In an essay arguing for the validity of global warming , Tim O'Reilly, (the founder and CEO of O'Reilly media) used Pascal's Wager, an articulation by the 17th century philosopher and mathematician Blaise Pascal who argued for the existence of God in the face of the failure of reason and science to provide a definitive answer. O'Reilly wrote "Climate change is a modern version of Pascal's wager. On one side, the worst outcome is that we've built a more robust economy. On the other hand,the worst outcome really is Hell. In short we do better if we believe in climate change and act on that belief, even if we turrn out to be wrong."
Interesting....that Pascal's wager has been resuscitated, for the purpose of arguing for a theory i.e. global warming, aka climate change whose scientific underpinning is at best unsettled, at worst slowly drowning in its own detritus.
So what exactly was Pascal wagering on? To quote directly from Pascal's: "You must wager. It is not optional. Which will you choose.You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He(God) is."
Pascal's wager as you know was posited in the context of philosophic and or religious interpretation, but on its own has become a historical game changer in the area of probability theory as well as decision theory. Stripped of its philosophic connotation it provides a simple and effective way to reason, thus it has become an argument not only for mathematicians, or for the religious, but most importantly for any thinking person.
Yes. I wasn't aware it was used for other arguments.
But, shortly after, Pascal's wager was shown to be fallacious by the thinking person, but continued to be embraced by the religious person.
You are grappling at straws again encephalo. You might want to re-read Pascal's wager and its historical implications. Descartes himself tried to heap the same absolutist disdain for Pascal's Wager, and as far as I could discern, was not too successful.
I'm so unhappy about Descartes' attempt. Boo hoo.
Pascal's wager had historical implications due to opening up probability and decision theory, but the bet itself had all kinds of flaws, the most glaring being the entire bet was based on a false dilemma; Gods existence.
Pascal himself implied that God's existence could not be proven by reasoning alone or science alone or by both. So there was never ever a dilemma. What he was specifically proposing was, since humans seems to be the only earthly creature to even think about the possibility that God exist, they must then make a choice ( deciding not to make a choice IS NOT OPTIONAL) to either believe or not believe in His existence... based not on reason or any empiric evidence, but on cost-benefit probability alone. Thus believing in the existence of God is not costly, but the benefit could be infinite; while not believing in God may be costly, because one does not reap those infinite benefits.
Unfortunately, Pascal is also implying that people CAN make a choice to believe or not. Not pay lip service or pretend to believe/not believe, but to actually believe or not.
For most (many?) people that is not an option at all, regardless of Pascal's statement to the contrary.
The environmental conundrum has a similar fault; the "damage" of believing in global warming by man is not limited to growing a more robust economy; indeed any actions taken are more likely to hurt the economy and not build it. In any case, there is zero reason to think that using less energy will help the economy at all.
Sorry, but in order for that bet to be valid, all parties must agree to it. God has yet to agree and considering God is allegedly providing "those infinite benefits", there must be some proof to His acceptance of the deal.
What do you think Jesus Christ was saying when he said(paraphrasing): Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed, for they shall have eternal life.
And to the "criminal" on his side who was also crucified in Golgotha when Jesus responded to his plea: "...on this day you will be with me in Paradise"
So what? Where does it state that God accepts Pascal's wager?
Stay on topic my friend... you're getting way to circular with your arguments.
Weren't you asking about what those "infinite benefits" might be, and I answered your question with a few paraphrased statements from Jesus.
Pascal's wager was not meant for God to accept because he did not direct the wager to God but to his fellow humans.
LOL. By pointing out your fallacious arguments?
No, and if you had actually read my post, you would see I was specifically asking where it states God has agreed with Pascal's wager. He hasn't, so the wager is null and void until He does agree.
Do you know nothing of contract law? Pascal implements God as one of the main contributors to the wager. In fact, Pascal has nothing to venture or gain by the wager at all, the wager is between God and whoever takes the wager.
Christ is the Son God, as He says He is......without any hint of delusion and or discombobulation. So when he said what he was quoted as saying, then God has accepted the wager in that whoever believes in Him (Christ/God) will be assured of eternal life in paradise/heaven.
Just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure it's comforting.
And, I am the Queen of Moldavia, because I say I am.
