Started By
Message
re: Tim Tebow is such a good person
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:06 am to Bass Tiger
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:06 am to Bass Tiger
quote:
Yeah, going through the motion won’t get ya much. Try humbling yourself, on your knees and asking Jesus Christ to forgive you of your sins. At the same time ask Jesus to come into your life and surrender your will to the Lord’s and pray for the Holy Spirit to indwell in your heart and soul so that you may be an example of God’s miracle of redemption and rebirth.
I have to disagree. Going through the motions will get you a lot. There are many things short of salvation that are worth having. Community, discipline, a foundation to do good works.
As someone who was raised Catholic and now goes to a Methodist church, I can say that I have gotten a lot of of going through the motions without being "saved". For some of us, the journey/search may be all we are able to ever accomplish.
Hence, the reason that I went off on the metaphorical truth sidetrack.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 10:20 am
1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:22 am to AshLSU
quote:
Mythology. Funny word you chose for someone who claims to be agnostic.
quote:
How so? It is just mythology in that you can not prove it to be 100% factual.
Mythology is a collection of myths,(definition)
a widely held but false belief or idea: Definition of myth
Isn't the whole point of being agnostic is you do not know? yet your use of the word mythology is that you know it to be false. It obviously insinuates that you believe God to be false, or non existent.
quote:Ok. Are you insinuating that God is a person from the future with futuristic technology, or what exactly is your point?
Here a thought for you. If you took today's technology and went back in time 2000 years ago, many civilizations would revere you as a god. You would be, by their understanding of the world they live in, a magical being. Same goes for us if some highly advanced being from another galaxy visited earth today with technology that was far beyond our understanding. He could proclaim to be god. Many would believe it.
quote:Which is why Christianity is called a faith. Nobody ever claim you can see, touch or prove God. We always say you have to have faith. if you lack faith, that is your decision. I've never understood people that insisted you have to be able to see or touch God for Him to be real. there a re a lot of things that I can't see or touch that are real.
It is not something that can be tested with the scientific method. It isn't a tangible object that you can observe and measure, therefore it is and will always remain just an unproven idea.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:23 am to texag7
Back in 2015, the owner of a local (Starkville) steakhouse was killed in a car wreck. Two of his boys were in the Tahoe with him. One child was also killed. The other boy spent weeks in a Jackson hospital.
The week after the young man came home, Tim Tebow made a trip to Starkville and spent a few days with the boy. No fanfare. No media. Not even a mention on SECN. But it meant the world to that boy and his community
The week after the young man came home, Tim Tebow made a trip to Starkville and spent a few days with the boy. No fanfare. No media. Not even a mention on SECN. But it meant the world to that boy and his community
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:24 am to oman
quote:
I have to disagree. Going through the motions will get you a lot. There are many things short of salvation that are worth having. Community, discipline, a foundation to do good works.
He meant going through the motions of Christianity. There are many worthwhile things you can do.
quote:If so, then from a Christian perspective you would be falling way short.
For some of us, the journey/search may be all we are able to ever accomplish.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:25 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
The week after the young man came home, Tim Tebow made a trip to Starkville and spent a few days with the boy. No fanfare. No media. Not even a mention on SECN. But it meant the world to that boy and his community
Some take a knee, some walk the walk. Respect!
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:26 am to Vecchio Cane
quote:
Back in 2015, the owner of a local (Starkville) steakhouse was killed in a car wreck. Two of his boys were in the Tahoe with him. One child was also killed. The other boy spent weeks in a Jackson hospital.
The week after the young man came home, Tim Tebow made a trip to Starkville and spent a few days with the boy. No fanfare. No media. Not even a mention on SECN. But it meant the world to that boy and his community
Yet people hate him so much because he is a "fraud" and pushing his faith down their throats.
These same people won't say a negative word about Johnny Manziel.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:28 am to upgrade
quote:
That’s an extra reason to like him. And it hurts to say that after what he did to the Tigers in ‘08.
If it's any consolation he made a lot of teams look bad. Really, really bad.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:29 am to DawgsLife
quote:
If so, then from a Christian perspective you would be falling way short.
Suffice to say that I don't think God is such a dick that he'd frick over one of his kids who was doing his level best.
Plus, Catholic.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:31 am to DawgsLife
quote:
He meant going through the motions of Christianity.
