processes, like deprivation or food, sleep and sexual
> gratification."
>
> Then if questions raised by faith are not subject to an empirical
> program then science stands mute and dumb, no?
On one hand it helps most of people cope with anxiety by forgetting,
even if only at times, about our true condition, yet on the other hand
it implies that we consent to give certain people authority on the
conditions of our (delusional) well-being. That's why religion is the
most effective tool of power in the hands of leaders.
> Philosophy is such a culturally sodden mess as to be useless for the
> purpose.
>
> You have in only more words expressed that with which we began. It
> is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and philosophy.
>
Starting with the existence of God.
/./"".
Jun 18, 2013, 6:21:09 PM6/18/13
to
> You have in only more words expressed that with which we began. It
> is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and philosophy.
"Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully proven.
Starting with the existence of God."
Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters of faith,
> is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and philosophy.
"Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully proven.
Starting with the existence of God."
esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to entertain any
proposed empirical program such as science which can even start to address
the question.
RVG
Jun 19, 2013, 5:17:42 AM6/19/13
to
Le 19/06/2013 00:21, /./ "". a ï¿œcrit :
Science adresses what can be observed.
God is not a scientific question because there's nothing divine to observe.
God is not a scientific question because there's nothing divine to observe.
nickk - not the imposter
Jun 19, 2013, 9:11:38 AM6/19/13
to
What you need to understand is that "SCIENCE" and "FAITH" are not opposed! If science offers "THE TRUTH" and faith offers "THE TRUTH," then both will come to the same conclusions. There can't be two truths, by definition. If Jesus Christ is God & Man, then all of science & math will also come to this same conclusion, eventually. Even Einstein in his work realized just how little man can know about the universe and God. Faith is the personal knowledge of that which science hasn't discovered yet. Not false faith in something imagined, but faith based on that which has been revealed to us by God Himself through Jesus Christ!
///"".
Jun 19, 2013, 9:46:01 AM6/19/13
to
>> You have in only more words expressed that with which we began. It
>> is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and philosophy.
>
> "Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully
> proven. Starting with the existence of God."
>
> Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters of
> faith, esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to
> entertain any proposed empirical program such as science which can
> even start to address the question.
>
"Science adresses what can be observed. God is not a scientific question
because there's nothing divine to observe."
Now you have it, and the exact reason your assertions about faith vs
>> is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and philosophy.
>
> "Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully
> proven. Starting with the existence of God."
>
> Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters of
> faith, esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to
> entertain any proposed empirical program such as science which can
> even start to address the question.
>
"Science adresses what can be observed. God is not a scientific question
because there's nothing divine to observe."
science and philosophy are so much hot air.
Many questions don't have an empirical base for evaluation. For example
the statement that the truth in art is a product of its execution leaves
science mute and dumb also.
The great bulk of philosophy has no empirical base. As said before, it is
a sodden mass of ethnocentrically derived conclusions that are entirely
context based.
You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science. For a
christian one either accepts the revelation in the person of Christ or one
does not. Sorry to knock the crutch of science from under your conceptual
feet, so to speak.
RVG
Jun 19, 2013, 5:02:04 PM6/19/13
to
Le 19/06/2013 15:11, nickk - not the imposter a �crit :
If Jesus existed.
Neither can be proved.
> then all of science & math will also come to this same conclusion,
> eventually.
Still waiting for one faintest trace of evidence.
> Even Einstein in his work realized just how little man can know
> about the universe and God.
Source ?
> Faith is the personal knowledge
No, if there's knowledge there's no need for belief and vice versa.
Belief is doxa, an opinion that cannot demonstrate or ensure its own
validity. The result of belief is feeling, not knowledge.
> of that which science hasn't discovered yet.
Science addresses what can be actually observed.
> Not false faith in something imagined, but faith based on that which
> has been revealed to us by God Himself through Jesus Christ!
>
God and Jesus-Christ are both fictions.
Until proven real, of course.
> What you need to understand is that "SCIENCE" and "FAITH" are not
> opposed! If science offers "THE TRUTH" and faith offers "THE TRUTH,"
> then both will come to the same conclusions. There can't be two
> truths, by definition. If Jesus Christ is God & Man,
If God exists.
> opposed! If science offers "THE TRUTH" and faith offers "THE TRUTH,"
> then both will come to the same conclusions. There can't be two
> truths, by definition. If Jesus Christ is God & Man,
If Jesus existed.