Now, you're just making stuff up.
Wouldn't the more accurate title be the drag queen of Moldavia?
Sure, if you like to visualize me in women's clothing, whatever floats your boat.
Simply stated, those who choose not to be comforted will not be comforted. That's what you call Free Will... and I'm sure you have oodles and oodles of that.
Your wager isn't done yet. Now you must wager that you have the right religion. There are about 21 major religions and over 3000 different sects.
And then you have to wager that whatever God (if there's only one) that you don't choose is going to be less angry at you for worshiping one of his/her/their competitors than not worshiping anyone.
So I wonder if it's possible to pick the least angry or jealous version of God and suddenly have faith in that God?
In a sense I've majored that none of the Gods presented appear to have the necessary qualities for the job. I would suspect that any real God wouldn't care as long as we are good people. I suspect there will be people who are not being good people by following their version of God and if God does in fact exist will be in of a surprise. If it turns out that there is no God then there will be some who spent their entire lives lying to others because of their disillusion.
Why not just make up your own God? One that does everything the way you would.
It seems to be working for me
In all seriousness, I see how we view God as an indication of what kind of person WE are. That goes for what faith we choose as well.
If we are angry and vengeful, then our God suddenly becomes angry and vengeful. If we are judgmental, then we have a judgmental God. If we think we are so worthless that we need punishing, then we have a punishing God. So on and so forth. I can generally tell a lot about a religious person after their "elevator speech." That's what I see as the "fruits" that everyone keeps talking about.
Your version of God does seem pretty cool. If I had to chose one, I'd chose yours.
Hmmmm, a God specifically designed for one's own personal proclivity and predisposition... Interesting concept, but one that I would think even Stephen Hawking would disagree. You might have heard or read that S. Hawking does believe in God, but one that is as impersonal as GRAVITY. I don't think, the way I understand it, that GRAVITY could be tailor-made since it is one of the CONSTANT forces in nature... one that could not be changed by one's innate/intimate desires.
Still not getting it.
There's a guy on campus. He's very popular because he has it all. We'll call him Bob.
Susie likes him because he has a nice butt. Susie isn't real concerned with anything else, because Susie just likes butts. Susie needs l**d.
Jenny likes him because he visits old people. Jenny values charity and compassion.
Buddy likes him because he lends him money. Buddy values money and likes people who give it to him.
Benny likes him because he throws people who disagrees with him in a pit of fire and tortures people who don't worship him in horrible ways. Benny is a psychopath.
See, you can see the personalities in each person by the reasons they like Bob. Bob is all of those things, but the people who like him admire him for different reasons.
Relationships at the human level is generally simple and uncomplicated so long as there is no dis-harmony( i.e. you like me/I like you). Human's vis-à-vis their relation with the Divine is ALWAYS simple. Human's because of the dictates of their ego, could be the most loathsome of God's creation, but God still loves them all. The only caveat is that humans believe in His existence and His Divine presence in their lives.
You are aware, I assume, that Pascal was a Christian, and as such when he formulated his wager, he was not referring to any, generalized/genericized religion and God. He was specifically referring to the Christian God. So your post totally missed the point he was making.
Pascal in fact anticipated that folks would heap the multiple religions/gods argument against his wager, and regarded those arguments as rhetorical ploys by folks who have not done any detailed study on whether Christianity is like any other religion and therefore just superficially reflecting and asking these questions just to amuse themselves.
Only you can't make up your own God. He is who He is. If you make up your own God, you serve a false God. You are serving no one.
Why not? Everyone else did - why can't I make one up too?
If God is real, He is the God of the Bible. You are welcome to make up your own God. The God of the Bible has given you the ability to do so.
Most of the world disagrees with you. What makes your opinion superior to theirs?
If the whole world disagreed with Melissa's family about who she was, would that change who she was? What is the point of God without the Bible? Without the Bible, He could be anything. The Bible is like His DNA.
LMAO... I'm sure God will be glad to hear that the only "point" he has is your belief in the Bible and that he can be reduced to a few hundred-thousand words.
God doesn't have to have a point. Now your belief in him, apparently that does have to have a point. You need to have a defined God that's black and white. So you chose to worship a defined God that's black and white.
