Mirriam- Webster's definition of faith is- Allegiance to a duty or person: Loyalty. 2. Belief and trust in God. 3. Complete trust. 4. A system of religious beliefs.
The bible calls faith, "The substance of things hoped for, and the conviction of things not seen."
For most, when discussions on the topic of faith ensue, people think of religion. How many of you know that even so-called atheists have faith in something, (or nothing if you want to be technical). For the atheist, there is "unseen hope" that God is not real; the hope is tied up in "faith" in something else; possibly a book that was read about how Jesus was a sinner and/or how the earth is one Kadrillion years old, which supposedly disproves all that is in the bible.
Some say, "I was a missionary for years!" or, "I preached the word for years!" However, they found something one day, that changed the course of travel for them; no belief in God. I always wonder what "tragedy" that could have befallen one that could possibly remove a belief so strong. However, it is all tied to faith in something.
I am not here to argue with you (though I do it so well ), I come to enlighten all who wish to be.
Please share with me the faith that you have, and how it is manifested in your life.
Atheists, especially those who were followers and now are not (and have more "faith" than us all) please share with me what it is that your own faith is tied to.
Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Please be nice
No, you're not enlightening anyone. You are spreading disinformation. But, it is understandable you would believe such things because that is the operating system most believers use, the belief system. Atheists don't use it.
ATM, the disinformation that you speak of is proven by the definitions presented at the beginning of the post. Now, if you are going to start that "cantankerosity" take a chamomile break. I come in peace. Discussion is stimulating if you do it right. So, as to respond to your comment: Atheists believe in something. They don't call it belief for some reason, but they believe. Now, some believe that the earth and the fullness thereof just happened and we owe our existence to clumsy molecules. Belief is just that. You believe in God, or you believe in Cheerios; but you believe in something. The wrong thing, obvious to me, but something.
Yes, I understand you believe that pointing out your nonsense is 'canankerosity'.
That's highly doubtful. This thread is an example of that doubt.
I have yet to see you discuss anything.
Again, I understand you operate strictly from a belief system rather than logic and thinking, but that doesn't mean everyone does.
A good example is: I believe that knowledge and thinking are both utilized by me. My faith makes me sure that I am right. Can you understand that? My faith may not be able to make YOU sure , but me? Totally convinced. We all have our own systems of what we will and will not allow in, we need our own faith.
I thank you Cgenaea for posting this article. Sin is the reason why some people don’t have faith. “But wait!”, you cry, “I know a lot of really good people without faith and a lot of really mean people who have faith! How is sin related to all of this?” Here’s how. We were originally created in union with God. Once sin entered the world, that union was ruptured. Among other things, our intellects were darkened and we could not understand what we were originally able (before sin) to grasp. We all inherit this “fallen-ness”. So, in a real way, sin has taken its toll on all of us; sin is why we sometimes don’t see God very clearly.
But even more close to home, sin is also what keeps ME from God (not just
Adam and Eve, but ME).
Never forget: faith is a gift. No one earns it. No one gives it to himself. God
gives a person faith. The second super-important point is this: God gives this gift to everyone. God doesn’t choose to give it to some and not others. This is the point that Jesus made in the Parable of the Sower (Matthew 13). In the parable, God is giving the gift of faith (the seed) everywhere. But it was the recipient’s response that was crucial in bearing fruit or losing the gift. God’s giving the gift is absolutely necessary, and He has made all the
arrangements; if a person is open to faith, it is theirs. But that is the crux: we must receive it and live it out.
If a person sincerely does not believe in God, it is most likely because they don’t see the “proof” of God. That’s legitimate. I mean, you would think that if God wanted us to believe in Him, He would have made it a lot easier. On the other hand, I personally think that there is plenty of evidence for God’s existence (another column perhaps).
But maybe God doesn’t just want people to “believe” in Him. I think we
sometimes act as if God has nothing better to do than get a bunch of people to believe in His existence. What if God wants something more than our “belief”?
If you are struggling to believe in God, I have this advice: pray. Start living as if God was real. Ask God (in prayer) to draw you closer to Him. Ask God to reveal Himself (on His own terms) to you. If you want the gift of faith, all you have to do is sincerely ask for it. Again, this means you have to begin by actually praying. Now, this is the moment (the moment of choosing, the moment of taking the risk, the moment of making the decision to act and not just have wishful thinking) when most people get off the boat. It is easy to go on and on and “wonder” at God’s existence.
It is easy to study the arguments and argue the points. But until a person comes to this point, the point at which a decision is made to engage the will as well as the intellect, they will never have faith.
This is crucial. Because “faith” is much more than “belief”. Simply “believing in God” never saved anyone. If all one had to do was believe in God’s existence or in Jesus as the Son of God, then Satan would be saved. James writes about this in his letter, “You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble.” (James 2:19).
Faith is so much more. According to the Catechism, having faith is when a
person “completely submits his intellect and his will to God. With his whole
being man gives his assent to God the revealer. Sacred Scripture calls this
human response to God, the author of revelation, "the obedience of faith" (CCC143). Faith is related to “belief”, but the kind of faith that saves a person is more like “trusting obedience”. With that in mind, does it make sense why I said that some people don’t have faith because of sin? At its heart, sin says, “My way”. At its heart, faith says to God, “Your way”. Like love, faith is a decision, not a feeling. If you don’t feel like you have faith, don’t worry. Be practical. Look at your life.
Are you striving to be faithful (obedient) to God? Do you pray every day? Do you feed yourself with Scripture? Do you go to Mass each week? Do you try and love the people around you who need love? When you fail, do you go to Reconciliation? If yes, you have faith. If not, now is the moment to begin. Start by praying at this very instant. Don’t wait. Don’t hesitate. Don’t put it off. Begin now. Again Cgenaea thank you for this subject on FAITH!!!
You do realize that is nothing more than a childish fairy tale, right? Old world, bronze age ignorance and superstition?
That's because there is no proof for gods. See how that works?
Then, He'll have to show Himself.
Praying is a complete waste of time.
I could also start living my life as if Leprechauns were going to start riding Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby. How does that help exactly?
They are one and the same. Faith is belief without proof.
It's little wonder believers get anything accomplished wasting all that time.
We all inherit this “fallen-ness”.
Really? Not according to David:
New International Version (NIV)
13 For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
So if God personally made us as David states, and we know from Genesis that everything God makes is good, how can we inherit falleness or in any way be inherently sinful? Did someone or something inject us with falleness or a sinful nature at the moment we were born? How is that possible?
We inherit genetic material from our parents and indirectly our ancestors. Is there a falleness or sinful nature gene in our DNA? If falleness and a sinful nature are not genetically coded into us, did God put within us a fallen spirit or sinful nature at conception?
Is this original sin biblical or a Catholic doctrine invented by Augustine?
Question just for fun. Do you believe what you just stated? Just pondering . . . . . .
Having faith is for those who have a need to follow someone else they consider superior to themselves. Having no confidence in their own intellect, they hand over their minds to someone else. It's innate in all herd animals.
So you "believe" in yourself. What happens if you fall down one of those big holes in the ground and are stuck for 4days. Who will you talk to? Please don't say yourself.
If I fall down a hole, more than likely, I am not going to be talking to anyone, unless there is someone stuck in the hole with me. If I find myself thinking "out loud" then it is the same as thinking to myself. But if there is no one else there to talk to, then I would clearly be psychotic to pretend that there is. There is a good chance that given 4 days stuck in a hole, I could become delirious. At that point it doesn't matter who I THINK I'm talking to, as I would have begun to hallucinate.
I certainly wouldn't talk to or pray to your worthless God who can't even save the poor starving children of Africa, as He allows them to die....by the minute. Your impotent God has proven to be useless and, therefore, provides no comfort or hope. I would die in that hole before your God did anything...just like He does nothing for the children, dying, in the cancer wards. .
Well cool... If you do not believe in God and you will not talk to him, he will not be of much help to you (well, you won't know it is him helping). One must believe that he is first before any request or plea can be uttered. So many atheists actually call him by name.
It has already been proven that your God is completely incompetent. Or is it that you just don't understand common causation? If your silly God can't even save those poor starving children, or cure those cancer patients or even stop His own priests from molesting innocent children, how can He save anyone else? Your God is proven completely not dependable. He just never ever shows up yet you go right on blindly heaping praise upon this completely worthless buffoon of a God. SMH!
Wooo causaaation... Do you know that I am/was a psych major? I can tell u why you have "this" issue. No need. You, I remember well you are convinced that God is NOT. Your "faith" in your abilities leads you to that conclusion. Starving children are with us to stay, the bible promises that. People have "freedom" no strings attached. They do as they please. God made it that way. Evil and hunger; lack and molestation are here to stay until... Well u know (deep down).
Tell me this... Since you're so apt, what are you doing for the starving children? Oh, and the victims of pervs?
Our "silly God" you claim to know so much about does phenominal miracles that you personally may not be aware of. Whether you choose to believe or not is totally up to you but before you make accusations about MY God do a bit of research.
As far as "cancer patients" go, maybe God's true healing for them is to be taken off of earth out of pain. A women in her late 70's was dying of cancer and did not have much longer to live. At church we all gathered around and prayed for her believing that God would work a miracle in her life. The very next day she went to the doctor completely healed of cancer.
I encourage you not to be so belittling. There is no harm in a disagreement.
great. Then it should be easy to prove that it actually happened.
I DO know very much about your silly God. I was saved at the age of 10. So when I say that he is silly...I speak with the authority of any Christian....as I have been saved. I didn't forget what I once believed, I just accepted that this is all BS....and you have no evidence to convince me otherwise.
Miracles??? Now you tell me that you believe in magic. See how silly this God is.
I guess that one cancer patient was more important than all those Third World children who starve to death daily. See how silly your God is?
With all due respect......your beliefs are absurd.
With all due respect . . . you are an asshole!
No doubt. You are a dipshit!
For all of you believers out there. Look at this. Is this what you want representing you? What uncivil behavior. God must be extremely proud.
Oh, look! Some jerk is a sinner . . . and he still gets saved. What's up with that?
Well yes, I think so. God utilizes all kinds. that's a really great thing about him. Representation takes many forms. You cover most bases. But God covers them all.
That does not represent me. That is a representation of itself and maybe others that share that opinion of you. I don't have that opinion of you. So the views that someone else who is a believer does not reflect the views of all believers.
...ya put your hands on your hips, and let your backbone slip. Aw shake it to...
C ya later they did me for less. Yes, your comment was well deserved.
Please come back if they eject you. Nicer next time, we got this!!! thankyou for your kindness to me.
now you know that was not nice.
To say that you speak with the "authority of any Christian" and then top it off with "silly God" was just plain disrespect. You have a point to prove? Well you are seen. Your request has been made known, and you will receive what you have asked for.
I do speak with the authority of a Christian, BECAUSE I was saved at 10 years old. I went to church every Sunday, prayed, testified, shouted, spoke in tongues, spent many hours in the company of other saved people. Just how am I suppose to forget all that overnight?
Ok. Whatever that means.
Once you turn away, all power is removed. You have not only forgotten, you have rejected. However, you do stay close...
I have not forgotten anything. I am a trained Christian, and you can't take that away from me just by wishing it away. Are you gonna wish my military training away too? I chose to leave the military and religion, but how do you suppose I forgot my training? Could you show me some proof of this method or formula that you use to determine this? I'm completely perplexed. Thank you
I wish your big mouth away!
Thank you for finally admitting the truth. It is really "large" of you. Perplexity does not excuse bad manners though. You have the ability to choose. Silly God is not a good phrase in a Godly conversation. It cut like a knife. NOT But it is "silly" to come to a conversation that does not benefit your "intellect", on a continual basis. If that is your pic on the page, you do not look like a man who wastes his time on a regular basis. You are not fooling me. You are trying to get it right. Good.
In other words, "Chill out, and be cool."
You certainly took my comment out of context. Or better yet, distorting the truth for Jesus.
This is hopeless!!! Good night.
I am not trying to win your friendship. I asked a question to receive some feedback from INTERESTED parties. No harm in that, right? You are welcome to stay, as you already know. But why come to heckle??? Bored?
And I think I have answered your question. But you just can't accept honesty. You rigidly steer everything back to Goddunnit.
You are apparently looking for us to make comments that corroborate your false premise. And the answer is no. Atheist don't have this same silly FAITH that you have. What you have is madness.
Now see??? You are not even listening to me. You are so convinced that you are "right" and I am "wrong", you mix our argument. No, atheists are not "dumb" or "humble" enough to have my kind of faith. But they DO have some, somewhere.
I am listening to you, but since your very premise and underlying beliefs are illogical, what kind of answers do you expect. Especially since your questions are loaded with your redefining the meanings of words. It is necessary that we first UNLOAD your questions before we answer them.
I'm glad that you put the word "humble" in quotation marks, because anyone asserting that they know who created the universe, and that they are friends with that being who created the universe, can't be very humble. Think about it. I, on the other hand, am humble enough to admit that I don't know things I can't possibly know.
No, Cgenea, you are the one who is not listening. I have yet to see you reply to one intellectual argument posed on this thread. You go off on tangents, or preach, or answer something nonsensical. At no point yet, have you even attempted to refute any arguments in a coherent way.
At least, I assume a failure to listen is the reason your answers are not sensible. There are two other possible explanations. One is that you are too stupid to understand. As you say you are a psych major, I assume that's not the case. The other is that you know you don't have a leg to stand on, so you're obfuscating. I'm sure you wouldn't be that underhanded.
So you need to add a third option. I will look up obfuscating. Goodest word I heard all day!!! You have the ultimatous edukashun in words and I am so IMprest!!! Stupid? No. I offered Mirriam-Webster's definition of the word faith for a reason. It is you that tries to obscure its meaning. I have changed nothing. but you probably "clearly" see that I have. You do not know that it is designed that way by your infinite possibility of ideas. If you don't want to call your belief or trust "faith", you will find a way to not. Even if it means biting, punching, scratching and kicking. I brought my "cup" with me kick away. Your faith is in nothing and you don't need it. You "see" all that you believe. No need for faith (with Genaea's definition) hehehe I mean Webster nem'.
Just checking that you understand what a dictionary definition means.
When you see a definition that has multiple definitions, it means that the word can have EITHER the first, OR the second, OR the third meaning, depending on its context in a sentence. When you see the word "faith" in a sentence, it may have a flavour of more than one defintion, but it never has EVERY meaning at the same time. That's how the English language works.
Here are the definitions again:
1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
1b (1) : fidelity to one's promises : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
2b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
Your faith is covered by 2 and 3. I can't think of anything in my life which is covered by 2 and 3 (no not even faith in my husband), but I can think of examples which are covered by 1. So yes, we both have faith, but it's a different definition of faith.
Agreed. That thoroughly deconstructs the OP. Now cgenaea should apologize for misrepresenting us, then close this thread. I
Definition 2b fits for this conversation for all if us; like it or not. Unseen is everywhere and it is incorporated into everyone's daily life. We all deal with certain belief in the unseen. You are not interested in revealing your belief about the unseen, but it is not required.
How can you state that 2b applies to all of us? What basis do you have for that assertion? Can you give me an example of where 2b applies to me?
So far you've given examples of a chair and my husband. In neither case does 2b apply. I know, for instance, that in the past I've sat on chairs that did not take my weight, and that it may happen again. So I never have total faith in any chair. Nor do I have total faith in my husband. He's a human being, and therefore he can't possibly be perfect, so it would be pretty stupid of me to put him on that kind of pedestal.
To answer this question; I would need you to open up and reveal what you believe about the earth and how it started, how you fit in, and/or what happens after death.
Easy. I don't know how the Earth started. I have read various theories and I understand the most commonly accepted one. They are only theories, of course, and constantly developing. Since how the Earth started doesn't affect how I live my life, I'm happy to let the scientists continue to research it.
How do I fit in? Fit in to what? Can you be more specific on what you mean by that?
I don't know what happens after death. I daresay I'll find out sooner than I would like, since I'm now in my fifties. But again, since it makes no difference to how I live my life, I'm happy to wait and see.
By the way, some people say that believing in a Heavenly reward ensures you live a virtuous life and are good to your fellow man. Seems to me that if you're good to other people solely because you're going to get a reward, then you're not genuinely charitable or generous. I do the best I can to do the right thing with or without a reward - although I suppose you could say my reward is that it makes me feel good.
As promised, I see your faith. It is wrapped around the very safe, "I just don't know." What you accept as true is what you react upon. God does not demand that we choose to believe what he says. As The Lord over our own lives, we are free to choose as we wish. Even if we decide to stay neutral, or choose nothing. I guess it does not matter where you "fit in" to the grand scheme. For me, I belong to God. I do what he admonishes. He accepts the fact that "perfection" I cannot find. He knows already. I believe that what matters most is an open and honest discussion with him regularly. He is the best dad in the world. He gives me peace. Blessed assurance. I am truly grateful. I do not "deserve" his kindness to me, but I keep on gettin' it... Everyday. And he loves to give it. He prefers that I give him all of me. He does not demand. He looks beyond fault, really.
This comment completely confirms the theory that those who believe in God find a God that they need. You've got the loving father figure you need. Thanks Jonny.
You claim that EVERYONE is covered by meaning 2b, which is "firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust"
You're now trying to say that I have faith in "I don't know". That couldn't be further from "firm" belief, could it? So explain again how 2b applies to me?
I think you know it doesn't, because instead of answering with logical argument, you've resorted to preaching again. There's nothing in your reply I can address because it's a straight statement of why 2b applies to you - which is irrelevant to me.
Great! What type of silly faith do atheists have??? We already know your line of thought.
So if someone turns away from God, they are rejected and lose the grace that God offers to us all? Sorry, this here is a very incorrect assessment of who and what God truly is. God rejects nobody while still on this earth. If we get rejected here, then how is it possible for us to be able to get back in order.. To state that Getit has been rejected is to basically state that God does not have any grace..
Read my statement again. You got it twisted. God is never the rejector of us... We reject him. He will not impose; though he will urge.
That's got to be all in your mind because he hasn't even been shown to exist let alone urge anything.
There are some that would argue that his "urging" is an imposition because based on the Bible and also how some people use the Bible, it looks more like a heavy handed suggestion rather than an urging. This is where a lot of people get turned away. Because there is a threat (both open and implied) attached to that "urging"
Did you walk away from your parents when they threatened??? The threat was for your own good.
oh good monkey. Threats are NEVER a positive thing. It is NEVER a good idea to threaten a child. It's child abuse. Threats are not born out of love. Never. I feel sorry for people raised this way.
"Melissa, if you walk out into the street again, I will not allow you to have your birthday party with Barney!!!
there is a difference between a threat and explaining the consequences for bad choices. You don't have to threaten a child to get them to mind you or behave in the way that you want them to.
A mob boss threatens. He says "if you don't give me a percentage of your money, I'll break your legs"
your god does the same thing "if you don't accept me and love me and worship me appropriately and follow my rules, I'll throw you into eternal torture forever"
In my example, there was no explanation of anything. Just the conseqences of what will happen if you do not obey the rule.
This is a simple idea. You are making much more difficult than it really is. Parents make the rules. If you do not follow the rules, sh+S gonna happen. Often, we do not like the consequences. And sometimes, most often, actually, we feel that the punishment is too harsh. Right??? However, Mom does not relent. The rules have been laid out. The consequences doled if the rule is ignored. Whether I/you like it or not. Again, she would not be a good parent if she allows you as a "minor who doesn't know much" to make your own rules; or if she allowed you to run wild without restriction.
Luckily for me, I had parents that actually took the time out to explain things to me without having to resort to threats. Threats are never for anyone's own good. Threats are only good for forcing obedience by fear rather than encouraging acceptance by instilling understanding.
Wow, do you need some kids??? Got 2. There is something about making them understand that if they don't do what you say, they wont get what they want that really does the trick most times. My parents understood that if they gave in to explaining why, I probably wouldn't get it, my mind is just not capable of comprehending some things at a young age. The rule is do it, period. When I got one question answered, I asked 15 more. I just don't understand why I can't play doubledutch in the street if I am careful. Nobody will hit me. I am going to watch "real" good. Or why I cannot stay out an hour or two later than my appointed time. I was having fun; the party was just getting started.
I sure wish I grew up in your house. Sounds fun.
In my house. "Because I said so," was the common response to my question.
And I am sorry that was the case for you. That is not learning, that is memorization and regurgitation. Simple programming without instilling a sense of true understanding of what you are being presented. This is a major issue in the church as well. People are being indoctrinated into living life a certain way simply because "God said so" and as a result are living their lives trying to do good more out of fear of eternal punishment or desire for a reward instead of being taught the ethics of doing the right thing BECAUSE it is the right thing to do. It is this type of programming that is responsible for a lot of the judgment that is passed on others because some believers refuse to open their minds enough to gain any type of understanding other than "God said so" or "It's in the Bible".
Well, it is all a matter of how you look at it. I am convinced that we do what God says out of love, not fear. I know I do. I am not afraid of hell. I don't have to be. I am safe. All of us could be... I love the life that I have with God. Though I can be a bit "bad" sometimes. He does not curse me and walk away. He is faithful, and just. He will never leave or forsake. I know this because I know.
That is good that you have found and learned to do things for the love of God rather than the fear. If more believers can pass that teaching along, then there can be some more change
Yes, I agree. Love and comfort and peace. So maybe even a bit of "selfish" convenience is hidden in my reason but I am convinced that this is the way to go. If I get lost. He comes soon with a light, and a map (and a "gas can" just in case:))
Is it just me? Does anyone else see what I see? It's becoming more and more obvious.
I've always like you genaea, I think you're a kind, caring, open and honest person. You seem to have created for yourself a father figure that is kind, caring and protective and most importantly excepts you along with your faults, which allows you to continue doing what you do, guilt free and loved.