That's exactly what I thought he said. Going through the motions of Christianity is what a very large number of people have done throughout the ages.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:34 am to DawgsLife
quote:
there a re a lot of things that I can't see or touch that are real.
Yet, we (science) only claims they exist if there is undeniable evidence for them. It's not about seeing, it's about evidence.
quote:
Which is why Christianity is called a faith.
There is nothing for which we have proof that we use "faith" as a means of validation. That tells you all you need to know in the argument of how strong "faith" is in the realm of proof - somewhere well below actual evidence.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:53 am to Teague
quote:
There is nothing for which we have proof that we use "faith" as a means of validation. That tells you all you need to know in the argument of how strong "faith" is in the realm of proof - somewhere well below actual evidence.
Can you see or touch love? Do you doubt it's existence? Sure you can see physical manifestations of love in peoples actions, but can you see the emotion itself? Does that make it any less real?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:57 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
As a scientist I have seen things that go beyond both my ability to explain via natural and know phenomenon and coincidence.
I recommend a good graduate science program. Maybe at someplace like A&M?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 10:59 am to DawgsLife
quote:
These same people won't say a negative word about Johnny Manziel.
????
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:01 am to Lonnie Utah
quote:
Can you see or touch love? Do you doubt it's existence? Sure you can see physical manifestations of love in peoples actions, but can you see the emotion itself? Does that make it any less real?
You don't have to see or touch something to have actual evidence it exists. "Love" itself is a social construct to explain emotions controlled by chemicals that have evolved and proven beneficial to the human (and some other social species') species. We can prove those emotions, chemicals, and actions exist. "Love" is just the concept we use to explain them, mainly because we weren't scientists when we began to explain it.
So, no, I can't see the actual "love", but like I said in the very post to which you replied, you don't have to see and touch something to have concrete evidence of its existence.
Your argument is going to be that you "feel" god therefore you know he exists, just like love. And, I'll agree that "god" is similar to love in that it is a social construct that we attribute to emotions and needs.
As, far as Tebow, he seems like an ok dude. He's a religious nut, but a lot of people are.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 11:04 am
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:22 am to Teague
quote:
Yet, we (science) only claims they exist if there is undeniable evidence for them. It's not about seeing, it's about evidence.
Well, science also does not discount an existence unless there is undeniable proof, so there's that, too.
You do realize at one time there was no proof of the existence of atoms or germs. Did that mean they did not exist?
quote:
There is nothing for which we have proof that we use "faith" as a means of validation.
Never said there was. Maybe I didn't state it for you clearly. What I meant was that to be a Christian you must have faith. We don't deny that.
Again. Just because there is no tangible evidence does not mean something does not exist.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:25 am to Teague
quote:
He's a religious nut, but a lot of people are.
Out of curiosity...what makes him a nut? That he helps those less fortunate? Not sure what part makes him a nut.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:27 am to oman
quote:
????
????
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:29 am to oman
quote:
That's exactly what I thought he said. Going through the motions of Christianity is what a very large number of people have done throughout the ages.
This is true. But that doesn't mean all Christians do this.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:30 am to Teague
quote:
You don't have to see or touch something to have actual evidence it exists. "Love" itself is a social construct to explain emotions controlled by chemicals that have evolved and proven beneficial to the human (and some other social species') species. We can prove those emotions, chemicals, and actions exist. "Love" is just the concept we use to explain them, mainly because we weren't scientists when we began to explain it.
quote:
Your argument is going to be that you "feel" god therefore you know he exists, just like love. And, I'll agree that "god" is similar to love in that it is a social construct that we attribute to emotions and needs.
Actually, that wasn't where I was going to go.
Where I was going to go was that while you are correct that the release of oxycontin and dopamine in our brains that builds neurological connections that science explains as "love." But the emotion of love goes way beyond the release of those chemicals. If your explanation is true, then how do you account for the emotion of "love" going beyond rational and even into behavior that compromises an individuals fitness, in the terms of what Mr. Darwin taught us? I'm talking things like homosexual love or people risking their life to save a pet because they "love" it. If love is simply biochemical, shouldn't natural selection eliminate these types of behaviors from the population?
I'm not saying the things you state aren't real. I'm saying that Love is a much more complex than the simple release of certain neurotransmitters from the pituitary.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 11:31 am to texag7
Does that prom thing too
Page 9 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News