Proof in Personal Experience?
Your belief is not questioned. Your salvation is not questioned. You also believed that you were walking with God. But from there to come to a point of believing that you were wrong about you walking with God, is a big step. What could have caused such a drastic change? Could you share it with us?
now you're back peddling and saying that my belief and my salvation was not questioned, when you've said over and over again that I was never truly saved in the first place - which directly contradicts the original post that you made. I am more than happy to share my experiences with those that wish to know, but my past conversations with you have not made me want to share it with you because you're full of snap judgments and extremely condescending, contradictory remarks.
I appreciate the amount of the story you did share with us.
Thank you my friend. And I would be more than willing to share it with you in the appropriate venue.
I would just like to state, for the record, that were I to ever change my beliefs and believe in a god figure again, it would be due to the kind considerations of people like you that I have encountered who have no desire to shove or force their beliefs on others, but converse respectfully and are mindful of other's experiences. I appreciate all the things that you've taught and shown me about a different, often under-emphasized side of christianity, so thank you for that.I would appreciate that. I suspect that your journey into unbelief would somewhat mirror my journey into a changed belief (Which I humorously use the oxymoron of a more logical belief). I will be willing to share my journey with you as well as discuss my understanding of the bible without being openly mocked (which in itself does not bother me, but it is difficult to discuss things when there is a bias of preconceived notions regarding believers and how irrational and illogical they are)
Thank you for recognizing my efforts. Funny thing is that the principles that guide me to the way I speak with you and others I got out of that 2,000 year old book that is rejected by some as nonsense. I try to let the grace, understanding, and tolerance of Christ show in my actions rather than the judgment and wrath of God as represented in the bible and Preached in some churches as an effort to convert and control by fear. You attract more with honey. I would hope that if you return to a state of belief and relationship with a god, then it would be out of a love and understanding rather than any type of fear
- Beth37posted 11 years ago
0Actually, I never thought bBerean said that she never had a relationship with God. What I understood his point to be was that you cannot say you had a relationship with Bob lets say, then say Bob doesn't exist. It's a very interesting point, don't you think?
"I know this is a point of contention for you and want to be respectful, but also ask that you hear me out. You state that you had a relationship with Jesus, like many do, yet claim He was/is not God and in fact wrote a hub espousing it is likely Jesus never existed at all. You also believe nobody, including you, has ever had evidence to support a god existing. You can't have it both ways. At best, you can say you thought you had a relationship with Jesus but were mistaken, and therefore project that onto all others who make that claim saying they too, must be mistaken. You cannot say you had a relationship with Jesus and then say He never existed."You question was not poised at me, and this is my answer only.
Of course one can. It's very simple actually, I had a relationship with God, until I realized I was deluded. Until someone supplies evidence that God exists I'll assume you all are as deluded as I was. I also had a relationship with Santa as a child, until I realized I was deluded.Ah, the "deluded" argument. Funny how millions and millions of ppl for thousands and thousands of years can be deluded as easily as small children wanting free presents.
There is evidence for it in our evolution. There may have been an advantage to being religious. Which doesn't mean the religion is therefore real, it just means there may have been an advantage.
Yet even in the Bible it speaks constantly about the sacrifice... "take up your cross daily and follow me."
I highly doubt there was an elite circle of monks whose group ppl aspired to join. Christianity is what it is. A relationship with Jesus.And what advantages would you state there are or could have been to being religious?
Being part of a caring religion may have given those who join an advantage.
I don't know... we could find out.
I got what I like to think of as hate mail from someone who said they were a Christian. I don't know if they were who they said they were, but they ripped me a part for my hubs b/c there is a sexual theme thru out some of them. I don't know why Christians aren't supposed to have sex... if you read the original text for Song of Solomon, Im pretty sure Christians are supposed to enjoy sex too... but it was super hurtful. I just had to remind myself that she didn't know what God has brought me thru or where He was taking me. It was a good reminder why we're not supposed to judge others.The issue is that sex is one of the taboo subjects in some churches of Christianity. It's a dirty word and something that should not be discussed despite the appearance of Christians that become pregnant and show up with babies. It's an attitude of "we now it's happening, but we aren't supposed to discuss it"
If she had read any of my other hubs she might have had a little insight into some of my issues, but that isn't the point. Her remarks were super biting. I told her if I was a more mature Christian than someone who was struggling, I would have prayed for them. Something about those hubs really got under her skin.
Sex is the great problem in churches. A lot of churches have rightly recognized that being strictly puritanical about the subject is not even helping those within the walls of church, let alone those outside of it. But unfortunately this has lead to some overdone and sometimes bizarre attempts in the other direction, even having pornography in churches and way too frank talks about sexuality. God did mean for us to enjoy sex with our spouse but not for us to parade ourselves and our sexuality around for everyone to see whether they want to or not.
Are you sure about that Chris? Didn't, according to the bible he put Adam and Eve naked in the garden, and they were not ashamed until they wronged. Seems to me that that's the Super-ego telling the ego to not let the ID in. Holding back the ID for to long causes more problems then it's worth. Just ask all those fallen televangelists.
I've always seen it as the Id being the reptilian brain, the Ego being the mammalian brain, and the Superego being the primate brain. And as George Carlin once said:
"The primate brain says, 'Give peace a chance.' The mammalian brain says, 'Let's give peace a chance, but first let's kill this motherf***er.' The reptilian brain says, 'Let's just kill this motherf***er and go to the peace rally and get laid.'"I think that's reading way too much Freud into it. (I assume Freud, I'll admit that I'm not real up on Freud or Jung or any of the others. Although Anomie would be an interesting explanation for Cain.)
The point of them being naked in the garden and feeling no shame is that they were literally innocent. Like kids running around who have no concept of their bodies or "yucky stuff" (you know what I mean.) I am probably wrong about this but I think it was Freud who started talking about how sexual pre-pubescent children supposedly are, and I feel like that reading is being imposed on the Garden of Eden story."yucky stuff"? I rest my case.
They were innocent until your God punished them. I don't always agree with Beth, but I think she should be free to express herself. I've read her hubs and find nothing offensive about them. She appears to me to be very honest, and I applaud that. She freely admits to have some issues and I hope she is not taken advantage of. I hope you feel the same.<crickets> lol
I do think being honest is best. AA, SA etc... none of these place ever helped anyone by a bunch of ppl sitting around being silent. I am a huge proponent on sharing ones story. I think that is how we learn from one another. I think our learning would be stunted if we never took our eyes off ourselves or considered issues outside our own.
God has brought me thru so much, but it's not over... I have so much to learn yet, and God willing I can be brave and somewhat tactful, maybe others will draw hope when they see that someone has been in a similar circumstance and didn't take their own life... I will draw what I can from your stories too. Maybe that's why I'm always asking personal questions. I am very interested.Rest your case on what? That I used child-like language to illustrate my point about Adam and Eve being child-like? Or the fact that I prefer a bit of circumspection to outright exhibitionism? A bit more modesty would not be a bad thing. You're going to have to work harder to prove that as a sign of mental illness.
I am not the one who wrote to Beth. Honestly, and I'm sorry Beth, I haven't read any of her hubs. I'm also not in the habit of telling people what they should and shouldn't say. There was one incident where I approached a few Christians via email and forums about some things that were expressed, but that was many months ago and it was only one time.I don't know Chris... it really had a Chris-like feel to it. lol
I didn't think it was you.I said nothing about mental illness.
You're not in the habit of telling people what they should or shouldn't say, but you just did. Telling people to be more modest seems to be just that.
I'm sure it wasn't you, but you did seem to defend whoever did it.Yeah I advocate for less exhibitionism. I'm not attempting to legislate it, I'm trying to convince people that society would be better if there was less scatological language tossed out casually. Some people will interpret that as me trying to "tell people what to do" but it's not.
I'm a big believer in the First Amendment. I think people have a right to express their opinions. Not everything actually needs to be said, and some things (like racist language and language advocating rape) actually should not be expressed but I'm not in favor of shutting down people just because I don't agree with them. In fact, we Christians are just as much the victims of that sort of thinking as the perpetrators.
And I'm not sure where you got that I was defending the person who wrote to Beth.I thought I posted a reply but it doesn't seem to have taken.
Yeah, I say that people should be more modest. I guess in a generalized sense you could say that I'm telling people what they should and shouldn't say, I'll give you that. But I am not in the habit of contacting people personally and saying "You should not have said this," or "You should have said that." I won't say that I've never done it but I will say that you don't even need all the fingers of one hand to count the number of times I have.
I do believe that people should be free to express their feelings within reason. Most people would agree that speech that promotes racism or rape or things like that is out of bounds. But in general, even people who tell me I'm full of it I wouldn't muzzle if I could. I'm all too aware that there are many people who would muzzle me in a New York minute if they had the chance, based on nothing other than my Christianity.
And I'm at a loss as to how you got that I was endorsing the person who contacted Beth.Well, she said she got a personal email that said Christians shouldn't talk about sex as she said she had in her hubs and then (and I don't have your exact words in front of me) you said something like it's better to be more modest or she shouldn't talk about sex. I don't have the exact words so If I've missed the mark I'll apologies.
No, that was pretty close to what I said. But I was speaking in a more generalized sense. I do honestly believe that the world be a lot better if there was less, I don't know, casualness about the subject. And I guess what really astounds me (and not in a good way) is the language. It amazes me how people today (not everyone, but more often that I would have thought when I was twenty) think nothing of dropping f-bombs and s-bombs and g-d's.
Maybe because I have kids, or just am of a more conservative bent (which no one would have thought of me before I became a Christian) I'm not one to talk about the things I did prior to becoming a Christian. I'm not big on "airing the dirty laundry." I understand that sometimes people can be genuinely helped by these stories, but I feel that way too often it's simply engaging in the fun of soap operas. That's not meant as a slam against Beth, I haven't read her stuff.
I often keep that opinion to myself, though, because I know most people will just think I'm some kind of crank.
It's late and I'm rambling. The short of it is that I don't believe in muzzling people. I would just like to see more decorum.Here's how late it is. I meant to say that it was coincidence that I said that at the same time that Beth talked about the person who contacted her. Then I forgot! Oops!
Sorry, I get those from time to time. I guess you can never be a good enough Christian unless you lie. Lie about sex that is.
Okay. But would that not make the religion real to the person joining it since it is them being part of a caring group? Isn't the debate about whether the deity in question is real or not? Whether the deity is real or not, the group (religion) that is believing is real. Just seeking clarification since your earlier statement was that it doesn't mean that the religion is real. Religion in and of itself is very real there is proof of the religion, just not the deity
Religion is a real thing. To that there is no question. People believing is not is a real thing. It's the God part that's in question, but evolution does explain why people believe in a higher power, but that's no an indication of the higher power.
No it does not. When man sinned, he detached himself from God. Bu his rebellion, man declared that he does not want a God over them. That is what atheist wants even today. When man did this He did not actually become free (i.e without any God governing him) but became bonded to Satan. That is the state man is in right now. (even those in children and adults that starve). That is what I meant by saying that those people are not in the domain of God. God will not enter into another's domain. So if one wants God's help, he or she has to first enter into His domain.
When one is under God's rule, then nothing happens to that person without God's permission. If a Christian is in a hospital it because God has allowed it for some purpose. There are good Christians who have been stricken with some ailments and they were healed quite quickly when they realized the purpose and did the needful.
It is like this. If I showed an atheist a research done by some hardcore Christians, would they accept it as a valid research? No, they would not. Even if it was not all Christians but the majority were Christians, still they would not accept it. The question of the research being biased will always arise. Similarly any research done by a team with majority of non-christians cannot be accepted as an unbiased one.
No. In that very post after making that assumption I had posted a note. Go back and check that out. I had declared there quite plainly that I am assuming that you are an atheist. I have also mentioned in that very post that if you are not an atheist my post does not apply to you. In spite of this why do condemn me?You are plain confused. Let me show you. First you say:
Then you say:
Both are the same. Believing that God does not exist and not believing that God exist are one and the same. What do mean by the statement that you do not believe in God? It means you do not believe believe that God exists. That is the same as believing that God does not exist.
But every time atheist would not frame a sentence that way because that would make their position a position of belief and then all the question they ask us will apply them as well. But no, they cannot escape by framing a statement is a particular way.
Then moment I start conversation in forums with atheists I am branded as being contradictory and being "full of snap judgments". This is not new to me. I am branded thus because I make plain statements. But when I am in conversation with Christians I am usually not branded thus. I always come here only to help people see the truth for which at times I would need to make some plain statements.
Again I would like to iterate that your belief is not questioned, neither is your salvation. But you say that you had a relationship with God. That is what I am questioning. How can you say that you had a relationship with Him and later say He does not exist? You cannot have it both ways!