Not everyone's God is like that. Your's gives you exactly what you want. Your ego is doing a superb job of balancing the ID and super-ego.
A superb job.
Thanks Rad. I am pleased that you believe I am capable of coming up with such a perfect being. My imagination is good, but dang!
Guilt-free is necessary. We cannot become fully realized until guilt is abated or eliminated. Doing what I do??? Please explain.
I appreciate the compliments, I really work hard at treating others the way I want to be treated. I have succeeded partially, even you see it!!!
So, why not feel some love; and balance your ego? I use scripture. My imagination is not able to be that tight and sure. My imagination cannot tell me the "truth." I don't know it on my own. I appreciate your kindness. Sarcasm is funny most times.
If safe, then there has to be something one is being held safe from, ie: hell. That is fear, not love.
Not in baseball Troubled, have you realized that you are out-numbered??? Just give it up.
An eagle soaring amongst buzzards is outnumbered too.
However you cannot decontruct his comment, and you didn't even try. You just cleverly evaded with this flippant statement.
I am rarely able to "deconstruct" anything that ATM says; If you let him continue, he eventually deconstructs himself. He's the man w/o a hub He is only out for one thing... I got it.
Please remind me of the comment.
That's an egregiously false statement. Are you saying that ATM always inevitably contradicts his own statements? Could you show some of these contradictions? You should have no problem, as he has been very active in many forums. And why would you admit to not having the ability to deconstruct his arguments? That appears to me to be an acknowledgement of defeat.
ad hominem. Irrelevant. Please stick to the task at hand, which is logically defending your erroneous assertions. Whether or not someone has hubs, or not, has nothing to do with the subject.
ATM WROTE: "If safe, then there has to be something one is being held safe from, ie: hell. That is fear, not love."
Yes, your reply was flippant.
Not being able to deconstruct an argument does not necessarily equate itself to defeat. Sometimes, it is an acceptance that no matter what you say sometimes it won't change things. Often times, when we respond we think we are deconstructing an argument, but for the one making the argument, they may still hold firm to their position.
It must be only understood with "vivid" imagination.
I have a feeling that ATM hears nothing. They never "deconstruct" my arguments. Nobody has even revealed their belief (saving for the Barker fans) and Marisa.
Guess they are not up for deconstruction of "self".
We shall give it time.
Wow, now I'm just known for one book I read out of hundreds. How generous of you.
Well, it was the only one that I saw that you have a great deal of "feeling" for. You cannot keep enough of them. Tell me: is that the ONLY book that you have obtained a numerous amount of times??? Do you have such "belief" in the words of any other author???
I read dozens of books monthly. So what? And yes, I feel strongly about a lot of them, including your Bible.
Helloooooo!!! Do you get ANY other book, and make sure you have on hand, any other book as you do the Barker book???
Hey genaea. Where did you go for so long? I saw the new name and didn't have time to come in to see if it was really you until now.
Hi Emile I was just chillin'
I needed a break and it was demanded by hubpages, so to speak. It ended up being really good for me.
I don't have it "on hand" any more than I have any other book in my collection, although now that I have a nook ALL of my books are on hand
I'm confused by this line of questions. Why do you have to have a book in your hands? I'm currently reading Children of the mind by Orson Scott Card the conclusion of the Ender Quartet that my kids got me hooked on. What's that got to do with anything. These questions are of course not directed at you. Maybe genaea can enlighten me?
Well, we almost were on a "street" that would have led us to the faith that she has. She mentioned that she loved the book so much that she had to keep replacing it because no one would return it to her after reading it. I was wondering why it was so important to her. And why the words struck such a "chord"
Oh, so when you said that you had to keep replacing it (paraphrase) you were "joshing"???
no, I've said that I had to replace it multiple times because I kept loaning it out and it never found its way home. (before I got a nook) That's not the only book that I've had to replace. that doesn't mean that it's somehow more "special" than any other book.
Wow, I am "safe" from ATM, and Getitrite I am safe from me. I am safe from guessing and wondering about matters that either don't matter or are given to me by another source outside of all that HE says is good. I am safe from guilt; worry; shame; indecisiveness.
Safe from hell is a given. Deconstructed???
Contradiction at its finest, is a creation of God's that says HE is NOT...
Why should he? He may be outnumbered by those who are participating in this discussion, but I'm sure there are many reading quietly and smiling at how he has hit the nail on the head there.
Sorry, I got a three year old of my own I'm raising. But thanks for the offer
No atheist "hopes" that God is unreal. All atheists would be perfectly happy to acknowledge God if they see proof that he's real. I'm convinced there is no such thing as a unicorn, but if I met one in the forest tomorrow, I would immediately change that view. Atheists are the same with God.
I don't know why religionists think atheists have some kind of grudge against God and would refuse to accept him, even if he appeared in front of them. That wouldn't be logical, and atheists are always logical. You may think atheists are cranky about God, but they're not - they're cranky about believers who aren't capable of debating logically and rationally about the subject of religion.
By the way, I know two people in the situation you mention - i.e. who were deeply religious for a time and then became atheists. One was our dear departed EarnestHub, the other is my husband. They don't know each other, but they had remarkably similar experiences.
In both cases, there was no tragedy or trauma. It was just that both of them felt inspired to study their faith more deeply, and sat down to read the Bible from cover to cover. By the time they were finished, both had decided it was a load of utter claptrap, and questioned why they had allowed themselves to be deceived by the selective interpretations and quotations of their ministers. I assume you have read the whole Bible yourself?
Yes, I have read the bible. Admittedly, I do not feel that I am a scholar on the subject, but I am convinced that truth it is. I do not believe that all atheists have a grudge against God. Most of them, in my opinion, are searching for him. Like Thomas, they want to put their finger in "the hole". However, blessed is he that believes without seeing. I know that some start out believing and turn away, but I believe that this turning away is rooted in self. The self desires "sure" ground, complete with all the "fixins" of proof, however, that is simply impossible. There is no proof of the unseen. By the way, this is why we call it faith.
Your husband and Mr. Hub lost their faith in God. What did they replace it with? Could it be belief in nothing? Impossible, also. They believe something. What "proof" do they have?
They "believe" in what they see with their own eyes. Again, that's a different meaning of the word "believe".
Why do you feel the need to "believe" in anything? Can you explain that? Is it because what you can see and feel in the real world isn't enough for you? Has it ever occured to you that just because you feel dissatisfied with the real world, that doesn't mean everyone does? Has it ever occurred to you that some people might find so much wonder and reward in the world they can see before them, that they have no need for anything else?
I myself find wonder and reward in the real world. My real world just happens to include God and his son. I have no qualm with one who has decided otherwise. I am just inquiring and trying to gain insight into the world of the "non-faithful" it is not a good term, because I have stated that everyone has faith in something. We cannot see everything. We cannot touch everything. We can "know" that it is out there based on trial, error, and experience. My God is always there. I have tried him, and he passed. I have experienced him on many occasions. I have seen him at work in my life. However, this is not something that most can fathom. It is seemingly obscure. But the bible said that most would reject this life. It wasn't lying.
I trust/have faith that the God you speak resides only in your mind. I believe your mind is running a simulation of God in order to protect you from the reality of life and you are now trying to convince others they need the same delusion to survive. Most in fact don't need that delusion they just want it. I have not idea if it's something you need or something you just want, but I personally don't. Perhaps it's time to ask yourself some tough questions.
Faith is the end of reason. Belief is of no use. What is, is, regardless of your faith or belief. What is not is not.
There are two types of information humans have to deal with: Facts and speculation.
Do you need to believe in a fact? No. It is not required. A fact is a fact and only requires you accept it when it become evident that it is a fact.
Do you need to believe in something speculative? Why? Your belief changes nothing and does not make it certain. So belief in speculative ideas is a waste of time. Better to wait and see and admit in the mean time you don't know.
You can have opinions based on probability discerned from evidence. But you do not have to invest belief in your opinions.
So don't believe anything. It's a fools game at best.
We are getting a lot of yea perspectives for the belief in nothing idea. I guess its plausible.
No we don't believe in nothing. I'm advocating not believing at all. Believing in nothing would be futile.
As an atheist I have faith only in the sense of the word that means "trust" not in the sense of religious faith. That trust is based on past experience and evidence. Religious faith, and superstitious faith, refers to a belief that is held without good grounding evidence, or even a belief that is often held in direct contradiction to the evidence.
So in what sense do atheists have MORE faith than theists? These are two very different types of faith. One is evidence based and one is not but because the word faith has more than one meaning (as many words do) theists think it takes their own kind of faith to be an atheist. The truth is quite the opposite.
My "faith", if we're going to call it that, lies in the scientific method. Why? Because it works. Because the scientific method has advanced our medicine, technology and ethics while religious faith has fought tooth and nail against it's advances. Superstition is what tells us that illness is caused by supernatural forces, science disproved that and began creating actual cures and solutions for disease. Many diseases have been wiped out in the so-called "First World" and it wasn't the magical hand of God that did the healing, but the efforts of man in the developments of medications and vaccines.
When I was a child and I got sick my parents would pray over me, but they would also give me medicine and see that I get lots of rest. The truth is that most BELIEVERS have more faith in science than they do in their God. I suspect that this is because, secretly, the know which will provide results. Even the most "righteous" Christian cannot deny that God allows the misery and death of millions, many of them innocent children, and apparently revokes his help from them even as their desperate parents pray for a miracle. They hide behind slogans like "God works in mysterious ways" and "God needed another angel".and "They are in a better place".
We can see that science works, we can prove it, and when science gets it wrong we continue studying, seeking answers, and learning until we get it right. Religious beliefs do adapt in their own way, they splinter and grow more and more diverse, farther and farther from any unified truth they claim to contain.
To paraphrase comedian Doug Stanhope, "If you really believe that death leads to eternal bliss than why are you wearing a seatbelt?"
I submit that most theists, whether they'd admit it or not, have more faith in science than they do in God.
Thank you. Faith/trust in Science is acceptable for some. Not me. It changes too frequently. Today, we have a "new and improved" treatment for this or that. In a few years, cancer epidemic. Today, the world is several million years old (how the hell do you measure that???) and tomorrow, a small piece of the puzzle is found that blows the theory out of the water. Too shaky for me. My stuff has been in existece for more than 2000 years. It does not change. The words have been printed for all to see for generations to come. The Lord will not have a biblical reprinting because a "new discovery" has been made.
Our God promises death, hunger, and lack. The poor will be with us always. And everyone dies at some point. It is not promised that you or I will survive the next 20 minutes. In matters of the impossible to know; age of the earth, what started the world, why we are here; I wanna stick with Gods solid and time tested explanations that haven't changed.
I say atheists have more faith than us all because they believe that God does not exist. And they have NO evidence to back that up.
As you type on your computer? As you bring a sick child to a doctor?
You state you don't trust science while typing on a computer and conversing with people all over the planet? When you child gets ill do you pray or bring them to the doctor? Where does your trust lie?
ooooohhhhh!!! Shoot. I trust Science only so far. Sorry for the misunderstanding. And the doctor does have his place in the rolodex. However, my faith is in God the father. Science is only so capable. I do not take many medicines. Antibiotics treat my body bad. Pain pills are full of ??? and so is all the other stuff they sell for this ailment or that. Prayer works well. And the body is extremely resilient. God made it that way.
A burst appendix needs an operation. Would you bring your kid with a burst appendix to the hospital or would you pray?
I can answer that for myself.. I went to the doctor while praying that I wasn't too screwed.. LOL
you know that Deepe's a christian, right?
I guess the fact that I debate with believers and question certain beliefs gives the impression that I'm not. Especially considering the fact that I haven't necessarily dug too deeply into What I specifically believe, how I came to that belief, and why.
You see deeps, you're supposed to agree with everything they say on faith.
Good luck with that one, my friend. I will agree with some things, but not everything. I simply can't go along with some of the stuff that other believers say and preach. That's why I almost have to throw a disclaimer out when I see something I totally disagree with
That's odd, one would expect believers to agree on God's word? Not very convincing philosophy when it's followers are so divided on something as simple as one book.
Some "get it" some don't. Jesus was the perfect example of faith, and the correct way to live out that faith. He showed us how to rightly divide the words of God. He showed us how to speak, how to think, how to pray, how to call things that be not, as though they were, and then see a manifestation.
I believe because I must. I follow to the best of my ability and he "hides" (covers) my fault and extends grace (as all "good" fathers do) and he gives strength and knowledge of him. He gives peace in hectic situations and he even moves mountains from my path. I am convinced. Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. NO MAN goes unto the father, but by him. Faith, only a tiny amount, will unlock the door.
That would contradict your previous claim that the bible is left at the mercy of interpretation. What's there "to get" if it's wide open?
Preaching will not substantiate your claims.
you must interpret as God intended to be correct. He knows the heart. We all are handled according to our own faith. For me, eating "the sacrificed meat" is ok, it does not interfere with my spirit. For my brother, it is bad. He feels guilty; and that is not of God.
Gibberish. Now you're saying we have to interpret as God intended. Do you ever stop making stuff up as you go along?
Not sure where you got that notion from, ATM, but I get your sarcasm.. Religion itself is a philosophy like others. no two people share the same philosophy. Even science has had it's moments where people argued a specific theory.. Of course they then followed the arguments with testing to see which one is closer to correct..
The idea of philosophy is that different people view things differently. In a philosophical discussion, one person's ideals are no better or worse than another's because it's all dependent on how it's applied and what each person hopes to gain from the application.
Sorry, but if no two people share the same philosophy, then all religion is bunk.
Sorry, but it is a logical fallacy to compare evidence and observations to myths and superstitions.
The idea of a religion is to worship and obey the god in question, not cherry pick whatever they want.
so if no two people share the same philosophy. then whatever the disagreement is is all bunk? I wasn't speaking solely about religion. I do not limit all of my conversation to religion.. So based on your statement, If everyone who believed the exact same way regarding God then it wouldn't be bunk?
but I wasn't trying to make a comparison between the two.. sorry if you thought I was
Please show me that in either definition of religion.. That is YOUR idea of what religion is.. Sorry, but your idea of religion isn't everyone's idea.. But thanks for playing
Sorry, but you know as well as I know we can consult the Bible to see exactly what God demands of His followers as far as His word is concerned.
where exactly is all the love in the god-mandated mass-slaughters, sexual slavery and genocide?
Thank you sir. As you will point out with religion, just because a lot of people agree on the same thing, it doesn't make it suddenly true.. Especially something that there is no evidence for
I agree. We can go and consult the bible to see exactly what Man believes God demands of his followers. The bible was not written by God.. It was written by men giving their ideas of what they think God should be and how he should act. I'm not stating that my understanding of the bible is the correct one, but it is one that is working best for Me. I figure that everyone from the beginning up to now have interpreted the bible (even during the writing of it) in a manner that worked best for their life at any particular point. This is why depending on context and perspective two people can read the same scripture and get something totally different out of it. This is why I have a small issue with organized religion.. Religion itself (though you don't see any difference) is a philosophy. As far as I'm concerned, no two believers have to agree on everything the bible says. But (and this is something Ii can admit to freely) there is no reason to fight over interpretation because it is a philosophy. It's (IMO) how you figure the best way to apply it to your own life that counts.
Yes, I agree with that, but most believers don't. The bible is quite clear in regards to expectations.
No, the bible is cherry picked, folks will decide themselves what they want to believe as opposed to what the God of the bible wants them to believe.
You know ATM... The bible itself is cherry picked. We have many episodes from many different points in time that all fit together as things that God wants to relay to his people. I believe that the bible was inspired by God. He is awesome! He makes no mistakes. I just can't see him allowing "a lie" through. I can't envision him sitting in his throne saying, "dang, that's not what I said OR what I meant!!! Now things will be ruined cuz nobody aint gon understand" he knows what he is doing. He says, whosoever will, let him come. He said those words (and many others) through the bible.
If he wouldn't allow a lie, then how come there are so many different Holy Scriptures? Why did he allow the Mormons to create their own scripture, or the Muslims, or the Buddhists, etc etc?
The answer to this question can be answered by Reading Rev 13.
In 96 AD The Lord gave John visions of things which has already happend, are currently happening and of things that are to soon begin happening.
A "New religion shall rise up out of the sea and another like it will rise up out of the earth. It is written that God gives power unto the first beast to blaspheme the lord for 42 Months And some time after the first, the second rises up and it models its Image (structure) similar to the first. Anyone that didn't worship the first had to worship it. The 42 months began a long, long time ago.
These corrupted religions were sanctioned by God for a period of time. There were also two witnesses sent down that infiltrated these two religions, which is why we see good and evil sitting in the same pews. This prophetic 42 months is soon to come the end of its apointed time..
Well, I don't know. But he knows what we need. Again, I cannot speak for many other faiths. I don't think that the ones you mention serve the same entity. Not sure.
That's nice, but that doesn't explain anything.
True, But the expectations that are expressed in the bible may not be the actual expectations of God. They are the expectations of the writers
I agree, The bible is cherry picked, which is why some use it the way to try to force conversion, others use it simply as a guide to living a good life, and some use it to hide in to justify inaction.. The bible itself has more than one writer, and as such the ideas and opinions are different from one book to the next. The key is in finding what resonates best with you. In your case and the case of some of the others, it resonates as garbage to be thrown away totally. For me, it resonates that there are some principles in there that actually aren't bad. My understanding of the bible is one that has taken all of the parts into consideration and have formulated a specific conclusion regarding the existence of God and how he interacts with the world. I do not have proof that my understanding is the correct one for all people, therefore I can admit that I could be wrong. But my understanding is one that makes the most sense to me at this point in my life.
Sorry, but the God of the Bible would adamantly disagree with you.
perhaps, but there is no way of knowing if the God of the bible is the true representation of what God truly is
What is the most likely scenario?
A) All those stories of the OT actually happened, but we just can't find the evidence.
B) The Israelites wrote those stories to inspire and give their people a sense of entitlement.
Considering the OT goes on and on about the chosen people and what they should do to the people they conquer as does the Quran, I feel it's same to pick B as the most likely scenario.
That's kinda my point. It would appear (and forgive my presumption if it was incorrect) that ATM was basically stating that the God of the bible is the actual God (so to speak, I am aware he is atheist) . A lot of believers believe that A is the correct scenario because they believe that the bible is God's word written as God intended for them to be. I have basically stated my opinion that B would be the more likely scenario because the writers of the Bible were "inspired by God" which would mean that it is more of their idea of what God should be instead of what or who God (if he exists, out of respect) really is.
I totally agree with you that B is the more likely option. The stories in the OT are partly myth which give a reductionist explanation for something far more complex than they knew of at the time and part the ideas someone else has of what a truly powerful being should be, which is something to be feared, worshipped, and appeased with sacrifices. One of the biggest issues is that a lot of representatives of organized Christianity have used these things literally and used them to try to force conversion by fear and intimidation and also used these principles to allow themselves to pass judgment on those who do not believe as they do.
Sounds like a third-grade instigation. Even Christians believe different things. Believe it or not, it is not necessary to see it all the same. Faith is most important.
For once, I disagree with you.
I have a lot of respect for people who believe in God but are willing to question their religion. It shows they've really thought about what they believe. I may not agree with their conclusion but that's none of my business.
I know many people who believe in a God but question a lot of things about established religion. They know the Bible was written centuries after the events by mere mortals, and that what's taught in Sunday school and from the pulpit are just human interpretations, so they have every right to question it. Good for them, that's what Christianity - or any religion - should be about.
The ones who get my goat are the ones who are so desperate to believe, they swallow their religion unquestioningly - then try to justify their faith with circular or dubious logic, rather than subject it to proper examination. Mentioning no names here.
I think Rad Man was being somewhat sarcastic here and cracking a joke about how believers are supposed to believe the same way
Thank you. I have drawn my own conclusions and beliefs based on my understanding of what I have read for myself in the bible. i did have a lot of questions about what I was being told in churches. Hey, I can admit that I could be wrong in my conclusions. After all, it is only My opinion (which is not based on anything specifically proven)
+1. In my opinion, this is what is IS about. Individual perspective and gaining understanding. Unfortunately, Organized religion has attempted to apply a blanket, mob mentality principle to an individualized philosophy
I'm sure I didn't announce it to you and the fact that I questioned you on some things might have confused you, But I do believe in God.
Thank you ma'am. I do believe in God, just not in the same way that others believe. Especially when dealing with the Bible
That is understandable. Many of us do not see things the same way. The Lord made a provision for that. We are judged according to our own faith, by our standard. He knows the heart. He knows that each of us are different, we understand differently, we process differently, we have different strengths and weaknesses. He takes that into account, like most "good" parents.
You best stick with the NT then, because the OT is not so pliable.
If more people lived by this principle, then there would not be as much division. Nor would there be a majority of people condemning others that do not believe as they believe to Hell.
Nonsense, that has accomplished nothing but division.
I think I misworded my statement. I was actually stating that there is division because of this statement. If more people lived by the idea that their way may not be correct for everyone instead of just them then there would not be as much division.
Right!!! Jesus did not condemn anyone besides the leaders who thought that they knew so much that they wanted to condemn him. He beat the "moneychangers" for disrespecting the church with all the "sales". But he did not condemn even those who had him hanging. We as his children have to remain nonjudgmental. We don't know the heart. We only see what is on the surface. God makes himself available to all. Not just the "good". Actually, he kinda does not do much with the "good" because "good" people do not exist. There is no one "good" save the father. Thinking more highly of self than you ought is seen in the judgments you make. God is judge. I can't help you pick the "splinter" from your eye, I have a "log". I think we see eye to eye on all the "important" matters.
Yes, it's called cherry picking and is hypocrisy of religions.