Neither can be proved.
> then all of science & math will also come to this same conclusion,
> eventually.
> Even Einstein in his work realized just how little man can know
> about the universe and God.
> Faith is the personal knowledge
Belief is doxa, an opinion that cannot demonstrate or ensure its own
validity. The result of belief is feeling, not knowledge.
> of that which science hasn't discovered yet.
> Not false faith in something imagined, but faith based on that which
> has been revealed to us by God Himself through Jesus Christ!
>
Until proven real, of course.
RVG
Jun 19, 2013, 5:05:47 PM6/19/13
to
Le 19/06/2013 15:46, /// "". a ï¿œcrit :
> The great bulk of philosophy has no empirical base. As said before,
> it is a sodden mass of ethnocentrically derived conclusions that are
> entirely context based.
>
That's the definition of religion. You are Christian because you've
permeated Christian myths either because they were fed into you since
birth, or because you once surrendered all judgement and decided that
any contradictory crap that comes from a self-appointed Holy Grimoire
must be true.
> You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science.
Yes, it can.
> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person of
> Christ or one does not.
Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed.
Except in the book that says he existed, of course.
The same applies to God, although the book is older and bigger.
> Sorry to knock the crutch of science from under your conceptual feet,
> so to speak.
>
lol
>>> You have in only more words expressed that with which we began.
>>> It is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and
>>> philosophy.
>>
>> "Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully
>> proven. Starting with the existence of God."
>>
>> Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters
>> of faith, esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to
>> entertain any proposed empirical program such as science which can
>> even start to address the question.
>>
>
> "Science adresses what can be observed. God is not a scientific
> question because there's nothing divine to observe."
>
> Now you have it, and the exact reason your assertions about faith vs
> science and philosophy are so much hot air.
>
> Many questions don't have an empirical base for evaluation. For
> example the statement that the truth in art is a product of its
> execution leaves science mute and dumb also.
>
Try neuroscience.
>>> It is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and
>>> philosophy.
>>
>> "Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully
>> proven. Starting with the existence of God."
>>
>> Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters
>> of faith, esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to
>> entertain any proposed empirical program such as science which can
>> even start to address the question.
>>
>
> "Science adresses what can be observed. God is not a scientific
> question because there's nothing divine to observe."
>
> Now you have it, and the exact reason your assertions about faith vs
> science and philosophy are so much hot air.
>
> Many questions don't have an empirical base for evaluation. For
> example the statement that the truth in art is a product of its
> execution leaves science mute and dumb also.
>
> The great bulk of philosophy has no empirical base. As said before,
> it is a sodden mass of ethnocentrically derived conclusions that are
> entirely context based.
>
permeated Christian myths either because they were fed into you since
birth, or because you once surrendered all judgement and decided that
any contradictory crap that comes from a self-appointed Holy Grimoire
must be true.
> You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science.
> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person of
> Christ or one does not.
Except in the book that says he existed, of course.
The same applies to God, although the book is older and bigger.
> Sorry to knock the crutch of science from under your conceptual feet,
> so to speak.
>
.//"".
Jun 19, 2013, 6:23:23 PM6/19/13
to
>>> You have in only more words expressed that with which we began.
>>> It is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and
>>> philosophy.
>>
>> "Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully
>> proven. Starting with the existence of God."
>>
>> Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters
>> of faith, esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to
>> entertain any proposed empirical program such as science which can
>> even start to address the question.
>>
>
> "Science adresses what can be observed. God is not a scientific
> question because there's nothing divine to observe."
>
> Now you have it, and the exact reason your assertions about faith vs
> science and philosophy are so much hot air.
>
> Many questions don't have an empirical base for evaluation. For
> example the statement that the truth in art is a product of its
> execution leaves science mute and dumb also.
>
"Try neuroscience."
And do what? What brain scan will reveal "truth" in art execution?
>>> It is a false dichotomy to oppose faith with science and
>>> philosophy.
>>
>> "Science rejects faith as long as its predicates are not fully
>> proven. Starting with the existence of God."
>>
>> Science by definition is forced to stand mute and dumb on matters
>> of faith, esspecially the question of God. I would be happy to
>> entertain any proposed empirical program such as science which can
>> even start to address the question.
>>
>
> "Science adresses what can be observed. God is not a scientific
> question because there's nothing divine to observe."
>
> Now you have it, and the exact reason your assertions about faith vs
> science and philosophy are so much hot air.