God is limitless, but He is the same yesterday, today and forever. There is nothing He can't do and no one He can't reach.
So then, what makes you think he has confined himself to one book and one definition? Why can't he be the God of every religion?
If He is not who the bible says He is, then He is completely unreliable. Either the Bible is true or it is not. If it were not, you'd have nothing to base your beliefs on.
And I thought you guys were saying you have a spiritual connection with God?
Exactly, you have absolutely nothing but a book in which to base all of your beliefs.
You don't think you'd know Christ without the Bible?
I would, I did. The Bible just shaped things.
Then the inescapable conclusion, if God can reach everyone but fails to do so, is that God is intentionally and maliciously sending the vast majority to Hell for His own failure.
Who said He failed to? Because everyone does not respond for the positive, you conclude that He failed to reach them?
That contradicts other things you've said about God. It must be very difficult keeping your story straight when so much of it is made up.
"Most of the world disagrees with you. What makes your opinion superior to theirs?"
I didn't ask about Melissa's family or about the whole word. I asked what made your opinion any better than anyone else's and the answer seems to be because the bible is an integral part of your opinion. Which is, of course, no answer at all - it's like a small child answering "Because!" and deserves the same respect. Can you offer some reason your opinion is superior to every other persons's? Something beyond "Because!"?
I did. It was more of the same; opinion stated as facts with nothing to back them except more of the same "Because!" that I hear from my grand daughter.
Im not sure why you've become insulting, but that seems less than useful to any conversation.
The point is without the Bible, there is nothing to base God on. There must be an absolute.
Because you keep giving an insulting answer.
You approach the point with this one, though - when using the bible to prove God you are using a very basic and absolute logical error. It's called circular reasoning and inevitably leads to nowhere.
All you have to say is the truth, instead of trying to get around it with a "Because!" - "My opinion is no better because I have no reason for it other than I like it". Or some other wording indicating that 1) it is no better, and 2)it is no better because it has no basis any more than any other opinion of God does.
Oh, were you asking me to prove God to you?
I thought you were asking why it was my opinion that the God of the Bible is the only one true God... which my answer was, 'because there must be an absolute.'
That would be called confirmation bias.
If there was an absolute god, any god could be a possibility, not just yours.
I see. And the absolute is Allah. Or Buddha. Or Thor. Because...well, just Because!
You don't seem to understand that statements like that ("my opinion is superior because there must be an absolute") is nothing more than "Because", but I assure you it is not.
Then reject Him. What does it affect you if I do not? Be on your way, these are not the droids you're looking for.
So rude. Why are you so angry these last couple days?
Not angry at all, you misunderstood a star wars joke. I was just saying if he didn't agree, there was nothing more to talk about.
Why wouldn't there be? You will continue to proselytize, why can't I continue to ask you to actually think for a change rather that take words from an old book as truth without every checking? That's what it's all about, after all - you want blind belief from everyone, I want reason and thought. Does my refusal to accept blind faith as truth mean you will refuse to think?
I don't enjoy the condescension oddly enough. And if I share what I believe and you do not agree, then you are free to disagree... to ask me to stand there while you continuously and condescendingly tell me you don't agree is not high on my to do list. Once we've heard each other, I think we're free to move on.
Do you think it would help to present a belief or opinion as a belief or opinion rather than an indisputable fact? And perhaps indicate a reason for belief or opinion so that others can decide if they believe or not?
So you would now control what I say and how I say it. Do you not support the First Amendment? Why not step back and reevaluate your motives. This is still a free country and I still believe what I believe as absolute fact, just as you believe you are free to scoff and condescend. I don't believe I've heard you say your beliefs may not be fact.
Gravity, evolution, relativity... these are facts, they stare each and every one of us in the face everyday. What you believe are not facts because they are only relevant to you personally., more similar to a fantasy or fairy tale.
Sounds like the pot/kettle. You don't like being called on presenting opinion as fact and want me to stop - the 1st amendment only applies to you?
You haven't heard me say my beliefs may not be fact because I try not to have beliefs. Only knowledge, to the best of my ability. If it will make you happy, though - I believe in free will. Not from a factual basis, but totally because it makes me happy to do so. I do not evangelize, I certainly do not promote free will as fact and actually have argued that there is no free will in spite of my belief. Better?