Pray first. Then doctor. I cover all the bases I can. As I said, science can only do so much. Do you know how many people die on the operating table for simple procedures??? I would rather be safe; again, I say.
I'll put it a different way then, were do your loyalties lie? If you could pick just one, do you stay home and pray or get the child to the ER? Many more would die without surgery.
Are you saying that you're going to believe in everything unless you have evidence that it does NOT exist?
So that means you believe in the unicorn, the flying spaghetti monster, the Yeti, the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny...
Genaea, welcome back girl! I don't have time for a proper response at the moment, but did want to say that, and acknowledge you do know how to set up a good thread. Considering how much some want to deny employing faith, this one is bound to be fun!
I am not expecting a remarkably huge turnout, you know God's "argument" is sturdy. It is not as fun when every opinion is weighed against scripture and real truth. Maybe just the "saints" can finally have a discussion that draws the perfect ear.
Here's to the hope we have in Jesus!!!
What happens when they all inevitably leave you?
They'll be dead and eventually I will too. I can only hope my children out live me. There is never real leaving among family. If they aren't in your presence they are in our thoughts. So if you mean "leave" as in get away from me, that won't make me have any less faith in them because every action by my children will be a reaction of how I raised them.
Good thoughts. I meant death/leave/estrange themselves/totally negate all that you have taught, or shared and go opposite. Faith, placed in man is good. But there may come a time when no one is around. The faith that I am talking about rests solely in belief vs non-belief in God. No God, then what? The unseen. But again, faith in man is good.
To me when it comes down to it the thing we rely on most is faith in man. I have been in times when no one else was there, I didn't find a God to be a reliable fill in during those times. Not saying I didn't try, just had no results which led to a more intense thought on what was and wasn't real for me. To each their own. Having faith in a God never worked for me.
Faith, everyone has it = assumptions, everyone makes them.
Psycheskinner, leave it to you to quip Some assume that they are the "master" of their own universe. I beg to differ. However, I will not convince one if one refuses to be convinced.
I may be glib but I am being literal. Faith is an assumption without comprehensive facts/proof. We make this and other assumptions every moment of the day.
Exactly! Everyday we must deal with faith. Whether it is faith in God, Buddha, Krishna, Mickey Mouse or self. We believe in something. We may even believe in a book; a set of data that someone else came up with. Some Afam have faith in President Obama. Myself personally, along with my faith in God, I have faith in the fact that when I sit in my chair, 1. it will not move from beneath me. 2. It will hold my weight. Do not be afraid of the word faith. I also have faith that my job will give me my paycheck at the end of the week. (well not now, unemployed, but when I was working, I knew that the US government would cut my check at the end of the week. See??? Faith is everywhere )
Why do you have "faith" that your chair will hold you up? Because you have sat in chairs before, you visually recognise it as a chair and you make a reasonable assumption, from your experience, that something chair-shaped is going to support you. I don't see that as faith, I see that as logic.
I think it's far too simplistic to say "everyone has faith" because you're conflating different senses of the word. A single word can have several different meanings. You can't roll them all up and say that in any one sentence, that word has all its various meanings simultaneously. That's not how dictionary definitions work.
I can put my faith in an abseiling rope because I've double-checked it, tested it, and generally obtained proof that it's as safe as it can be. We can never be 100% sure we've got something perfect, so there's an element of trust in there, but it's mostly experience.
I can put my faith in religion, but I can't double-check it, verify every detail and obtain proof that it's all accurate and safe. The element of trust is in the vast majority here, not in the minority.
I clearly see your point. But not every time I sat in a chair did it hold me up. Chairs are at the mercy of their crafters. Sometimes, the chair has a wobbly leg and I go crashing to the floor. My God has never allowed me to hit the floor. Granted, I do not get all that I desire from The Lord, but that does not mean that I will abandon all else. I cannot have all that I want, it is not all good for me. God knows that.
Testing God to see if he is real is good, the first time. He admonishes us to test. However, once we have found that he is GOOD, all tests must cease. He is not an errand boy. He is not sitting on his throne waiting for his next assignment. He asks that we trust him. Not be skeptical. How would your husband feel if you constantly and consistently questioned his love and loyalty???
How did you test God the first time? What was the outcome? Why is it wrong to test things a second time?
When I first met my husband, did I trust him immediately? Certainly not. Did I trust him immediately and totally, following the first time he did or said something nice? Absolutely not. Is it your habit to totally and utterly trust another human being based on ONE situation? I fear for you if so. It took me several months to develop trust in my partner to the point where we moved in together.
You're applying circular logic again, I think. You're saying God is a special case, therefore you only need to test him once. What evidence can you give me to persuade me that he's a special case? And please don't say the Bible - that is a book written by human beings like you and me (if you disagree, give me your evidence, not belief, to the contrary).
You're also saying God asks me to trust him. I haven't heard him say that, or anything else, for that matter. Have you? And don't say he said it in the bible - see above.
It does take a while for you to see that God is good. It is not a one-time deal. But once you see that he is good, it is necessary to walk like it. Testing and testing confuses you. You must form a relationship with him. You cannot form a relationship with someone that you do not believe is there.
Trust is neccessary for all close-knit relationships. Once you moved in with your husband and formed a cohabitation contract, it was evident that you trusted him. Did you "test" him again? And again? And again?
Of course not, but I had tested him adequately before I made that decision. Did you not get that point?
Yes, but now that we are "conversing" again, let me tell you that I have had this situation before. I understand the frustration of those who do not believe as I do. And also, the anger. I can only give what I have to give. Your questions step outside of the spiritual, did you get that point??? I am spiritual. God is completely spiritual and so is the bible. I cannot convince you that the spiritual realm encompasses concrete that you can rest your weary dangling feet upon unless you believe. It is not something that is possible. You do not repeatedly test your husband because he has given you "concrete".
BUT, before you "tested" him...you believed that he was there. Simple right? You can see your husband. He is not spirit. He is flesh. It takes belief in God to even ask for proof.
Think about this... How would it have sounded if during your husband's first "I love you" you said to him, "Yeah right, prove it!!!" He probably could not have done that at that moment. Would you have said, "Ha! I knew you were a fake!" And turned away from him forever? You first had to have faith that he was being truthful to even stick around long enough for that love to manifest, right?
Saying that you are spiritual means that we are suppose to believe that you have some kind of special powers I presume. Grandiose Delusion?! Humbug?!
You should rewrite that to read: God is completely INSANE and so is the bible.
Here you are trying to tell us that you have some kind of special powers that make it possible for you to detect something that we, or any advanced state of the arts scientific instrument, can't. But we can't experience this phenomenon unless we engage some distorted mindset like you have. Wow! This could be a science fiction psychological thriller. Parental Guidance suggested.
Similar but not exact. My style is actually closer to that of Marisa Wright's. She is straight forward, and leaves little room for childish nonsense. Like me, she holds CGENAEA's feet to the fire until she tells the truth....gets angry.....or runs away. Ultimately, one can never get the truth out of someone who holds a delusion as fact. However it is fun to see just how far a believer will take his/her dishonesty. A tragic comedy.
I liken it to an illusion of the mind that's not sure if it can handle reality, so it holds on to the illusion with all it's got.
You can choose the solid rock of faith in God, if you don't like where you are
I feel this is the root of the issue.
You feel that in order to be happy, you need some kind of solid rock to base your life on. Many people do.
Where you make the mistake is in assuming that everyone needs a solid rock. It may surrpise you to know that there are some people who relish the freedom and flexibility of a world where everything is not fixed and certain, and which can constantly surprise and delight us.
As someone once said - an anchor feels safe and secure, but it also stops you from venturing into new waters. Some people prefer the anchor and some people prefer to take the risk and sail away. We're not all the same.
Provide the verse. And then think about your life when Revelation talks about the earth having corners.
Oh please. google the script and realize that God is patient. He din care if they thought the earth was flat. It just does not matter. What matters is "a merry heart doeth good like medicine. Did you notice that bitterly mean people are not usually in the "Jet" for accomplishing very, very old age? They knew that.
Where is your babysitter??? I am not.
You can't even "detect" your own belief. I have asked you many, many times what you believe. You never respond. But you "detect" that I must be wrong. I have one more thing to say, "suffer the little children to go unto him, and forbid them not; for of such, is the kingdom of heaven."
How old were you when you gave your life to The Lord?
You don't clearly see my point, because I said you have a reasonable expectation that the chair will hold you up. So yes, there is always the chance that the chair will break (I used to be a facilities manager, I've seen it happen many times). But in life, we can't avoid all possible accidents, we have to operate on reasonable possibility.
My point was that operating on the grounds of reasonable possibility is not faith. You said it was. You have not replied to my point, you've just preached instead. Please don't do that.
...of furniture, yes. Which is what I was talking about.
Well, reasonable expectation is not a term that I would use to describe my faith. Remember, we are speaking spiritually. You probably cannot speak with me on spiritual keel because you are not spiritual. Which is the point for my discussion. I am spiritual. I wonder what those who are not, operate from. There has got to be and endless amount of possiblity. The question asks what you as a non spiritual person believes in. Faith in God is my answer. Your family is yours. We really can stop there. You have answered the question remarkably.
Thank you very much for proving my point and blowing your own original proposition out of the water.
I would not expect your faith to have any similarity to "reasonable expectation" whatsoever. But that IS what the atheist's "faith" in the world is based on - a reasonable expectation of what will happen, derived from their experience or research.
That's the whole point. You asked what is the difference between an atheist's "faith" that they can sit on a chair safely, and your faith that there is a God. That was the comparison YOU made, if you recall, in your attempt to prove that everyone has to have faith.
So you have proved my point, that the word faith in the way an atheist might use it, isn't really faith at all. So an atheist does not have faith in your meaning of the word, and doesn't need it.
I wonder if your problem is that you are jealous of people who can feel happy and fulfilled by the real world, without needing to believe in an outside agency.
Nah. My problem??? I wonder if your problem is that you are angry that it took you such a long time to fix the definition of faith so that it fits into your box. You have faith that your husband is faithful, but you cannot see it all the time. You trust. You have faith. Call it what you want. But to now become nicely rude, reminds me of someone I became familiar with, and came to miss, right here on this site. A "beautiful" life without Christ is just what is supposed to occur. No God, not much guilt. Do what you want, nobody can "see" you. Think/feel how you want, no consequence. That is the experience and feeling of many that I have become familiar with. No aye de mi. I'm just askin a question.
I get some really angry remarks too. I do not wonder why. When people are confronted with Belief/nonBelief in God and they do not have a "pro" opinion, for some reason... Defensive guns of war and all kinds of "knives" are brandished.
You know me... a good argument is stimulating. A good argument is solid. A good argument is on my desk opened to Ps 27.
You get angry remarks because people put a logical argument in front of you, but you don't answer it with equal logic. You disregard the statements that don't suit you, or twist the meaning of the words in them. That's annoying and disrespectful, and that's why people get angry with you.
Again, spirit and logic are somewhat on opposite poles. You cannot fathom spirit using logic. I have said that and many others. You want me to make it "logical" for you. I cannot. You have changed the definition of faith so that you can say that you have none. I have never heard such denial. But then you project that onto me. I can handle it. I know who I am. I have had this "argument" down packed for years. I am convinced of my argument, so it does not bother me when it is challenged. But you... different story altogether.
I have faith that those with faith that a creature from another, invisible, universe created this one will continue to attempt to legitimize their own faith by claiming everyone is the same. One way to do that is to take a different definition of a word while insinuating it is the same without actually saying so.
Insinuating, for instance, that 1)loyalty or 3)complete trust in another is the same as 2)belief in God or 4)system of religious beliefs because the first two use the same word as the last two.
It never works as most people understand semantics a little too well, but the effort is always made anyway.
They are not the same. I gave the definition of faith so that you will know that when we speak of faith it is not JUST religion that we speak of. Faith is a word with different explanations. They all explain what "faith" is. Again, we all have faith. Semantics, Dear Sir, are understood in the context of one's previous knowledge. I am giving a new idea that the old idea is hogwash. Faith is belief without seeing. In terms of people, faith is trust or allegiance. You believe the masses. You believe the lie. You would like to say the same thing about me but, well, go ahead, I don't mind.
I would have defined faith (in the religious sense as well as others) as belief without evidence. Whether that evidence comes from personal experience or that of others is irrelevant - one need not see it with our own two eyes to accept it as true. That, I suppose, comes down to faith definition 1) although I'm not so sure about the "complete" part.
That leaves the definition of "evidence" - something that the faithful and unbelievers disagree on vehemently.
True. The bible states that faith IS evidence. It takes the mind of the "intelligent" to decide that if you have no evidence, that you are moving in a horrible direction. They do not realize that they also have opinions about the unseen; faith. Nobody saw the world explode and form trees. However, many many many believe that it happened based upon the "evidence" that they have placed their "faith" in. Get it?
Yes, I get it. Your faith in God is evidence that He is factual.
I just disagree. Your faith in God's existence is evidence that you believe without evidence - it is not evidence of His existence at all regardless of the words of shepherds from thousands of years ago that also believed in a flat earth at the center of everything.
Can't say as I have ever met anyone that thought the earth exploded and formed trees, so cannot really comment on that one.
If you wish to define faith as a belief in anything you can't see, that's fine. I just agree again; many things unseen leave evidence behind them, evidence that can be shown to come from the unseen thing. Bacteria that causes disease, for instance, does not require faith to believe in using any common definition of the word faith.
That goes back to my first post; you are re-defining the ordinary word "faith" in an effort to legitimize religious faith by claiming that under the new definition everyone has faith. Doesn't work.
I agree with you, wilderness. The problem is that believers are now trying to redefine Faith to make it more palpable to skeptics by claiming everyone has it. Faith and trust are two different things - that's why they are two different words. I trust that my car is going to start in the morning because it always has, and I properly maintain it. It's possible that one morning it will fail to start - but it doesn't mean that I'm having faith that it always will, only to have my faith shattered. Faith, according to the bible itself is the "assurance of things hoped for, yet unseen". That does not equate to evidence.
For a believer to claim that faith is evidence is not only redefining faith, but evidence as well. Faith is believing in something WITHOUT evidence to support it. You don't have to have faith in gravity in order to be anchored to the earth. If believers are convinced that having faith is sufficient evidence, then I would challenge them to stand on a ladder and have faith that gravity is no longer real. Then jump off, and see what happens - hopefully it's an incredibly short ladder. Faith does not negate reality. Whether you believe in gravity or have faith in it or not, if you jump off of a ladder, you're going to fall. It's really that simple.
You're assuming that because I'm an atheist now, I always was? You know what they say about assumptions...
And you don't know anything about evidence. You don't have it, while claiming that your belief itself provides the evidence to substantiate and prove that belief. Round and round we go, using faith as evidence that faith is fact.
Everyone has faith. Everyone believes something that they cannot see. We are speaking spiritually.
Faith is belief without seeing. Is that why you have failed to mention what it is that you have faith in? In matters such as this, faith is ALL we have. Faith is evidence according to the bible. It must be examined spiritually. All of that realm is unseen. I believe that is why the bible calls faith evidence. Faith makes you sure. It may not make someone else sure, but for you, sure. Simply because you believe it. What do you believe?
Ok, there is much evidence in my life of the goodness of God. But it is because the goodness of God is what I attribute it to. Faith is belief without seeing. Many books have been written about many different subjects. To believe the pages takes faith in the author most often. I would not purchase a book from Martha Stuart on car repairs.
My point is, faith is key in most situations.
You say you see a lot of evidence, but in the same breath you admit it's not really evidence because you choose to ascribe it to God.
Say I find a dead body in my driveway, and say it's evidence that my next door neighbour is a murderer, because I have decided to ascribe the murder to him. That's fabricration, isn't it? I can't unilaterally decide that it's evidence against my neighbour - to do that, I need evidence that he was indeed the culprit. It is certainly not enough for me to have faith that he did it, because I could very well be wrong, couldn't I?
Can you explain how your example is different?
Actually it's fabrication but I obviously can't spell...
Well now you are speaking in the natural. This world is laden with those who seek the ultimate truth. The courts would handle your matter. Who would handle mine? I believe with all my heart that God is real. I believe this because I have a personal relationship with him and I know that he has never failed me. It takes faith, for sure. But I have that. Chance and happenstance is just not a good enough explanation for me having a dream about my daughter being born 2 years before she got here. Her father, who was incarcerated at the time, was in the dream as her father. I am convinced that the Lord sets up my life in many ways. As our relationship grows, his magnificence becomes more and more apparent. The bible says that one must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who diligently seek him. I am convinced.
No! Thank you. You have stepped forward, and established yourself as a credible leader. More Power to you!
Lol!!! Bite your tongue
Where HE leads, I follow. I don't get it all the time. But HE is faithful and just. The MOST comfortable "pillow" I could ever have. He has taken really good care of me. Now, I serve his children. He gives me what to say to them. His gift to me is humility.
Bite my tongue? The Lord has set it on fire! You are proof that the Lord calls women to preach.
Well, as humbly as I know how, I come.
The words you speak come from another prophetic dream I had three nights in a row. I have never saw myself as "leading" anything. I have just stayed really close to my faith in my relationship with Gid the father, and he is doing the rest. I must speak. I am no "preacher" though
Heaping praises like this upon an imaginary being is very very disturbing. I'm not kidding! But what is even more disturbing is that many people actually agree with you...even some otherwise intelligent people.
The inmates are running the asylum.
This is why atheists get frustrated. You're not even attempting to have a debate on this issue. Once again, you're resorting to preaching to avoid having to give a straight answer. You have completely failed to explain why your attitude to faith and God differs from the real world.
I'm asking you to explain why God is special. Your only response is to say "God is special because he's special. He's special because I'm convinced he's special."
Where's the logic in that?
You choose to believe that everyone else in the world has the same insecurities as you, and the same attitude to life. If you're a psych major then I'm glad you decided not to practice, because I'd feel sorry for your patients if you have so little empathy and so little awareness of the variety of the human condition.
Yes of course everyone has faith in something, but that doesn't mean that everyone has faith in religion or god.
Exactly, that is my point. Faith is not just a term of religion. We as humans can have faith in any entity, person, place or thing (kinda like a noun ) The purpose of this conversation is to find out what the faith of those willing to participate is anchored in. I see that not many have chosen to participate. That is by design. However, we will forge ahead regardless. Are you willing to share your faith?
Yes, every human has faith. However, some place their faith in facts and evidence while others place their faith in oral mythology and antiquated fairy tales.
Anyone suffering from some emotional or behavior problems, please get help before engaging the public. Talk to friends, counselors or whomever, but please get help. Sincerely
And nearly 2100 Gregorian years later, no one understands nor applies it, practically, as it was meant to be from the beginning. A thing of constant action. The force that enables the manifestation of free will.
Faith has become a Dr. Feel-good --or basis for establishing rules, belief AND disbelief systems.
Tell me, where is the faith of Abram? That of Daniel in a tomb of hungry lions, or Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in a furnace hotter than hot? Where is faith to the point of sweat mixed with blood or the faith that overthrows the grave itself, manifesting the Father's Will, which was also from the beginning?
There is no true faith among men. There is (false) hope wrapped in the religions of science or sensation --and nooses upon the necks of slaves to economics.
Hhhiiiii James! yes, I missed you most, and I am so glad to hear from you. But you smoked me. Come again... You know that mysticism is interlaced into all of your arguments. It sometimes is so mystical that I hardly understand. But that's ok, I am glad you're here anyway.
The faith of Abram et. al., was right where it needed to be. Which is why they had such victorious outcomes. Faith is needed. Unseen is all around us, often right under our noses.
Slaves to economics? what the...
What is "unseen" is for the blind.
True faith, that action of unconditional creation, ought to be visible in everything and in everyone. Certainly, Abram and the rest are but examples of 'limited' faith, before we were restored to the Creators glory. What is man's excuse now? He has none. What can he provide as testimony of his own faith? He can provide nothing, save a few trinkets of steel and glass, paper, or sensational affection --not even remotely close to love. Nothing but books and mysticism (hope that science or their sensations will spare them the grave). That is mans testimony: "I believe therefore I am (*) and I will die with a good conscious.
(*)worthy, grateful, a believer, faithful, steadfast, merciful, good and just; righteous; a wise person; given access to the Kingdom of Heaven-Earth; able to do all things ---yet having no proof of that ability whatsoever.
Wolves in sheep's clothing. Parading as angels of light; full of darkness to their deepest core. Worse than pagans! Consumed by Reason/Duality/Thinking (in the Aramaic it is called ha~satan, the adversary, the ego).
As always, very good to 'see' you as well, love.
Aaaaawwww, you almost made me put down my "sword" with that; just mushy.
Back to biz... Where do I start? You believe in you (as God??- if memory is good, like I think...) We do not meet either. Oooohhh! Our rift was the "book". Ok, now we have faith. You believe that unseen is nonexistent??? Um, the father wants us to commune with him as extensions of him?
Ok, before you answer, please remember, my thoughts are simple. My brain too. Puleeez. Come down from heaven for a sec. I need to understand you. No poems. Poetic language REALLY throws me. I'm too analytical. The prose is confusing. Maybe some construct binds me. You are quite poetic. You say it marvelously. It always SOUNDS melodic. However I really find myself scratching my head after your posts. Baby-steps.
As Mr O'Brian said, Faith is the end of Reason.
Reason is what happened to Adam that caused all the trouble.
Dividing that Knowledge given him.
And again, as Mr O'Brian said, believing a fact is not possible.
It is a given, something Understood. No necessity remains to believe or reject it.
It is the evidence of what was not visible.