Sharing what made you change your beliefs would only help you. However it is solely upto you to decide weather to do it or not.I once had a relationship with Santa Claus. Did you have a relationship with Santa? Are you telling us that we can't, now, say that Santa Claus does not exist? If not, then explain why anyone should accept your "logic"
Kinda interesting that I never once, in my whole life, believed in Santa Clause, but I have believed in God for as long as I have memory.
Interesting....but not at all relevant to the question, since you would be the exception.
BTW Santa Claus does not have an "e" at the end. I have noticed that ever since that movie, with Tim Allen, came out seems like everyone started spelling it that way.
I could edit, but since you have me quoted, there wouldn't be much point.
LOL! I guess pop culture taints everything because I noticed that I have also been spelling it "Santa Clause."
Oops!
Yes, it is as puzzling as it is curious to witness the acceptance of one invisible and undetectable super friend, and not another, simply on the happenstance of vague belief.
But there are differences between God and Santa. I'm not just talking about that one is supposed to be all powerful under all circumstances (God) and one only to small children (Santa.) I'm talking that there has been some conception of God for as long as there has been human history. Santa is easily traced back to Nicholas. People saying "humanity needs some conception of a God to explain what they can't" fits well into a certain way of looking at things, but is not ultimately provable (since we can't travel back to a time before there was recorded history.)
Yes, Chris, the differences that you pointed out are correct, but in this context, I'm trying to point out the fact that if one has a relationship with a fictional character it doesn't change that fictional character into an REAL character...as Augustine72 alluded to. Of course, since you don't see God as a fictional character, like the atheist does, you will probably need to suspend your belief long enough to grasp the concept...if that is at all possible. But speaking logically, Santa and God bear more similarities than differences. To most free thinkers, the only major difference is that we have been instructed to stop believing in one at a certain age, and instructed to continue to believe in the other.....throughout life.
Gotta love this. "To most free thinkers..." I would think that term meant people who thought for themselves and didn't let their decisions be influenced by ridicule, indoctrination or peer pressure. Perhaps you think those things are exactly what is required for a belief in god as surely nobody could come to the conclusion god exists otherwise. From the context it appears "free thinkers" must mean folks who think just like you, or at least athiests. I can see how troubling it must be for you to live in a world where the vast majority of folks aren't "free thinkers."
It is troubling, when they except that God does the thinking for them. It's was troubling Bush told the world God told him to go to war.
It's surreal living in a world, run by adults, who still believe in childish fairy tales. Yes. Think about how you would feel if you suddenly realized that you lived in a world where everyone kept talking about Rumpelstiltskin...where they built structures of worship, wore ornaments around their necks....prayed over their food....and looked forward to living with Rumpelstiltskin after death. How troubled would you feel?
You're wrong, I'm sorry. I do not claim to believe that god doesn't exist. I don't have a belief in god, because I don't think that there's any evidence to prove that any god exists. That doesn't mean that I'm asserting that no god exists. I simply have a lack of a belief in a god until sufficient evidence has been presented. I also don't have a belief that Zeus or Thor or Allah etc don't exist. I simply don't believe in them, because I don't believe they have been proven to exist. Atheism is a default position. You don't believe in a god until one can be proven - and none of the proposed gods (or their followers) have been able to offer sufficient proof.
When I was a Christian - which you HAVE said repeatedly that I never was a Christian, incidentally, I had a bunch of experiences that I attributed to god/the holy spirit, etc. All of those experiences had alternate explanations that I was unaware of when I was blinded by belief. As I studied more and did my research and learned about the history of christianity, the bible and the early church, I realized that I had been told a lot of lies growing up about the supposed "evidence" that christianity claims. It simply isn't true, and I lost my belief in god. Until such a time as it is sufficiently proven to me, I will not believe in something. The time to believe is AFTER it's been proven correct. Not by simply hoping that it is.Once something has been proven correct, there is no further use for belief. Belief in something is not based on evidence. One it's proven it is no longer a belief.. It's knowledge
that's not true. Once something has been proven, there is no longer need for Faith. I still believe that gravity will continue working and I won't go shooting off into the atmosphere, even though gravity is a fact and has been proven.
That's not a belief.. That's scientific knowledge that cannot be changed. Once you get to a point or irreversible fact and truth, then belief is no longer a factor.
I think we're arguing semantics. I see a marked difference between believing something (or believing in something) based on experience and prior knowledge, evidence and having faith in something absent evidence.
the problem I have with the term "faith" plays directly into believer's claims of personal experience. If they have a "relationship" with a god and that god has proven himself sufficiently to them, then they don't need to have faith at all. But their personal experiences cannot be used to convince others because they are personal and can neither be proven, demonstrated, tested or shown to anyone else that's not them.We aren't arguing.. Just discussing...LOL
Also, if you look and listen to believers, not all of them speak of faith. a lot of them speak out of certainty. They don't feel as if they have anything to prove to anyone because their personal relationship and the proof (that has been revealed to them) is factual for them. I know we are dealing with more semantics and how some areas where it has to be proven for all people. But hey, For some, proof is proof (no matter how it is viewed)but for believers who claim absolute certainty, aren't they missing one of the qualifications for salvation in the first place? It is by faith you are saved, not by works. If they have no faith doesn't that contradict biblical teachings in and of itself?
It is by both faith and work.. The bible states that faith without work is dead. The knowledge is in who God is.. The faith is in what he does as well as what is required of believers in relation to what he does. .. There is a difference between the two
You've lost me. The Bible makes it clear that first comes the faith, then the work flows out of that. Of course people can do "good works" without really believing, but since you're citing that specific verse (is that James?) then the point is that if you really believe, then the works follow that. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
I agree that DM is arguing semantics (no offense, Deepes) but then at some point you are aguing that the believer is, either because you think this about them personally or just think this about all believers, someone who is inherently untrustworthy. What you say is that because they can't demonstrate for you their relationship with God the way you can demonstrate your relationship with your spouse, you can't take them at their word.
No offense taken.. But it would appear that semantics are being argued both ways because some believers use their experiences as confirmed fact of God's existence and as such, for them it isn't simply a belief. I stated that once the facts of the existence of something is proven (no matter the proof), then belief in the existence of something is no longer a belief it becomes knowledge. You can still hold belief in the characteristics (such as belief or faith in what God can do or in the works of others). Belief still plays a factor that way. I was speaking more on whether something is real or not. It would appear that we were debating two different aspects of belief
I do not believe nor understand gravity will hold me down. I hope. ;-)
I asked it to prove a point. But you still would not approach the question head on.
Both examples are similar.
A) You are abducted
B) You are robbed
A) You have no
B) You have no evidence
A) You experienced their presence
B) You have experienced the thief's presence
The only difference is this
A) According to the knowledge you have in your brain this is not a normal incident
B) This is a normal one.
Just because of the fact that the one according to your little knowledge is not normal, you are willing to suspect your sanity. That is all the conclusion I was trying to draw.Yes, because one of those scenarios is wacky and would cause me to question my sanity. Wouldn't you ask yourself if your possible going crazy?
Why would you automatically assume your sanity were slipping? If this were not a normal experience for you, it happened one time, nothing else was different and no one you knew was questioning your sanity, why would you just jump to the conclusion that your sanity must, therefore, be in doubt?
I said I would question my sanity, not jump to the conclusion. Wouldn't you if you had been taken to an Aliens ship and poked but no one else can verify and of it? That was the question.
When I was a kid I kept thinking of this nightmare I had where an earwig crawled in someones ear and ate right through the brain. It drove me nuts. I thought I was going crazy when I watch a Twilight Zone episode and my very dream was being played out in the episode. I could wrap my young head around how this was possible until I realized it wasn't my dream at all, I just had the memory as if it were a dream and must have watch it some time earlier.
No Christian would tell you that. If a Christian declares that Hell is a myth then he/she is no longer a Christian.
there you go, making assumptions and judgments again. I know a lot of Christians (and several on Hubpages) that believe that the concept of hell as eternal torture/lake of fire is not biblically supported, and that hell is simply annihilation. Others believe in Universal Salvation. While you may disagree with them, that doesn't automatically make YOUR interpretation of scripture correct and there's wrong - and without looking into their hearts, you are in no position to judge/condemn them, especially when you don't even KNOW them.
Augustine, Just a question.. What bible versions have you studied?
Side note- SOM is a Christian that believes in universal reconciliation. There are believers who do not believe in Hell at all. I would be careful as to who you say is or is not a Christian. That could be seen as passing judgment.Whatever hell may or may not be, I don't understand Universalists who just think that everyone will get into Heaven, or even just everyone who claims to be a Christian will. The Sheep and the Goats and the Straight and Crooked Path parables (and others) make it clear that NOT everyone will get in, even among those who claim to know Jesus. And if you pick and choose which verses you will believe, you undermine your own case because the Bible is so interconnected that to scrap any of it is just as good as declaring that you can't trust it at all.
Let me ask you this.. Because you have questions about the bible and are not sure about how some of the verses are written, does that make you any less of a Christian?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. If you read the entire Bible front to back, Universalism is not present in it. It's one thing to be unsure of some word or phrase meanings 5000 years after they were written, it's another thing entirely to decide that whole sections of the Bible shouldn't be there or don't mean what they say at all.
That can not be called a relationship? Did you talk to him in person? Did he answer you and do things for you? Just believing someones words and imagining a character to be real can not be considered a relationship with that character. I know this is how you would define our beliefs, but each time you do so you are plain insulting us.
Unlike your God I actually did meet Santa in person several times. I sat on his knee and he asked me by name what I wanted for Christmas. He said "young Rad Man, I have you in my list as being a good boy, what would you like for Christmas". And guess what, on Christmas morning it was there.
I love the fact that you're telling me that just believing someone's words and an imaginary character to be real can not be considered a relationship. You should give that some thought.
I'm not meaning to be insulting, however perhaps you could be the one who is insulting us with your inability to tell the difference between real and imaginary.That comparison is ridiculous. You can't prove there is no God. You can certainly belittle the beliefs of others, and that behavior proves something, but not that there is no God. Comparing God to Santa Claus isabout as helpful as comparing Dark Matter to licorice. And less original.
How so? I'm sorry if it sounds insulting, I can't help that, but they are exactly the same to a child who is told to be good or they won't get a toy and that santa is always watching. I maintain that santa is easier to belief because he can be seen, touched and talked to by large group of people experiencing the same thing. This is not the case for God.
What do you think Emily, I should just except the delusions of others because they say so and I don't want to hurt any feelings? How many of these Christians make claims that can't back up?
Are you telling me you met Santa in person? Or did you have a personal talk with him? You have not understood the word "relationship" very well, have you? You cannot have a relationship with a character that does not exist. Therefore if you say you had a relationship with Santa you evidently never had one but were deluded at that point to thinking that you had a relationship going on.
Yep. He was downtown at Christmas time.
Yes. I have. Remember, he knows when I'm asleep....awake....good....bad...
How absurd.
And neither can you.
. That same logic applies to your imaginary God How absurd. No further questions.
- Isn't that the pot calling the kettle...
No I am not saying that they are all biased. But could they all be trusted? Think about all the Biblical archeological research done. Are they considered valid? Why are they not up in the main steam media? Ron Whiete (pardon the spelling) for example claims to have discovered the whereabouts of Noah's arc and the arc of Covenant. Does the scientific world view that as valid and are they hence ready to accept Bible as true? Are they not researchers? Why is there no due acknowledgement for their efforts? For the same reasons we too cannot trust those researches done by a team of ungodly (or has a majority of ungodly) people. It is more so when their subject of research has something to do with God.
I had a feeling that you were not an atheist at the time I was making that post and that is why I put that note in there. In spite of that when I was pointed out, I was troubled at the thought that you were offended. That is why I attempted to clarify.
True, I should not have framed it that way.There are a couple of issues with this. First off they would have to date it far enough back to verify the timing on it (which may or may not be easy to do). It may not fully prove everything biblically, but it would at least make progress toward those means
I wasn't offended at all by your post. I have been arguing with Both sides for a while so sometimes it might be hard to tell which side i'm on. But even with not being offended, it is still helpful to point out some thingsTheir efforts were acknowledged, Ron Wyatt was found to be a fraud as his so-called discoveries were hoaxes.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
So every two years my moms family (my mom, my two siblings and their families) meet somewhere for a vacation. That's the only time we see each other. I had just transferred to a new store. My mom had already reserved the condo in July and I couldn't get the week off I needed to be able to see them. Hopeless... but of course, my mom starts praying. After two months at this store, I realize the place is horrible. It's a nice store and there are some nice ppl there, but a few rotten apples... I come to a point where I can't take it anymore and arrange to transfer out. I start at my new store in a week... no one at the new store has reserved that one week I needed off. It is mine to take, my new boss says. I know you'll say it's circumstance or what have you, but it is to me, very clearly, answered prayer.
