Is Your reply based on truth and real experience or on belief?
God is out creator, a benevolent being. I know this through experience AND faith.
There is no God or benevolent being. I think this through experience and logic.
That's something that seems difficult (impossible in many cases) for the faithful to accept. They have no problem in refusing to analyze the question through facts and logic, and don't understand why other people can't simply put their reasoning on a back burner as they do.
Just as the reverse is also true - that many agnostics simply can't understand the willingness to set aside analytical thought for emotional needs and desires. They can't do it, and can't understand anyone that can.
I've asked many believers why they think we can chose to believe when they themselves can't chose to not believe. "Can you chose not to believe?" They answer is alway no, but they still think it's a choice. I maintain the choice is not conscious. It depends IMHO on how aware we are of our thoughts and how conscious we are.
I think people can choose to not believe, I dunno.........
But I know people can choose TO believe!
And I do know they can choose to not follow Him even after they've believed in Him. People have free will. There are several people on these forums who've even said they chose to not follow Him after having previously been Believers. Maybe that means they never really believed. Maybe it means they made a conscious choice to rebel against Him. God knows..........
Brenda, what if we make a mistake and follow the wrong belief? Does God forgive us for that?
I believe He absolutely does, if we repent!
That's what He's about----forgiveness!
Does this sound like forgiveness to you?
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NLT
But suppose the man’s accusations are true, and he can show that she was not a virgin.The woman must be taken to the door of her father’s home, and there the men of the town must stone her to death, for she has committed a disgraceful crime in Israel by being promiscuous while living in her parents’ home. In this way, you will purge this evil from among you.
Believe and follow whom? You , your priests? The myriad of other sects and their priests? Or the ancient priests who wrote the nonsense book called bible?
When the line is drawn Riddle 666, which side will you be on?
take it as a teoretical question then.
If there were a line drawn, and you had to choose between God and satan, which would you choose?
What god, which satan?
Your question is as meaningful as this question, "in the final war will you be with Harry Potter or Lord Voldemort?".
You know exactly what I mean. I am trying to figure out your nature. Would you choose good or evil?
What is good and evil? If you where born in a cannibalistic society you would be arguing here about the merits of eating humans!
There is nothing to choose. Every human does what he think is right. The only questions are whether he does it under the influence of others(or in his own right mind) and whether the society approves it.
Hardly. I have no problem deciding what is right and what is wrong. If I were an Aztec, I would hardly think it was RIGHT to cut out people's hearts or skin them alive, simply because it is approved by society. Just as I don't approve of capitalism,or state sanctioned waterboarding. Or abortion. Or about a thousand other things that society approves of. I know what is right and what is wrong. So do you. People make EXCUSES to choose to do wrong. Like blaming their choices on what is approved by society.
That will be your right and wrong not your neighbours. You decide what is right and make excuses to do what the society decided as wrong. If it was approved there is no need to make excuses.
We are all given a concience. We just make the choice whether to use it or not. It is built in. I am right, you are wrong, and you know it. You choose to pretend you are right so you feel better about making poor decisions.
Conscience is taught(mostly) that is why soldiers can boast about the numbers they killed.
It is always like that "I" is always right while "you" wrong. That is why when our right is society's wrong we find other rules to make excuses
Nuts??? What decision?
I would rather be nuts than immoral any day of the week.
And a soldier who boasts about killing has serious issues. And I"M nuts?
People who kill their own babies in the womb are immoral.
Sodiers who boast about killing are immoral.
And on and on.
You are always welcome.
Appears so. A soldier who can't kill enemies is worthless and even he himself will be ashamed.
According to the people who taught you, so it is immoral to "you". If you were taught by cannibals not killing would be immoral and you would be arguing that.
Sorry, I decide what is immoral by my natural inate conscience. And I just explained to you that I would NOT agree that something I think is reprehensible is moral no matter what society says. I would never think canibalism is ok under any circumstances. i would prefer starvation.