To help with the baby-steps, I'll quote your favorite book, amplified for clarity:
Faith [the constant action of creation] is the substance [the genetic material] of things desired [passion to create, to make manifest] as well as the evidence [tangible proof] of what was once unseen [invisible, not manifest, intangible].
Faith is not speculative. Hope is.
Now, to the sword remark. Love it. But perhaps, just perhaps you would consider finally putting down your sword. Again to use your favorite book, "Put your sword back in its place! Everyone who uses the sword will be destroyed by it."
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks" Have you ever seen a farmer sow seed with a sword or reap a harvest with a spear?
Context, context. My sword in that statement was my "word". I have no slicer to draw "blood" but knowledge of the things of God. The weapon is word. I put sword in parenthesis to denote the differed meaning. I have nothing but the best intent. I want to know what atheistic alternatives are. "Belief" in nothing, is so far the concensus. What is "fact" is relative as well, on so many levels.
Belief & disbelief are the same thing. They are products of Reason (eating of the knowledge of what is/is not good/evil).
One affirms an abundance of evidence (even if they do not have an abundance)
The other affirms a lack of evidence (even if they do not have a lack). The third wheel are the agnostics who are uncertain if what they have/don't have, can be considered abundance or lack. The final position is one who neither cares or regards the information presented as being valuable for any purpose. These are often called apathetic or ignorant (meaning to ignore what is evident; believed to be evident; could be evident).
This is not the first time in history atheism, theism and agnosticism have come head to head. Happened in Sumeria, Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Asia, then throughout the major/minor theologies -from the million-god Hindus to the monotheistic Hebrew, Judeo-Christian and even Islamic systems.
But, to the main point of the thread, regarding faith, all say they have faith, yet cannot substantiate the claims by evidence/tangible abundance, save their sheer number of believers. Atheists fume at this because to them such claims without proof of abundance defies the core purpose of believing in a thing to begin with. Beliefs mounded high with pseudonymous terms, names, texts, etc that seem to be at odds with the core fundamental beliefs themselves.
I know many an atheist and many a post-theist (agnostic mostly) who will agree with this and stand firm on their claim that there is a bleeding lack of evidence/abundance. Ironically, neither atheist or post-theist have completely rejected the concept of "G/gods". What they have rejected is the mysticism/concept branding associated with beliefs themselves (i.e. If a G/god truly existed, why does it need a marketing department?, etc).
ohhhhhh!!! Thanks. It is the lack of "evidence" that is giving most their problem. What they do not realize is that in matters of the "ultimate truth" it is not available. People need to find what is true for them. God does need a marketing department. It was stated by Jesus that we should tell all the goodness of God. How can they hear without a preacher??? To be taught the ways of God is necessary (yes indoctrination) It is necessary to learn the ways of God. He said learn of me. You cannot learn without a source of information. The bible and the teacher who knows it. It is paramount to become aware. People like to deal in what they see. It is safer somehow. But, since I have worked in the unseen for so long and the Lord has walked me through it, I cannot go back. I know what I speak about because I have much experience with it. I am sure that how I speak is correct, checked, rechecked and verified spiritually.
You know better than this. Creating a pseudo "ultimate truth"? An "unattainable understanding" so as to continue wallowing in the depths of sensationalism or science? Seriously?! After nearly 2100 Gregoian Years you still think this is the "Way" to go about it?
This is pure ego/ha~satan and one of the main problems in general with such beliefs/disbelief's.Good of you to note your own failure by indoctrination. But, furthermore, Joshua (whom you call Jesus) said to learn of me UNTIL the Spirit comes. It was the SPIRIT who raised him up, not himself, nor his own human power. That Spirit is the same who created everything. It is the essence of Creator. It is now that esseence who:
a. Will lead/guide into all Truth (unreserved understanding; fulfilled wisdom/philos).
b. Supply all necessity accordingly
c. Show you the way/path (being your only source of information -not your mind, not your texts, not your machines)
d. Give life to your moral flesh (causing physical death to Passover you)
etc. Who then needs a preacher?
Hmm. I am sensing your "unseen" is not that unseen regarding faith. It is ego fabricated "proof" of a twisted belief system.
What you speak is your ego and defense of theology -not faith. And furthermore, your "G/god" does not need defending if indeed it is a god! What you're doing is marketing doctrine in the name of your "G/god". Secondly, you yourself admitted to me long ago you do not trust your heart -which is where the Spirit has its dwelling. So stating you have spiritual verification is a flat out lie. Else, you would not be bragging about it as you are...
...In my humbled opinion.
Everybody's got one right? I am speaking on how I interpret the things of God. I have only little experience with things as you "know" them. I am not God. I am not even close. I am not able to know right from wrong without God. He is the epitome of right. He shows me how to know through my constant contact with him. The contact can be cut-off however, you are proof of that. It is now you who makes your rules and you call it God in you. "Learn of me, until the Spirit comes?????" Now you know better than to add to the word of God. right??? Learn of me is a constant action. It is a requirement. Stop it ha-satan.
Please , you are deluging and deluding yourself to save face.
Is it so difficult or cultist to admit when you are wrong????
--Not able to know right/wrong? Apparently you missed the memo on salvation's purpose.
-Contact cannot be cut off. Let me see you try to unplug from creation for even a second.
-Rules, what rules? Rules are only from doctrines (be they scientific or sensational).
-He is not showing you anything! You are showing yourself (your ego is playing you!).
And, it seems I struck the exact nerve...
Yes, it is ONLY the Spirit who IS ABLE to lead into all truth.
Would you like the "biblical" passages referencing this?
Learning is not a requirement for wisdom. Application of understanding is wisdom. HUGE difference.
What you call learning is nothing less than a mind trying to remember correctly the things genetically programmed into it from the foundation of the world. Did you not read what Moshiach said???
Ergo, my original point...there is no faith among men, only hope wrapped in the religions of science & sensation.
Prove me wrong, child of "G/god".
"I have more "faith" that atheists, agnostics -even hedonists- will understand more than those who call themselves the children of light".
James, you are on a different plane than I. I cannot fathom most of your points. It is so full of you. Please come down from heaven for a second. I need clarity. I will admit my wrong, no problem. I need to see where it is first.
Sorry, love, I can neither come down to earth nor go up to heaven.
The Creator made me both, heaven-earth.
There is no up or down to go to.
If you need clarity, let go of the analytic necessity to know and allow that remembrance to happen. I am not the only one like this. The one you say you believe in, he is the same. We are brothers, as he said. And there are many more awakening...everywhere on this planet. Clarity comes when you remove the stumbling block, the millstone, the texts, the pills, the doctrines, the ego (ha-satan) - and jump, both feet, into the water of Life. It is really not complicated or difficult. It requires one simple thing: faith (the ever constant action of creation that manifests/produces the proof/evidence/fruit of Life).
And with that, I sense the Pharisees coming, so I will depart.
Was good to 'see' you again, Genaea. Enjoy the day!
One of the scariest and arguably dangerous things on the planet are those unable to know right from wrong without their gods.
History is replete of examples.
Based on what this comment, why do you specifically know that something is right or wrong? Solely because God said it is?
This is not a true statement, because you've admitted on another forum that you know homosexuality hurts no one, but your religion conflicts with your understanding. Your understanding is right as the Christian view does hurt people. Therefore you do know right from wrong.
if it is not available then you can't know it either. Hence your faith is in something you can't know exists.
I do not think there is anything reasonable about that. It's wishful thinking.
Now it might be nice if there were a benevolent god. (Not the Christian one, he's pretty cruel) But it's just a nice dream. There is no evidence for it, any more than there is evidence for invisible pink rabbits.
I want facts, not nice fuzzy feelings.
No. No more than I have a firm belief that unicorns don't exist. On the basis of current evidence, I'd say it's extremely unlikely that either unicorns or God exists, but that doesn't mean someone won't make a discovery tomorrow.
You may be surprised to know that 99% of atheists would say exactly the same thing.
Most science is only theory, not fact, so one must be open to the possibility that new discoveries will overturn what we think we know about the world. That's how most atheists think, because that's what logic dictates.
I must tell you a secret... If you see a special on CNN or somebody that they discovered the ark of the covenant and there were pictures drawn about he coming of Jesus. Or there was a letter to Moses about the red-sea split and the manna, and the ten commandment tablets with markings that could have only been written by a finger on the stone... You would have SERIOUS doubts about its authenticity. It still takes faith to believe. All the evidence in the world will not convince you if you refuse to be convinced. Yes??? They can show me all the Tooth Fairy "evidence" that they want...not gonna do it
If I saw evidence of the Tooth Fairy, I'd give it some serious thought. I would never dismiss it outright.
Same with the documentary about finding the Ark. I have watched a couple, and I did not dismiss them - I listened carefully and also did my own research before deciding whether to take it seriously or not.
Like I said, we're all different and take different attitudes.
Evidence of the tooth fairy? Uh,oh! You mean the wand with the gold tooth on the end.
Tossed to and fro. When "anything" is possible, tossed to and fro. We go with the guy who gives a lot of evidence in the form of numbers and formulas that only he and ten other doctors know. We say, "oh, he used twelve really big words. He must really know his stuff!!!" We follow, believe, have faith in him.
God is much more merciful than that. He will not do any harm to you if you are beneath his wing with your/my sinful self. He accepts the sinful. Much quicker, let me add. He just wants to come. Bring it, whatever it is, with you. He can fix it. And provide his grace in the meantime.
I don't need to be fixed. There is nothing wrong with me, or you for that matter. Humans are inherently GOOD people that can make bad choices. They're not sinful little wretches that are unworthy of love, affection or forgiveness unless they make the right moves and offer the right sacrifices to the deity of their choice.
Listen, as snide and flippant remark is quite uninformed. I thought that you studied the bible. Were you reading during a hailstorm? God is not eager to throw you in hell for eternity. He is just waiting for the opportunity to restore things to his original plan. Sin is here. He is waiting to do away with it for good. He who is not for him, is against him. He will not force you on either side. The choice is yours. I am not good. Neither are you. And neither was Mr. Rogers (won't you be my neighboor). Not even Mother Theresa. We all have sin. It is how we deal with it that makes the difference to him. An attitude of hautiness is unacceptable. He is God. Humility, truth, desire for him, and faith in him are all good.
Like I have said many times before, I am not interested in winnin' souls. This was supposed to be a conversation about what faith that those who do not believe in God have. You guys almost say it, but then you back off. I know that I have asked many times. I get "smoke and mirrors" too. but it does not bother me.
Listen up people. You have faith in a lot. Of all the books you read, you listen to the tests performed, you hear the results and many of the words they use are even foreign to you. And because they said that they tested and confirmed this or that. They have your attention. And approval. Especially if it aligns with what you already believe to be the truth. You have not confirmed the so-called test by performing it yourself. Nor have you discredited the information because you were not there to see the test performed. Your stamp of approval is given for a job well-done.
Is that not faith?
no, it's not faith at all.
Hmmmm. I must get my thesaurus. Faith is probably listed as an equivalent for whatever you think it is. I am not kidding. Faith is the substance of things hoped for; evidence of unseen things.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
neither of those options is evidence.
I think her point in this one is that some of those who believe in science and logic have not actually gone and tested specific theories for themselves. They simply go along with what others state is the conclusion of a specific theory without any further questioning. Once it has passed a review with other like- minded scientists then it is accepted as good. If I were to dig deeper with this (with my own understanding), the basis of what I would think she is getting at is that even with science and logic, we often take the word of people who study these things because they are "experts" in this particular field (similar to how believers take the word and teachings of preachers and other theologians) without examining these things for ourselves..
Basically the two sided coin principle..
If I'm correct in my understanding of what she is proposing, I can see why she would call it faith
Thanks again, Deepes. I have been trying to say that. Maybe they will hear you say it. I am grateful that it is finally being gotten, nevertheless. My intention has been clear from the beginning. I am saying that most atheists especially the scientific, go along with the latest scientific development simply because this person tested it or that person tested it. They ask much more from God.
Thanks again, Deepes. I have been trying to say that. Maybe they will hear you say it. I am grateful that it is finally being gotten, nevertheless. My intention has been clear from the beginning. I am saying that most atheists especially the scientific, are enthralled with new scientific studies that prove this or that, and they believe without question. Yes, just as the Chrstian is accused of such blind belief.
Good summary of what she's trying to say. The problem I have with using "faith" in that context is that faith implies not just unquestioning acceptance, but also total acceptance. If you look at the full definition of faith in dictionaries, you'll see words like "total", "complete", "firm" etc.
For me, that's the fundamental difference. A scientist would never have total faith in any theory because he's always aware tomorrow's discoveries could turn everything on its head. Look how relativity changed the understanding of basic stuff like time! The casual observer who just accepts the word of the experts isn't totally or completely committed to believing them either - he's just accepting today's best advice, and if better advice comes along tomorrow, he'll accept that.
There's an element of utter certainty implicit in the word faith, that doesn't apply to those situations.
I disagree slightly.. Dictionary. com does not use the words "total" or "Complete" in its definition of faith. Dictionary.com defines faith as
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
Based on these definitions, faith and even belief does not necessarily hold a total and complete certainty. For example, I have a belief that I've come to based on my understanding of the bible from my own reading and questioning for myself. I admit that the opinion and belief I've formulated could be wrong, but it makes enough sense for me that it works for MY life at this point in time. With this acceptance, I would never try to convert anyone over to my way of belief for three primary reasons:
1- I have no evidence to irrefutably prove my belief (yes I admit it)
2- In order for someone else to believe what I believe the way I believe it, they would have to have shared the same experiences as me, and also have the same level of understanding that I have which would require my thought process.. We are all unique. Even if we shared the same experiences, we may not look at it the same exact way
3- Whatever you believe has no effect one way or the other on my life directly. Therefore, what's the point? (sorry if that seems harsh, but it is what it is)
Then again of course the close 4th reason is that hey, I could be wrong. I wouldn't want to draw anyone over to what could be a wrong idea.
There are so many dictionaries around now, I might've known there would be one that took a different view!
Basically, the problem is that the words faith and belief are very loaded words. We use belief in a multitude of different ways. It can mean "I understand" as in, "I believe you were expecting my visit?" or a statement of opinion, as in "I believe climate change is real". That's why religionists can get away with saying to atheists, "but you believe there is no God" - because one could say that an atheist understands the world as having no God, or that he is of the opinion there is no God - both valid uses of the word belief. But an atheist doesn't believe in the absence of God in the sense of blind faith or an absolute commitment to his absence no matter what.
And that's another problem with English: we use the word belief to define faith and the word faith to define belief. No wonder we end up going in circles!
And you are intent on going around in every one of them.
I agree. both words are used as synonyms of each other.
Well, we have been arguing for the longest that they mean two different things. How then, may they be used interchangeably?
1.confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2.belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3.belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4.belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5.a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
1.something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2.confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3.confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4.a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.
Both words are thrown around as being different, but in actuality they both have similar meanings. this is how they can be used interchangeably. Both of them speak to having confidence in something without specific proof in the thing you are putting your faith (or belief) in.
It depends upon the specific definition that you are dealing with at any specific time.
No "specific" definition. Faith. Just faith. Faith has many definitions. But I did not specify any particular, I listed them all. And still others remain. I just said faith. Breaking it down by specifics is not the intention of my discussion. I did not say, Faith, everyone has a certain type. I said, Faith everyone has it.
You may get what she's saying, but that's not what she was saying originally. She even told me that definition 2(b) was the one that applied to everyone, so she clearly had a specific meaning of faith in mind at the start. She's just making it vaguer now because she can't win the argument.
No Marisa, if you read the OP again, you will notice that I gave several definitions of faith. I never said that you have any type of faith. We only spoke about it when you tried backing me into the corner of this definition vs that one. It was mentioned by you from the beginning, not me. You are trying to win the argument by stating that there is some sort of faith involved, but not my kind.
Though it is funny to me that you are "reaching" so, you are reaching alone. From the BEGINNING, I said we all got faith in something. Not a SPECIFIC type. Please be fair.
I'm being very, very fair Cgenea. It's not possible to back someone into a corner if their argument is sound. If you feel "backed into a corner" in a debate, it means you can't think of an answer to a curly question - which is a fair indicator that your original premise was flawed.
I didn't force you to say that everyone had the kind of faith defined in 2(b). I asked you a question and you gave your answer. You did that all by yourself, so obviously at the time, you believed it. Now you're trying to wriggle out of that because that assertion has been shown to be wrong.
Obviously our debate is now done, since your only stance is to try to move the goal posts. Bye.
Thank you for releasing me
Wriggling is hard to do online. Uh, you did not respond to the fact that my original argument is still going. And it looks like I have been right all along with how I started, my argument. Yes, you did totally insist that I give you a "specific" definition and 2b still fits in my eyes. But get this, YOU are the one who began crying, "but WHICH definition?" I gave several. Moving the goal post was your job. You ORIGINALLY tried to pinpoint a way to be right. But it only works when you twist truth. You said that ORIGINALLY, I gave a specific definition. That is a lie. I gave several.
Still "reaching"? There's nothing there Marisa. Your husband and your children have your WHAT???? Which definition did YOU mean??? You are very funny.
And you're hysterical. The amount of twisted logic and incoherence in that post is nothing short of laughable, which is why I'm not even going to attempt to unravel it.
You're conveniently forgetting our earlier discussion, aren't you? To recap. This is the full version of the definition which you gave at the start of this thread:
1 (a) : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
1 (b) : fidelity to one's promises : sincerity of intentions
2 (a) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
2 (b) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
I explained to you how dictionary definitions worked: that in any one sentence, the word can't have all those meanings at the same time - they're alternatives.
I invited you to nominate the definition which you state applies to everyone. You replied that the meaning which applies to us all is 2(b). That's the basis of your argument. You can't go changing it now, just because someone has given an example you can't answer logically.
In the example you just gave, 2(b) definitely does not apply. Someone reading a scientific book (which includes proofs and evidence) is not believing without proof, and won't put "complete" trust in the results from just one scientist - that's not how science works.
Ok, I have a feeling that we could go on forever like this. The first definition of the word faith fits right? If you have belief that a person or persons with lots of letters behind their name say, "We tested it." You "believe" what they say? You performed no tests to prove it for yourself. You did not see them perform the test. You did not calibrate the machines. And you haven't the slightest idea how the formulas were tested. Not faith yet? If not, please explain HOW it is NOT faith.
Yes, we could - if you keep changing the goal posts.
I think we are agreed that everyone can use the word "faith" to apply to them in some contexts, BUT the important thing is that different definitions of faith apply.
Your fundamental contention is that everyone has faith in something in the same way you have faith in God - firm belief, total trust. You can't deny that, I can refer you to your post. You have yet to come up with an example that proves that.
Like I said, even if I choose to believe the scientist in question, I do not have a "firm" belief or "total" trust because it's only one article. Why would anyone be stupid enough to believe totally on the strength of just one article? We see it all the time on the internet - it could be a total fabrication. Scientific theories are never given much credit until they have been tested by several different scientists - and even then, a theory is only true until it's proven wrong, so again those words 'firm" and "total" do not apply.
So in fact, I can't see any definition of faith that applies to that example.
I am not saying that you have placed your total faith in anything. Your "faith" using whatever definition or context you wish; is placed in many different things, it is spread out. "Tossed to and fro."
The moral of the "story" is: for me, a 2000 year old, time-tested tradition of stories based upon the truth (again, for me) is much more worthy of my faith. Anybody can say anything. Then, they can turn right around and say something different. God never changes. Now, you do not have to believe me on this. I did not ask for that at all. This was a conversation about "trust" blindly placed (because most people cannot perform a scientific experiment, complete with knowledge of what it all means. They believe without seeing; but only receiving a word from someone ELSE who "knows"
here's a question. You're right. Your god, according to his word, never changes (Malachi 3:6) Do you stone your children when they misbehave?
You're also failing to realize that the 2000+ year old stories that you believe in HAVE changed. We don't burn witches at the stake anymore, even though the bible says that you should not suffer a witch to live (and then turns to them for advice and help when necessary). We don't condemn and execute "heretics" and every christian sect is quick to denounce any other denomination as "heretics" or "not true christians". Christians themselves cannot come to a consensus on the doctrines and teachings of the church or the interpretation of scripture. The words haven't changed, but the understanding of them has. Science is no longer demonized, just ridiculed. The christian church was dragged kicking and screaming out of the dark ages, and it had to "evolve" in order to survive - otherwise it would have died out. You vote against gay rights, but you're not out killing homosexuals - despite what the bible teaches on the subject. Therefore it has changed, whether you want to accept it or not.
Again, God does not change. You do. In this very post you said that the words changed, then you said they didn't. The bible is full of information on what was done before Jesus entered the picture. The Lord had a certain purity that he wanted for his children. Had they listened, no punishment. But, they didnt listen.
God adjusted his original plan to introduce an avenue for his children to be restored unto him. He did not change. Jesus came to show us what it all means. He came to make things right again and give opportunity for communion with God. This is not your story, however. That's fine. The understanding of scripture takes faith. The interpretation is cloudy at times, but if you just keep reading in faith, it all fits together. Reading the bible is not for the skeptical mind. It is for those who believe. And want instruction. When you look for contradiction in the bible, it is easy to find.
so you admit that the bible has contradictions?
jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. His words (or rather, what's claimed to be his words, we don't actually know if he said it or not) not mine.
No. The bible has no contradiction. As you say, it is at the mercy of the interpreter. I have found that more often than not, scripture is taken literally, when there is supposed to be a level of spiritual intelligence in deciding the context of the particular passage; especially the parables.
Jesus said, "the sabbath was made for the people, not the people for the sabbath." They misunderstood the picking and eating of food by the disciples on the sabbath. They wanted to punish those sabbath day "workers" Jesus showed them that not only was it unneccessary, but he told them why. God did not change. He changed the rules for those who believed the message. He knew that it would need to be done from the beginning.