That's nice. My first cousin's 8 year old is about to have a bone marrow transplant as part of his treatment for Leukaemia. But I'm glad God made the time for you to go on vacation with your family.
First of all, Im so sorry for your cousins child... truly! My heart breaks for them.
You have no concept of God. I could have cancer at the moment... that doesn't change the fact that God did me a kindness. God doesn't eradicate all disease, hunger and sadness on earth cause we think it's what a god should do. We live in a fallen world. He sometimes performs miracles, He sometimes brings comfort to those in need, He sometimes weeps cause those who are need of help refuse to ask. He is God. His ways are not like our ways and someday you will see that is a good thing.I thought he made us in his image. Like him? The problem is not that we can't understand him it's that there is nothing to understand. You're so wrapped up in your own world you think God makes vacation time for you while allowing Children to lie in hospital beds. The big miracle for you is vacation time? Where was he in Boston?
Yes, and while your God was busy answering your prayers, several thousand more children who were praying for a morsel of food to eat, died of starvation. You must be so happy your loving God took the time to service your prayers.
that is just rude, I cant believe you said that to Beth or whoever it was for
God bless youIt was absolutely heartless and cruel to have said what Beth said considering there are many children who pray for food but starve to death.
What's wrong with explaining to someone that God should have more to do then plan a vacation.
How many times has God told you to give and you kept your hands in your pockets?
There are so many organizations that constantly work towards the betterment of ppl all around the world. I have given to many of them, some of them for years, which is not b/c of my goodness, but b/c of God's. B/c He told me to give, so I gave, and not only that, but He provided the funds so that I could give. It is up to all of us to help those in the world who need it, God has given us all we need to end hunger if we would just share! How many lives could Bill Gates save if he lived in a modest home without extras? How about Oprah... how about you and I? If ANYONE on earth is starving, it's not b/c God didn't provide, it's b/c we are too selfish to get off our North American butts and save them. Don't you dare blame God, you don't even believe in Him!Yes, believers do what they're told to do because they're unable to figure it out for themselves. Of course, they only do it for their God for selfish reasons; to get in good with God. It has nothing to do with actually helping others, or else they would have figured that out on their own.
I'm not blaming God. I'm showing you that your claim of a vacation miracle is silly.
Well thank you. Now you share something very special to you and I will tell you how silly it is.
My cousins 8 year old boy is starting treatment which will include a bone marrow transplant.
I would say that falls under the "concerns" column rather than the "unexpected blessings" column. I will pray for your cousins child... you really shouldn't use him as a way to try and gain ground in a debate. Doesn't seem right to me.
I'm trying to show you the absurdity of making claims of insignificant miracles. I don't mean or want to be insulting, but if you can look past your feeling you'll see that your vacation plans are hardly on any God's to do list. You asked for something very special so you can laugh at it. I told you what is going on in my families life. I'm trying to get the leafs-habs tickets while they are here because he a big hockey fan. Hockey tickets for that game are hard to come by in this city.
I haven't seen my family since 2010. The option to see them wouldn't come around again till 2015. This is not earth shattering stuff, but it was of some importance to me. Again, you do not understand God.
Were I not to have been able to see my family, God would still be good.
Were I to die of cancer tomorrow, God is still good.
Were I to lose/find my keys, God is still good.
Were the whole world to die in an all consuming flood (a story you may recall) God would still be good.
He is not in the business of personal genie. You need to get that.
He is God of the universe and He concerns Himself with the saved and the unsaved as He loves us all.
Does He save us all from every disease and heartache? No.
Does He only give special gifts to His children? No.
Does heart ache only come to those who deny Him? No.
The rain falls on the just and the unjust. We live in a world of sin.
Eternity is His main concern b/c He knows *this life, will end soon. It is temporal. He wants you to trust Him b/c He wants to save you from a fate worse than cancer. Can you understand that?That is a stark contradiction to your previous story. You said...
"I start at my new store in a week... no one at the new store has reserved that one week I needed off. It is mine to take, my new boss says. I know you'll say it's circumstance or what have you, but it is to me, very clearly, answered prayer."
God is indeed your personal genie. You need to get that.
Complete contradiction to your story and your claims. Can you understand that?Well if you need to see your family!
I understand that you have held onto the God that you need. You're version of God seems to be more concerned with your vacation plans then ill children.
At least Bill Gates has the right idea.
http://www.gatesfoundation.org
And to think that this same God, while doing nothing for the pitiful starving children of the third world, is busy helping Americans go on vacation and find car keys. This shows a lack of empathy on a disturbing level. I would just say "no thanks" to God for any miracles He offered me until He feeds those poor starving children. It appears that I would have to teach your God what REAL morals are.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
Do you have children? Do you serve anyone but yourself? You are so dark.
What's really "dark" are those who praise their gods for the most innocuous and minushka of trivial matters for their own personal and selfish needs, while real life, and death, situations occur in the world around them, the world in which their grasp is at best, tenuous.
You only serve yourself.
Poor Santa. One has to assume all the unicorns and dragons, (even the purple ones), have been rented out for children's parties, while bigfoot and the leprechauns remain in hiding. I guess that just leaves Santa and the tooth fairy as targets, and Santa was the choice for the week.
We get the part about how many folks consider god to be another made up character belonging in the list above. I also understand how you can say as a child you may have believed in Santa and thought you had a relationship with him, particularly if you saw someone claiming to be him at the mall, or someone answered your letters or ate the cookies and drank the milk you left. Of course too, there may have been packages with his name on them, cementing the deal. Now that you know Santa is not real though, you can no longer claim you had a genuine relationship with him. You'd have to admit you never did. If there were a real Santa out there, you know not of him and your experience is totally unrelated to any real relationship any other person may have had with him.
It is equally disingenuous for anyone to say they had a real relationship with God and then in the next breath say He is not real. If He is not real, you never had a genuine relationship with Him. Again, you can't have it both ways. Anyone who has had a genuine relationship with God could never say He isn't real. Likewise, anyone having any supernatural experience, with spirits, demons, etc. will not deny the supernatural exists, (although they may interpret them as experiences with God). So have fun making fun of that which you do not know, have chosen to deny or have not experienced, but don't claim to know what a real relationship with God is. Anyone denying a god exists, yet saying they thought they had a relationship with him can at best admit their own experience was in retrospect, false and delusional, and then project the same onto other peoples experiences.Finally someone making sense.
Two people thinking they are having a relationship with God. One realizes he was delusional and tries to explain that to his friend who is still delusional. Both had the same experience, thought they were in a relationship with an invisible figment of their imagination. Can the delusional one supply evidence of the relationship? No. Yet he claims the other couldn't have experienced his delusion.One delusion I was never under was that I would sway anyone who has said in their heart there is no god. Neither does it bother me in the least for such folks to write me off as delusional. My only point has been folks can't have it both ways. You have agreed to that, (I realize you always did). We do disagree only in your conclusion that all relationships with god are delusional and how in your analogy you equate them as basically all being the same. In doing so you must presume to know more about those experiences than those who had them, for how else could you proclaim them delusional? Is it because you know for certain no god exists, everything supernatural is fraudulent and the vast majority of folks who have ever lived have had mental issues and daddy complexes? I know you really embraced Jonny's perspective on that one.
It's good that you pay attention. I think evolution has given us a mind that can even fool ourselves. It does what it has to to comfort us. I don't mean to offend with the delusion thing. It's human to have this ability. If there were only some evidence to support the delusion outside of the mind?
I take no offense because frankly I consider the denial of there being a god to be delusional. Explaining that with any hope those under that delusion will get the points will require at least a long hub. Unfortunately time to write is not currently available for me. I only throw it out to clarify my perspective.
Wait, you think that its delusional to believe in something that has NOT been sufficiently proven to exist? Are you delusional for not believing in pixies or aliens or Bigfoot?
So are you assuming that Santa could be real? And if someone insisted that they had a relationship with Santa you would have no problem accepting and respecting their claims?
Says who? You?
I know I had a genuine relationship with God and Jesus, and all that crap. Who are you to set the standards for what a genuine relationship is? How arrogant.
I'm going to go as far as saying yours is false and delusional too....no matter how far you are willing to take this desperately pleading "logic"
If that's the case you better become: a Muslim, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Ju-Ju, or the religions of thousands of other Gods that have been "experienced" over the years. Because, by your logic, you cannot conclude that any of these experiences weren't genuinely real. If you believe your own logic, I would hurry up and convert...you know....just to be on the safe side.Now that we know God is not real...
Yes, it is. Completely. Especially since we now know God is not real, just like we know Santa is not real...
Okay, Let's hear it then.
When person accepts Jesus as his or her savior he or she is saved. We can call him/her a Christian. But being a Christian does not stop with that. He/she is a babe in faith and would now need to grow. At this spiritual level it is easy to be deceived. We would need to do a lot of Bible reading and prayer to keep us from being deceived.
As we grow we begin a personal relationship with God. In this our attempt will be to know God as much as we can and to reveal ourselves (i.e our thoughts, our mind, our life etc) to Him so that He can know you. We begin to know each other. (Note: It is not that God cannot know us unless we show Him. But God being a just God will barge into you without your approval of it. )
As we grow further we begin to walk with God. This means we begin to converse with Him, we begin to ask Him what we want and He answers our prayers. For a person who has reached this level, the chances of loosing his/her faith is extremely remote. Now it is the job of the Church to teach us and takes us through all these levels of growth.
So do not suspect your salvation. I suspect your church. Did it lead you through the spiritual growth to a level where you had a relationship with God?
Coming to your point of "alternative explanations". There could always be alternate explanation to our spiritual experiences. For example whatever spiritual experience we have we can explain it away saying that it was a Hallucination.
If it is okay with you, could you share some of those lies with us?share some of those "lies" with you? No. Not when you already assume that they're lies. You've gone from telling me that I was never really saved and never really a christian in the first place to now criticizing my church and my college. You're just looking for something/someone to blame for my deconversion because it can't POSSIBLY (according to you) just be examining the evidence (or lack thereof) and using the brain that you insist god gave me.
You're approach is backwards if you want people to open up and have a genuine, honest conversation with you. You come off as extremely condescending and arrogant/judgmental - and as soon as you get called on one of your assertions you backpedal and try to find someone else to blame or change your assertions or make excuses for them later. That's not honest debate or communication, and it's not going to get you very far with me.Tell me please. When you ask God for stuff in prayer, does he answer, do you hear a voice, or do you just get the stuff you had asked for?
- ahorsebackposted 11 years ago0
NEWS FLASH ! , I have seen the alien ---and he is me ! But I still don't believe in them !
I will give you just 3 verses of the many that are there. Could you tell me the meaning of these verses.
Mat_25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
Mat_25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Joh_5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Do you see the words "Everlasting fire", "everlasting punishment', "everlasting life". What is the meaning of this?I'm not saying that I believe in universal salvation or no hell at all. You'd have to address those questions to someone that actually believes in those concepts. Not an atheist. I don't believe in any of it.
the thing that i'm pointing out to you is that no CHRISTIAN is in a position of authority enough to come right out and say "so and so is not a true christian because they don't agree with my interpretation of scripture or dogma/doctrine". It's ludicrous to an atheist to see christians battling each other, condemning each other and flinging scripture at each other when each side has scripture that they claim supports their own case. It does nothing to enhance the claims of validity for your beliefs.
I use the KJV. I have read other versions also.
According to me a Christian someone who follows Christ. Could anyone who denies what Christ has said be called a Christian?So if someone still follows Christ's examples, but question the interpretation of the person writing about Christ then they cannot be a Christian by your definition?
It certainly raises questions. If you start saying "Jesus did say this" and "Jesus did not say that" a la` the Jesus Seminar, what in reality are you left with? Moral teachings? But Jesus' most forceful and "moral" teachings were that we should love God with all our heart, mind and soul and be prepared to call Jesus King and Lord. If we start picking and choosing what Jesus said or what Jesus meant, then what's even the point? And if we start saying that it's all "an interpretation," (not that there aren't interpretations, but if we say everything is an interpretation,) then how can we ever truly know what is true? And frankly, Christianity that's been swiss-cheesed like that, what is it really worth?
Well, most of the current and older versions are translated and thus interpreted from older languages. But then again, not all of it is an interpretation. Yes a lot of it is swiss cheesed because there are questions and holes in how the message is received (which could be a result of misinterpretation). It is still very valuable, but the trick is in trying to figure out what else could be meant by a passage that doesn't sound right when you examine it by the common everyday context and definition or if there is some other meaning.