>
> Many questions don't have an empirical base for evaluation. For
> example the statement that the truth in art is a product of its
> execution leaves science mute and dumb also.
>
"Try neuroscience."
> The great bulk of philosophy has no empirical base. As said before,
> it is a sodden mass of ethnocentrically derived conclusions that are
> entirely context based.
"That's the definition of religion. You are Christian because you've
permeated Christian myths either because they were fed into you since
birth, or because you once surrendered all judgement and decided that any
contradictory crap that comes from a self-appointed Holy Grimoire must be
true."
nonsense that faith is at odds with science and philosophy. Philosophy has
no empirical base is the point. It is but reified culturally derived
ideology.
> You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science.
"Yes, it can."
that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist would not
want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person of
> Christ or one does not.
"Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that says he
existed, of course."
the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a part of the
faith based system of the atheist.
nickk - not the imposter
Jun 19, 2013, 9:28:12 PM6/19/13
to
RVG doesn't get it! We truly believe Jesus Christ, both man & God, lived on earth as the Scriptures and historians of the time proclaim. He "IS" God who told us the TRUTH. Therefore, any scientific proofs eventually will lead to God Himself. The problem is, what our minds know compared to God is NOTHING. So, the only way to REALLY know what God knows is to "UNITE" with Him. HOW? Prayer, fasting and leading a "HOLY" life. And THEN and only THEN will God reveal all TRUTH to us. This is what the hesychasts do. Do YOU really want to know the TRUTH?????????
leushino
Jun 19, 2013, 9:37:06 PM6/19/13
to
On Wednesday, June 19, 2013 6:28:12 PM UTC-7, nickk - not the imposter wrote:
> RVG doesn't get it! We truly believe Jesus Christ, both man & God, lived on earth as the Scriptures and historians of the time proclaim. He "IS" God who told us the TRUTH. Therefore, any scientific proofs eventually will lead to God Himself. The problem is, what our minds know compared to God is NOTHING. So, the only way to REALLY know what God knows is to "UNITE" with Him. HOW? Prayer, fasting and leading a "HOLY" life. And THEN and only THEN will God reveal all TRUTH to us. This is what the hesychasts do. Do YOU really want to know the TRUTH?????????
Oh he gets it alright. But he's angry with God as a result of which he declares
> RVG doesn't get it! We truly believe Jesus Christ, both man & God, lived on earth as the Scriptures and historians of the time proclaim. He "IS" God who told us the TRUTH. Therefore, any scientific proofs eventually will lead to God Himself. The problem is, what our minds know compared to God is NOTHING. So, the only way to REALLY know what God knows is to "UNITE" with Him. HOW? Prayer, fasting and leading a "HOLY" life. And THEN and only THEN will God reveal all TRUTH to us. This is what the hesychasts do. Do YOU really want to know the TRUTH?????????
God to be non-existent. That's his way of hitting back at God and punishing God
for all the ills he has had to suffer. Deep down he KNOWS the truth but refuses
to publicly acknowledge it for a variety of psychological reasons. Besides, he's
enjoying shoving his unbelief down our throats and in so doing, scandalizing us.
What he fails to take into consideration is that in spite of all his carefully
constructed arguments and clever words, no one here accepts anything he has to
say for even a solitary minute. His way leads to despair and ultimately to
death. I choose life as do you and most others in this forum.
RVG
Jun 20, 2013, 4:42:16 AM6/20/13
to
//"".
Jun 20, 2013, 7:47:14 AM6/20/13
to
>> You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science.
>
> "Yes, it can."
>
> Then i repeat my invitation to present even a proposed empirical program
to
> that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist would not
> want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
>
>> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person of
>> Christ or one does not.
>
> "Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that says
he
> existed, of course."
>
> Then you can add to your proposed empirical program regarding the divine
> the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a part of the
> faith based system of the atheist.
http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
I love the british sense of humor, but such is not a valid response to the
>
> "Yes, it can."
>
> Then i repeat my invitation to present even a proposed empirical program
to
> that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist would not
> want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
>
>> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person of
>> Christ or one does not.
>
> "Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that says
he
> existed, of course."
>
> Then you can add to your proposed empirical program regarding the divine
> the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a part of the
> faith based system of the atheist.
http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
questions before you now. What empirical program can address the question
of the divine? What evidence, note empirical basis, for the assertion
there was no Christ historically?