A soldier who BOASTS about killing is immoral. i didn't say soldiers in general. Not ALL soldiers boast about killing. My father certainly doesn't. have you ever heard of pstd?
That is a simple boast with no grain. The innateness is only in considering what is human and who is relative and friend. Most of the conscience is taught except a few like reciprocity.
That is only because you were not born in a society that approves cannibalism but in a society that condemns it.
That is because of modernity which consider all humans as humans. Hardly 200 years before the blacks were not considered humans and nobody could get PTSD for killing them. But now it is taught that killing is bad and may go to hell for that and then the person is asked to kill against what he was taught creating conflict.
All you are proving is that you like to make excuses for bad behavior.
Bad behaviour as taught to you!
But who made you a judge to decide what is bad behaviour?
I didn't judge anybody. That's God's job. God gives us the tools, we choose to use them or not. They are inside me, and you, and every living human. Discernment between right and wrong is a GIFT from God.
I am not "judging" I am only pointing out what everyone already knows but the majority choose to igore and pretend doesn't exist.
I didn't see god writing in this forum but only you writing what is bad behaviour.
Majority knows what? It is only because of world wide communication and European domination that the majority think alike. But the majority is hardly half the world population.
Once again you are purposefully misinterpreting what I say. You simply want an excuse to do what you want, and pretend that there are no consequenses to your actions.
Is that reason " I follow my concsience, which is a tool given to me by God."?
Who said about consequence? Every action has some consequence irrespective of what you think!
What do you think the consequenses of being mean to people online could be? have you thought about it? Do you care?
Being obligated to read their misspelled angry responses?
Forgive me, but are you saying that the soldier who boasts about killing is immoral, but the soldier who does the killing and doesn't boast is not immoral. Isn't the killing immoral and not the boasting?
I don't think killing is immoral in itself.
Morals are relative to the situation. Killing in self defense or the defence of another is not immoral. Killing an animal for food is not immoral. Killing an animal for pleasure or sport or scientific experimentation is.
So I take that to mean you don't follow the 10 commandments then or the bible for that matter. You see the bible tells us not to kill and then lists all kinds of reasons to kill (at least in the OT) none of which say anything (at least none I can find) about self defence. Furthermore soldiers marching on the other side of the world killing innocent people has nothing to do with self defence.
No, I don't follow the ten commandments. They are human laws. I follow my concsience, which is a tool given to me by God.
And I never said soldiers killing people on the other side of the world was self defence.
But a while back you did say soldiers boasting about killing was immoral as opposed to the soldiers doing the killing.
Yes, I said that. Where's the contadiction?
Boasting about killing is immoral. It is the INTENT that creates the immorality or morality.
Why is it immoral? People boast when they think they did something great.
Oh hey, didn't we Americans collectively boast about the killing of Osama Bin Laden...?
People who boast about anything have inflated egos. Do YOU like to hear people boasting about all the wornderful things they did?
Like this one for example "No, I wouldn't.
If it took human sacrifice to keep the world going, I'd say, let it go. Not really worth it to me."?
Saying I would choose not to participate or support mass slaughter and torture is hardly boasting.
No, but claiming you'd be that special snowflake who would be the odd man out certainly is, especially when you would have been raised to know that it's the only thing keeping humanity as a whole alive.
Hell, you already believe in human sacrifice right now. Who's that Jesus fellow, again?
But saying that those people had no god given conscience or they are bad and hence they ignore the conscience while you alone have some special god given conscience to find and follow right and wrong is boasting.
Sure it is, as you are boasting to the fact that you are morally superior to others.
You said that only now when you are in a tight corner. Till now you were saying you were morally superior.
No I wasn't. And I have always admitted to being an asshole.
And the best part is they allowed themselves to be backed into a corner. On the internet. Where you can easily avoid being backed into corners by logging off and leaving the room.