I'm trying to understand you clearly. When you talk about examining it "by the common everyday context" do you mean present day context or context from the time when it was written? There is a difference. Application is also not quite the same thing as interpretation.
Well both are equally important because people still try to apply the context of when it was written and try to force it into today's everyday contexts which is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole because, to quote a very good song, "the times, they are a- changing. There are some things written back then that contextually given the culture do not apply to this day. The context and meanings of events and ideas change as the times and people change. If we are going to hold on to every part of the past, then there would still be slavery going on today, women would not have the rights they do, and every crime committed would be punished by death. The bible can still be relevant today and still is relevant today (for those who believe in it), but at some point we have to adjust the context of the word for today's time. This does not change the word at all. The word still remains the same, but the context changes as according to definition and current events.
Which version of what he said do you think is correct?
The versions are mostly the same. They are the same on all the major points (here I'm talking about the most widely used versions. I'm not taking into account any versions that are only used by small groups or the "New World" version of the Jehovah's Witnesses.")
But even the ones picked for the bible are not entirely the same. Which one do you believe? They can't all be correct. Three at least have to be wrong in some regards.
I admit I'm cutting and pasting here but...
MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.
MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.
MT 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:21, RO 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved.
MT 28:1 The first visitors to the tomb were Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (two).
MK 16:1 Both of the above plus Salome (three).
LK 23:55 - 24:1, 24:10 Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and "other women" (at least five).
JN 20:1 Mary Magdalene only (one).I'm not ignoring this one. Things are in an uproar around here and the other posts are easy to answer, this one will require time to sit and think and research.
When I said "you cannot have a relationship with a fictitious character" many of you treated me as though I am a dud who makes a statement and does not realize that he is make the same mistake.
To me this implies that all of you believe that God is a fictitious character just like Santa. Then I have a question for you guys
If you believe that God is a fictitious character does that not mean that you believe that a real God does not exist?If the only evidence of any Gods are texts and if these texts are fallible then there is no evidence for any Gods.
That's the mistake that so many make. Texts, although they are proof, are not the only proof.
They are only proof that someone wrote them. Nothing more, unless you have evidence?
People who have put in years studying them can show things about them. The fact that so many texts written by so many different people so many thousands of years apart fit so well together, while it may not be proof in itself, certainly stands that group of books out from other similar writings.
But some like JM go in believing and come out not believing.
Without trying to make any assumptions about JM, her story makes it sound like her belief was on shaky ground going in and that she was not taught by believers. In other words, her belief was not reinforced but her skepticism was magnified.
RC Sproul had a similar experience but his outcome was different because he knew an intellectual believer who was familiar with the arguments made by the skeptical teachers and was ready with honest, intellectual answers.That's not at all what I got from her story. Are you saying she just wasn't properly indoctrinated?
No, I'm not saying that at all. Maybe I need to go back and read it again. What I remember (and my memory may not be accurate) is that even before she got to Biola (where, again if I remember correctly, the teachers there seemed mostly antagonistic to thinking that the Bible is historically accurate) she was already having serious doubts. Plenty of people who have been "properly indoctrinated" in all KINDS of beliefs have doubts.
But as I said to JM, if I'm wrong then I'm sorry and I apologize.
I guess you and I were not properly indoctrinated, it has nothing to do with critical thinking at all.
Based on what I read. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry and I apologize.
I'm genuinely interested in knowing what part of everything I've said makes you think that my belief and faith was shaky at best from the get-go. Was I a skeptic from a young age, yes. that much is true. I know a lot of skeptics who, for whatever reason, are still believers. I don't think skepticism in itself necessarily means that your beliefs are on perilously shaky ground in and of itself.
In addition, when I first made my statement about a hyperbolic Jesus who spoke in parables and the dangers of coming in and deciding which parables are parables and which ones are not, I believe that you agreed with me - and in fact that's what led you to state that we're so similar yet reach such vastly different conclusions - yet Augustine uses the exact same statement to tell me that i never knew Jesus at all, and never had a true faith and basically I don't know what I'm talking about. Isn't that odd to you?Rather than attempt to defend myself beyond what I already have, let me say that I'm remembering as best I can and at this point tracking down the original story would be a lot of effort. Again, if I'm wrong then I apologize.
I don't think I agreed that Jesus used hyperbole, although I'm having trouble remembering exactly what was said, and there have been so many posts betwixt and between that I'm having trouble tracking down that one as well.
Let me respond to this one too, Julie. It is my fervent belief that my God created me with a brain, and one that works pretty damn well. I'm smart. I might not go so far as to say I'm a genius or an intellectual, but I'm intelligent. I am a natural skeptic. I don't accept anything without question. I really suck at blind obedience (aggravates the hell out of my husband...lol).
That said, I have questioned God from the moment I was introduced to Him. I've questioned the leaders of his Church even more so. Just a tip? They don't like that.
What it boils down to is this: Your faith is based not upon the fact that you question, but on how comfortable you are with the answers you receive. Nothing has been able to make me walk away from my faith completely, not even deep and meaningful friendships with people who have none. I'll admit that I have turned my back on God more than once, but something, in the deepest part of me has always believed two things: that He exists and that He is personally concerned with my well-being.
God doesn't have a problem with skeptics. He made us to think, to rationalize, to wonder, to question. It's absurd for any of us to assume that God gets angry when we do those things. Do our earthly parents get angry when we ask questions in order to learn and understand more deeply? Nope.
So, why would my Heavenly Father be any different?Why is it I never EVER have anything to argue with your posts?
Because I'm just that damned reasonable.
And cute too, dontcha think?
Real or fictitious, no gods or Santa have ever been shown to exist. Yes, you are making exactly the same mistake.
Are you a woman as a few have stated? Cause that would make you a hypocrite and a liar, the very thing you daily accuse others of.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
No, I am not a woman. Are you happy now? Will you stop focusing on individuals here, as the forum rules are set out and begin focusing on the subject matter? This is not a chat room.
On the contrary, that is exactly what it is. Ppl talking to one another. I think it is you who mistakenly thought it was a platform to criticize and bully.
Yes, this is a platform criticizing. It is not a personal chat room, so stop immediately.
Then, do that by PM or email, not here.
Um, I have a God, as you might recall, and you aren't Him.
You'll forgive me if I don't obey you.No, you don't, you have indoctrinated to believe in gods.
Then, we'll have report you and you'll get banned. It's your choice.Report me for talking to ppl on threads? If you don't want me talking to you, please don't address me again.
You really have no idea what forums are used for, do you? They are not for talking to people, that is what a chat room is for, please educate yourself or be reported for breaking forum rules.
Far be it from me to misunderstand a point someone is trying to make... but it sure sounds like you're threatening me. Are you now controlling what we say here? Am I the only one who makes personal remarks to other hubbers? I'm pretty sure that is how community is established. As Ive said, if you don't like my communication style, I encourage you not to address me. I will kindly return the favor.
Why would it make him/her a hypocrite? For him/her to be a hypocrite by claiming to be a man he would have to be making comments relative to sexuality and or demeaning women. I've never seen him/her do that.
<tap. tap.> Is this thing on?
Are you male or female ATM?
Okay. Let's see. How could they be helped with food for the rest of their lives? Why is there no food? A drought may be. If there is a God how would He solve this problem? May you are the person who can help them. Here is what you do. First become a Christian and go to those children. Then preach to them and make them Christians. Then along with them pray that the Lord will make that land fertile. Then the Lord will answer the prayer and the children will have food. Are you (who is prepared to teach God some morals) willing to do that for those children? I bet the answer. You talk as though you are an atheist only because God does not answer to those children. Rather you are just using them as an excuse.
Another View
A small child near my house is stricken with poverty and does not have food to eat. He cries daily. Shall we blame God for not answering prayer? Or shall we blame his father who drinks up all the money he earns and brings up nothing home?OR you could remain an atheist and go over to these countries and communities where children are starving and simply give them food without forcing them to convert first. You know, that works just as well - and a group of fellow atheists and I do that very thing at least once a week. We give sandwiches and meals to the homeless without making them sit through a sermon first. It's immoral to hold food (which is desperately needed) hostage until someone sits through preaching about any god.
To piggyback off this statement (sorry JM) it is easier to get someone to listen to you if you fulfill their need first.
Actually, plenty of Christians also give freely without "forcing" or even asking for conversions. Mother Theresa comes to mind.
An atheist can go to the children and feed them. An atheist can also teach them how and where they can get food or make food for themselves. With everything else, you are operating under the assumption that those children or their parents do not know about God nor how to pray. Christianity is worldwide.
This point will not get very far.. Getit will have an answerSimple, if Christians continue to claim God answers their prayers, then we must blame God for not answering other prayers.
Do you understand this incredibly simple concept?
If there are no gods, then yes, we look at the parents situation. This is called reality.What a ludicrous question to ask. God can solve this problem the same way He "helps" people in America find their car keys and go on vacation.
Oh no! Don't try to pull that switch. This is not about me. This is about your incompetent, silly, "all powerful" God, who has no problem using his power to help Americans go on vacation, but turns his back on desperate children, allowing them to starve to death. I don't claim to be a God, therefore, stop asking me to do this silly God's work for him.
That's probably the most useless psychotic drivel that I have ever heard.
No Sir. It is you making the excuses.....excuses for the psychopathic behavior of your immoral worthless God.
Of course you won't blame your imaginary God, because you have been rigidly programmed to hold God blameless for not producing what you Christians actually claim He can, but give him credit for any positive thing that results from the actions of mere human beings.
In this scenario, I would hold God accountable. I hold God accountable, because He could just bypass the irresponsible father and just......feed the child. WHY IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOUR "ALL POWERFUL" GOD TO DO?
No one does. Actually beth did you that 'A Troubled Man" does not really exist. It is just a bug in the program posting something meaningless from time to time.
augustine72
According to me a Christian someone who follows Christ. Could anyone who denies what Christ has said be called a Christian?
============
me ... Here is the problem. You are taking the word of a group of men who in 326AD, decided which letters to include in their group of writtings that we today call the bible.
There are many other letters where Jesus is said to have said other things
that were not included
That group of men, mostly Roman citizens, desided for you which things Jesus did say and what he didn't say. Our bible didn't fall from heaven as some people would want me to believe.
However, I do believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and that Jesus was the messiah spoken of in the OT. But I don't believe everything that everyone says that Jesus said.It is easy to take any book of truth (If there is such a thing) and inject just a few untruths causing the whole thing to be NOT understandable. It is written that in 96AD John had a vision of a religion rising up out of the sea that will do just that.
Jesus once said, "It takes just a little levin to spoil the whole barrel".
Religious teachings can be 98% correct and depending upon what that 2% inaccuracy is about, can spoil the whole barrel. If we could find that 2% and remove it, we would really have something special.I can agree with this.. There are three problems with this though.. 1) That two percent might be ingrained and filtered so deeply throughout the Bible that there is no way of knowing which one it is.
2) Since the whole book is written by man "inspired by God" we have no idea exactly how much is actually incorrect (Yes I know Rad, JM, ATM, and Getit are going to be all over this one.. LOL)
3) It's a catch-22.. The people that are willing to look at the glaring flaws in the bible don't believe in it enough to separate the real from the false (Say it with me atheists "Because it's all false".. LOL) and the ones that believe in it believe in the whole thing to the point that they do not believe there to be any falsehoodsI would probably take it a step further. If there are some admitted falsehoods within the bible, and you claim that it is all "inspired" by god, who is in a position to judge what is true and what is false? You'll still have the warring denominations saying "this part is false", "NO, this part is false" and the fundamentalists that say NONE of it is false. Whereas atheists simply sit there and say that, if some parts of the bible are called into question, why not begin to question the whole thing in its entirety? Why live your life according to a book where has become impossible to distinguish fact from tampering, etc. Most of the atheists I know typically tend to know the bible better than the majority of believers. The problem with admitting that there may be some human error in the bible is that you cherry pick the bits that you like and ignore the bits that make you feel uncomfortable - which is exactly what we see happening today. I'm simply stating that it makes sense to take the next logical step, and start questioning the whole thing. Follow the evidence - wherever it leads you. If the evidence does nothing to support your beliefs, then you have to start examining your beliefs instead of simply digging in, sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "nonononono it has to be true because i already believe it, and i WANT it to be"
Fair enough points. But when you mention evidence, are you talking about biblical evidence that strengthens your points, or physical, evidence (that can be applied to all)? because evidence from perspective can (and often does) strengthen beliefs (or lack thereof). For instance, My beliefs are based on my understanding of the Bible and various possibilities of interpretation and I see real world application that strengthens my belief. I'm not saying my beliefs are the correct ones for everyone, but they are working for me at this point in my life
That's actually not entirely accurate. The Dan Brown-ization of Church History has not served anybody well, whether they agree with the Bible or not. The Bible and what is authentically from the actual Apostles and has value had been shaping for literally hundreds of years before the Church Fathers decided to go with what, essentially, had already been accepted as canon by both leaders and laypeople far and wide. The one exception was Revelation. The idea that the "gospels" of Thomas and Mary and Judas were ruthlessly suppressed and represent equally valid claims is just no true.
