|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,279 Likes: 15
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,279 Likes: 15 |
Archeologists do not confirm the existence of a God or gods. There is no reason to doubt that the places, towns, cities mentioned in the bible existed. It's the supernatural element that is questionable.
I'm going to say the survival of the Jewish people as a separate entity and the miraculous reestablishment of the nation of Israel is proof enough for me. Their victory in the 1948 war should be enough for anyone to believe in divine intervention. .. None of what you say proves the supernatural acts of Jesus in scripture as being true...you yourself even attribute Paul's alleged experience on the road to Emmaus to schizophrenia. Exactly how is victory in the war and the 1948 establishment of Israel a supernatural act? War historians still debate reasons for the outcome of the war , rationally putting forward their case, and they seem quite reasonable without requiring one to resort to wacko claims. Without caring to exhaust any reasonable rational explanations , one can easily claim divine intervention for a number military conflict outcomes throughout history just like some victors have done. So god didn't mind sacrificing 6 million jews for the better good? Or he was a bit late with the intervention?
Looking at the list of successful invasions/takeovers of Jewish lands through millenia, it becomes rather apparent that God wasn't at all keen on intervening on behalf of his chosen people. I'm not trying to convince you, I know that's not going to happen by my efforts. Just stating that the survival of the Jewish people and the retaking of Israel after almost 2000 years along with them becoming a military and economic superpower is enough circumstantial evidence for me. God bless you.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you." Hebrew Roots Judaizer
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,400 Likes: 35
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,400 Likes: 35 |
I like to keep, "It", simple.
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,614 Likes: 25
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,614 Likes: 25 |
I like to keep, "It", simple. It ‘is’ simple. It’s people that make it complicated. Apostle John, “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, said that “the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus.” It’s clear that Jesus had a very special and close relationship with Apostle John; Jesus even entrusted His mother’s care to John after His death. Grace comes through Jesus, and it’s only through Him that we can be saved. I believe that Jesus died for my sin and rose from the dead. But I don’t believe it because the Bible says so. I believe it because Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James (the brother of Jesus), and Paul said so. And I have subjective evidence for my beliefs; I have no doubts whatsoever. If some others accept it, great. If some others reject it, fine.
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,647 Likes: 12
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,647 Likes: 12 |
To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965
Campfire 'Bwana
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 46,965 |
To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes. It depends if your eyes are open and your mind is clear and without bias but also what you have been encouraged to hate.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,700 Likes: 45
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,700 Likes: 45 |
If I'm not mistaken Ace is calling BS on such claims. It gets interesting when believers doubt believers..
I have plenty of doubt when it comes to the human heart. I’ve met and known some truly despicable people that claimed to be a “believer”. I’ve had a lot of disagreements, fundamental differences in beliefs, with “believers”. Of course I believe that I’m correct but because of those disagreements I’ve sought answers for understanding. My search for truth and understanding takes many forms, none of which are up for debate. What I do know for absolute certain is that mankind is predisposed to sin and that applies to everyone of us, believers and non believers alike. Just because a man is a deacon or pastor or parishioner does not necessarily speak to his character, it should but it doesn’t because he is human and subject to the temptations that accompany our mortal flesh. My respect and trust for someone else lies in their behavior and character not in their title. I’ve quit going to certain churches because I didn’t feel God’s presence there and in a couple of cases I felt a darkness when entering what should’ve been the enlightening illumination of the Lord’s house. One “church” in particular personified everything that non believers complain and believe about Christians. The ones I knew from that “church” were lying, scheming, greedy charlatans. They thought that lying and tricking people into their “circle” was justifiable since they were doing it for god but I came to realize that was another of their lies. They turned more people away from the Word and gave non believers affirmation, they were doing more work for satan than they’d ever done for God. There are a lot of “churches” out there and I don’t believe that they’re all good. I do believe that most of them are good and allowing 1 bad “church” to tarnish your view of all churches would be small-minded. If one is intellectually honest they’d realize that a church is merely an accumulation of mortals learning and worshiping God together. Because it’s an accumulation of mortals it’s subject to being destroyed or perverted for the indulgence of the sins of its parishioners. All Christians aren’t necessarily so nor are they the same just as all atheists or agnostics aren’t the same, neither are their motivations the same. “Judging everyone by the worst examples of the group is unwise and inaccurate.
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
--------------------------------------------------------- ~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,614 Likes: 25
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,614 Likes: 25 |
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
I'm not trying to convince you, I know that's not going to happen by my efforts. Just stating that the survival of the Jewish people and the retaking of Israel after almost 2000 years along with them becoming a military and economic superpower is enough circumstantial evidence for me...