As far as motives - I really do believe the world would be a better place if people didn't try to control others and force them into a specific belief mold. For the most part, beliefs have cause far more damage than good and have actively held back the human race from progressing forward - it is long past time that we gave up irrational beliefs in favor of reality and I shall continue to promote the use of reason and thought rather than an emotional desire culminating in a belief in mythology
Well at least we agree on something. I'm done here. Thank you for the conversation.
Perhaps, although I am not convinced of that.
You have a good day - although it is chilly here the sun is out and I enjoy it after a hard winter.
Chilly here, no sun. Dark and dismal. Longest winter I can recall.
It has been an ugly winter. Very cold, and my heating bill skyrocketed, but worse was week after week of an inversion. Cold, gray and without sun day after day, week after week. Lots of fog, and a couple horrendous accidents as a result of that.
But it's warming, and the sun is out. Life is good once more.
It's still below freezing here. Waiting to see grass.
Well, I imagine so, in the frozen north where people have no business trying to live!
But it's slightly below freezing here, too. It will warm to around 10 degrees C by noon, though - enough to get out and straighten/clean the shop up. I need to park a car there in the near future and better get on the job.
Boise, Idaho - south western part of the state. Sage brush country, around 2800' elevation. Hot summers, mostly cool winters but below freezing most of the time. This year probably averaged 10 degrees colder than normal with quite a bit more snow - a little odd as they're predicting low water levels because the mountains didn't get enough snow. We got more in the valley because of the lower temperature but the area as a whole got less.
Huh! And there I had in mind that you were one of those dreaded Canucks, living half their life in a frozen wasteland. Except Vancouver - that's pretty.
No, you had it right this year anyway. Our winter typically aren't that bad here, but this one sucked. We have Detroit's weather. Not Winnipeg or Thunder Bay's weather.
You must be near Toronto; that's about the only part of Canada south of me.
The lakes probably make a difference, but so do the Rockies. We get very little jet stream, and little arctic air coming this far south. You would seem to be right in the middle of that.
Again, without the bible you wouldn't confess to tell us about the spiritual connection you have with God? Is this why you refuse to look critically at any part of the bible.
For some people, and obviously Beth is one of them, the Bible is a source of nuggets of TRUTH. Narratives that speak to the belief that God is the source of all TRUTHS. Now for some people, and obviously you are one of them, those biblical narratives are fables and myths fabricated by simple, ignorant folks whose scientific knowledge is nil/void.
Trying to look for scientific nuggets of truth via the strictest of literal interpretation of the bible is a fools errand. I have always contended that most of those stories in the Old Testament, starting from Genesis on down must and should be gleaned from a metaphorical perspective. That contention comes from the scientifically/empirically proven fact that all humans think and speak mostly in embodied metaphors.
You talk as if truth is some kind of subjective thing; what is truth to one is false to another.
That is not the case. Truth matches reality and reality is the same for everyone on the face of the planet.
What Beth finds is a perception of truth, mostly because she does not care to question or test what she reads there, but automatically assumes it is all true and real. Now, you can ramble on about the bible speaking metaphorically, but when you change what it says to match reality and truth, that truth is not biblical. It exists only in you, not the bible.
Do not speak for me, you don't know my convictions or how I've reached them.
I do not believe the Bible contains nuggets of truth. I believe the bible is THE way THE truth and THE life. It is the inerrant word of God.
I'd say I understand them pretty well - had I been asked I would have said that Beth things the bible is the word of god and totally true.
Which, I believe, is what you DID say.
This version is much less offensive than the actual version you printed. Do you not recall?
"mostly because she does not care to question or test what she reads there, but automatically assumes it is all true and real."
Again, you do not seem able to discuss this topic without condescension.
Well, DO you test biblical scripture for truth? DO you put your god to the test, requiring proof it exists or acts? Or do you assume that everything in the bible is true, and testing/questioning is unnecessary?
Testing is different than proof. God has proven Himself to me over and over again. Therefore, to test Him, I know would be disrespectful. "....Do not put the Lord your God to the test." Luke 4:12
B/c you do not believe in God, disrespecting Him is nothing to you. I would not choose to do so.