So, why did the Church go out of its way to slander the name of, Mary Magdalene?
That's a loaded question and I hope I answer it fairly and accurately. I'm not as up on this stuff as I used to be. If I remember correctly, there was a pope who decided that the six or seven different John's in the NT were just three different men and the three or four Mary's were all Mary Magdalene (except of course for Mary, the mother of Jesus.) I'm not sure what exactly you mean by the slander, I don't want to make any false assumptions but I'm pretty sure that most of what people "know" about Mary Magdalene (including the supposed fact that she was supposed to be a prostitute) came from that time. Also, if I remember correctly that was in the Middle Ages, not before the sacking of Rome.
That may, or may not be, the extent of it. But, there is the problem of using the canonized stories as the Bible to back up erroneous reasoning. That problem persists today.
Certain books were declared scripture. Why? Because they suited the structure those in power hoped to build. Leaving out other testimony helped do that. Since their power play didn't get accepted by all they had to go one step further. A campaign against the other apostles. It apparently worked. This pope wasn't an isolated incident. It was part of a progression of hammering down on any who didn't accept the Church as the ultimate authority on all things spiritual.
The writings accepted as the only words worthy of being included as scripture are so tainted with political corruption and personal interpretation by the powers that clawed their way to the top of the Church one is left to wonder why two thousand years later people still willingly accept the hijacking. They refuse to think outside of the box given to them by greed and corruption and insist on referring to that box as the definitive word of God. As if there is something holy in the history of organized Christianity.Apparently Irenaeus pronounced there were to be only four gospels.
In his polemic Against the Heresies, "It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."Most or all of the major church leaders were gathered together in 326 at Nicaea. This meeting was at Constantine’s request. There was much debate over which books would be accepted. Constantine presided over this meeting and he settled any disputes. This whole idea was his and its whole purpose was to unite the Roman Empire where religious beliefs were concerned. He presided over this council and after the organization of “THE Universal” church, the emperor continued to be the Ultimate Authority. This is how so many COMPROMISES were Made with the “Word of God”.
Who has the authority to compromise the word of God? Answer ? The Emperor!
Why would God allow this to happen? Well? I don’t know why he did? But God authorized this to happen. 230 years earlier, A vision was given to John that this would happen. It is written that this organization would be given power to blaspheme for 42 months. 42 months in prophesy is not the same as 42 of our months.I'm aware of the history of the Church. Which is why I wonder how people can follow religion so blindly, and argue in its defense so vehemently. Belief is one thing. You really can't argue it. But, why accept dead men's arguments? Why defend the indefensible?
I suppose your argument that this was prophesied makes sense to some. But, wouldn't it make more sense to declare it all suspect? To simply say it is too late to know, for sure? How can you pick and choose which to consider divinely inspired and which is blasphemy? Don't you think a God would have wanted people to know the truth? What higher purpose can be served by orchestrating such a charade?
The only problems with that analysis are: A) the opposite views were making just as major of a power play and were just as "not accepted." If you absolutely insist on looking at history as one long string of conspiracies (except for fluoride, that one's real
) then you still have to say that it wasn't a matter of deciding truth so much as which side could hammer hardest. In order to make your hypothesis work it has to be looked at that way. B) It doesn't really jibe with the facts. Yes, there were competing ideas about Christ and who He was but the four Gospels that were canonized not only all agreed on who He claimed to be (unlike the other books, which could vary from a little to a lot on who Jesus actually was) but had been historically accepted by almost all churches up to that point as being from actual eyewitnesses or interviews with actual eyewitnesses, unlike Thomas (let alone Mary or Judas.)
I don't want to make a knee-jerk response to that, I may be reading it one way and you may mean it another. My first response is that, in fact, we have so many fragments of these books throughout history that we can quite confidently submit that these are not "tainted" versions. And in many ways, the Council WAS "thinking outside the box" because people forget just how ingrained Docetism was in many places.Politics serves politicians. Rarely anyone else. Has it occurred to you that the reason you have so many fragments of some and not others can be compared to modern day Islam; where anything which doesn't support their narrow understanding is routinely destroyed?
And your claim that both sides would be hammering is a little naive. The religion you choose to follow was backed by the Roman Empire. That would make any opposition lop sided in the beginning. By the time Rome fell, the damage had already been done. Power entrenched. Possible truth suppressed for political gain would continue to be suppressed. I'm afraid we'll never know the truth.Yes, politics does serve politicians but for the fragments to all be of a political nature means that would mean that the church would have had to have a unity from its early days that the very existence of the Council of Nicea would argue never happened, even if we didn't have all this other proof. Political views serve political theorists and the much more likely and historically accurate explanation is that since mass printing didn't exist 2000 years ago, supplies often dictated that bits and pieces were copied instead of the whole. Besides, the fact that these are called "fragments" and not "documents" more than implies that they are pieces of something longer.
The assertion that the religion I follow was backed by the Roman Empire is itself naïve on two counts: 1) Constantine was no theologian and evidence indicates that if the Docetists or the Athanasians had made more noise than what we consider today as Orthodox, then those would have been the views backed by the Roman Empire. Constanine wanted unity more than purity.
2) I'm a Protestant, which means that although some would argue my religious views are closer to what the Church Fathers themselves held the fact is that my religion was and is NOT backed by any version of the "Roman Empire."I never said Constantine determined anything. But he had an agenda for calling the Council, I'm sure. Had his agenda not been successful, history might have played out differently.
But, the Bible you use was developed by the Catholic Church and reaffirmed during the Restoration. To claim otherwise is difficult to follow. You willingly accept the censorship of documents, which is your choice. But, considering the history of the Church...ancient and recent...I still can't fathom why anyone persists in assuming that the Bible is the unadulterated word of a god.What censorship? I can walk into any bookstore and find those documents you claim were censored on a shelf along with geezer analysis about how these are equally valid Christian documents. The problem is that they contradict so much. And their authenticity is at best difficult to establish (unlike, say, the Gospel of John) and has often been discredited.
Please stop making assumption about me.
Including the assumption that I just mindlessly accept whatever my church tells me.I've read your posts. From what I have gleaned, you share a fairly typical take on the Bible. I can only go by what you write. If that is making assumptions, color me guilty.
I would think if you've read my posts that you'd know I have thought about and struggled with and researched these things. If my take on the Bible is indeed "fairly typical" I didn't just accept it from someone else. I have said often and continue to maintain that God gave us brains for a reason and He expects us to use them.
However you arrived there, it sounds to me as if you have accepted the standard Christian take on it. It doesn't really matter if you accepted it initially, or waited until you felt that you had researched it.
Sounds to me as if I wasn't making assumptions so much as you were splitting hairs.
Obviously they are not seeing it Beth. You are talking about missing your family for 10 years and they toned it down to the level of taking a vacation.
you're missing the point. I think it's ludicrous to say that an eternal, all-powerful god has the time and energy to ensure that a family can get together and spend time together because THOSE prayers are important, while simultaniously ignoring the prayers of a woman about to be raped, a child about to be molested or a million people who are a breath away from dying of starvation. To say that god is concerned enough to bring about vacation plans for fun and family gatherings but not concerned enough to actually step in and intervene in the above situations is repugnant and disgusting. I think Sam Harris said it best:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSdGr4K4qLgI disagree. I don't think they are really toning it down. They are pointing out that it could be deemed insensitive for some Christians to talk about how blessed they are because God answered their prayers when there may be other Christians who are every bit as faithful that aren't getting their prayers answered. One of the biggest issues is that some Christians judge others for prayers not being answered stating they must have done something wrong for God not to answer their prayers.
And then the sick feel guilt along with the physical pain. I've seen this first hand.
So have I, Rad.. So have I. And it sickens me as a believer to see some of the behavior of fellow believers.. Especially when they try to turn it around on me and say I'm not a real believer and am headed to Hell too
don't you find it disturbing (and a little amusing) to see a lot of fundamentalists that claim that THEY'RE right, and everyone is going to hell who doesn't agree with them? Yet if you say the same thing to them, that's judgment and evil and how dare you, etc. It's crazy, isn't it?
I think you have nothing to complain about, you have chosen to be one of them and must support them or be labeled a hypocrite.
I have chosen to be a Christian, true, but that does not mean that I must support anyone who condemns anyone for believing differently than they do. That does not make me a hypocrite. That makes me someone that recognizes and accepts that everyone has their own opinions and beliefs and whatever they believe is working for their individual life. Every situation is like a thumbprint.. No two are the same. Each of us have our own place in the world and have to live a live the best way that we can for ourselves.
It also doesn't make you a Christian, then, because Christians are commanded to condemn others who don't believe as they do.
Check the Bible, you're not a Christian.The bible says judge not lest ye be judged yourself. For by which you judge others you will also be judged. If I condemn someone else then I leave myself open to be condemned. But all of this is irrelevant to you since you deem it all to be baloney
Following your God's commands is not judging, it is loving.
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
Cause of his name and his pic. He would be portraying himself to be someone he wasn't. Gee whiz, you don't have to argue with *every thing I say... I didn't even bring up God in that post.
Most of everything you say is of a personal nature towards someone here, stop it immediately.
JMcFarland wrote
The problem with admitting that there may be some human error in the bible is that you cherry pick the bits that you like and ignore the bits that make you feel uncomfortable - which is exactly what we see happening today. I'm simply stating that it makes sense to take the next logical step, and start questioning the whole thing. Follow the evidence - wherever it leads you. If the evidence does nothing to support your beliefs, then you have to start examining your beliefs instead of simply digging in,
I agree and I have done exactly that, for over a decade I followed one train of thought attempting to prove it wrong. And there were many times I would come to a verse that at first glance seemed to do just that. But upon further examination, that verse didn’t actually say what I thought that it did. A preconceived idea of what I was taught that it said stands in the way of our understanding of that which is actually written.
I haven’t found anyone that wants to examine this concept. The concept that I am speaking of is that every time a span of time is mentioned in prophesy, there is a mathematical equation comparing the prophetic time with actual earth time. And this equation should be used every time.
As I said before, I spent over a decade following this train of thought.
The problem is that if this concept is true ?? Most of prophesy has been fulfilled exactly as stated when we remove every interpretation of man that has been programmed into our minds.
The BIGGIE, that no one wants to consider is that the second coming of Christ has happened as Jesus said that it would; In THAT generation. When we reject this as a possibility? We can’t understand any of the rest of prophesy.
A little Levin spoils the whole barrel
If we could believe this .... and keep searching for why ???? we would come to other conclusions such as universal salvation. Such as, before we were these physical bodies we were spiritual beings. We spend a short time here, kinda like as if we are on vacation. When vacation is over, we step out of these bodies, and return home.
However, we are not supposed to know this, knowing these things would change everything.
It is impossible to express this concept adequately.
It has been asked Last night I dreamed I was a butterfly OR in reality, am I a butterfly dreaming I am a man. If I am a butterfly (?) what would happen if I knew it is only a dream that I am a man. How would knowing this affect “The dream”- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
"A small child near my house is stricken with poverty and does not have food to eat. He cries daily. Shall we blame God for not answering prayer? Or shall we blame his father who drinks up all the money he earns and brings up nothing home? "
Blame your self for not bringing him a crust of bread.Thanks Beth. I'll back you up on that one 100%
As Ive stated, I think we have the resources to feed the hungry and shelter the poor.
You missed the point entirely, of course. The point is that if you praise God for answering your prayers, which you did, then it is only fair to blame God for not answering far more important prayers.
Do you not see the difference between planning a vacation and a child dying of starvation.
No, I didn't think you would.So why are the poor not being fed? But why were circumstances circumvented so that your vacation plans fit perfectly into the circumstances? If God can manipulate events so that you receive a miracle, why can't He do the same for someone who is way more desperate for a "miracle"than you are?
God has given us all we need to help others.
If you have a few cents a day, and you don't give it to someone in need, don't blame God, especially when you say you don't believe in him.
worldvision.com
http://icareaboutorphans.org/?Menu=5&Article=21
https://www.justgive.org/donations/help-homeless.jsp
http://www.dosomething.org/tipsandtools … oupkitchenThen, God obviously had nothing to do with planning your vacation, either. See how that works?