Then while you may be an asshole you are not boasting about it and are not immoral because of it. Boasting is annoying, but not immoral.
I could boast that I'm the best chess player I know. Is that immoral? No, I've hurt no one. Is it nice? No.
So, you don't care of the consequences or how that affects other people?
Of course I care. I don't LIKE hurting other people's feelings. I see it as a flaw in my personality. One of many. I would like to change it. I work on it, like everything else that sucks about me.
Don't you do the same?
I see the cause being your faith and religious beliefs as they do little more than cause conflict and grief.
Deep six those religious beliefs and you'll be just fine.
No, of course not, but boasting is annoying while killing is immoral. When someone is killed the lives of many people are affected and those people suffer.
And no, it's not the intent, it's the deed that hurts others that creates immorality. What goes on in your own mind is irrelevant to others.
Okay, I'll help you out. Two separate people with the same problem of an irritating Father-inlaw.
1. Imagines killing him without anyone ever knowing what goes on in his head, but always treating him with respect and dignity.
2. The first chance he gets he brings him out hunting and shoots him in the head and makes it look like an accident.
Which is the more moral person? 1 or 2?
1. hurts no one and understands right from wrong.
2. hurts all those associated with his father-in-law including that father-in-law.
Equally? One has done something illegal and could land him in prison for the rest of his life and has hurt many people in the process.
The other has hurt no one.
Perhaps. But i still think both of them are disgusting.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges somewhat though.
I think the comparison whould be more like, if two people both kill someone, one because he was defending himself,and the other because he cheated with his wife, which one is worse?
I don't know Rad man. Maybe your right. I have to think about this.
The Aztecs believed human sacrifice kept the gods from rage-induced genocide, so you're wrong on that subject. You wouldn't just think cutting out human hearts was right--you'd think it's the best thing ever, because it's the only thing keeping the world going.
No, I wouldn't.
If it took human sacrifice to keep the world going, I'd say, let it go. Not really worth it to me.
So you'd be advocating for the gods to raze your entire population to the ground, including your own family?
Well, prisoners and rebels did make for adequate sacrifices...
It's interesting when todays religious think they wouldn't be the followers of the religion they would have been raised in in another time.
Yes, in that situation, I would. Because I wouldn't participate in that kind of atrocity. Ever.
Jesus the Christ. I follow Him only. The Bible is his word, written by the hands of those who followed Him, at the inspiration of his Holy Spirit. That's all. No priest, no preacher, is worthy of being worshipped.
Have you seen jesus to follow him?How do you know? How come only you and your priests are guided by spirit but others are not? You know that the bible was written and compiled by priests (who excluded some divinely inspired books while including some 'non divine' books)[priests who never saw jesus]? How do you know that those priests are divinely inspired?
This addresses the claim that Jesus' disciples wrote the accounts of his life
“Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men”, Acts 4:13
Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant men. Meaning they couldn’t read or write as most of the populace couldn’t during those times. But there is a gospel supposedly written by John who was couldn’t read or write. This from the Bible
But wait there's more:
“As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him”. Matt 9:9
This is supposedly Matthew’s eyewitness account but It’s referring to Matthew in the second person. So someone other than Matthew is writing this gospel. Many of the so-called gospels were forgeries, The names of popular or mythological persons, were attached to writings to give them more credence and acceptability during those times.
And last but not least:
"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you an orderly account, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed" Luke 1:1-4
The writer of Luke says he's not an eyewitness but isn't this supposedly written by one of Jesus' followers?
I'll respond to one point at this time------
The quote about Peter and John being unlearned and ignorant men.
And those are the very people that the Holy Spirit can speak through probably more easily than the biggest scholar!
And I've seen this in my own lifetime----my father could've been considered an "unlearned and ignorant" man. He didn't make it past the 5th grade, I think it was, because he was needed at home to help his family. Yet he became a preacher and spoke the word of God with correctness and authority. How do you think he did that? He was a born-again child of God, had the Holy Spirit in his heart, mind, and soul.