We are told to test the spirits.
There are places the Lord has allowed us to ask Him to show Himself such as in giving, "Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this," says the LORD Almighty, "and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it." Mal 3:10
And in the case of Gideon in Heb 11 who put a fleece out before the Lord... so yes, the Lord has revealed and proven Himself to me over and over again, as I said, but no, I do not test my Creator.
No, He hasn't, that is just your belief.
Yes, just like the tyrant or dictator who tells their followers never to test or question them.
Since no one has adequately shown what a spirit is, there is nothing to test.
Your opinions carry no more weight with me than my beliefs do with you.
That's no problem, but I know you say these things because you have nothing of value to say.
You don't have to question God to question words written a few thousand years ago about him. Especially when the words say that he is a homophobic, sexist, racist, jealous genocidal maniac. Why are you not defending your God against those who wrote that stuff about him rather than saying it's okay for God to so those things?
I have never met anyone who discusses matters the way you do.
Rad Man: Why X?
Believer: Because Y.
Two hours later
Rad Man: Yes, but what about X?
Believer: Because Y.
Rad Man: You've never explained why X!
Believer: Because Y!
No matter how many times it is explained to you that God is not who you make him out to be, you refuse to acknowledge even, that we fully disagree with the picture you paint of Him. You try to use the Bible as a way to help you paint the picture, but we show you the actual meaning of the Bible and you pretend as if we've never even posted. It is a ludicrous effort.
Well, when you say stuff like
And then I read what the bible says God said
14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
I see that you are wrong. It was according to the bible Gods will to burn them.
You're right. It is better today. We make a reality show of it and 8 year olds sit at home watching Bob in a hot tub with his wife and mother in law.
So you think we should burn them? Do you think we should kill homosexuals also. This is the punishment that the God of the OT asked for. It's his will.
Here's the thing... it doesn't matter what I think. I am not a god... I am not THE GOD. When you figure out how insignificant you are, maybe you will stop trying to put God in His place. Then when you figure out that God loves every insignificant sinner... when you get that He decided not to punish them, but to send His son, Himself essentially, to pay for all our sins so that we could be with Him forever, then you will begin to focus on what is real and true instead of the game you have created... a game you cannot win, no matter how long or how hard you try to play it.
Okay, you claim every thing recorded in the Bible wasn't God's will as a way of saying God's not that bad, then when you are confronted with the "bad" and burning people at the stack is "bad" you switch back to the "we can not understand God, we are insignificant little nothings". I'm not at all afraid of God so your little tactic will not work. If there is a just God I'm sure he will wonder why you thought he would want people to burn other people at the stake. You could recognize that the God you love would never have order those thing or you could continue alone defending stoning homosexuals to death and burning people for doing stupid things.
You do not hold God in esteem.
You question His means and His motives.
We do not view Him the same.
You view Him as a large human.
I view Him as an omniscient God who makes the rules.
We cannot come to an understanding under these circumstances.
Okay, you will continue asking for the stoning of homosexuals and the burning of the sexually deviant because you think God is beyond our understanding and you don't want to think for yourself.
I'd like to think we have an understand of what is moral and ethical and what is not. Perhaps you can't see that and don't want to continue this conversation. You good with a sexist, jealous, homophobic genocidal version of God. If that's what you think he is then you will kiss his butt and call it done.
But I have to ask, if Hitler came back and simultaneously revealed himself as God to every human on the planet, would you worship him as well? Would you suddenly think it right to gas Jews?
I didn't mean that funny. The extremes you go to to try and make an invalid point are unbearable.
The point is if you will follow one homophobic, sexist, racist, jealous, genocidal maniac would you follow another?
Here is another approach, would you think that if the God described in the OT were a person you would follow him?
I'm not at all trying to get you to disbelieve in you God, but what if a loving God that you worship is not what is described in the OT. What if some of the writers made stuff up.
What's more likely? A loving, forgiving God asked people to stone and burn other people to death or people made that stuff up? Understanding that people made stuff up doesn't take anything away from your God, in fact it makes him more valid and loving.