Why don't you actually answer my question Beth, and stop presenting this strawman argument....which is completely absurd. What an OBVIOUS evasive ploy. How can you be this blind to reality? Why does blind belief cause people to be so deceitful?
Please show some respect, and answer my questions, instead of blindly thinking of excuses for your imaginary and worthless God. Thank you.I apologize for suggesting there was something you personally could do to help a suffering world when it is so easy to blame a God you don't believe in, whilst doing nothing.
Please restate your question for me so I can come up with an answer that you will find more pleasing.It is so easy to praise God you believe in when the world is suffering and He takes the time to plan your vacation, instead. What a loving God to have helped you and allowed thousands to die of starvation.
My issue is that you are unconsciously putting the onus upon me, WHEN THE ONUS IS ON YOUR GOD. Hence you are desperately trying to change the entire premise, and creating a strawman argument. Every last Christian on here(with the exception of Deepes)has done that.
Tell me why do Christians employ this deceitful tactic? I hope you realize that you are only assuaging the cognitive dissonance by desperately trying to change the premise.
This is the question. Please read it carefully. Thanks:
Getitrite Wrote:
You stated that circumstances were circumvented so that your vacation plans fit perfectly into the circumstances? If God can manipulate circumstances so that you receive a miracle, why can't He do the same for someone who is way more desperate for a "miracle" than you are?
Please note that this has nothing to do with my donating, or not, to charity. That would be another debate altogether. And I'm not blaming God. I don't believe in God. But you do. I'm trying to understand why, in the face of all this buffoonery, you still think it makes sense to believe.Apparently, according to a few people here (Both atheists and Christians) I am not a Christian (despite my repeated comments regarding my belief).. Go figure. I guess since I disagree with how some people interpret the bible I am a traitor or a hypocrite.
Perhaps it's time to come over to the dark side Luke. We except everyone and anyone. LOL
Agreed. It's worse than when Christians try to tell me that I know nothing about their beliefs, although I was "saved" at the age of ten, and went to Sunday School all throughout my youth.
Ha. ATM just admitted he's a little green jockey on another forum and you claim to have arms like me.
Well I can honestly say I've got... well that would be a lie, but... crap, I got short changed.
You got a wife that loves you the way you are.. That's something..LOL
The poor thing is deluded. But don't tell her. She's 4" taller than me with legs that go up to my chin. My Dad always told me to marry someone ugly that way when she leaves you, you won't care. But I didn't adhere to that nonsense. I found the prettiest smartest deluded person I could find.
That's my reality too. I still can't believe that my wife agreed to marry me.
Love born out of delusion...HMMM where have you heard that before?
I can see your point. But I think the difference is that Your beliefs changed to lack of belief so they say you never truly believed in the first place. With me, I read the bible and ask about different possibilities in meaning so I'm not a believer because I don't hold to the most commonly agreed meanings of what is written in the bible.
It's kinda like someone mentioned earlier, if you truly had relationship with God there is no way you could become atheist, while with me If I truly believed then I'd take the words at face value as written. There are few that can say that maybe the fact that it isn't always understood at face value is because of possible misinterpretation
By the way... Thanks
You're not alone. There are a few folks here who call themselves Christians and are as honest as the day is long, not one word of deceit enters these pages from them. When questioned as to how they manage to make any sense of the contradictions they know themselves only to well, they can't explain it and admit to being dumbfounded with the entire situation.
Yes, they claim to have conversations with God, ask and get anything they want, but when asked to ask God to supply evidence to the pathetic crap-headed people they claim it doesn't work that way when they just said it works that way. It's very confusing and entertaining at the same time.
No, we blame God for answering your prayers and not theirs.
Blame yourself for poor planning, then.
What you are doing is very good. But that does not offer them a permanent solution for them, does it?
If their famine is caused by drought, then the only permanent solution to give them relief is for it to rain. Feeding millions of people could be accomplished simply by a bit of rain - so where is your god? Is he too busy finding car keys, healing eczema and planning vacations to be able to make it rain halfway across the world? That's ludicrous when you claim that your god is everywhere at once and all powerful. If I were a Christian, I would implore my friends to stop praying for stupid things that they could accomplish on their own and free up god's resources to truly do something beneficial on a global scale - not a single person scale. Can god only hear one prayer at once, and prayers for vacations and key-finding take priority over the prayers of someone being raped, tortured, abused, starved, dying of thirst or suffering needlessly due to a simple lack of rain?
Why would you need to interpret something that is plain in the Bible? I had posted three verses from the Bible to JM. How do you interpret them?
I think that when you examine the supposed words of jesus, you have to consider how jesus chose to communicate. He spoke in parables. One of my professors referred to jesus as the hyperbolic lord, and I think it's dangerous to pick and choose passages that are literal and those that are simply parables that happen to coincidentally fit what you want to believe without examining his teachings as a whole. That being said, I think it's somewhat clear that Jesus spoke of hell dozens of time, whether it was hyperbole or parables or not - and the doctrine of hell is what makes the NT just as immoral (if not more so) than the old testament was with its genocide, it's slavery and it's death-penalty justice for almost any supposed "crime"
I'm sometimes a little amazed that you and I can use the same reasoning to reach such wildly different conclusions.
It wasn't meant as an insult. I just often read what you're writing and think, "That's what I've been trying to say!" but then you'll reach a conclusion about the "immorality" of the Bible and think, "How did she get there?"
We all have the tendency to complete each others thoughts in a different manner though our final answers are different. JM's opinion of the "immorality of the bible" is not always too far off the mark. There are some things that are in the bible that are considered to be immoral and illegal in modern times. The bible is a very difficult read at times in some areas but practical in others (for those that believe in it and can figure out a good way to apply it to their lives in a manner other than fearfully)
Are you saying that the Bible is immoral, at least in parts?
I said there are events in there that could be considered immoral today. I admit that there are some parts that I struggle with the culture at the time because I have a hard time picturing being part of that time. Let me ask you this, Do you consider slavery to be moral? Do you consider genocide to be moral? Would you sell your daughter to a man that wanted to marry her?
I've actually dealt with those questions to some degree. There are parts that I have struggled with and continue to wonder about. The most ridiculous aspect of so many claims about the immorality of the Bible is that people want to take one little chunk of it and say, "See! The Bible teaches that we should have slavery/polygamy/genocide!" It isn't true when you look at the whole thing in context. I'm not saying that God didn't tell his people to slaughter other groups in Genesis, although in historical context the fact is that they might well have been slaughtered themselves and acted preemptively. But for someone to take that and say the Bible teaches we should go out and slaughter other groups means they don't understand the whole Bible.
You sound strikingly like the person in another forum justifying violence and war in the Qur'an.
That would be an interpretation. You of all people should know that I don't do that. Thanks.
But you just justified the bibles violence as they do. I'm aware you are not violent and I'm away Jesus is said to spoken against violence so why justify it?
That's a much longer discussion. Maybe even a forum of its own. Maybe I should start one so it can get hijacked!
Then perhaps, we should view the context of the Bible, in which slavery/polygamy/genocide, etc. were indeed part and parcel to the level of the morals, ethics and culture of that time, a snapshot, so to speak, of how people thought and what they believed, then.
That of course, is not the same way we behave now, hence the snapshot of that time cannot be compared with modern day life. Surely, a omnipotent god would have known we would evolve and change over time, and would have crafted the Bible to encapsulate our evolution.I love how you pick and choose when to answer whole posts and when to slice them up.
You're not really responding to the whole of what I said. And yes, I did touch upon what you are saying in your post. Go back and read it. Slavery, genocide and polygamy were indeed the norm for most if not all of the near Eastern people groups of that time. In fact, one thing that appears time and time again in the Bible is God telling people how wrong they are to do the same things that other groups do. But genocide wasn't the norm, even for the Jews. I'm not saying it didn't happen, yes of course there were a couple of instances where God told the people, or Moses told the people, to kill everyone. And exactly how many times did that happen? As opposed to even the rest of the OT, let alone the Bible as a whole?It's called synthesis. The process involves exposing and analyzing the qualifiers within a post or statement.
For example, the qualifiers in this post are where you agreed with me that slavery, etc. were being practiced at that time, representing a snapshot of how people behaved, then. You then go on to agree there were instances where God commanded genocide.
The real meat comes when you ask how many times it happened. The answer is simple, even once would be one time too many to accept the God of Abraham as any kind of loving god.Synthesis, huh? You mean where the thesis and the antithesis are resolved in a synthesis? Is that what you call this?
Context is everything and yours was very interesting indeed.No, it's the breaking down of the qualifiers so that one may attempt an understanding of the whole.
That's not synthesis, that's analysis and application.
Which wouldn't be so bad if the application of your analysis were more accurate (as it is applied to me.)
You struggle with some of those parts? Why?
Because my finite human mind still wants to understand things and my American upbringing won't allow me to simply accept "because" as an answer. No matter who says it.
Which is why I believe that God expects us to use our brains,
And ATM, this plays into that. An omnipotent God most assuredly did foresee changes in human thinking (that's actually in the Bible) and has given us the means of exploring what has been said and making up our own minds.And what understanding are you trying to gain from those parts that you are struggling with?
A deeper appreciation of God.
I hope this is not some kind of psychoanalysis.
Of course, many have rejected the Bible because it is not only immoral, it teaches it's followers to be immoral. Those followers have no clue as to what is moral and what is immoral because they were never taught morals.
and when we do get back to email (which I hope to do soon, but life has seemed to take a drastic left turn from ordinary lately, and it looks like that has happened to you as well from some of your other posts) I would be more than happy to discuss this with you in depth as well as your own experiences.
It's not as amazing to me. It's interesting that even though we can agree with some things, how those things we examine strengthen our belief, change the reason for our belief, or remove our belief. Three perspectives, three different conclusions, but still agree on some things.. Really interesting at times
But the sad thing is that according to the outside world, Christians and atheists aren't supposed to agree on anything and two Christians are supposed to agree on everything biblically. It's supposed to be "us" against "them", which is a problem because we cannot reach people if we are attacking them. People can make an informed rational decision on whether to believe or not if we present the information to them, but some Christians make that decision easier for some by beating people over the head and trying to force feed the word to others then finally resorting to threats and other attacks
You need to interpret some things in the bible because since there are different definitions of words you have to gain an understanding of the context of the scripture. Just because a million people agree on one meaning because they are looking at the most common definition doesn't make it plain or the correct definition in context.
And I apologize.. Remind me of the scriptures please
There isn't a short answer. I'll just say for now that the OT came first and should be used for a foundation. The way in which we interpret the NT must fit within the boundaries set by the OT. The NT is an extension of the Old, and not a complete over-hall as some people want to see it.
As you said in the previous post... "Why would you need to interpret something that is plain in the Bible"? I believe that we can not understand the NT properly unless we first understand the prophesies of the OT which point to those events which are described in the NT. I think that the book of Daniel is a great place to begin; chapter nine in particular. This I believe is the ONLY place in scriptures that gives us a timeline comparison so we can better understand prophesy. Imagine reading a world history book having no idea as to the dates and chronological order in which the events happened. Why would understanding of scripture be any different?
In 538-539 BC Gabriel tells Daniel that after 62 weeks the Messiah shall be cut off (killed). Approx 568 years later Jesus was killed. In my opinion, this is the key to better understanding of the NT, and those prophesy which are given in the book of Revelation. It is also the most ignored and/or misinterpreted book in the bible. When we begin any story with misinterpretations, the end result is an even more misinterpreted conclusion
I don't understand why you are treating me like an enemy. First I did not call them lies you did. Here is what you said "I realized that I had been told a lot of lies growing up" I was only asking about those lies. But see how you have misunderstood me.
It is the responsibility of a church to educate its members on truth, clarify their doubts, bring about a growth in faith of its members, bring about spiritual growth etc. If a member of a church feels that she was lied and has lost her faith, then don't you think that, that tells something about the church?
Also I said nothing about your college.
I had posted such a big post to make myself clear, but you still insist on painting me black. I don't know what to say. I have only this to say. Please read a persons post carefully and with an open heart before judging him and insulting him.If you want people to view your messages without any preconceived bias, you might want to extend the same courtesy to others. I can go back and re-post your messages if you'd like, but everyone participating in the conversation can remember that when you first started the discussion you insisted on more than one occasion that I was never truly saved at all if I was now an atheist. Now you have reversed your position multiple times and tried to approach me "nicely". When you come at someone right off the bat and start making accusations and judgments and then change tactics halfway through the conversation, you have to anticipate that some of that former baggage is going to seep through. Do you not understand that concept? Do I really need to go back and find your first string of messages to me? You seem to me like someone who wants to find someone to blame. At first, you blamed me for not truly ever being a christian at all. Now you're blaming my church. You accused a fellow believer of being an atheist, and then went back and edited your post to make it seem less-judgmental (after you were called out on it multiple times). You've said that other christians who do not believe in hell are not true christians. But you get offended when someone has an opinion of you or doesn't feel like opening up to you because you think they're judging you? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your own behavior and the way that you've chosen to approach people in this conversation?