This statement would also apply to the fact that the bible was written by men "inspired by God" and thus could have been at the mercy of their interpretation while they were writing it. "Inspired by" is not the same as "coming directly from". Events inspired by a true story can be (and usually are) changed to fit the perspective and often the opinions of the person telling the story. So with this in mind, it can be reasoned that a lot of the bible could actually have been written as according to man's idea of what he thinks God SHOULD BE, not what God truly is. Now, does this mean that God doesn't exist, no. I believe he does exist, just not in the way that he is and has been portrayed in the bible and reimagined throughout the 2,000 year history.
Good observation. But it could not be changed to the extent that it "messes" up the story or gets it wrong. Since it was inspired by God, it is sound. Interpretation of one that you are having a conversation with, is usually much better than one you read. My example last year was interpretation of my words to people who know me as opposed to people who have only heard about me.
If I say that I am hot. I could be saying a few different things. 10 years from now, a person looking at my statement could get a few different impressions. Only people who know that I am nowhere near vain, and that I wear a jacket in 65 degree wheather would interpret possibly more along the lines of what I actually meant. You must "know" the intention of the writer to correctly get what he is writing.
here is where we disagree. Because man's interpretation and understanding is flawed based on bias and perspective, there is no way that it can be totally "sound" even if it is inspired by God. It may or may not be totally false, But it isn't totally sound.. Look at it this way, look at how divided people are over the word and even in society in general now even with all of the advancements that we have today. One can only imagine how crazy it could have been back when it could not be tested or reviewed.. It is the nature of man being flawed in general that makes it unsound since it didn't come directly from God. Inspiration can often lead to exaggeration. This is all across the board.
this statement basically proves that there is little to no way that the Bible can be totally sound even if it was "inspired" by God
Ok, we can look at it this way, you and I have a difference of opinion based upon the solidity of the bible. Do you think that matters to God?
I doubt that it would. Now the thing that would make the difference is if you believed that your specific opinion is totally right and mine is wrong (or vice versa) or if we simply acknowledge that our opinion is what specifically works best for our individual lives
We are judged by our OWN faith and by our OWN standard. I cannot "fix" your opinions if God has given them to you because he is the only one that knows what is best for you. He knows how you think. He knows how you process. He knows what you can bear. I love this life of victory!!!
Do you not believe that since God is God and he knows everything, that he would know who to inspire? How to relay the message so that it is received as intended?
Yrs. But even if he did know who to inspire, there is no guarantee that the message would get relayed as intended.
Why didn't God just have one of His angels write the bible, then just make a public appearance, and then present it to mankind. Less room for error there. Of course these angels were way too busy doing things like guarding the entrance to the Garden Of Eden.....which was much more important.
Yes, brilliant statement. If God knows everything, why didn't he know that his message would cause such division? Why isn't his message so perfect that everyone believes?
1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace
funny, but I can't think of a more confusing or divisive book than the bible which believers claim is inspired by god himself.
Again, the problem is not in the delivery of the message; it is in the ear of the hearer.
so all of the christians that disagree with you on doctrinal manners have something wrong with their ears too?
You have not been listening. My way is not the only way. Jesus was our example. I follow his words/works. I cannot speak for anyone else. I do not know the heart. I only know that I have been given the words that I speak by my father. We all have our own race to run. It is not the same race either. It just has the same destination.
but you admit that other "believers" and people in other religions claim to get messages from god, just like you do, but their messages contradict yours. Are you then asserting that YOUR messages are correct, and all the contradictory ones are wrong?
Yes, if they do not speak or behave as Jesus taught.
according to who's interpretation of what Jesus said or taught? Yours?
But if i go out and find two believers, they're both going to tell me two different things. You seem to be advocating personal interpretation which may or may not be correct. That's not faith, that's hope.
I slightly disagree here. This is an example of the individualized definition of religion. One definition of religion is
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
My understanding of this opinion leads to the conclusion that it is more subject to an individual perspective.
Add this definition of Christianity- Christian beliefs or practices; Christian quality or character: and this is where and why you would have two different believers with two different ideas. But even then it is still the same overall belief in God, just in different ways.
You must find God. He will tell you all you need to know.
it's a catch 22. I used to be a christian, and I tried to go to god with my questions and concerns and I got no answer at all. I didn't just wake up one morning and decide to be an atheist. It doesn't work that way. I asked for help and guidance for years and got nothing.
Now that I'm a nonbeliever, you're saying I have to believe before god will hear me, but I can't believe without any evidence. This is circular logic. I need evidence in order to believe that something is true, but I can't have the evidence unless I suspend my disbelief and believe in something that has not been proven. There is no way to win here.
You have "won" already. The choice was/is yours. You can do with it whatever you like.
A point for us to remember is that God is God. He may not give ALL you desire; as you desire. He knows what's best. He may have answered, just not the way you wanted. He is your father if you say yes.
My parents (especially my dad) were not very indulging with their children. Daddy was always making me wait for answers. Waiting is hard when you are "desperate"
I did not "run away" I knew I wanted to stay warm, sheltered, fed, and I would have missed my mommy.
Don't be sorry. He inspired me in a lot of ways; though yes, I did not get the daddy I wanted. I got that man that my momma married. He was rough on my brother and I. Guess that was best though.
That's been apparent all throughout this entire thread.
No disrespect. My sister has daddy issues as well. Even though our dad treated us worse than garbage, she still somehow loves to think that he loved her. She's still looking for that father figure. It seems that some people imagine God being that perfect father that you imagine. Perfectly tailored to your needs....but still imaginary.
I need God yes. But that is what he wants. Daddy issues or no.
Well, I'm glad the Daddy you've invested for yourself is kind and forgiving and I'm sure he gives you the time and attention you didn't get from your own dad.
Funny, funny, funny. And yes, time and attention; I get plenty now. Thanks for your "obvious" concern.
Again I must disagree with you here. Even the delivery of the message is one that would tend to force people to convert or do the right things more out of fear of punishment or desire for gain rather than actual ethics of doing the right things because they are the right things.. Christ did live more of an example of doing right because it is right, but In a lot of the different churches I've been to it's been more of the normal hellfire and brimstone preaching that is what's causing a lot of people to turn from God (especially if they take the time out to read and study the word for themselves)
The message is perfect. But not everyone believes for a plethora of reasons. The fault is not in the delivery of the message; it is in the ear of the hearer. We believe what we want.
Deepes, you impress me more and more. Well said.
Really? Then, the bible is not useful as any kind of philosophy or moral standard if it can't be clear and concise for everyone. Ambiguous and whimsical narratives that leave much room for wide interpretation will never be properly understood and will achieve little more than conflict and division.
You are right. The Lord made it that way. Why? Well, I don't know. But surely, only those who want to come, will come. The rest, he will handle the way he promised.
Sorry, but you did. I questioned what you meant when you said everyone had faith, and you said that it was definition 2(b) that applied to everyone.
Go back and check if you don't believe me.
Are you now saying that you want to change the definition you've chosen? Which one applies now, then? I don't see where any of the definitions of faith apply to that description - including the ones defined under item 1.
I have a really good memory, for some reason (my father) and I distinctly remember the comment. I stand totally behind it now, too. With books, there is trust in a human. Human minds are really tricky sometimes. Now, you kept badgering me about how each definition of faith is different. (By the way, thank you for the lesson. I mean, I did take a bit of time to list the numbers, and seperate definitions. It was really hard to fathom that they were ACTUALLY different. Did I tell you that I am an avid researcher? Though stats bit me in the asspirations, I like to read, about my favored subjects.
Anyhow, you kept telling me about how MY definition with God and stuff, was just not gonna cut it. You, (not you), have no faith. I remember what you told me. but it has swung full circle. Now, we say, well it's faith, but not how you mean it. (When I only said "faith") You figured that my meaning was tied to God. I know it aint. That was already understood. (Did you read the OP?) My point was, in the very beginning, my question encapsulated a phrase that allowed you to know that you have faith in...something. I never said Godly faith in something. I only meant that you also, believe without seeing. As in, "well, ten scientists said they agreed and uh, I guess that's the latest we have. So lets hang the green flag now, cuz we had a new development." (reminds me of The Wiz toward the end when the Wiz kept changing the kingdom colors). if none of the definitions of the word "FAITH" apply to anything that you do, then ok. But, we have just realized that from the very beginning, I said faith in something. Believe ten studies. Believe ten thousand studies. I'm on the Lord's team.
Anybody else want to talk about their faith???
I'm sure you have convinced yourself with this desperate drivel, but the rest of us can see it for what it really is. Looks the very same as lying for Jesus.
The fact that you talk about an invisible entity that you refer to as your FATHER, is disturbing, as it is proof that your mindset is not attuned to reality. You then go on redefining everything, so that it fits into your delusional and fraudulent premise. Just admit that you have erroneously charged atheist with having faith....not just faith as a collective definition....but faith in the way you have faith in your imaginary bumbling God. It takes more courage from an individual to admit that he has erred.
For your information, I do it all the time. It's a humbling experience, but so good for the psyche. You should try it. Being that your morals are certainly superior to that of a sinful atheist, I would expect no less..
I am no better than you. Getit? Superiority is of naught in the kingdom of God. We are all seen through the eyes of real truth, and will be deemed accordingly. The only difference is that I have placed all of my faith in one who I know is correct in everything. I don't have to search for answers to my questions, I must only ask. The answer comes. Humility is my middle name. I cannot admit that I am wrong when I speak. I speak not of myself. Again, God is correct in everything. Faith in my rudimentary context is simply belief without seeing. We all do that to some degree. I feel my assurance inside. I see it working in my life constantly. Yes, I seek first. Then I find. I cannot ask God for anything (including an understanding of his nature) without first believing that he exists. He will not "perform" for you, if you do not believe he is there. Faith the size of a mustard seed.
I used an example and never got feedback. If your significant other tells you that they love you. You take them at their word, or don't. You cannot demand, "prove it to me right now!" They may not be able to come up with an action of "proof" right then. Do you exclaim then, "I knew you were a fake!!!"?Then turn away from them forever???
And that person is YOU. Not some imaginary God.
And that person whom you are asking is YOU, You don't need to take it that step further.
The answers ALL come from YOUR brain.
Maybe if you want to strictly define faith as you have, then good for you. I see that you need to align yourself with atheist so that you feel better about your beliefs, but that's futile. Sorry.
Of course. That's why atheist don't rely on God, because unlike you, we cannot convince ourselves that something as illogical as your God, or any gods exists.
Anyone would be naive to have total faith in what ANYONE says. However, being human, at some point, we are all forced to take risks, or else perish anyway. I don't see that as faith.
You may have a good memory but I suggest you go back and read this thread carefully.
You were the one who decided to base this entire discussion on the definition of faith given in the dictionary. You can't change what you "meant" now, by dismissing that definition.
"My point was, in the very beginning, my question encapsulated a phrase that allowed you to know that you have faith in...something. I never said Godly faith in something. I only meant that you also, believe without seeing."
Which definition of faith (from your original post) means "believing without seeing"? I'll tell you. It's the one that means "firmly believing without seeing, "complete trust" - and those words make a huge difference.
The difference is that atheists can believe something without seeing, but that belief is not firm nor is the trust complete. Their belief is based on the balance of probabilities, the likelihood that something is true. That means there is always a door open to accept further evidence for or against, and therefore the opportunity for that belief to change. It is mutable, not immutable. That's not faith because it's not certain.
ok, Tossed to and fro is the way to go for science. I stay solid on the God that never, NEVER changes. When you and your cohorts started with the "certain" definition of faith and "it is not THAT definition but THAT definition," you confused the situation for your own selves. I said faith. I said faith. I said faith. I gave all the definitions to show that faith has a FEW. For me, my faith is in God. For you, uh, your kids and your husband. Faith is faith. Faith is faith. Faith is faith. Why does it matter that your "faith" is used differently??? Faith is what????? faith We confuse the issues when we want to talk about the type. I never stated that you have the type of faith that I had. I stated that you have faith, it is just placed elsewhere.
Ok, so then what do you believe, until the next development? Whatever it is, you believe something without first seeing it with your own eyes.
Wrong. Why believe anything till the next development? Can't you accept that you just don't know?
You do not know that god exists. If you say you do you are lying to me and to yourself. You assume it exists. You feel it exists, you have faith it exists but you do not know it exists. So what is the purpose to having faith it exists? It either does or does not. Your faith changes nothing. It's useless in practical terms.
Oh you believe so you attribute everything to a god. So you have confirmation bias. Every experience you have: God this god that. But you don't know, and millions of people have experiences that they don't attribute to a god. Why not admit it to yourself? You don't know.
Neither do I so I won't waste time and energy believing there is a god. Why bother? Because it makes you feel good? Feeling good does not prove a god or anything else. It means you are more concerned with what you want the truth to be rather than what it is.
When I "believe" in something or someone (science, husband, friends), I have formed an educated opinino that they are genuine based on my best assessment of the situation. I am not 100% certain and it would be foolish to be so - any logical person will tell you that.
Faith is accepting something or someone utterly and completely with absolute conviction that they will never change. That is a very big step to take. You have obviously taken it with regard to your religion. I'm at a loss to understand why you are so insistent everyone else must have the same unquestioning attitude to something in their lives, just because you do.
Why do you keep picking at he definition? You don't wanna call what you have faith? Don't. You will not change anything that I have said on the matter. I see that I cannot get you to stop checking each definition to find a word that does not fit for you. Please leave me alone on the matter.
Listen up world... Marisa has NO faith! Didja hear me??? I said Marisa has NO faith. Absolutely none EVER!!! in anything.
Please tell me where you got this one definition of faith.
really? Can you choose to believe that gravity isn't real? If you can truly believe what you want, then it should be feasible.
Sure, you can call it "heaviness" if you want. We are free to believe as we wish. Good, bad, or indifferent.
can you chose to disbelieve in gravity and then jump off of a ladder and fly?
I have faith in Jesus. But I've had a personal revelation. My husband says he doesn't believe, he knows because his own personal encounter was so real. Faith is tied to experience, not just head knowledge.
As to this discussion, as Bob Dylan said "it may be the devil or it may be The Lord but everybody's got to serve somebody." Whatever your belief it will be counter to someone else's belief, and therefore must take a degree of faith in something
Marisa, there is no way to believe that God is NOT there without blind faith either.
Please let me change faith to belief here, I forgot my recent PSA.
Blind faith in WHAT? Do you have blind faith because you DON'T believe that there is a dragon in your ear? Just how does this logic work?
All over this country, there are people who believe in God. Others make a decision to not believe it. Faith in God is not a new phenomenon. An ear dragon, maybe...
You have to make a decision in your mind. Can millions for the past 2000 years be just "crazy"??? Hmmm... I believe/have a strong feeling/have faith that they are just lying??? For many centuries???
I have faith that science cannot prove the age of the earth. With their tests, they cannot take into account the purity of the air 1000 years ago. And they have no idea how many seasonal catastrophes that have taken place since then. My faith is in the story of Moses. The sea was split. Was there a storm? Possibly. The ground was dry. you don't believe me?
First of all, you believe that Muslims are wrong in the god/prophet/claims of jesus that their religion teaches. There are millions of them from almost as long as christianity has existed, but you think they're wrong/lying.
Moses? there's no evidence that the Israelite people were ever captives/slaves in Egypt in the numbers that the Bible suggests - and the egyptians were some of the most well-documented ancient societies. We have grocery lists that have survived from Egypt, but no record whatsoever of a massive scale migration of a whole group of people, no record that Pharaoh and his army was completely wiped out by being caught in the red or reed sea, and no accounts that say ANY of this ever happened. So no, I don't believe you - just like I don't believe that there was an Ark and a worldwide flood and only 6 people survived. I don't believe that Jonah was swallowed by a giant fish and survived in an airless, water and acid filled stomach for 3 days and was spit back out, or that marching around a city and singing causes the walls to come tumbling down. And I believe that no one can say with any certainty (based on historical evidence) that Jesus did or did not exist. I cannot say for sure that he didn't, but you cannot honestly say that he did - not with the evidence that we currently have, and it certainly casts some doubt. There is no record of a massive earthquake at the crucifixion, or preternatural darkness surrounding the world - or even the region. There are no accounts of the resurrected Jewish zombies that rose from the grave at the moment of christ's death, or of his resurrection at all. Since there were historians in jerusalem while all of this was supposedly happening, and many writers who focused their writings SOLELY on messiah/supernatural claims, their should be TONS of evidence, and there isn't. In fact, there is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all - not even the gospels. They're not contemporary, and they were all written by nameless authors who never even met the man - if the man existed at all.
First, I have faith that they are wrong. They still believe in killing people as punishment or vengeance. Jesus spoke against it. Aaaaand, I have faith that there is historical evidence of all of your instances, you got them from a 2000 year old book handed down from generation to generation (the old way of record keeping). And speaking of record keeping, maybe all the records from your events were in Sodom and Gomorrah on their fateful day. Or maybe drowned in the Red Sea. I have faith that the biblical accounts are factual if meant to be factual (there were many parables too)
Will these bones live? The bible says yes. I have faith that it was correct. Spiritual is spiritual. Natural is natural. Are you able to discern? Well maybe not.
Don't worry so much, I'm just having a nice little chat with a muslim on another forum who just informed me that some day soon every person on the planet with be a muslim, so don't sweat it too much. LOL
Can you prove to me that the person you call your savior really lived?
The bible teaches people to kill people as punishment and vengeance as well. Don't you remember that part?
You're appealing to popularity. Since millions of people have believed in the Christian god over 2000 years, it must be true? Consider this. BILLIONS of people have believed in other gods - that's a much more substantial number, so by your own logic THEIR gods should be more real, right?
No, you must prove the savior for yourself.
Punishment for sin has not changed. God does the punishing though now, not us. Man took advantage of that privilege; they condemned with "dirty hands". Jesus came and spoke about that. It is written in the bible.
By "my" logic there is only one true God. Believe that or don't. I cannot speak for many other beliefs.
Actually, I've read the Quran too and the Quran doesn't specifically totally state anything about killing people who don't believe.. The Islamic faith also has aversion to killing, same as Christians. But just like there are Christians who wished to force everyone to believe to the point where wars were started, there are Muslims who believe the same. The muslim faith is one of the three Abrahamic religions (the others being Christianity and Hebrews). all three are founded on belief in God (allah is arabic for God and as such, not referring to a specifically separate God).
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."
Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
and last but not least..
Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"
Thanks Rad. I did misspeak. I retract statement.
in general, there are similarities between the quran and the bible that speak to what God is claimed to state. But for some part, some sects of Islam present Islam as a religion of peace much like Christianity does in some areas
You're correct, the main difference being Muhammad was a military leader, while Jesus was know as the turn the other cheek guy. That being said, I've never met a muslim I didn't like and living in the most diverse city in the world I've met a lot.
Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 327: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”
I get that one. They do not believe as I do (the ones who do the killing). They believe in my God, yes, I know. They just don't believe in him the way that I do.
No, he is not the same God. The God you believe in contains 3 parts, the God Muslims believe in doesn't include Jesus or the Holy Spirit.
Was this aimed at all believers? If so, you are incorrect. not all believers believe in the trinity
The God I believe in has only one part. He is manifested in two others. His spirit (character). Not his person.
You claim that there is no evidence of Jesus existence. I have no idea where you got that from.
I will post this and before the so called people start speaking this is a post from another source also as I cannot type all this. I have typed enough already. I do happen to have a life asides this.
Hostile Non-Biblical Pagan Witnesses
There are a number of ancient classical accounts of Jesus from pagan Greek sources. These accounts are generally hostile to Christianity and try to explain away the miraculous nature of Jesus and the events that surrounded his life. Let’s look at these hostile accounts and see what they tell us about Jesus:
Thallus is perhaps the earliest secular writer to mention Jesus and he is so ancient that his writings don’t even exist anymore. But Julius Africanus, writing around 221AD does quote Thallus who had previously tried to explain away the darkness that occurred at the point of Jesus’ crucifixion:
“On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun.” (Julius Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
If only more of Thallus’ record could be found, we would see that every aspect of Jesus’ life could be verified with a non-biblical source. But there are some things we can conclude from this account: Jesus lived, he was crucified, and there was an earthquake and darkness at the point of his crucifixion.
Pliny the Younger (61-113AD)
Early Christians are also described in secular history. Pliny the Younger, in a letter to the Roman emperor Trajan, describes the lifestyles of early Christians:
“They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food—but food of an ordinary and innocent kind.”
This EARLY description of the first Christians documents several facts: the first Christians believed that Jesus was GOD, the first Christians upheld a high moral code, and these early followers et regularly to worship Jesus.
Suetonius was a Roman historian and annalist of the Imperial House under the Emperor Hadrian. His writings about Christians describe their treatment under the Emperor Claudius (41-54AD):
“Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus (Christ), he (Claudius) expelled them from the city (Rome).” (Life of Claudius, 25:4)
This expulsion took place in 49AD, and in another work, Suetonius wrote about the fire which destroyed Rome in 64 A.D. under the reign of Nero. Nero blamed the Christians for this fire and he punished Christians severely as a result:
“Nero inflicted punishment on the Christians, a sect given to a new and mischievous religious belief.” (Lives of the Caesars, 26.2)
There is much we can learn from Suetonius as it is related to the life of early Christians. From this very EARLY account, we know that Jesus had an immediate impact on his followers. They believed that Jesus was God enough to withstand the torment and punishment of the Roman Empire. Jesus had a curious and immediate impact on his followers, empowering them to die courageously for what they knew to be true.