And if there were any Scriptures that he didn't have the theological training to interpret legalistically, it didn't matter at all! He was a Billy Graham type---an evangelist first and foremost------he wanted to tell people about Jesus and see their souls saved! And indeed that is the desire and the duty of any Christian!
He, like Peter and John, didn't need a big formal education; they were only ignorant in the ways that don't matter. Everyone is ignorant in some ways, whether they've had a formal education or not. Matter of fact, some people become more ignorant about spiritual things (and even common-sense things) after they HAVE had a higher education! I could name lots of those, starting with Barack and Michelle Obama and going down the line from there!
The Holy Ghost doesn't need a prideful person, nor a highly educated person, to speak through. He uses the vessels that are willing to spread the Word simply and wonderfully and with conviction and Spiritual authority, the ones that have Love in their hearts for God and for mankind's souls.
If the Lord wanted to use "learned and book-smart" men through which to inspire the writing of the Bible, He could've used...........the Pharisees or some other knowledge-seekers instead of Holy-Spirit-seekers. We know why He didn't do that.
you said "The Bible is his word, written by the hands of those who followed Him," but Luke says'"Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us" So he's writing what was passed down to him about Jesus.
So it seems Jesus wasn't around when he wrote his gospel so he wasn't a literal follower of Jesus, just as you aren't, that's why you have to take Luke's word as he had to take what was passed down him about Jesus, he's didn't know if it was true or false because he never talked or spent time with Jesus just as you haven't
Those disciples who didn't literally walk with Jesus on earth were still His disciples.
Word of mouth coming from someone who DID walk with Him literally was just as much Gospel as if that person had literally penned the words himself. This was and is a big deal; THE single most important thing that ever happened in the entire world. I'd say there wasn't much room for error, and besides that, the Holy Spirit inspired all that was written in the Bible, and He doesn't make mistakes.
Brenda, I don't think you are understanding completely. One doesn't make a conscious effort to rebel against God when they no longer think God exists. I know because I was one of those who used to believe. One just becomes more consciously aware of their own thoughts and comes to the conclusion that there is no God, which is not the same as thinking there is a loving God, but rebelling against that God. Don't assume that because you personally don't understand that no one understands and therefor only God understands. Just ask the people who went through it.
Why do so many Christians think that if someone used to be a believer and then is not, that the person was never a believer in the first place? How can they possibly know the mind of the ex-believer some 5, 10, 15 years ago?
When one 'chooses' to believe, one must choose to ignore anything that might present contrary evidence in favour of something with no evidence at all, besides from subjective feelings, interpretations, and philosophical argument. If a believer decides they no longer believe it is because they have reassessed what they believe and decided to let go of those things for which they believe has no supporting evidence. They don't one day wake up and decide to rebel against God.
Now if Christians didn't blindly hold onto fallacies like Young Earth Creationism, the existence of demons, and eternal torture in the flames of hell, then perhaps one day when a believer comes to realise these are not true, they might not throw out the baby with the bath water.
I have got to agree. Every denomination points out certain doctrins which other denominations hold as being false doctrins. So take one step further and look at those doctrins which your/our denomination holds which those other denominations consider to be false.
Now make one big list and subtract these desputed theologies from the over all context which all believers hold dear and see what we got left. I would be curious as to what the undesputed theologies of theist would be if it was looked at from that prospective.
The belief in God would still exist. while the bath water (so to speak) would not.
Sometimes I think a persons belief in their own theology has become more important to them than God himself.
And I think this is what Jesus was trying to get across to the Pharisee of his day.
God is a cute idea thought up by primitive peoples to explain scientific phenomena they had no explanation for.
Like thunder and rainbows and volcanoes and the color of the sky.