We all get to make choices. When you begin in a condescending and/or judgmental manner, it's hard to overcome those initial impressions by reversing your position and you won't see how the way that you've treated others has contributed and influenced how we speak to you. Until you can recognize this, then I don't see that anything is going to change. If I misunderstood you about the "lie" comment, then I apologize for that misunderstanding, but in the big picture can you truly blame me?
I am here forced to say that you are not debating at all but just fighting. Open your mind think before judging anyone.
You have accused me of saying that "so and so is not a true christian because they don't agree with my interpretation of scripture". I was just trying to make it clear to you that I did not do any interpretation here. The verses mentions words like "everlasting punishment", "everlasting fire" etc. If you know to read English you will will understand these words. There is no interpretation needed there. What Jesus says here is plain here. Anyone who does not AGREE WITH what JESUS says plainly here cannot be a Christian.
Why don't you read posts a little more clearly?and again, I'm forced to remind you that you're the one that came into this forum that was already in progress and started throwing judgments around. Have you ever heard that you reap what you sow? When you come into a conversation in that manner, you're likely to get the same attitude back. That's not too difficult to understand.
The bible was not written in english. I read greek, latin and hebrew. Do you? Have you examined the translations of these words for yourself and looked at the contact and compared it to other passages that use the same words? Sure, the english may be clear to you - but it's hardly the consensus of all biblical scholars and teachers.
The hypocrisy in your first sentence is appalling that you can't see it. There's so much I could say, but I'll just use your own words. Perhaps you should open your mind before judging others.Matthew 7:1-8 keeps popping back into my head for some reason.
This is one of the issues with language in general. If something keeps getting passed along as the common universal definition things get lost in translation and leads to misinterpretation. It gets even harder to break when the same thing is passed over and over for years. People take things too literally as based on the most commonly used definition and potentially misses the whole message. I tried to explain how I interpreted a specific scripture and was told by both sides that I didn't know what I was talking about and they had no idea of how I came to the understanding that I did.. apparently indoctrination (at times) works on both sides of belief.
There goes that scripture again
For how long would an atheist do that for those children? Would they feed those children till the children grow old and die? What they need is a permanent solution. If an atheist feed them a few times, all he is providing is a temporary relief.
A major problem that I find in many is that they fail to understand whom the post is directed to and for what purpose. Rather than understanding the intention of the post if one were to dissect every word in the post the debate would not reach anywhere.
My intention behind the post was to show the person that he is just using this as an excuse to support his belief that God does not exist, and not really because he is concerned.and you're still making assumptions about people and trying to twist them up into fitting your preconceived ideal. It doesn't work that way. That's not open and honest debate - or even conversation. Since you accuse practically everyone of twisting your words around, perhaps you should examine your words first. If you think that everyone has a problem misinterpreting what you're saying, then it's likely (in psychological principles) that it's not everyone else that has a problem - it's the way that you choose to express yourself in the first place.
I love how some of my quote was missing from that to further a negative point about atheists. This is why I have to keep my disclaimer
that seems to happen a lot. I love how parts of my quotes are strangely missing as well, and someone else likes to go back and edit their posts to make them seem less-judgy in the first place. Backpedaling is a strange phenomenon.
I also love how people say that they're going to do something, and then do the opposite. Our friend here has another forum thread going about how he's stopping debates with atheists, but it breaks his heart to see people going to hell. Then what does he do? Turn around and debate (or in his case, judge, not so much debate) atheists. I'm going to trip over the hypocrisy and damage myself somehow.
Please do me a favor. If you are going to quote anything I say, then Quote the whole thing. I also said atheists can TEACH them how and where to get and make food for themselves. I wouldn't expect an atheist to keep feeding anyone any more than i would expect a Christian to. I would expect anyone to maybe feed someone once or twice, but then teach them how to take care of themselves so that they won't starve..
Teach them how to fish..... You know the rest
I have always said that evidence for God is personal experience of God. That is what this debate is about.
The debate is not if it is proof.. But how does personal experience relate to proof. How does your personal experience relate to proof of God? Now I assume the question also is in how it would relate to proof of God for another person looking at it, but the question is about the relationship between personal experience and proof of God
That is why believing in gods is useless and why gods don't do anything.
Personal evidence? This is an indication that God is only in your mind. You have not way of him giving you any information that you don't already have. You're have conversation with yourself and you don't know it. We all have internal dialogue.
BTW - What makes you think all those starving or ill children aren't already Christian?
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
Wow, lotta stuff been going on round here... all I can say is, y'all need to stop with the personal chat or ATM is gonna rept you.
you really need to let that go. ATM doesn't single you out - he speaks to a lot of people that way. to take it as a personal affront, go about insinuating that he's reporting your hubs, making snide remarks and backhanded comments really does nothing for your case. One of you eventually has to be the more mature person, and if it's not going to be him, it's up to you. You've repeatedly said that you're going to ignore him, but continually mention him, call him out, chide, scold and encourage him by responding to him and mentioning him. It would be humorous if it wasn't...no...no it still is humorous to see two adults (one a bible believing christian with the turn the other cheek, love your enemies crap) behaving this way repeatedly. If you've had enough (as you've said several times) let it go already.
You're giving him exactly what he wants, you know. As long as he knows that he can get to you, there's simply no reason for him to stop, and you're feeding into the behavior that you claim to despise so much. Be the change you wish to see in the world.Would you like to silence me JM? It seems Im not allowed to say anything that you don't reprimand me for. I was making a point although I tend to do it with a sense of humor, which is that if the rules are the same for one of us, they are the same for all of us.
i'm just telling you the same thing that I would tell any friend or acquaintance. I'm trying to help by pointing out that you're contributing to the problem - not heading it off at the pass and just ignoring it.
somehow in your mind that turned into me trying to censor you? I don't think there's anything I said that was untrue or that numerous people wouldn't agree with. What part did you disagree with, exactly?
- Beth37posted 11 years ago0
You don't see it?
"you really need to let that go
it's up to you.
It would be humorous if it wasn't...no...no it still is humorous to see two adults (one a bible believing christian with the turn the other cheek, love your enemies crap) behaving this way repeatedly.
let it go already.
Be the change you wish to see in the world."
When I say I wonder what motivates you guys to start these threads etc. This is an actual query, however when I have asked this in the past, you say 'why are you overly sensitive?'
To which I basically don't respond cause they seem so unrelated to me that I just let it go, but yes, you do seem to want to criticize with the desire to censor, but whatever. Do your thang.again, I said nothing to you that I wouldn't say to any of my friends who were behaving the same way. It wasn't my intention to be judgmental. I was actually trying to help you see that you're encouraging this kind of behavior by participating in it because I didn't know if you saw things the way that other people do. I'm sorry it came off judgmental or poorly received.
I would say that there are errors in the Bible. You can call me anything for that. Many things will look like errors but only with proper study of the Bible would one know that there are no errors. Could I say that it is the atheists who wants the Bible to be false?
but people that DO study the bible admit that there are errors. There are lots of biblical scholars, both secular and religious that state that the bible has inconsistencies, errors and additions that did not appear until much, much later and their works/study are very well documented. Any amount of research will uncover that. The apologists are the ones that try to dismiss those errors, excuse them or otherwise justify them to try to reconcile them to the rest of scripture.
The problems with fellows like you can be seen here. First you expect God to be some kind of genie. No He is not. Second you expect Him to behave in a manner you want him to (i.e solve the problem of the children in one of the ways that you can digest and in your life time. If one operates this way he or she will not not understand the truth about God until they land in hell.
God creates a good world. Man sins and makes a mess of it. Now man wants to blame God!!!The problem is that your God has done NOTHING AT ALL to solve ANY problems. Anyone thinking that He has, is certainly delusional. So instead of answering any of my questions, at all, you have decided to post childish and empty threats. How deceptive, and immoral.
And round and round you go....regurgitating mindless drivel that has already been addressed....and debunked, while totally avoiding ALL questions. What kind of God would condone such evil deception? I'm sorry, but you should really look into worshiping a better God. This one is garbage.
Now I have to say this directly and I am sorry for doing so. You have never understood Christianity and Jesus Christ our Lord. YOU HAVE NOT. That is obvious by this post. So rather than saying you lost your faith now I am saying it to you plainly - you never had proper faith in Jesus.
You fail to understand what a parable is, you are unable to understand which of Jesus; words were parable and which were not, and you are dishonest in your debate.thankfully, my professors in college disagree with you entirely, and their beliefs about me carry a lot more weight than the beliefs of a stranger on the internet.
I have a question about this particular post. What exactly is 'proper faith?' Is it faith that never questions? It is faith that makes us set aside our God-given intellect and simply ignore anything and everything that doesn't resonate as real within us in the hope that our 'proper faith' is enough to convince everyone else that we are right, and know everything there is to know, about the most mysterious being in the universe? It is absurd and arrogant for any Christian, IMO, to imply that a person's faith is only 'proper' if it never wavers, if they never question, if they walk in blind obedience to everything that is handed down by their human teachers. To say that a person who has believed once, but no longer believes, never had 'proper faith' to begin with is, at the very least, judgmental, and at the worst, quite arrogant. A walk with God, or a choice to walk away from Him is an intensely personal thing. I am a believer and a Christian, but I have had periods in my life when I was angry with God, angry with what I considered to be irreconcilable contradictions in His Word, and completely angry at the heinous behavior of those who claimed not only to believe in Him, but to speak for Him.
It is an immature faith, IMO, that judges one who has sincerely tested her faith and found it so lacking that she is no longer able to hold on to it. It is not for any of God's children to judge another of His children, nor to believe for a second that it is within our power to demand that a person set aside an honest disbelief and attempt to force them into belief.
Faith is not fact. Want her to have a 'proper faith?' Show her the real God, the one that you believe exists. Perhaps seeing true faith IN ACTION will give her reason to see what we're doing as actual evidence for God. Perhaps not. But I don't recall God ever telling us to do anything but love her. JMcFarland has tested her faith and made a decision based on those results.
Have you?thank you very much, Mo. you're the only person here that found that post as repugnant as I did - or at least was vocal enough to stand up against it. I truly do appreciate it very much.
Emile R sorry I didn't see this yesterday You ask; What higher purpose can be served by orchestrating such a charade?
= - = - = -
me
The story of the tower of Babel comes to mind. What higher purpose could there be for confusing languages. According to the story, everyone agreed upon a single purpose and was building a tower. In this condition of the collective mind, ANY THING would be possible. So this condition of a collective mind was destroyed by confusing of languages. So the story goes.
If everyone in the world agreed upon any single thing, and how to achieve it, from that point on, anything would be possible. This would be a good thing … for a while, … but at some point in time ?????
While we are arguing about one thing we are not agreeing upon something else. And life here on this plane may be better off when some things are left alone. Sometimes we need to be distracted. Like when we put toys in front of a four year old child. We are giving them something to focus upon. If we didn't do this, what would they be thinking about?
It would seem that we need something to be distracted by.
This isn't a very good answer but is the best that I got.And why does God want us confused and distracted?
I don't know everything. Do you want anyone, your wife children, or anyone for that matter to know why you do everything that you do? I don't. If they did? many of the things I was wanting to do would never be accomplished. They would either do it first or keep me from doing it myself.
If your wife was purposely confusing and distracting you, would you not ask why?
You didn't answer my question! Cause if you did you would already have the answer for yours.
My wife and children no exactly what I'm doing and what my plans are. Can you answer mine?
That doesn't appear to be a very honest relationship. I would say you should talk to them rather than hiding and assuming some insidious plots on their part. They will probably surprise the hell out of you.
A proper faith is faith is one that cannot waver. Because it has been strengthened by God. It is a growing process. Faith is trusting in God. Never asking questions is not a true faith. In proper faith you do have questions but you trust God for answers and you study scripture. The Lord reveals the answer. By doing so the Lord then strengthens faith.
Matt 8:10 Jesus tells the centurion that his faith is great. He trusted in Jesus wholly.
Mat_15:28 Jesus tells a woman that her faith is great. because it was not shaken when the Lord tested her.