Cornelius Tacitus was known for his analysis and examination of historical documents and is among the most trusted of ancient historians. He was a senator under Emperor Vespasian and was also proconsul of Asia. In his “Annals’ of 116AD, he describes Emperor Nero’s response to the great fire in Rome and Nero’s claim that the Christians were to blame:
“Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.”
In this account, Tacitus confirms for us that Jesus lived in Judea, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and had followers who were persecuted for their faith in Christ.
Mara Bar-Serapion (70AD)
Sometime after 70AD, a Syrian philosopher named Mara Bar-Serapion, writing to encourage his son, compared the life and persecution of Jesus with that of other philosophers who were persecuted for their ideas. The fact that Jesus is known to be a real person with this kind of influence is important. As a matter of fact, Mara Bar-Serapion refers to Jesus as the “Wise King”:
“What benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as judgment for their crime. Or, the people of Samos for burning Pythagoras? In one moment their country was covered with sand. Or the Jews by murdering their wise king?…After that their kingdom was abolished. God rightly avenged these men…The wise king…Lived on in the teachings he enacted.”
From this account, we can add to our understanding of Jesus. We can conclude that Jesus was a wise and influential man who died for his beliefs. We can also conclude that his followers adopted these beliefs and lived lives that reflected them to the world in which they lived.
In a manner similar to Thallus, Julius Africanus also mentions a historian named Phlegon who wrote a chronicle of history around 140AD. In this history, Phlegon also mentions the darkness surrounding the crucifixion in an effort to explain it:
“Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth to the ninth hour.” (Africanus, Chronography, 18:1)
Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen (an early church theologian and scholar, born in Alexandria):
“Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of future events . . . but also testified that the result corresponded to His predictions.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 14)
“And with regard to the eclipse in the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place … ” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 33)
“Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59)
From these accounts, we can add something to our understand of Jesus and conclude that Jesus had the ability to accurately predict the future, was crucified under the reign of Tiberius Caesar and demonstrated his wounds after he was resurrected!
Lucian of Samosata: (115-200 A.D.)
Lucian was a Greek satirist who spoke sarcastically of Christ and Christians, but in the process, he did affirm that they were real people and never referred to them as fictional characters:
“The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account….You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property.” (Lucian, The Death of Peregrine. 11-13)
From this account we can add to our description and conclude that Jesus taught about repentance and about the family of God. These teachings were quickly adopted by Jesus’ followers and exhibited to the world around them.
This is the last hostile ‘pagan’ account we will examine (although there are many other later accounts in history). Celsus was quite hostile to the Gospels, but in his criticism, he unknowingly affirms and reinforces the authors and their content. His writing is extensive and he alludes to 80 different Biblical quotes, confirming their early appearance in history. In addition, he admits that the miracles of Jesus were generally believed in the early 2nd century! Here is a portion of his text:
“Jesus had come from a village in Judea, and was the son of a poor Jewess who gained her living by the work of her own hands. His mother had been turned out of doors by her husband, who was a carpenter by trade, on being convicted of adultery [with a soldier named Panthéra (i.32)]. Being thus driven away by her husband, and wandering about in disgrace, she gave birth to Jesus, a bastard. Jesus, on account of his poverty, was hired out to go to Egypt. While there he acquired certain (magical) powers which Egyptians pride themselves on possessing. He returned home highly elated at possessing these powers, and on the strength of them gave himself out to be a god.”
Celsus admits that Jesus was reportedly born of a virgin, but then argues that this could supernatural account could not be possible and offers the idea that he was a bastard son of a man named Panthera (an idea borrowed from Jews who opposed Jesus at the time). But in writing this account, Celsus does confirm that Jesus had an earthly father who was a carpenter, possessed unusual magical powers and claimed to be God.
Hostile Non-Biblical Jewish Witnesses
In addition to classical ‘pagan’ sources that chronicle the life of Jesus and his followers, there are also a number of ancient hostile Jewish sources that talk about Jesus. These are written by Jewish theologians, historians and leaders who were definitely NOT sympathetic to the Christian cause. Their writings are often VERY harsh, critical and even demeaning to Jesus. But there is still much that these writings confirm.
In more detail than any other non-biblical historian, Josephus writes about Jesus in his “the Antiquities of the Jews” in 93AD. Josephus was born just four years after the crucifixion. He was a consultant for Jewish rabbis at age thirteen, was a Galilean military commander by the age of sixteen, and he was an eyewitness to much of what he recorded in the first century A.D. Under the rule of roman emperor Vespasian, Josephus was allowed to write a history of the Jews. This history includes three passages about Christians, one in which he describes the death of John the Baptist, one in which he mentions the execution of James and describes him as the brother of Jesus the Christ, and a final passage which describes Jesus as a wise man and the messiah. Now there is much controversy about the writing of Josephus, because the first discoveries of his writings are late enough to have been re-written by Christians, who are accused of making additions to the text. So to be fair, let’s take a look at a scholarly reconstruction that has removed all the possible Christian influence from the text related to Jesus:
“Now around this time lived Jesus, a wise man. For he was a worker of amazing deeds and was a teacher of people who gladly accept the truth. He won over both many Jews and many Greeks. Pilate, when he heard him accused by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, (but) those who had first loved him did not cease (doing so). To this day the tribe of Christians named after him has not disappeared” (This neutral reconstruction follows closely the one proposed in the latest treatment by John Meier, Marginal Jew 1:61)
Now there are many other ancient versions of Josephus’ writing which are even more explicit about the nature of his miracles, his life and his status as the Christ, but let’s take this conservative version and see what we can learn. From this text, we can conclude that Jesus lived in Palestine, was a wise man and a teacher, worked amazing deeds, was accused buy the Jews, crucified under Pilate and had followers called Christians!
Jewish Talmud (400-700AD)
While the earliest Talmudic writings of Jewish Rabbis appear in the 5th century, the tradition of these Rabbinic authors indicates that they are faithfully transmitting teachings from the early “Tannaitic” period of the first century BC to the second century AD. There are a number of writings from the Talmud that scholars believe refer to Jesus and many of these writings are said to use code words to describe Jesus (such as “Balaam” or “Ben Stada” or “a certain one”). But let’s be very conservative here. Let’s ONLY look at the passages that refer to Jesus in a more direct way. If we do that, there are still several ancient Talmudic passages we can examine:
“Jesus practiced magic and led Israel astray” (b. Sanhedrin 43a; cf. t. Shabbat 11.15; b. Shabbat 104b)
“Rabbi Hisda (d. 309) said that Rabbi Jeremiah bar Abba said, ‘What is that which is written, ‘No evil will befall you, nor shall any plague come near your house’? (Psalm 91:10)… ‘No evil will befall you’ (means) that evil dreams and evil thoughts will not tempt you; ‘nor shall any plague come near your house’ (means) that you will not have a son or a disciple who burns his food like Jesus of Nazareth.” (b. Sanhedrin 103a; cf. b. Berakhot 17b)
“Our rabbis have taught that Jesus had five disciples: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah. They brought Matthai to (to trial). He said, ‘Must Matthai be killed? For it is written, ‘When (mathai) shall I come and appear before God?’” (Psalm 92:2) They said to him, “Yes Matthai must be killed, for it is written, ‘When (mathai) he dies his name will perish’” (Psalm 41:5). They brought Nakai. He said to them, “Must Nakai be killed? For it is written, “The innocent (naqi) and the righteous will not slay’” (Exodus 23:7). They said to him, “Yes, Nakai must be kille, for it is written, ‘In secret places he slays the innocent (naqi)’” (Psalm 10:8). (b. Sanhedrin 43a; the passage continues in a similar way for Nezer, Buni and Todah)
And this, perhaps the most famous of Talmudic passages about Jesus:
“It was taught: On the day before the Passover they hanged Jesus. A herald went before him for forty days (proclaiming), “He will be stoned, because he practiced magic and enticed Israel to go astray. Let anyone who knows anything in his favor come forward and plead for him.” But nothing was found in his favor, and they hanged him on the day before the Passover. (b. Sanhedrin 43a)
From just these passages that mention Jesus by name, we can conclude that Jesus had magical powers, led the Jews away from their beliefs, had disciples who were martyred for their faith (one of whom was named Matthai), and was executed on the day before the Passover.
The Toledot Yeshu (1000AD)
The Toledot Yeshu is a medieval Jewish retelling of the life of Jesus. It is completely anti-Christian, to be sure. There are many versions of these ‘retellings’, and as part of the transmitted oral and written tradition of the Jews, we can presume their original place in antiquity, dating back to the time of Jesus’ first appearance as an influential leader who was drawing Jews away from their faith in the Law. The Toledot Yeshu contains a determined effort to explain away the miracles of Jesus, and to deny the virgin birth. In some places, the text is quite vicious, but it does confirm many elements of the New Testament writings. Let’s take a look at a portion of the text (Jesus is refered to as ‘Yehoshua’):
“In the year 3671 (in Jewish reckonging, it being ca 90 B.C.) in the days of King Jannaeus, a great misfortune befell Israel, when there arose a certain disreputable man of the tribe of Judah, whose name was Joseph Pandera. He lived at Bethlehem, in Judah. Near his house dwelt a widow and her lovely and chaste daughter named Miriam. Miriam was betrothed to Yohanan, of the royal house of David, a man learned in the Torah and God-fearing. At the close of a certain Sabbath, Joseph Pandera, attractive and like a warrior in appearance, having gazed lustfully upon Miriam, knocked upon the door of her room and betrayed her by pretending that he was her betrothed husband, Yohanan. Even so, she was amazed at this improper conduct and submitted only against her will. Thereafter, when Yohanan came to her, Miriam expressed astonishment at behavior so foreign to his character. It was thus that they both came to know the crime of Joseph Pandera and the terrible mistake on the part of Miriam… Miriam gave birth to a son and named him Yehoshua, after her brother. This name later deteriorated to Yeshu (“Yeshu” is the Jewish “name” for Jesus. It means “May His Name Be Blotted Out”).
Why don't you use google again to discover that all of these "historical" claims have been addressed and debunked by secular biblical scholars and gain some knowledge.
Those won't be accepted because they come from secular scholars. Secular scholars cannot possibly know what they are talking about because they aren't spiritual..
You cannot trust a secular source to have an understanding of anything biblical because they aren't filled or backed by the holy spirit.
(Note- sarcasm being used here)
What you said makes no sense. You asked for historical evidence and when it was provided you go an spill that out. I never understand you Atheist.
Do you deal in facts or just what you feel? It appears that when reasoning fails to justify your belief it seems you turn dark and result in talking about the petty and irrelevant.
You raised that there was no historical evidence that Jesus existed. This is total rubbish. There has never been a question about the existence of Jesus and even no matter how different Christians and Muslims are the existence of Christ was not in question.
Also Josephus was a famous historian and has written so many things we hold to be true and accurate and he testifies to Christ.
What is all this talk about Jesus not existing?
Like I said several times I was trained to work smarter not work harder. I am not going to sit down and type the same exact thing in my own words when it is available. Its just plain silly to do that. I will add my own input to it and only speak about well researched historical things.
Josephus is a known, later forgery. Religious and secular scholars agree on that.
He is also NOT contemporary. There is no contemporary, historical evidence for Jesus.
You do not understand what moving the goalposts is, do you?
Well, from your previous definition, it is "wriggling AND changing the definition, when you can't "win" the "argument". Has IT changed too???
Even if you believe that. Thank goodness he was not he only one I mentioned before.
You really need to do your research on Jesus. I dont think there is even another Atheist on here that questions his existence or that of the apostles as we still have the grave of the apostles (the witnesses of Christ).
Jesus existing is an undeniable fact. You can argue over a lot else but its silly to raise that like it has any validity to it.
There are actually a lot of learned atheists that question the existence of Jesus, like Richard Carrier, Sam Harris, David Fitzgerald and David McAffe. Perhaps you should try reading some of their research before jumping to completely false conclusions. All of the figures that you've pointed to have been completely addressed and discussed by biblical scholars - even religious biblical scholars.
Right there is the PERFECT example. It is ALL a matter of who you believe. now I see a bit of your faith. I told you it would happen.
i don't believe these scholars because they said it. I believe that the existence of Jesus is in doubt because I've studied it for myself. Big difference. I'm not claiming to know for certain that the person o jesus never existed. There is no way to know for certain that he didn't exist - just like there's no way to know for certain that he did. The evidence either way simply isn't there.
So again, we all have faith in something. I believe that he existed, and is alive today. You don't THINK so. Could you have "faith" that the evidence presented is false because somebody else said so? Well, I don't know. That suits me fine.
I love it. Someone says he doesn't know either way, and you try to claim he has faith in not knowing? Now you're taking the twisting of words to its uttermost.
Well, the way you "defend" as well as "rebut" for/against, it seems that you have formed an opinion on something; but maybe you don't want to say, for fear that your opinion too, may be rebutted.
To say, "this here passage/writing/ writer carries more weight than that one" shows that you have weighed the "evidence" presented and decided. You never go with the Lord's side. You have "faith" that all he said has been "debunked". Am I correct???
I've seen enough secular documentaries thsr quote Josephus not to blindly write him off as a forgery.
Ok. This is complete madness. You keep bringing up things that have been debunked years ago, as some type of proof. You are completely STUCK in this perpetual testimony of abject whimsical nonsense. Please say something relevant.
And here you are doubting science, but you seem to have no problem using the Internet, talking on the phone, watching TV, driving a car, cooking on an electric range, etc. If you doubt science so much, then stop using these products. And since you trust God so much, have him step in and supply your needs as you claim that He can. Stop saying one thing and doing the opposite. You need to depend more on God, because you totally trust him....and you need to turn your back on science, as you have too many doubts about science. These actions of believers totally betray their nonsensical assertions.
Just don't get her started on slavery. That's when things get real interesting. Yes, I remember it well... banging my head against the wall.
And you call ME nonsensical... Debunked??? By those who wish to debunk, every-time. I have been sold. Sorry if that hurts you in some way.
Yes debunked. Unless you also believe that Rumpelstiltskin could spin straw into gold, you have no grounds to believe some silly character in a book of myths and fables parted the Red Sea. Neither of these has ever been replicated. The only difference is that you have been brutally indoctrinated to believe certain nonsense should be treated differently.
Not all of us.. I have a different perspective on how much dependence there should actually be as well as how much he actually steps in to work today.
Nonsense. Who cares if your God is a new phenomenon or not. Your God has no more relevancy in REALITY than a dragon in your ear.
Of course if those millions of people went and jump off of a bridge, I should assume that they are reasonable, and jump off too, thereby ending my life, because I allowed a popular opinion to usurp my critical thinking. Think of "The Emperors New Clothing" that story is about you.
Playing devil's advocate (so to speak). I disagree with you that millions for the past 2000 years can't be crazy. But that does not mean that they were not honestly deceived. It is possible that the writers of the bible wrote some things to achieve a specific purpose that might not be in line with God's intentions. Then add to that the fact that The bibles of today are translations of translations, of versions. The original written bible has been lost to history. So this is where faith really plays a role. Because our belief and way of life is a philosophy based on what could be a 2,000 year old deception.
You mentioned that science cannot prove the age of the earth or the purity of the air 1000 years ago. As much as believers (myself included for those that might take offense and want to attack me) might state the facts of what science cannot prove, religions cannot prove these things either beyond any doubt. The difference between the two is that science does provide clearer answers than religion does in regards to things here in the natural world based on scientific study (Yes, I admit it). Does this mean that science is any closer to proving the nonexistence of God? Depends on who is looking at it. It is possible that science will ultimately prove the existence one way or the other of God.
Yes, your argument is "reasonable" for sure. But I am not talking about reason either. God does not think as we do. He does not feel as we do about anything really. We have only a small piece of the puzzle. We have much information, either way. Whose report do you believe? That is all it really boils down to.
according to what I've come to understand from some of the atheists here, This statement regarding reason is the basis for the arguments and debates we have here. it is not using "reason" or logic in the examination of the Bible or any religion period that is why they see most Believers as irrational and illogical. Over the years, The belief in the supernatural has been the guiding principle of a lot of lives with little to no consideration for science and what it has discovered up to this point.
As for whose report to be believed, Based on my understanding of the bible, my belief is in a combination of both.
A decision does not have to be black and white. You can make a decision and then have faith in that decision as being utterly true, or you can make a decision based on your best guess. That's the difference we're arguing about, fundamentally.
You gave the example of the chair. Here's a few better ones.
Every day I get into an elevator in the expectation it will carry me to the next floor. You may say I "have faith" in it - but I don't. Every time I step into that elevator, I have a momentary fear that a cable will snap and I'll plunge several storeys, or that I'll get stuck in it (it was my job to look after buildings, so I know it happens). But I know that the odds are against that happening, so I take a decision, on the grounds of probability, that it's OK to go ahead.
Every day I get into a car with the expectation that it'll get me safely to my destination. You would say I "have faith" in it - but I don't. Every time I get in the car, I worry that some idiot will run a red light or lose control and I'll have an accident. The odds of that happening are a bit worse than the elevator example, but I need to get from A to B, so I take a decision, on the grounds of probability, that it's OK to go ahead.
So you see in both circumstances, I've made decisions to rely on something, but that doesn't mean I'm totally convinced or totally committed.
Biblically, the husband, and wife are to be one. Same thing. God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, agree.
I'm just say they are not the same God. Sure they were both based on the OT, but the stories of the Moses in the Quran contains different information. Jesus is not portrayed as God or the son of God in the Quran, just another prophet.
Here is again where I might slightly disagree. They might be the same God, just not the same interpretation of God.
Tell that to the Muslims who don't think Jesus is a part of God and to the Christians who don't think Mohammad was a prophet. One says turn the other cheek the other says kill anyone who gets in your way.
There are some that actually agree that we serve the same god. The difference is in who is believed to be God's second (so to speak). Of course there are some who believe that it is a totally separate God altogether. It's about individual interpretation and understanding, which, on one hand, is the basis on a lot of conflicts between those who want their way to be the right way for all, but on the other hand is the basis for some people simply living the life that works best for themselves on a personal level
Imagine a mountain. Around the mountain are different climates. I live in a desert, you live in a tropical area, some others live in cold snowy climates. We are all trying to get to the top of the mountain. We all have different ways. We will all reach the top as we c l i m b in our individual ways!
The climbing is the important thing. The leader we choose to follow better know the way. In choosing the best leader for ourselves, discernment comes in handy.
Interesting but that is not the Christian belief to a relationship to God. In the Bible Jesus clearly states that there is one way to God and that is true him. This primarily what differentiates Christianity in more ways than others form any other religion.
- no, it does not. There are many mansions in His Fathers house. Christ Consciousness is taught by many true spiritual leaders. Have you ever read the eight fold path of Buddhism? Have you ever read the amazing words of Krishna? Why is Mahatma Gandhi so revered?
I learned that it takes far more “faith” to believe in the intellectually chic and fashionable evolutionary myth, than it does to believe in the existence of God. In fact, I learned that evolution is based entirely on faith, because no facts or proof have ever been found to support it!
Also for all rational thinkers here. In science, not seeing something or feeling it does not mean it does not exist otherwise things like oxygen by that same logic do not exist. Just because A man was born blind does not mean colours and the sun does not exist. Do not limit your thinking to just your basic senses. It is foolish to think that way.
I appreciate an agnostic more than an Atheists because they are willing to accept that there might be chance they are wrong or right. They simply don't know. Afteral was there not a time the whole world was sure the earth was flat.
The existence of God and the actions of God are two different things. When ancient discoverers like Christopher columbus found what is today known as America it would have been stupid of him to think he knows all about it. The same can be said about Charles Darwin when he was brought (he did not discover it) to Galapagos islands.
1. The universal genetic code.
2. The fossil record.
3. Genetic commonalities.
4. Common traits in embryos.
5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.
But I guess ignorance is bliss.
You say Ignorance is bliss. Be careful when you jest or insult.
Let me start by putting my credential forward, not to boast but to appeal to reasoning. I have 3 masters degrees and 2 professional qualifications not including my undergraduate degree and other things. I got all of this before I was 23 years old.
First of all let us discuss what you yourself seem not to understand
Points 1 and 3: The universal genetic code and genetic commonalities. DNA which is a fundamental part of the genetic code is incomplete and not generalizable. Its research is incomplete and never will be because it is based on statistical probability of a representative sample of a tiny percentage of people in the world. (compared to the over 6 billion people) as it is impossible for science to ever get the DNA or the genetic coding of a significant percentage of the worlds population it will never be a strong theory and today it is even debunked in certain courts of law. (I just finished Jury duty so I know this to be a fact).
2: Fossil records: In Darwin's own words, his original theory of macro-evolutionary progression didn't happen. Paleontology was a brand new scientific discipline in the mid-1800's, and now, roughly 150 years later, we know that the fossil record doesn't provide the support Darwin himself required.
When evolution is rapid, transitional forms may not be preserved, even if fossils are laid down at regular intervals. We see many examples of this “quick” jumps pattern in the fossil record.
Does a jump in the fossil record necessarily mean that evolution has happened in a “quick” jump?
We expect to see a jump in the fossil record if evolution has occurred as a “quick” jump, but a jump in the fossil record can also be explained by irregular fossil preservation.
Finally let me educate you on what you hold as the explanation to the start of life. It is important to also say I dint have time to add more to this but this should be sufficient.
The word evolution (sometimes called Darwinism) has a variety of definitions, from simply “change” to “the natural process by which all life derived from a single ancestor,” and is referred to alternately as “hypothesis,” “theory,” “law,” and “fact.” Because of its imprecise nature, the term is often used ambiguously to imply that the processes we can observe in the present (e.g., natural selection) “prove” that the processes we cannot observe in the past must have happened as well (e.g., the change of dinosaurs into birds). In fact, the term evolution can also be used to denote the philosophy of naturalism, which depends upon unobserved events in the past (including in astronomy, chemistry, and geology).