At least we can confirm your approach to faith is evidence based. However sufficient Evidence and analyzing may reveal reasonable and rational explanation for how Israelis were victorious in war and able to to establish the nation of Israel...we don't really know how far down that path you have explored before resorting to supernatural explanation. Did Hitler survived all those assassination attempts through divine intervention or are there acceptable rational explanations for such ? What about Rome's great rise to Power from the humble beginnings of a couple Latin tribes , were the gods they worshipped favoring them?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4 |
To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes. Evidence is a body of information that supports a certain conclusion regardless of who examines it. Evidence cannot support contradictory or opposing conclusions. You cannot have a dream or vision and claim this as proof that the things you dreamt are literally true and factual.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4 |
To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes. Evidence is a body of information that supports a certain conclusion regardless of who examines it. Evidence cannot support contradictory or opposing conclusions. You cannot have a dream or vision and claim this as proof that the things you dreamt are literally true and factual. To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes. It depends if your eyes are open and your mind is clear and without bias but also what you have been encouraged to hate. If two people look at something and draw opposite conclusions, who is right, and why?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,400 Likes: 35
Campfire Kahuna
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 61,400 Likes: 35 |
These premises insured by a Sheltie in Training ,--- and Cooey.o "May the Good Lord take a likin' to you"
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, ... Law courts require a certain standard of objective evidence to prove something, unlike faith which is subjective and can fluctuate wildly from one individual to another. I'm rather confident you would not want to be convicted of a crime based on the personal faith of law enforcement, judge and jury...lest of course you be one to buy into witchhunts and burning heretics.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 29,710 Likes: 6
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 29,710 Likes: 6 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
If I'm not mistaken Ace is calling BS on such claims. It gets interesting when believers doubt believers..
I have plenty of doubt when it comes to the human heart. I’ve met and known some truly despicable people that claimed to be a “believer”. I’ve had a lot of disagreements, fundamental differences in beliefs, with “believers”. Of course I believe that I’m correct but because of those disagreements I’ve sought answers for understanding. My search for truth and understanding takes many forms, none of which are up for debate. What I do know for absolute certain is that mankind is predisposed to sin and that applies to everyone of us, believers and non believers alike. Just because a man is a deacon or pastor or parishioner does not necessarily speak to his character, it should but it doesn’t because he is human and subject to the temptations that accompany our mortal flesh. My respect and trust for someone else lies in their behavior and character not in their title. I’ve quit going to certain churches because I didn’t feel God’s presence there and in a couple of cases I felt a darkness when entering what should’ve been the enlightening illumination of the Lord’s house. One “church” in particular personified everything that non believers complain and believe about Christians. The ones I knew from that “church” were lying, scheming, greedy charlatans. They thought that lying and tricking people into their “circle” was justifiable since they were doing it for god but I came to realize that was another of their lies. They turned more people away from the Word and gave non believers affirmation, they were doing more work for satan than they’d ever done for God. There are a lot of “churches” out there and I don’t believe that they’re all good. I do believe that most of them are good and allowing 1 bad “church” to tarnish your view of all churches would be small-minded. If one is intellectually honest they’d realize that a church is merely an accumulation of mortals learning and worshiping God together. Because it’s an accumulation of mortals it’s subject to being destroyed or perverted for the indulgence of the sins of its parishioners. All Christians aren’t necessarily so nor are they the same just as all atheists or agnostics aren’t the same, neither are their motivations the same. “Judging everyone by the worst examples of the group is unwise and inaccurate. Jesus came not to save the righteous , but as physician to the sick and weak and embraced those that society shunned or rejected.. Q./ Would Jesus embrace those from church groups you say you found no presence of God? ..I mean is there a std. of sickness so chronic that even Jesus would reject them/turn them away? Jesus even went to the extent of personally choosing disciples which would betray him ,deny him, repeatedly fail him in his time of need...If that's the best he could realistically hope for (from hand selected people), then those church groups which you reject may be nothing at all surprising in the one big broad church of Jesus.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,279 Likes: 15
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 13,279 Likes: 15 |
No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, ... Law courts require a certain standard of objective evidence to prove something, unlike faith which is subjective and can fluctuate wildly from one individual to another. I'm rather confident you would not want to be convicted of a crime based on the personal faith of law enforcement, judge and jury...lest of course you be one to buy into witchhunts and burning heretics. Are you requiring proof (of the supernatural) beyond any doubt? Do you think there is an intelligent creative force at the center of things? How do you believe the universe came into being? I do understand how someone like you could look at the world and say "if there is a God he must be a perverse entity to create this". There is a lot that cannot be explained but I don't believe something can come from nothing and before you say it I remember my mother stammering and not able to come up with an answer when I was maybe 5 years old. I asked her "well where did God come from". I am going to ask that you keep thinking on this and keep your mind open to the fact that any of us can be wrong in our assumptions. You are obviously not stupid. God bless.