First I did not say that faith means putting aside our intelligence. Secondly our faith is not for the purpose of convincing others that we are right. We have conviction thorough our faith. We are only supposed to show people that we are all sinners and that salvation is only through Jesus Christ. If they want evidence of God, we cannot show them the evidence but we can show them where or how they can find some evidence.
So are you saying that Jesus was wrong? Because in Mat_15:28 He spoke to the woman words that sounded like "I am not here to help the gentiles". But seeing her faith was not shaken, Jesus exclaimed "Your faith is great". Also faith is increased and strengthened by blind faith in human teachers, but by the Holy Spirit.
On the contrary you are the one judging me now. Jesus Christ spoke to Peter and said "O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?" Mat_14:31. Jesus called a doubting person "O thou of little faith". Then if a person completely leaves God then he/she is a person of no faith.
Are you also going to show those point out those "how many women went to tomb?" type silly things that only look like contradictions and are you saying that you were angry at God for those? Can you show me some real contradictions that makes major differences to the doctrine of the Gospel? You also say that you are angry at "the heinous behavior of those who claimed not only to believe in Him". But claim to be a Christian and yet you claim that there are contradiction in the Bible and are angry at God for that. What type of a behavior is that? Or is that kind of behavior okay because you behaved like this to God and not to any man?
So are you saying that she did the right thing by abandoning a belief in God?
I never asked her to do that. You are just putting words in my mouth.
Have I got you right? Are you an atheist? Because you say "that you believe exists". So don't you have that belief? If so then why do you frame sentences in that way as though I am believing in some other God than you?
Is it loving to leave her at the state she is in and allowing that soul to perish in Hell?One that cannot waver?! Like Peter's?! Remember when his faith wavered and he began to sink in the water on which he was walking?! He must not have had proper faith.
There are many atheists and agnostics who know WHERE to find faith. They simply haven't found it there - in the Word of God, nor in the example of His people.
Ever heard the adage that courage is continued action through fear?! Faith is continued action through doubt - but in some cases doubt will overcome the average human being and, depending on how they process evidence, what they see may simply not be enough. I am easily able to process evidence through my own personal experience. I know what is real to me - what has changed in me - through my faith in God. Others need confirmation from the world, and if they don't see it, they do not believe. You have faith is evidence of things NOT SEEN - substance of things HOPED FOR. Some cannot be convinced that way. But, WOW, bet you could convince a few by showing that following Christ means you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless, and pray for those who persecute you. Not gonna convince anyway by simply telling them they're going straight to hell if they don't have what you consider 'proper faith.'
Indeed, Jesus did call Thomas '...of little faith.' Then He let Thomas stick his fingers into the holes in His hands, and his fist into the hole in His side. Have you had the chance to do that? I've never been able to do that. That's the kind of evidence that might REALLY convince someone.
This is the most confusing paragraph. Once again, here is what I actually said - with a more detailed explanation, as it appears you did not understand.
"I am a believer and a Christian, but I have had periods in my life when I was angry with God, angry with what I considered to be irreconcilable contradictions in His Word, and completely angry at the heinous behavior of those who claimed not only to believe in Him, but to speak for Him.
1. Angry with God - He is my father. I'm guessing you've never been angry with your human parents because you didn't understand why they were doing a certain thing. You did not see how it might be for your good. You were just ticked off because it wasn't what you thought should happen, or it wasn't what you wanted. Yup. I have been angry with God. Sort of like Jacob. Remember how he wrestled with God? Jonah - remember how He didn't want to do what God told him, so he angrily and defiantly turned his back on Nineveh and went back the other way? David - wanted Bathsheba and plotted her husband's murder so he could have her - even though he knew that wasn't what God wanted from him? Christians get angry with God. If they say they don't, then they're either lying, or they have an immature and untested faith. Let them grow a little in the Lord and then try to honestly say that they never get angry.
2. Angry with contradictions - There are, no matter how you try to spin in, contradictions in Scripture. I believe that's a simple result of translation, the fact that while those who wrote the Bible were inspired by God, they were still fallible men who injected their own bigotry, understanding, and thoughts into what they wrote. ONLY the Holy Spirit allows us to see past all of that to the actual Word of God! You misunderstand - I am not angry with God because of Scriptural contradictions.
3. Angry at the behavior of those who believe in Him/speak for Him - Hmmmm. You're not angry when pastors or evangelists or missionaries take financial advantage of those to whom they minister? You don't get angry when the 'Godly' men who teach you to be faithful to God and your family get caught screwing hookers in sleazy motels? You don't get angry when priests/pastors molest young boys? Wow - you're a better man than I. That stuff makes me spitting mad!
She did the right thing for her. The right thing for me is to love her, be kind to her, and model a true faith by performing the actions of one who is trying to walk in the steps of Christ - not try to push until I get her to say the sinner's prayer.
There's no need to address this. Re-read what I said instead of getting defensive. I'm not putting words in your mouth. I am pointing out a flaw that is present in Christians - many of us, if not all of us at times - not just you.
You do not. I am not. As opposed to the God that JMcFarland does not believe in. I have that belief, she does not.
Perhaps it would be wise to once again remind all Christians that we, as human beings, have no power to permit or allow a soul to perish in Hell. God alone holds that prerogative. Loving her means accepting her and praying for her. Maybe more importantly even than praying for HER, let's pray that WE provide an example that might actually be worth following as we walk with Jesus.I actually have a great respect at this entire post, even though you and I are on different sides of the river on matters of faith and belief. I think that you handled this admirably - I don't think I would have been so gracious or patient - but then again I've been dealing with him longer than you :-) He just ignores everything he can't come up with an answer for, ignores any pointed out hypocrisy in his own statements, backpedals like a bicycle thief when it suits him, etc. Thank you for your kind words, Mo. My respect in you has grown a lot in the time that I've had the pleasure of knowing you.
I thin k you have been very gracious in your responses JM. But it's hard sometimes to keep yourself at a certain level when faced with some situations. I have a great respect for how you handle yourself in the face of those who would continually condemn you. You apply several biblical principles very well even though you disapprove of most of the messages contained therein.
Thank you, Julie! I have a lot of respect for you as well. While we stand on different sides of faith, I respect your intellectual honesty. I respect that you continue to study with an open mind and that you offer the acceptance and tolerance that you ask for. We should all be doing that. This here faith thing is such an integral part of the human experience. Over time we may accept it, reject it, leave it, return to it, or simply choose to ignore the entire question of it and just focus on trying to be good people for the sake of being good people.
I see the behavior you speak of in the whole '...putting words in my mouth.' thing. That's a defensive maneuver when no reasonable answer comes to mind.
I am a sane, reasonable, logical individual. My faith is completely irrational and over times has given me fits. But now, it doesn't give me fits, it just FITS.
It's a part of me, and I wouldn't be complete without it. But just like I'm pretty sure my clothes don't fit every person on the planet, I'm not silly enough to think that my faith does either. It's custom made for me.
Funny, sometimes I read back over a response and think I was sorta bitchy. Glad to know I don't sound that way to other people. Thanks!You don't sound that way at all Mo. You get frustrated just like everyone else does. You handled your responses well. It also frustrates me when you see others that supposedly believe like you act in a manner that is totally opposite at times of what the bible says we are supposed to act (in certain areas). I think you have done well in separating yourself from other believers, which is why I enjoy conversations with you. Even if we disagree, we can say ok.. we disagreed and move on to the next topic without trying to have the last word in edgewise..
For your first statement, This is profound and one definition of religion. Basically, it is an individual philosophy based on perspective. I respect the heck out of this statement because ultimately, we all have to find God for ourselves and not try to force someone else into our idea of who God is.
Good Job!!Thanks. It's taken a lot of personal and spiritual growth for me to understand that. I just can't imagine that God created SO many of us without taking into account that each of us is different and will come to, and walk in, faith differently.
As to unplugging from the Matrix? Oh, goodness, yes! It's been good for me.Exactly!! We are all unique and have our own minds to use in order to come into our ideals
And, when everyone is unique, no one is unique.
I'm slow today.. What do you mean by this?
I just thought ATM's comment was deep. "And, when everyone is unique, no one is unique."
Oh ok.. And I agree. Nobody is unique since everyone is unique. As such no one is better than another (despite what they think).. generally speaking
It's certainly been said before. The paradox is that people can still be unique while the act of being unique loses its uniqueness.
Exactly.. and perhaps if we can one day view the equality in being unique, there can be changes made for the good of all
Thanks, Deepes! It's nice to be back. I gotta give the forums at least a little time. I've had my head buried in work and my daily life for the last little while and thought it might be time to come up for air.
Exactly. That is why Jesus asked Peter:
Mat_14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
Well shouldn't someone tell them what would be the repercussion of their choice would be? Should not someone tell them where they are going to end up if they continue in the world view they currently hold?
You and I have never been able to do that. But has that turned you into an atheist?
Joh_20:29 ...because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
I have indeed misunderstood you on this one and I apologize. But I think that was because the thought was incomplete. You said you were angry at times, and instead of leaving that dangling at that, you should have continued to tell us if the anger was removed and how. When we are angry with God, was it not our mistake rather than God's.
If God inspired the writing of the scriptures is He not capable of avoiding contradiction? Again, if He is capable of avoiding contradictions in the originals, is He not capable to avoid contradictions in the translations? I have not seen any contradictions (of any significance) so far. If you firmly believe that there are such contradictions, I would be happy to discuss it privately. I too would want to correct myself if I am wrong on this.
I agree with you 100% on this.
That would be the right thing indeed. But at times should we not be direct? Would that be unloving?
Mat_12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.
But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our LordJesus Christ; Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. And of some have compassion, making a difference: And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jud 1:17,21,22,23Wow, This might be rediculous. I just want to say that this planet is millions of years old, The sciences of today which brought you the computer you are typing on and have shown you the universe in pictures have also discovered fossilized remains of life on meteor fragments. Also with so many different possible combinations of atmospheres and just by looking at the evolution and adaption of species on our planet, It is just plain ignorant to try and deny that life exists outside of our small galaxy. And since anything foreign to us is an alien that would suggest that an amoeba, similar to one here but on a different planet, would be an alien. With the proof of beings from outer space blatently posted all over the world in ancient texts, carvings, and hierogliphics in egypt as well as the overwhelmingly high rate of unknown errors in translating ancient text, carvings, stories and hieroglyphs. It would be absured for anyone to think that an error, accidental or not, would not or could not have happened and altered what we percieve to be the actual meanings. No assuming that religious texts are a way of controlling a mass amount of people. Its true. Its fact. No way around it. Now who is using it to control? Who knows for sure but if its god, its still controlling. If its man its the same. You only have to decide for yourself if the facts out weigh your beliefs. But how can something be tested and proven and ignored? Yes the human error effect is still present in science but everything is tested multiple times by multiple different people and lets face it scientists dont want to control your lives by telling you about their findings where as someone who tells you your going to hell if you worship any other gods is more likely the controlling culprate of the past. Why else would religious authorities try and discredit the sciences throughout history? Its a good question. but im getting off track here a little so back to the aliens. Why would it be so hard for someone to believe in aliens when they believe in a god based on text that may or may not have been wrongly interpreted, that brings them a sense of belief and faith in something unseen or un-proven? Isnt that the reason why people dont believe in aliens? The " you have to see to believe" thing isnt a valid point for religious people.
Okay Mo. Where and how could we such a discussion? Does "hubpages' have any private discussion feature?
Related Discussions
- 579
The Burden of Proof is on Believers
by wordscribe41 14 years ago
The following post is in response to a statement made by another hubber and the many posts I've read using logical fallacies:"the burden of proof" is NOT on the believers. There is no burden to prove He exists because it is by FAITH that we believe. It is by faith we called on to believe....
- 47
Supernatual/Paranormal Occurences prove God is real?!
by Sa Toya 10 years ago
A friend and I had a conversation/discussion on this and she believes such occurrences are proof that God is real.She went on to say:If evil spirits are out there, there must be good spirits...like angels God is real.Equal and opposite reaction argument.While I understand her theory or reasoning on...
- 466
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?
by Jake Ed 8 years ago
How can you be an atheist if you can't disprove the existence of God?What validity is there to the double negative argument for the existence of God? Is it really rational to justify belief in something by the mere fact that it cannot be disproved? You also can not disprove the existence of...
- 7
Do You Believe in Miracles? Any Personal Experience of a Miracle in Your Life Th
by Shil1978 11 years ago
Do You Believe in Miracles? Any Personal Experience of a Miracle in Your Life That You Can Share?
- 883
Believers Have to Prove the Existence of God
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 3 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
- 33
Does Religious Experience Prove God Exists?
by Meg Moon 12 years ago
Does the fact the so many people claim to have experienced God suggest that God does in fact exist?