In scientific terms, evolution generally means the change in genetic material between generations, which is also referred to as “descent with modification.” These changes are attributed to mutations, gene flow and drift, and natural selection, which are examples of observational science and can be shown to occur. However, the other aspect of evolution is the belief that all animals descended from one original ancestor. Evolutionists sometimes claim this “fact” is established in the fossil record, homology (similar structures), and genetic evidence. However, any evidence involving historical science (one-time events that cannot be retested) is subject to interpretational bias on the part of the scientist.
Mutations and genetic drift are often cited as the source of heritable traits from one generation to the next. While mutations do cause changes in the genome and genetic drift changes the frequency of those traits, neither process is capable of changing one kind of animal into another. More often, mutations have either no noticeable impact or cause degeneration.
When evolutionary scientists claim that evolution is a fact, they are relying upon a fallacy known as “bait and switch” (define a term one way, but use it in a completely different way later). Often the claim is that since one can observe natural selection, then descent from a common ancestor must also be true. However, this presupposes that the current processes we observe could cause the origin of completely novel structures (e.g., giving rise to lungs or complex brains). Such a claim is contrary to information theory and the laws of nature..
Now, you blame Christians for believing in something you term as fictional as a "fairy" yet you also hold unto something that has neither of the foundations of science which includes
Reliability: The idea behind reliability is that any significant results must be more than a one-off finding and be inherently repeatable. Other researchers must be able to perform exactly the same experiment, under the same conditions and generate the same results.
or Validity: Validity encompasses the entire experimental concept and establishes whether the results obtained meet all of the requirements of the scientific research method.
For example, there must have been randomization of the sample groups and appropriate care and diligence shown in the allocation of controls. This means this theory of evolution that explains all life around us must be represented and duplicated on various platform. Plants and Animals alike. (As mentioned earlier)
I cannot change your mind as it is now clear to me that no matter what facts are before you , you will never accept that it is possible even a little chance you might be wrong. There is more to this earth that understanding only based on senses will not answer. It is foolish to think this way (Christian or Atheist) . As a matter of fact human kind will have reached no where if we ever thought this way.
Are we just supposed to believe that you had three masters degrees by the age of twenty three? Degrees in what?
Also after all of my explanations I live you with a few quotes on the theory of evolution.
I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do.
"To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." —*H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution, " Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138.
"When the most learned evolutionists can give neither the how nor the why, the marvels seem to show that adaptation is inexplicable. This is a strange situation, only partly ascribable to the rather unscientific conviction that evidence will be found in the future. It is due to a psychological quirk." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 77.
"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible." —*Ambrose Flemming, President British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.
"Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 147.
"Nobody can imagine how nothing could turn into something. Nobody can get an inch nearer to it by explaining how something could turn into something else." —*G. K. Chesterton (1925).
No real scientist worth their salt will ever hold this as "the gospel truth" (Pun intended).
Hey everyone! Evolution is false because 40-year-old opinion pieces say it is!
I guess we have to toss out all the fossil evidence and well as the genetic evidence not to mention biological evidence?
Recurrent laryngeal nerve
The extreme detour of this nerve (about 15 feet in the case of giraffes[12) is cited as evidence of evolution as opposed to intelligent design. The nerve's route would have been direct in the fish-like ancestors of modern tetrapods, traveling from the brain, past the heart, to the gills (as it does in modern fish). Over the course of evolution, as the neck extended and the heart became lower in the body, the laryngeal nerve was caught on the wrong side of the heart. Natural selection gradually lengthened the nerve by tiny increments to accommodate, resulting in the circuitous route now observed.
Ok Rad. Did you see ANY of that occur; did you test ANY of it with your own hands? or are you "faithfully" taking the words of someone else?
A lot of that I can see on my own. I can go to the zoo and see the product of a lion and a tiger. I can look at the anatomy of a giraffe. But shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard. You can read the bible, but when you're doing so you are just taking the writers word for their statements. Can you test any of the things they describe, you know like the flat earth and the four pillars and all?
You cannot, however, see HOW the Giraffe got his neck; you must believe one who "says" he knows. I think God made us all adaptable. It is necessary for survival. He knew that. Dark skin vs light is also another example of this adaptation.
But thank you for finally helping me with my point. We all have faith in something. My only question in all of this leads to a simpler question; where does your faith lie??? Not you, your faith is apparent.
Translation: "I'm not interested in facts so I'll just make something up that I want to believe, instead."
That's why believers operate on faith and non-believers don't.
Please refer to my last post to see what fact you are speaking about. What exactly is the fact you are referring to?
Sorry, but I don't see any facts in your posts.
So since evolution has been thoroughly debunked the only reasonable conclusion someone claiming 3 Masters degrees can come up with is Goddunnit?! Oh my.
Maybe I missed something, but he didn't mention God or his belief in either of his posts. He was addressing what Rad was saying regarding ignorance. At the end of his first message he even made a comment that was directed at both believers and atheists
Yes I think you probably did miss something. But understandably. This hubber and I have engaged in arguments on other forums where I think it is quite clear what his inclinations are.
And the presupposition that I should have SOMETHING.....????......where does that come from?
Well u... Tangible proof is essential, correct?
PLease note that there is a difference between a claim and the truth. You stood up for evolution as a claim to the non existence of God. I have successfully shown you that real scientist do not hold the claim you have. You brought out five so called proofs of evolution and then called me ignorant I explained that I have 4 degrees which include three masters degrees amongst a few other qualifications (Not to boast but to assure you I dont guess when it comes to what I hold to be more established that others) and you try to belittle that. I started my educational journey before my second birthday and got a lot before I was 23 years old. How petty of you to try to say "claim" when I am pretty sure you have not researched a single thing you claim.
You asked for miracles I told you I have been healed of Asthma. I went from being hospitalized every week to never needing an inhaler. I am not telling some other persons story I am telling you mine. I explained that I have seen the blind see and lame walk for the "God" you call lame.
You argue about starving children in Africa. I reminded you that I am African and I have lived there all my life and thus have more authority on the subject than you do as you only read or heard about it.
The western world does not understand Africa at all. Nigerians (western African state) were researched by the BBC to be the happiest people in the world. In the midst of so called penury. What do you know about real joy. Real joy and peace transcends the physical. Its a thing of the mind. (My under graduate degree was actually in psychology).
You argued as to a lack of use of physical sense as to the non existence of God when we both know that not seeing, tasting, feeling an object does not mean it does not exist or as I said earlier by that kind of logic it means that oxygen does not exist. It is false.
You started you position from a point of certainty in evolution yet even Darwin never claimed it to be an absolute. It was just an idea which has been debunked today. It is not even fit to be called an explanation as it goes against the laws of Nature. Evolution lacked reliability and validity in the scientific meaning of the word.
Finally you asked me why I believe Jesus was the son of God. I appealed to the same reasoning you claimed to have been pointing out the statistical probability of him not being the one. Oh and by the way there is no question about the existence of Jesus or all the apostle. Roman historian Josephus also writes about his (and by the way he was not a believer).
We believe in Jesus because He fulfilled over 300 prophecies. I have put some examples below but just so my point hits home the probability of someone fulfilling only 8 of those prophecies is 1 times 2.8 x 105 x 103 x 102 x 103 x 103 x 105 x 103 x 104) gives us 2.8 x 1028, or for simplicity sake 1 x 1028 or 1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. Given this and the time span between the writings of the Old Testament and the fulfillment by Christ in the New Testament, the prophecies were either given to the prophets by God, or the prophets just wrote them down as they thought they should be. With Christ fulfilling all eight prophecies, what are the odds the prophets were just guessing?
To illustrate this point: If we take 100 trillion silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas, they would be two feet deep. Now we mark one of these silver dollars and thoroughly stir the whole mass--all over the state. Now blindfold a man and let him travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick only one silver dollar.
Now please feel free to do that maths for 300 various prophecies.
I will give you 16 prophecies and try to put the time it was written also in it
What are examples of some of the prophecies?
1) Jesus will be begotten of God.
Prophecy: Psalm (2,7): "The Lord said to me, ‘You are my son; this day I have begotten you’"
Jeremiah 31:31-33 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the LORD. "But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
2) Jesus must be able to heal
Isaiah 35:5-6 written: 712 BC (Before Christ) - Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then the lame shall leap like a deer, and the tongue of the dumb sing. For waters shall burst forth in the wilderness, and streams in the desert.
3) Jesus must be born of a virgin:
Isaiah 7:14 written: 712 BC (Before Christ) "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel. Word "Immanuel" means: God with us. In the Old Testament it occurs only in Isaiah. 7:14 and 8:8.
4) his place of birth must be Bethlehem.
Micah 5:2 written: 710 BC (Before Christ)
"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
5) Going to Egypt:
Hoseah 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son."
Matthew 2:14 "So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt."
6) John the Baptist must prepare the way...
Isaiah 40:3 written: 712 BC (Before Christ)
"The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."
7) Jesus must come from Galilee and teaches in Caparnum
Isaiah 9:1-2 written: 712 BC (Before Christ)
"Nevertheless, the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations. The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined."
Matthew 4:12-16 "Now when Jesus had heard that John was cast into prison, he departed into Galilee; And leaving Nazareth he came and dwelt in to Galilee. Leaving Nazareth, he went and dwelt in Capernaum, which is upon the sea coast, in the borders of Zebulon and Nephthalim: That it might be fuslfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, The land of Zabulon and the land of Nephthalim, by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles; The people which sat in darkness saw great light; and to them which sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up."
8) The Betrayer must give him up to Temple authorities after eating bread with Jesus
Psalm 41:9 written: 1023 BC (Before Christ)
"Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me."
9) The Betrayer must give up Jesus to Temple authorities for 30 pieces of silver.
Zechariah 11:12 written: 487 BC (Before Christ) "And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver."
10)False Witnesses must rise up
Psalm 35:11 written: 1042 BC (Before Christ) "False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.
11) His disciples will forsake him
Zecheriah 13:7 - "Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, against the Man who is My Companion," says the LORD of hosts. "Strike the Shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered; then I will turn My hand against the little ones.
Matthew 26:31 - Then Jesus said to them, "All of you will be made to stumble because of Me this night, for it is written: `I will strike the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.'
THE DEATH PREDICTIONS
12) The mockery of the spectators...
Psalm 109:25 written: 1023 BC (Before Christ) "I became a reproach unto them: when they looked upon me they shaked their heads
13) Being crucified.
Psalm 22:16 written: 1018 BC (Before Christ) "For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
14) He must be a suffering servant.
Isaiah 53:5 (Suffering Servant Passage) written: 712 BC (Before Christ) But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
15) Messiah will be Rejected in Israel:
Isaiah 8:14 written: 742 BC (Before Christ) "And he shall be a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."
16) the silence before his judges...
Isaiah 53:7 written: 712 BC (Before Christ). "He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth."
Also for all rational thinkers here. In science, not seeing something or feeling it does not mean it does not exist otherwise things like oxygen by that same logic do not exist. Just because A man was born blind does not mean colours and the sun does not exist. Do not limit your thinking to just your basic senses. It is foolish to think that way.
I appreciate an agnostic more than an Atheists because they are willing to accept that there might be chance they are wrong or right. They simply don't know. Afteral was there not a time the whole world was sure the earth was flat.
Now that you have now taken the position of "I do not know" and no longer I know. I can now safely conclude that you are a rational thinking person. I do not need you to believe in what I believe I just wanted you to see the flaw in not accepting you simply dont know. Accepting evolution is not reasonable and not well researched.
Now when we get to the "I do not know perspective". We are also concluding it is possible we came from an intelligent thinking being and was made in his likeness (which does not contradict the law of nature) or somewhere else but as we know in life. Everything comes from something.
Our belief is not based on guess work or just a feeling as some Christians often postulate. Faith is not required in every aspect of the Christian belief. Our God is a living God and this means there will be signs of life and things like maths, science and others will come to play.
There is a difference between feeling and knowing. The question of faith only comes into play when we speak about life after death. When question about the soul are raised. as no-one except the historical account of Jesus where there were over 500 people who saw him again after the resurrection. Faith only comes into play here because we are not aware of someone in our personal lives who has died and come back to tell a real story.
The validity we ascribe to a particular story is directly correlated with the credibility we ascribe to the story teller, to put simply. If we believe Jesus to be trust worthy in everything else and the prophets to be telling the truth then we also believe that which has been said "through faith" in the person who says it. This is a highly simplified way of speaking about faith.
My belief in God is based on real things and not "fairy tales" but my belief in peace after death is based on faith. When I pray I also pray in faith because first of all I must believe someone hears me otherwise I could safely be termed as crazy (which is also a relative word and differs across cultures).
True belief in a divine deity is a personal experience. I was born to a Muslim father and a Christian mother. They both practised their religion and though they loved each other they were under no illusions that the God they served were the same. Muslims fundamentally believe you can earn your way to heaven by obeying God. Christians believe you cannot earn your way to heaven and it is in fact a gift as a result of the death of Christ. We obey God out of love and an understanding that though we are free "our freedom was bought at a price". One we did not have to pay for, so we obey in honour of that and in understanding that above all God is bigger than any one of us. This is a serious difference and the bedrock of our "faith"
Muslims and Christian have very different beliefs and understanding of God and the way to him. Though the argument can be had about the religion coming from Abraham they are different. I have also attended various church denominations and know the differences. A lot of churches brand themselves to stand out and do something different. so the baptism, Presbyterian, catholic etc movements (amongst all other denominations) are as a result of branding. That is what the differences are. They are not bible instructions but individual preferences adopted by religious leaders. There was only one church and anyone who calls them self a christian (i.e follower) of christ will understand this passage well.
1 Corinthians 1:10-17
New International Version (NIV)
A Church Divided Over Leaders
10 I appeal to you, brothers and sisters,[a] in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another in what you say and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe’s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12 What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[b]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? 14 I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so no one can say that you were baptized in my name. 16 (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.) 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
My fellow Hubbers who confess christ our belief is not based on faith alone. I believe the bible even asks us to be ready to give a defence for our faith when asked. God gave wisdom to Solomon/ Though it falls upon us to explain why it does not fall upon us to convince "beyond reasonable doubt" or to force a belief upon someone.
Also as an addition to those claiming that Christianity is essentially evil if anything at all. Please note that there has been more Atheist mass murders that so call "christian" mass murders.
Just to highlight a few recorded and this is not an extensive list at all
Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them." Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under communist atheistic regimes. It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives. Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987. Richard Dawkins has attempted to engage in historical revisionism concerning atheist atrocities and Dawkins was shown to be in gross error (see also: Atheism and communism and Persecution of Christians in the Soviet Union).
Koukl summarized by stating:
“ It is true that it's possible that religion can produce evil, and generally when we look closer at the detail it produces evil because the individual people are actually living in a rejection of the tenets of Christianity and a rejection of the God that they are supposed to be following. So it can produce it, but the historical fact is that outright rejection of God and institutionalizing of atheism actually does produce evil on incredible levels. We're talking about tens of millions of people as a result of the rejection of God. ”
Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the brutal communist regime he and fellow citizens suffered under.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn offered the following explanation:
“ Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.'
Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' 
Vox Day notes concerning atheism and mass murder:
“ Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …
The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.
The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.
Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation!
this is a fallacy http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php? … atrocities
This cutting and pasting nonsense is becoming exhausting.
What a ruse.
I dont have enough time to type up the same thing someone else has already said hence the reason. It doesnt take anything away from the validity of it.
Besides have I not answered everything you have raised?
No you haven't. You have only gone to Internet sites and copied the ridiculous claims of someone you see as an authority, then pasted them here as if we are to take them as authority, as well.
And you certainly haven't shown anything to prove that you have any advanced degrees. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
I once had a friend who said she had a degree in Education. Her knowledge and understanding of the world was substandard to that of even a fifth grader. And her ability to articulate was even lower. But, alas, she expected me to believe it. She even went as far as producing some bogus degree, then became extremely upset at me when I refused to be conned. BTW, she is a blind follower of Christ.
I actually did go to a university to obtain a degree. And I probably sat next to your friend. I saw so many who did not "seem" educated, but alas, completed a degree. Go figure...
Unfortunately as you have gone petty. I will not justify it with an answer. The truth is I do not have to prove my education to you. Anyone with an inclination of how education works will know that "reasoning alone" showcases it.
I don't even have to have a single degree for anything I said to be true. You have to stop attacking silly things and ask yourself real questions.
Did I answer your question? Was what i said about evolution true?
What I said about Jesus fulfilling over three hundred prophecies was it true?
I do not need to prove a single thing to you at all. I will not even try to. You see even the name I use here is a pseudo name just as everyone else does. More like a pet alter ego.
My dear friend any educated person will see that I am and more importantly education is not a showcase of authority as there are many educated "idiots" out there. Two of my masters are in research so my only point was that I researched. Education means only a little to me especially if its not applied.
I only tried to explain because I was originally of the opinion you were a rational mind and were seeking knowledge but now I can see this was not your primary goal. You were only seeking to showcase your own perceived intellect and when this is challenged your ego cannot bring you to the conclusion that you could be wrong. Its fine but real enlightenment comes from real conversation based on factual debate.
Like I said though a lot of christians do not know why God is real and why Jesus could be the son of God nor can defend it accurately. I am not one of those people and at the same time I learnt to work smarter not harder. If someone has already put out a statement in the way I want it to I will not spend time writing the same thing out. Its unnecessary hard work especially as this is not an educational project or a dissertation. Its just a conversation
Though you have gone from given 5 "reasons" why evolution happened and I have debunked all of them. I have also give you the statistical improbability that Jesus was not the son of God which in turn also proves the prophets were right yet you discarded this.
You started with arguements about children in Africa starving which is something you dont have a clue about at all. I think its a bit hypocritical speaking with a bleeding heart for African children when you know nothing about it nor have ever done a thing to help. You blame God for lack of action and believe for some reason that justifies you too not to act. Or do Atheist not believe in love either.
You say Christianity is not about love yet I have educated you based directly from the bible what "our God" thinks about love and is interpretation of it.
A king much like a president is only responsible for his people and not the world. I have no right complaining about how Australia is run when I am not affected by it. Only Christians thus have a right to complain about God not acting not Atheist.
There is a reason why like I said earlier Nigerians are the happiest people in the world according to the BBC. It is simply because of faith. No mater how bad it gets they feel it will get better. There is an optimism common with its people like with no other citizens in the world.
As God departs from the Uk and USA gradually so also does crime rates rise, suicides increase. People complaining about lack of love. How can that be so. It was not until I left Africa for my master degrees that I did not know who my neighbour was. It was not until then I saw people need alcohol to have a laugh or just be loud and have fun. There was such a cultural shock. People complained about everything and the only people showing some kind of love was Christians I met and even in it I failed to see genuine sincerity. I almost abandoned my faith. I saw people declare love for God yet even loving the next person. Im not talking about that fake "hello, good morning , sunny weather today dont you think" kind of love was missing.
So like I said I know where Atheist are coming from and for a while I thought it could be a showcase that maybe God did not exist. My faith wavered but thankfully I have seen and met real Christians who try (they do not succeed all the time). People who actually know why they believe what they do and actually genuinely believe. I later found out those who as the bible says "Know their God will do great exploits". I know I can educate people of what Christianity is but like I have already said conversion comes from actual personal experience. I cannot give anyone that and will not even try to do that "lest the cross be emptied of its power".
So I only post now not to prove something to you but to speak to real Atheist actually looking for the truth and not just claiming it because they think its the way to go or because of some unfortunate thing from their childhood (not implying you fit into either category).
I will thus only reply you when you want an honest conversation.
First, am I the ONLY person who uses their own name???
Second, I have seen several things from you that almost verbatim states my previous posts on this site. Starving children in Africa is one of the largest God "debunking techniques" that is used. Thanks for shedding light. I too say, "What are YOU doing for the starving children?" (Not you )
Thank you for bringing us "light" through your extensive education. It was somewhat heart-warming to read.
Yes, my father covers all bases. You did what I could not. Knowledge is power. You have shown your faith something that not many others want to do.
I no longer wonder why they don't. (They may be forced to realize that they do have faith, just in "silly" things.)
Also can I also state that I understand Atheism. In my daily walk with God I have questioned it a few times but ultimately I arrived at the conclusion that maybe it is not that there is no God but he does not care about me.
Obviously when I say I understand I do not meant I agree with it.
eg I am not for Abortion but I understand why people do it. I do not believe people should lie but sometimes I understand why they do. I do believe in violence but I understand self defence.
As such I question very often if God loves me or people in general but ultimately I know that I only question because I do not always get thing done exactly how I want it to be and this means I spend time focusing on the things gone wrong and none of the things gone right.
You speak of faith like it makes me stupid but in reality is faith not a part of our daily lives. Before you take a pin killer for a headache is it not based on faith it has been researched well and done right. Think about it .How many drugs have been released only to be banned later?
We do almost everything in faith even when human experience teaches otherwise. We even go to work and save for the future because we assume "through faith" we will be around tomorrow. When we know that historically no-one is really every promised they will make it to the end of any given day. No matter who you are.
Faith is applied in almost but not restricted to everything we do.
I believe this might be what the original hubber referred to in her original post. She was not speaking exclusively about faith in God but faith in something.
Thank you again. I also stated the claim that we all have faith, in something. Though Marisa answered soon speaking of faith in her husband and children, she quickly understood that that faith is "fleeting" at best. Then the "type" of faith was insisted upon because she saw a "trick". She illustrated my point well she went from faith; to no faith; to well, not COMPLETE faith, on back around to well faith, but not THAT kind. She never heard me specify until it made a REALLY HUGE DIFFERENCE to her.