Patriotism (and religion) is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Jesus: "Take heed that no man deceive you." Hebrew Roots Judaizer
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,647 Likes: 12
Campfire Ranger
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 15,647 Likes: 12 |
To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes. Evidence is a body of information that supports a certain conclusion regardless of who examines it. Evidence cannot support contradictory or opposing conclusions. You cannot have a dream or vision and claim this as proof that the things you dreamt are literally true and factual. Correct to an extent, but only in part. One does not get to create his/her own tight little definitions simply to prove one's point. Evidence can simply be that, and it does not have to be in a "body" and it does not have to support any specific conclusion in order to be evidence. It may be helpful in proving a point, or it may clarify toward some end, or it may be additive to an eventual conclusion, and other such things. We often hear the official report "so far, the evidence is inconclusive". A person may possess a bunch of evidence about something while it still is not a body that supports a specific conclusion - and very well have faith in that conclusion. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive.
NRA Member - Life, Benefactor, Patron
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
Law courts require a certain standard of objective evidence to prove something, unlike faith which is subjective and can fluctuate wildly from one individual to another. .....
Are you requiring proof (of the supernatural) beyond any doubt? ... ...... Surely you noticed I referenced Law courts which require evidence of varying degree without the requirement of meeting the std. of your 'beyond any doubt'. Let's begin with; Beyond a reasonable doubt , which is the legal burden of proof required to affirm a conviction...meaning one must convince a jury that there is no other reasonable explanation that can come from the evidence presented. Then we have the lower standard of proof called; Preponderance of Evidence. Like I said earlier , we don't know how far down the path of rational explanations you have explored for Israelis winning the war and establishing Israel, before adopting your supernatural belief. Put it this way , if you were on a jury where the defendant was claiming ,the 'hand of God' forced them to kill someone , what would it take you to buy their story? .Would you believe it as easily as you do supernatural intervention on behalf of Israel?
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4 |
To have faith is to believe without evidence.... OR - also to believe with all sorts of evidence? No, given evidence there is no need for faith. NO - what is evidence to one is not necessarily evidence to another, and there could be no way for me to validate yours, or you you to validate mine. Faith, and its actuation in humans, is not cut and dried by a dictionary definition. So, yes. Evidence is a body of information that supports a certain conclusion regardless of who examines it. Evidence cannot support contradictory or opposing conclusions. You cannot have a dream or vision and claim this as proof that the things you dreamt are literally true and factual. Correct to an extent, but only in part. One does not get to create his/her own tight little definitions simply to prove one's point. Evidence can simply be that, and it does not have to be in a "body" and it does not have to support any specific conclusion in order to be evidence. It may be helpful in proving a point, or it may clarify toward some end, or it may be additive to an eventual conclusion, and other such things. We often hear the official report "so far, the evidence is inconclusive". A person may possess a bunch of evidence about something while it still is not a body that supports a specific conclusion - and very well have faith in that conclusion. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive. Tight definition? Science cannot function if each researcher has their own definition or idea of what evidence is. The Law does not work on the principle of what is considered evidence one day but not the next. Evidence is not something that works one moment but not the next. The laws of physics don't alter for the benefit of a believer, this one moment, that the next. The world is what it is regardless of who believes what. If someone has evidence for the existence of their version of God, anyone should be able to examine that evidence. What the believer feels is evidence may be mistaken. What it says in our holy books is not evidence for the truth of their claims.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,097 |
DBT, again we have the evidence based faith types in CCCC raising their heads...they dont seem to have any consistent std. of evidence they go by with the aim of constituting proof.
-Bulletproof and Waterproof don't mean Idiotproof.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4
Campfire Tracker
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,736 Likes: 4 |
If there was clear evidence to support the existence of God, whatever the version may be, there would be little or no dispute. As it is, the believer goes on what is written in their bible, Quran, Gita, etc, in the assumption that this is evidence of truth.
|
|
|
|
596 members (06hunter59, 10gaugeman, 12344mag, 10gaugemag, 10Glocks, 1234, 54 invisible),
13,403
guests, and
1,027
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,195,124
Posts18,542,310
Members74,057
|
Most Online21,066 May 26th, 2024
|
|
|
|