This is not God. This is what your limited understanding has attributed to His character. If you knew who He really was, you would be ashamed for having written that, but you do not understand the scripture, no matter how many times it is explained to you. I would seriously suggest that you read the whole Bible, cover to cover, and see if maybe, with prayer, you could gain a new understanding of who God actually is. If this seems a waste of time to you, then I do not understand why you spend so much time here trying to disprove Him. I have always wondered if we are the substitute for the conversation you can't have with your wife? Are you two able to discuss this subject and still maintain a good relationship? Are you kinder to her than to most believers on this forum?
But, you're a fully indoctrinated ,zealous fundamentalist and couldn't possibly offer any kind of reasonable or rational portrayal of God. Reading the Bible without that shows Gods as a villain.
Your not listening. I didn't say your version of God was those things, I said the God of the OT is and by worshiping him you do yourself no favours. I'm saying it's possible you God would not be happy with you for thinking he would order those things.
I've read the entire bible, not all in one shot, some of it years and years ago. but I was going over it again when I came across Leviticus 20 Punishments for Sin
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se … ersion=NIV
It's right there for you to read. I'm not trying to be mean. And yes I have these conversations with my wife and kids. We teach our kids it's wrong to discriminate against anybody and it's certainly immoral to stone or burn them. My youngest came home today (grade 9) and told us he had a conversation with with a friend about gay marriage. He told the kid it's not right to deny rights to humans based on irrelevant things. Pretty cool kid.
We view God as a selfish, immoral tyrant, exactly the same way the Bible depicts Him.
It doesn't matter what God calls himself, His actions speak much louder than.
Who makes rules neither I nor any moral human can stomach. That's a real problem with your god - His rules are not something we can live with and are [i]certainly[/] not something we can worship without making excuses such as "I don't understand, but it's OK anyway".
It's odd that you cannot stomach these rules.
You shall have no other gods before me.
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.
Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.
One very good reason not to worship or praise God. Terrible role model.
That is a rule you don't follow. Why would you hold it up to anyone else when you yourself don't abide by it?
Did I not post over a dozen NT verses saying that Jesus had replaced the old law?
These are from the OT that you claim to keep and claim moral. What about the punishment for childbirth?
What about these.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
20 “‘If a man sleeps with a female slave who is promised to another man but who has not been ransomed or given her freedom, there must be due punishment.[a] Yet they are not to be put to death, because she had not been freed. 21 The man, however, must bring a ram to the entrance to the tent of meeting for a guilt offering to the Lord. 22 With the ram of the guilt offering the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord for the sin he has committed, and his sin will be forgiven.
Let me get this straight, YOU are showing us the true picture of God and the actual meaning of the Bible?
And yet...testing is the only method of finding truth. To look at coincidence and declare it MUST be a god's work because you like it does not produce truth; it produces opinion and belief with only the most tenuous of connections to either reality or truth.
If the lord "revealed" himself to you (minus the metaphorical meaning) I'm sure you took a picture. We all carry camera phones, after all. But you didn't, did you? Because He did NOT "reveal" himself; a nice thing happened which you promptly attributed to a god, but did so with any testing and without a shred of proof.
Go, Beth, and test your god. Make him prove He is there and loves you before you will worship. Prove as in scientific proof, not as in making up reasons to think He is there; get some photos, watch as He violates natural laws for you or changes a rib bone into a woman. Then come back and tell us you have truth; if you properly recorded it the world will believe with you.
I did not need to test Him because He willingly proved Himself to me. God willing, I will remain faithful the remainder of my days.
Probably wise. You seem happy with your belief and should probably hang on to it, but men have been testing god for thousands of years and every single (honest) test has come back either negative or inconclusive. Not a single positive test, which is not very conducive to maintaining belief.
Yes, only when it serves your purpose, but is not the inerrant word of God when it does not serve your purpose. That's called hypocrisy.
It would be if I ever believed there were a time that it wasn't true, but I don't... so that was a pointless statement.
Verses have been brought up to you on various occasions, none of which you would ever agree or practice. And, you know that.
How do you not get it yet? You choose not to get it.
Yes, there were laws in the OT that were replaced when Jesus came.
There were man made laws that God was not always supportive of, like the stoning of the adulterous woman, where Jesus said, 'Hey, by the way, whoever among you is without sin, go ahead and stone her.' Or where Pharaoh was enslaving an entire ppl and God sent Moses to free them, sending plague after plague to end the tyrant. You don't seem to understand that every thing recorded in the Bible wasn't God's will.