The difference between Godly faith and any other kind is not really large. We all believe SOMETHING without first seeing so-called solid evidence. I believe God because he has shown me many times, his capability; and his superior love for me.
How can you ask of God when you do not believe in his existence? Faith follows first. Ask Darwinians.
Of course when one convinces himself that he can talk to imaginary beings, he can also convince himself that he has won an argument that he has egregiously lost.
It's hilarious when believers claim they have degrees in education but come on these forums and talk and act like children.
God is so proud of them when they act like that.
Getitrite has only acted like a child. You cannot belittle something you do not have. Its like a poor man saying to the rich you cannot be rich because I am poor. You can only say someone is not as rich as they thought when you have comparable wealth. Again let logic reign.
Also it is incomprehensible that adults will claim not to lose an argument but have no better point that to be-little. Has anyone told you that your belief is stupid? or you must be a fool? As a matter of fact I have even gone as far as to say that I understand Atheism though I do not accept it. I get how one can come to that conclusion.
I have raised so many points yet some how you so called intellects who are more bothered with pride that you "could" be wrong have not addressed any one.
It has moved from a cerebral conversation to the down right childish.
You have resorted to petty tactics and name calling. Like I said you dont even have to even have a degree to know why we believe so I dont see how that has any merit. You just have to be well researched.
I've now asked you several times what you claim to have three masters degrees in. I've found nothing from your copied and pasted answers that demonstrates a validity to your claim. I can easily go and find studies that contend with the points that you've made, and I don't claim to have one masters degree. You come in here, tell everyone that you have three masters degrees before the age of 23 (which leads me to believe that you're claiming to be some kind of prodigy or genius) but provide nothing that backs up your claims and the trite copied and pasted answers that you've posted repeatedly are nothing that i've not encountered previously - and all of them have been thoroughly debunked by knowledgeable people. I'm sorry, but I don't believe you - and there is nothing that you've said that should change my mind.
So, your faith is NOT in this "expert" he is not speaking along "your" lines. Others do, and you do believe them. But I believe him you're not surprised right??? I do not believe, however, that you are a real person. You computerized???
It is dangerously gullible and naive to suspend ones critical thinking while a possible con is lurking.
he is not an expert. He's someone that's made a lot of claims that he has refused to substantiate. Just like you. the only thing he has proven that he can do is use google to find arguments that seem to support his point. I can do that, too. So what?
If you think I'm just a computer, then that's fine. Here's the thing: I don't care. I don't base my self-worth on what you or anyone else thinks of me. When are you going to realize that the majority of people that converse with you are just laughing at your ridiculousness?
Yep!!! I care. please stop laughing. I may cry; next Tuesday.
Substantiate what? You have no claim. And my claims are backed by many too. Seems I am ahead of the "game".
I have the idea that you have come to a point where you fight God because of your situation. You do not realize that "you" is all he wants. He will accept you just as you are. You tried before. Why??? Where you "indoctrinated" too?
I dont claim to be anything. You asked so just to keep you quiet thi is what they are in
I have a Bsc (Hons)in Psychology
I have an MBA
I have an MSc in research methodologies
and an Msc in management research
I also took courses in Theology and religious studies at the University of Aberdeen, Scotland.
I started a PHD but stopped as I got offered a job I could not refuse and would have finished it by now and I am 27 years old now. Does that help?
Its a pity you cant have a Q and A video session with me to get your "much needed proof" to know I do not lie. I have no reason to and no idea why you think I would. Its a stupid thing to lie about and a bit of an overkill if I was telling tales. Or dont you think so?
And yes I did get it all before I was 23 years old and I had a gap period between my undergraduate and first masters which was my MBA.
Now I never claimed to be a Genius nor did I claim any degree to prove any point more than I am a very qualified researcher and I am wired to deal with people, conditioning and facts so it is a part of me and this means that faith alone without some show case of proof is not sufficient for me.
It was not a boast and I raised so many other things asides this but I guess you thought this was important.
I hope this helps as I honestly don't know if and why it matters even if I was a high school graduate. It doesn't take anything from what was said. After all I never claimed to be the one that debunked Evolution. I wasnt the one that came up with the statistical evidence supporting Christ as the son of God as what preached by the prophets before him at least 600 years apart (this was done by people in MIT).
Also I must state clearly that I am of the opinion that having university degrees does not make you a Genius it only shows you are able to commit to something. Anyone with a respectable IQ can achieve all I have By respectable I mean average). I was not the youngest in my class. I had a class mate who was 2 years younger and she was no genius, just a dedicated student. I had an advantage as I started school a few weeks after I turned two.
Maybe this was a big deal to you but my brother was exactly the same and so was my sister. I am from a family of educated people with each one having more than one masters degree so education means nothing to me unless it is applied.
My point or sole reason for raising degrees was just to show I am not ignorant and that is it. Not a single other reason. You are the ones ascribing more meaning to it than even I do to them.
I respect your right not to believe me as I know even if God stood right in front of you, you would doubt if he did not glow in a particular way or spoke in some ascribed way your cognition can accept you will still disregard it.
Now that I have told you what they are can we now stick to the topics? Its funny you need me to prove what I have as even what I say shows you no evidence of an educated individual and not an averagely educated "African". But you do not feel the need to give some credibility to why you have any authority in what you say or claim.
Such is the narrow view you have taken in pretty much everything you have said till date. You claim a lot but when tackled with something counter you back down and then move from the cerebral to the petty.
Of course, I get that all the time.
Atheism is almost exactly the same thing as monotheism, just one less god.
What name did I call you?
Wow, I never once heard you say you had a degree!!! Are you the friend he disguised???
Also as I stated in another post I do think science is useful for a lot of things as it eventually comes tot he same conclusion the bible had always maintained. In some cases it does bring us truths. It must always be held with caution as times and history has shown it is always subject to change. It is only as good as the era.
This is what I mean when I say this. It appears that science now seems to (in a lot of cases) come to the same conclusion the bible had.
I will use abbreviates to give the statements here some order
SB: Science believed
SNS: Science NOW shows
TBAS: The bible always said
SB:Only between one thousand and twelve hundred stars in the whole universe.
SNS: Trillions upon trillions of stars; they cannot be counted by man!
TBAS: Jeremiah 33:22a "As the host of heaven cannot be numbered..."
SB: The Earth is flat.
SNS: The Earth is round.
TBAS:Isaiah 40:22a "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth..."
SB: Light does not move, it is just there.
SNS:Light moves - and has physical properties; "light waves" or photons.
TBAS:Job 38:19a "Where is the way where light dwells? ..."
SB: The Steady State Theory, the stars are just out there.
SNS: Each star is unique, and two of the star constellations have gravitational binding.
TBASJob 38:31 "Can you bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
SB: Bad blood should be bled out, to make a person well.
SNS: Blood is vital to life, sometimes a transfusion is needed to add blood.
TBAS: Leviticus 17:11a "For the life of the flesh is in the blood:..."
SB: Air has no weight, it is just there.
SNS:Oxygen, nitrogen, carbon-dioxide have respective atomic weights that can be measured.
TBAS: Job 28:25a "To make the weight for the winds..."
SB: Winds blow straight across the Earth.
SNS: Air currents move in large circular patterns.
TBAS: Ecclesiastes 1:6b "... and the wind returns again according to his circuits."
The Earth is carried on someone's back. The Earth floats free in space. Job 26:7b "... and hangs the earth upon nothing."
SB: People just get sick; hand washing is not important.
SNS: Many diseases spread by contact; wash your hands in running water.
TBAS: Leviticus 15:13b "... and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water..."
SB:The stars are all similar to each other.
SNS: Each and every star is actually unique.
TBAS:I Corinthians 15:41b "...for one star differs from another star in glory."
I guess the ARGUMENT for you is
SB: Something from nothing for no reason - "The Big Bang" model - poof, look a universe!
but SNS: Every action has an equal and opposite reaction; that is real science. Cause and effect; input is needed to make output.
TBAS: Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
Even with the case of dinosaurs we already knew about them before science found the bones.
New International Version (NIV)
15 “Look at Behemoth,
which I made along with you
and which feeds on grass like an ox.
16 What strength it has in its loins,
what power in the muscles of its belly!
17 Its tail sways like a cedar;
the sinews of its thighs are close-knit.
18 Its bones are tubes of bronze,
its limbs like rods of iron.
19 It ranks first among the works of God,
yet its Maker can approach it with his sword.
20 The hills bring it their produce,
and all the wild animals play nearby.
21 Under the lotus plants it lies,
hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
22 The lotuses conceal it in their shadow;
the poplars by the stream surround it.
23 A raging river does not alarm it;
it is secure, though the Jordan should surge against its mouth.
24 Can anyone capture it by the eyes,
or trap it and pierce its nose?
What about the Leviathan?
Those of you who slam the bible have never actually read it before. The bible does not need anyone to think it is morally okay. It only needs to be true.
It has taken several hundreds of years of research for the science to ultimately come around and prove what the bible always said. This is why we hold the bible. There are so many other things but this will do for now.
Please stick to the topic and address this also.
Science for all the flaws of incorrect conclusions is testable. The flaws actually testify to the fact that science works. An idea is proposed, and it is objectively scrutinised and tested to see if it can be supported by evidence. New evidence comes to light, and the models are adjusted. The scientific approach is the best method for finding the truth. What's the beef?
To blindly accept creationism is folly. It begins with a rigid conclusion where dissent is ridiculed, and seeks only to find 'evidence' to support the claim and wilfully ignores evidence to the contrary. It is not objective, honest, or testable. But what really highlights its lack of credibility is that creationists insist on a degree of proof several orders of magnitude higher for evolution than it is willing to subject to itself.
With regards to your Job 40 quote, it proves nothing. Everything in that passage can be satisfied by a description of an elephant or a hippo with the exception of a tail like a cedar. Wow is that it? A tail like a cedar so it must be a dinosaur? Is that the sum total of evidence that the Flintstones is a documentary? But wait. The behemoth hides under a lotus plant which conceal it in their shadow. Do yourself a favour and Google Image a lotus plant. It seems to me that the behemoth must be a couple metres tall at most, providing the lake on which the lotus plants are floating has a depth of two meters.
Leviathan? Read whale.
Now we are getting somewhere. I agree that the Leviathan sounds more like the blue whale than anything else but it is silly to say the Behemoth with the exception of the tail. The tail is a major part of the description. Also can I point out that there is no known animal except dinosaurs that have a tail that large. For an elephant and Hippo they are small.
I am "of the opinion" that it is only a matter of time before the science proves that man and dinosaurs did in fact walk together.
Also I feel I need to point out that I am not anti-science I simply believe I will not bet my life on ALL of its findings because as per my example they are subject to change.
Also it is a fallacy to say "models changed". This is not a change it is a complete U turn. From flat to round, from stars being the same to being different,
They are opposite. If I say mountains cannot move and claim it to be a theory and then several years later I prove that mountains dont only move they run. This is not a modification but requires a completely different structure to arrive at that conclusion.
A modification using the same example would be saying mountains move only one mile a year and then later showing that they infact move 3 miles. This is a modification of a theory. Meaning that though the information provided is somewhat different it still does not deny the "fact" that mountains move.
Science has done too many U turns yet it is still held as an absolute. Like I said, Millions of dollars in research, hundreds of man hours and lives spent only to come to the conclusions the bible already made mention of. At what point does basic reasoning come into place and one stops to say. What if we were wrong?
You are entitled to that opinion.
Using the bible as a source of information many conclude that the universe is about 6000 years old and everything in the universe revolves around the earth, and every species ever alive was created at the time of creation.
Using modern science as a source of information many conclude that the universe is about 13.77 billion years and the earth revolves around the sun and the sun revolves around the centre of our galaxy which is only one in billions. The first anatomically modern human appeared 200,000 years ago and the dinosaurs died of 65 million years ago.
No dinosaur fossil has every dated earlier than 65 million yeas ago and no anatomically modern humans have been found dating before 200,000 years.
That's a big leap you've got to make.
Dating??? Remember, science cannot test for a million years ago, much less millions. We have no idea how pure the air was then. We have no idea what catastrophes took place that could have changed the atmosphere dramatically. From my understanding, dating largely depends on those factors. A semi-decent guess is all they/we have. God has secrets known to no man. But, again, and again, and once more, it is ALL a matter of WHERE you place your faith.
We can 'test for millions of years ago', it's called radioactive half life decay dating, via a range of isotopes.
We don't know how many times them isotopes have been shaken around, or changed. We don't know how many times the sun, or fire "cooked" them. We have no idea about half-life! We can't even get the "whole" one straight! them things could have been decayed, brought to life and decayed again many times over! No one has THOSE "records" but my father. Faith to believe what he says... or keep guessing. Yes???
Have you ever studied physics or chemistry?
Both were really tough to wrap my mind around. Mathematics and Scientific formulas and "ciphering" all mixed my mentality. I lean too far in the "other" direction. I am truly an "outlier" and I may even extend the curve alone. I make no apologies. It confuses me. If I were ever to do a study, it would be analyzed by a competent scientist. I will give my hypotheses and I will allow the number people to handle the rest. So recite away. It does not influence me to talk numbers and scientific experiment. After they told me that a hypothesis is guess and the theory is built upon said guess; A light shone within my heart, then my brain. Yes, I had an idea. Can you guess what it was???
A hypothesis is not a guess, it is a thought experiment based upon existing knowledge. The hypothesis is subjected to testing. If the evidence supports it, it becomes a theory. A theory is a model that is accepted by those of that field supported by facts and evidence. You need to understand the scientific term for a theory rather than the dismissive popular culture definition.
If you do not understand science then this might explain why you dismiss it in favour of creationism which has no evidence whatsoever to support it. Not even Jews to whom Genesis was written believe it to be a literal account.
Didn't you hear? The Jews missed a lot back then.
Again, a hypothesis is a guess. It is guessing based upon the other guesses; and tests that may or may not pass; with formulas that may or may not be accurate. No hypothesis is correct 100% of the time. No theory explains anything 100% of the time. Which is why they came up with the "handicap" e.g. standard calculations for error. God is right 100% of the time.
God does not even meet the requirements of a theory, but is only relegated to a superstitious myth.
I guess when something is just a man made character in a book of whimsical childish fairy tales, you can give them any accolade you want. But even that silly character in the bible is far from CORRECT 100% of the time. He doesn't even have a firm grasp on the age of the Earth, or what He created first. Just what is wrong with you....that you can't see this? I already have the answer, but I want to hear your answer.
You haven't a firm grasp on anything that either of us are saying. You don't hear me, because, as you already said, "you have the answer". I am not even interested in your opinion much anyway. We have differences. You have stated yours. I have stated mine. Now you want to use "silly"again as an argument??? Surely, you jest.
Just like you already have the answer to this faith question and atheist. You have stated that you know that atheist have faith in something. Why should you be the only one privileged to hold such a standard? Hypocrisy?
Of course you're not, because my opinions are backed with facts, and, sadly, you seem to only understand drivel.
sil·ly [sil-ee] adj - absurd; ridiculous; irrational: a silly idea.
You are correct the problem is with your understanding. Science can and does date stuff millions of years ago using uranium-238, uranium-235 and potassium-40.
And the dating is dependent upon atmospheric pressure??? Hmmm... What was the "pressure" on January 1, 1637BC, then January 5th??? Yes, I am facetious, but do you get what I am saying???
I assure you that radioactive elements decay with a half life that is completely independent of the presence of an atmosphere.
Thats right, every time they date a dinosaur they are off by about 100 million or so years. Every time without exception. All those people who have studying this for years are all wrong and your right.
That is entirely false.
Now THAT would "spin" the world, now wouldn't it???
You're wrong, you know. I know at least three atheists who were devout believers until they sat down and actually read the bible from cover to cover. As a result of that thorough reading, they were so appalled at the contradictions and nonsense it contained, they became atheists. Have you read the Bible from start to finish?
Also Marisa Wright. I have read the bible from start to finish. I have my own questions but they are not surrounding the existence of God.
I also said that a lot of Atheist here speak about things they do not know nor have they read. Its filtered down information about things they do not understand.
Also I would like to point out that when it come to the behemoth no-one really knows if it was a dinosaur but it fits the description. Like I said earlier there are several other things that took science hundreds of years to inevitably come to the same conclusion.
To every one on this page Happy Sunday.
Reading the bible for understanding takes discernment. Something that any who say that it contradicts, don't have. Many different places and times. Different writers. Different flavors. It does not contradict truth. It is full of parable. Takes discernment to distinguish that too. Reading the bible from cover to cover is misleading when you are LOOKING for flaw. I read it cover to cover and it got my approval stamp, what's wrong with you??? Jk...
There's the problem. You don't approach a book with preconceived conclusions or illusions by looking for flaws or simply giving it a stamp of approval.
If there are flaws, they simply reveal themselves. No searching required.
Discernment, given by God to those who SEEK HIM, is necessary to reveal the flaw. As we saw earlier, the word generation taken out of context is totally one way or the other in faith. If you seek him you will find him, if, however, you seek his flaw...
That's way to much to comment on. If you want a good discussion please keep it brief.
Let's see what the writers of the bible knew of the stars?
“Immediately after the distress of those days
"'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.’
These were supposedly the words of Jesus himself describing how the stars can/will fall from the sky and after that the heavenly bodies will be shaken? The stars falling from the sky? He clearly had no idea what a star was.
Then of course he predicted the end of times would come before his generation died.
34 Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.
Guess what? That didn't happen.
LMAO. That is not what that statement meant when he spoke about generations. You really should do more research. Also a lot of other things points were raised. I have only heard one disagreement.
And your wacky definition of "generation" is?
Because last I checked, it refers to the current body of living people.
You could tell me what you think "this generation" means? And you could explain why your God had no understanding of what stars are?
These "scientific" claims of the bible don't hold up. Sorry.
That was a very poorly researched post. Did you even read it at all?
The writer clearly lacks understanding or knowledge of what he is trying to defend or even the bible he is accusing of being false. Also he/her does not even try to pretend like they understand what they are talking about and the psycholinguistic pattern of the writer point to this, terms and word like if being used to form a conclusion is unacceptable. There is a genuine gap between what he knows and what is true and he tries to bridge this by his feelings and thoughts and therefore loses any credential that could have been awarded to him. It is “Pish” at its best.
After reading this I think it is only fair to hold you to the same lofty heights you attempted to hold me to so I must then raise the question. Since you believe that a degree is important for me to have anything valid to say I must ask you the same thing. What is your degree in if any at all? Are you speaking based on research or because you might have once called upon God and he did not answer or some tragic event that happened in your life?
Please do not ignore the questions on the degrees as yourself and a few other Atheists on here made a big deal about this but when questioned kept silent. What is the double standard here? I did not raise it as reason or as if it makes any difference but since you did then you must be held to same standard you required or is this not fair also?
Going back to the topic at hand, I admitted that I have questions on the bible but they are not regarding the existence of a God or on Jesus. I might question if anything is perfect but I do not question the lesson in it. The story of the prodigal son for example does not have to have happened verbatim but it is not without its lesson and teachings. Our God is concerned with the heart and not the physical. Something’s in the bible are difficult for me to understand but the more I research the more I understand and for those things I might ever understand I will wait until I meet God himself to understand. I am of a logical mind and was raised and bred in decades of education. I cannot think otherwise. I understand the need for faith in life after death but recognize the need for understanding in life. I will also not be so simple minded and downright silly to think that just because I do not understand something then it must be untrue. Only a fool thinks that way. Simply put just because I do not understand Fermat's Last Theorem or Riemann hypothesis does not mean the originators did not exist. It is only a silly person that will think that a complex world created by a complex God (As we believe) will have simple answers to it. One must be living in a fool’s paradise to believe this.
Finally, and this is the conclusion of the matter. The question of the existence of God is a nonsense question. If the world as you see it in all its complexities and intricacies does not convince you of an intelligent and complex creator then nothing I say will.
It does not matter what I believe or what you believe with regards to the existence of God. This is something one way or another we will discover to either be true or untrue. As each and every one of us is allocated a time to live and a time to die (At least no one is immortal as of now). We will inevitably find an answer to this question. If it is a question to you let us explore these two things.
A) God exists and Christians were right : All Atheist go to hell and it’s a horrible ending for all non believers. You know the whole story or eternal damnation and suffering (meaning no end to the pain ever)
B) God does not exist and Atheists were right: Both Christians and Atheists were no better off as there is nothing but darkness after life. Only difference is one lives on a principle of the teachings of Christ which included loving your neighbors, feeding the poor, helping the needy etc and we did so with a smile on our faces because though we were deceived we knew no better while the other (Atheists) lives off whatever their individual societies deem to be acceptable (if it is marrying an 8 year old child, sex orgies, child pornography) as when there is no God then ultimately society and governments is what sets the moral compass of the people.
Christians do not lose in both eventualities and either way they are fine but Atheists have only a 50% chance of being correct.
Personally I don’t like those odds and would rather take a chance to explore the alternate possibility. After all what do I have to lose.
There is another possible option: C) God exists and Christians were right, but were incorrect in the way we were interpreting the bible and there actually is no hell, or if there is a Hell, because of their incorrect interpretation Christians actually end up surprised at the answer we get when we show up and same with atheists. (But of course, not to many Christians are willing to explore the possibility that they could have been wrong the whole time about believing in the bible as written, not about God)
You mentioned that atheists only have a 50% chance of being correct, but in your second premise, it would appear that you are generalizing the fact that all atheists are immoral and unethical when the truth of the matter is that There are atheists that have the same morals, values, and ethics as Some Christians. And there are some so- called saved, sanctified, filled with the Holy Ghost Christians that espouse those same things you mentioned of Atheists. So both sides as depending on how they are living have the same chances of being right or wrong