I don't blame you from shying away from the questions. The reality they
present is obvious. The atheist has an entirely faith based system for
their views.
RVG
Jun 20, 2013, 9:31:40 AM6/20/13
to
Le 20/06/2013 13:47, // "". a ï¿œcrit :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
> I don't blame you from shying away from the questions. The reality
> they present is obvious. The atheist has an entirely faith based
> system for their views.
>
>>> You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science.
>>
>> "Yes, it can."
>>
>> Then i repeat my invitation to present even a proposed empirical
>> program
> to
>> that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist
>> would not want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
>>
>>> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person
>>> of Christ or one does not.
>>
>> "Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that
>> says
> he
>> existed, of course."
>>
>> Then you can add to your proposed empirical program regarding the
>> divine the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a
>> part of the faith based system of the atheist.
>
> http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
>
> I love the british sense of humor, but such is not a valid response
> to the questions before you now. What empirical program can address
> the question of the divine? What evidence, note empirical basis, for
> the assertion there was no Christ historically?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
>>
>> "Yes, it can."
>>
>> Then i repeat my invitation to present even a proposed empirical
>> program
> to
>> that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist
>> would not want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
>>
>>> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person
>>> of Christ or one does not.
>>
>> "Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that
>> says
> he
>> existed, of course."
>>
>> Then you can add to your proposed empirical program regarding the
>> divine the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a
>> part of the faith based system of the atheist.
>
> http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
>
> I love the british sense of humor, but such is not a valid response
> to the questions before you now. What empirical program can address
> the question of the divine? What evidence, note empirical basis, for
> the assertion there was no Christ historically?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
> I don't blame you from shying away from the questions. The reality
> they present is obvious. The atheist has an entirely faith based
> system for their views.
>
++
Jun 20, 2013, 12:42:10 PM6/20/13
to
On Thursday, June 20, 2013 4:42:16 AM UTC-4, utilizing his own relativistic empiricism, RVG emoted:
> http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
>
and, having little restraint, but appreciating God's infinite humor in creating diversity in mankind saddled with what can be jocularly described as human nature in all its glory, I respond
http://youtu.be/slbMe-aTY1A
> http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
>
and, having little restraint, but appreciating God's infinite humor in creating diversity in mankind saddled with what can be jocularly described as human nature in all its glory, I respond
http://youtu.be/slbMe-aTY1A
Message has been deleted
nickk - not the imposter
Jun 20, 2013, 1:42:15 PM6/20/13
to
Definitely, one of my most favorite scenes; Big Nose!
"".
Jun 20, 2013, 5:25:40 PM6/20/13
to
>>> You can abandon faith but it can not be on the basis of science.
>>
>> "Yes, it can."
>>
>> Then i repeat my invitation to present even a proposed empirical
>> program
> to
>> that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist
>> would not want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
>>
>>> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person
>>> of Christ or one does not.
>>
>> "Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that
>> says
> he
>> existed, of course."
>>
>> Then you can add to your proposed empirical program regarding the
>> divine the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a
>> part of the faith based system of the atheist.
>
> http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
>
> I love the british sense of humor, but such is not a valid response
> to the questions before you now. What empirical program can address
> the question of the divine? What evidence, note empirical basis, for
> the assertion there was no Christ historically?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
Exactly, and you having asserted a view about faith and science and the
>>
>> "Yes, it can."
>>
>> Then i repeat my invitation to present even a proposed empirical
>> program
> to
>> that effect. Absent same we will discover a truth the atheist
>> would not want to acknowledge, they base their view on faith.
>>
>>> For a christian one either accepts the revelation in the person
>>> of Christ or one does not.
>>
>> "Christ is a fiction. Jesus never existed. Except in the book that
>> says
> he
>> existed, of course."
>>
>> Then you can add to your proposed empirical program regarding the
>> divine the evidence to support this empty assertion. It is often a
>> part of the faith based system of the atheist.
>
> http://youtu.be/3n5q699NemE
>
> I love the british sense of humor, but such is not a valid response
> to the questions before you now. What empirical program can address
> the question of the divine? What evidence, note empirical basis, for
> the assertion there was no Christ historically?
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_burden_of_proof
historical reality of Christ are entirely bound by the above link. He who
proposes bears the burden of support.
RVG
Jun 21, 2013, 12:00:23 PM6/21/13
to
Le 20/06/2013 23:25, "". a ï¿œcrit :
To propose = to affirm existence.
0 new messages