But it was God who gave the instruction on when to stone people according to the bible.
Look up Leviticus 20 The punishment of sin.
27 “‘A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.’”
I get that fact that you hypocritically state the bible is the inerrant word of God, that is, until someone pulls verses on you, much to your chagrin.
Everything in the Bible came out of the minds of men, which is so very obvious, not a bit of it had anything to do with gods.
This is something you don't get.
And we are supposed to accept your perception/version of reality because?
Because you cannot produce any other reality that works and is testable. Only imaginary ones.
Sure! What would you like to test? Your computer? That the sky is blue? The sun rises in the morning? What would you like to verify?
@Wilderness: Since you are so sure that the Bible is a lot of hogwash... why don't you start by giving me your credentials as a Biblical scholar who has done field research and work...some kind of scholarly desertation on why those ignorant sheep herders could net be relied upon when it comes to interpreting the world around them.
With all due respect, when people give information about their biblical studies, in some cases, some who have studied long and possess multiple degrees, they're often just met with disdain and written off as academia without any "spiritual" understanding. Why would anyone want to put themselves in a position like that?
Sure thing - where would you like it faxed to? I don't have the software to convert hard copy to pdf files.
I have the hardware and the software to convert hardcopies to pdf's or fax ready them wherever you want. Drive over and I'll help you out with that. Drive directly east for a few straight day. Just don't attempt to bring any guns over the boarder. You American's keep trying that.
@wilderness: No software huh?.. alibis, alibis. But just because Motown has given you some kind of cover does not mean that your off the hook.
You are free to deny/reject reality and live in the bubble you've created for yourself, no one cares if that's what you wish to do.
The God you believe is not the same as the God of Islam. That God doesn't contain the son and the holy spirit. The Mormon God is different again as is the Jewish God. The version you believe in seems to what us to believe in him before we die while others don't. Your version seems to think vacations are more important than feeding the poor. Just saying.
Hmm... I'm going by the Bible... If he was made up, the writers of the Bible did that. How you view him? That's all on you.
One of these days you might understand the difference.
Your children view you differently than your husband does, than your mother does, but you are the same person no matter how you are viewed. The task that has been set before us is to discover who the God of the Bible is.
Everything that we know about god has been handed down by other men who have also had to trust the information they were getting. It's a shame we have to learn that all of these stories come from myths and fables, because we are first indoctrinated. So Pascal was wrong to settle on that God is, without any proof similar to his reason in that it is. O'Reilly is an imbecile who takes a 17th century figure he knows his audience knows nothing about to come across as heady, knowing they'll eat his crap if he serves it with presentation. Pascal would have given him a bolero and told him to go play with that until he was ready to take things seriously.
What might be all fable and myths to you, might contain nuggets of truth when those narratives are interpreted metaphorically. If you don't already know or discern most of our thoughts and the language we use to express those thoughts are metaphorical in nature. George Lakkoff and other social/experimental psychologists have been conducting relevant research, and have provided compelling evidence that the mind thinks in embodied metaphors. "Indocrination" is but one of the simplistic arguments heaped by atheists against philosophic/religious beliefs, that just does not cut it against the backdrop of biblical narrative (belief as revelation) , and historical perspective (Christ invoking moral and ethical and daily living values vis-a-vis God, via his Sermon on the Mount).
As regards Mr. O'Reilly, his Essay was included in a book of essays written by noted empiricists and theorists titled" This Explains Everything" edited by John Brockman. You might want not to judge him to fast and too harshly.
by Doc Young3 years ago
What are your thoughts on it?
by Arthur Russ6 hours ago
Why Are so Many Americans in Denial of Human’s Contribution to Climate Change, and the Harm its Doing to the Planet?The evidence is so clear, just to name a few:-• The correlation between the burning of...
by sannyasinman7 years ago
Global Warming is not man-made. http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
by emievil8 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is...
by ThunderKeys5 years ago
I'm confused. I've read and heard arguments that global warming is really just part of a natural temperature change process for the earth. I've also read that it's completely man-made? Is it one or both of these? Please...
by Sychophantastic2 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.