God is the Creator of all life. I've come to the conclusion God exists based on logic. A century ago, the computer was the abacus. It has since advanced to ENIAC, then giant mainframes, then personal computers, to the highly complex machinery they are today, not by accident, but by intelligent design. Since life is more complex than any computer, it's very likely it came about by intelligent design as well.
God is too massive to be captured in a mere organized religion. I think a lot of them lose sight of this, and that's one reason for so many damaging cults. That also leads to bitterness on the part of many former believers. I was in a cult once. The experience taught me two things: 1) There is no "Santa Claus" sitting on a throne in the sky, and 2) There's more than one way to think. All religions have some truth to them, but none have all the answers.
Excellent. Would you care to share your logic with us?
Sure, Mark. I used computers as an example. Even robots that build cars didn't create themselves; man designed those robots. Computers have morphed from giant calculators to Technicolor laptops that can be used to communicate with people around the world, in languages that we don't even know (use Google Translate). Massive amounts of information can be stored in a gadget you can easily hide in your hand. Thanks to computers, the whole world is at virtually everyone's fingertips. NONE OF THIS "EVOLUTION" HAPPENED BY ACCIDENT! Yet, we can't so much as create a living amoeba. So how can you say living amoebas came about by accident?
There has to be a Major Intelligent Designer somewhere!
Ah - that is not logic, Sorry. That is an argument from incredulity. Life is not the same thing as a computer. There is no logical reason to say that because computers evolved, there must have been an intelligent designer for life.
And yes - the "EVOLUTION DID HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT." Unless you have some evidence that the guy who invented the abacus knew that we would end up with smart phones and "designed" it that way.
1) Complex entities need much thought to be brought into existence; they don't just spring up out of nowhere by sheer accident.
2) Computers are complex entities. They are the way they are today because various people thought and planned it that way. These people had greater than average intelligence; after all, not everyone can design a computer.
3) Even Steve Jobs can't design a living amoeba. Someone far more intelligent had to do that; it's highly unlikely this amoeba just sprang into existence out of nothing. Steve Jobs didn't, either.
4) If computers as we know them today didn't happen by accident, and life is more complex than any computer, how can life happen by accident?
Finally: I'm not saying I have all the answers. If you can prove there is no God, go for it.
Bold assertion based on no evidence,
Another bold assertion based on no evidence. Please provide me with the IQ tests of everyone involved and prove their intelligence id higher than average.
Steve Jobs is dead so he cannot do anything. Highly unlikely? More bold assertions/personal opinions.
They did indeed happen by accident. Unless you can prove to me that the original designer - let's say of the abacus, although I suspect there was an earlier version) knew we would end up with smart phones and designed it that way.
You don't appear to have any answers at all - all you have is bold assertions based on a need to believe there is a god.
In any case - by your logic - I have already proven there is no god.
by LondonGirl7 years ago
"A prize-winning quantum physicist says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil. So how do scientists investigating the fundamental nature of the universe assess any...
by Jane Ramona Rynkiewicz Frieman2 years ago
This quote is philosophical. In my personal experience, acquiring knowledge was not just handed over, it was a goal to be worked towards by way of learning life's lessons, reasoning out what's right and last but not...
by Jesus was a hippy4 years ago
Why is it, that some theists insist that you MUST claim to know how the universe came to be? Some claim that being unsure is a bad thing. Why? Others claim that not knowing is a sign of weakness and lack of conviction....
by Erin LeFey5 years ago
I'm doing a research paper on the benefits and hazards of revealing secrets - I have a social theory I'd like to test, would you all mind telling me how you react to this question and why?Thanks so much!Erin
by IAmForbidden4 years ago
Why do we need to confess our sins to a priest? Can't we do it directly to God? What's the difference?
by Steven Escareno5 years ago
I just saw a film called, "The Last Exorcism" a couple of weeks ago, and the film has a main protagonist named Reverend Cotton Marcus. Now, even though he's performed exorcisms since he was like 10 yrs...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.