Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Question for the holy guys

Good morning Richard. I hope you are doing well.
I just read your post and it reminded me of a similar thing my former pastor often said with much conviction. It got me to thinking and so I opened my Bible. Supernaturally, the Holy Spirit brought me directly to this verse.

"But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."
Romans 8:11

So we have confirmation that God the Holy Spirit raised Jesus from the dead.

Next, I turned to I Corinthians 6:14
"And God hath both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own power."

Lastly, it reminded me of a passage that made me repent, (change my mind), about what my pastor was very adamant about. Years ago in my reading John 10:17, 18 struck me.

"Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father."

After many years, I finally learned by the Holy Spirit in study that not only was the Father involved in Jesus resurrection, but also the Spirit. I was blessed to discover this doctrine that not only did the Father and the Spirit raise Jesus, but He Himself took back His life again. So, it was revealed to me that the entire Trinity was involved in raising Jesus Christ on the third day.

If you take an open Bible and study on this, I would be interested in your opinion.

I hope you too are blessed by this.


Frank

Exactly; God gives meaning to pain and suffering by coming in the flesh and participating in it Himself.

That to me has always been one of the chief problems with the “what kind of god would do/allow this” argument.

That and the fact that any value judgment as to what is good or just or whatever assumes some objective standard outside ourselves against which one can make the original accusation. The assertion is self contradictory.

If there is no God and Carl Sagan was right that the material universe is all that is or was or will ever be, then there is no good or bad, fair or just or anything there just is what is.

People need a little trouble to keep them on their toes, like an airplane needs turbulence to fly.

That's from The Power of Positive Thinking.

Maybe because the enormous evidence (no proof).....so my question to you in return is this: Given “all that we know today,” what are the odds that unguided evolution resulted in organisms like us with such remarkable abilities? Should primates really be good at physics, given our current theories in evolution and physics?

After all, natural selection sifts for genetic variations and traits that provide survival advantage. But producing humans with the cognitive hardware and software capable of discovering subatomic particles would have been overkill. Our actual intellectual abilities would have been wasteful luxuries — at least on the African savanna where our ancestors, we are told, were running from cheetahs or whatever.

So, neo-Darwinian evolution would have gone far above and beyond the call of duty. It’s not impossible, I suppose, but it seems highly unlikely, given our current theories of physics and evolution. And it is those very theories that supposedly show that God doesn’t exist. There’s an extreme tension here. In any case, given all that we know today — given what science has told us — how can you be so confident about your atheism?

This is not an argument and, no, it does not mean that I know it all - impossible - and I hope never to behave as if I think I do. So, I make it a practice not to jump onto atheist threads (especially daily) and try to critique or undermine anything on which atheists base their beliefs/positions.

OTOH, you do so on a thread about Christianity and fling out these sweeping declarations, claiming also to be heavy duty evidence and proof based. However, when asked for your beloved and devoted evidence/truth, you provide practically none and almost exclusively refer your questioner to the opinions and writings of others. Apparently you are willing to accept their views without evidence or proof. Very strange. Seems like time to leave the maze.

Some really good commentary and perspectives from many participants on this thread. Thank y’all.

DBT, you may be familiar with those, but I don't deal in loads of Croc - that must happen only in OZ where Dundee chases 'em down.

And, I am not standing on anything - merely illuminating the disingenuous tactics you employ to sneak out from under heavy questions. I dare say that anyone on this thread leading a faith-based Christian life long ago became aware of the various and sometimes superfluous definitions of "faith:" as you cite them here. Most likely they also fathom and celebrate the unique and blessed nature of such a condition. And, by now, they probably also realize that you do not have even a notion of why and how one would so live. All is well - wander along.

They all claim to be the truth and claim the true god. The details are otherwise nuances that don't mean anything given the flawed assertions in the first place.

That's the slogan that they all use. It gets old.

You have a comprehension issue - you can and try to re-read what I posted, or the problem may be more profound than that.

Atheism isn't a belief system. It's a skeptical default position. Throw us some irrefutable, demonstrable proof of your claim that is true for all and it can be considered from there - this hasn't happened yet. Science has been gradually claiming all of the gods powers, like they never actually existing.

You're just being defensive.

What's wrong with asking people why they have faith and drilling down on some of the finer points? Wouldn't they already have done that to convince themselves?


I have trust that their works are the best possible explanations possible because they are recognised experts in their fields and are subject to peer review by fellow experts. Like most people I have trust in many things in daily life because it's impossible to research and maintain a normal life, but it would be possible to do so. I trust my car won't simply fall apart on the road and I could research the design that was undertaken to produce the car, the inspection and testing procedures, the qualifications and training of the service personnel, the testing and verification of the spare parts used etc. There is evidence to be found if I went looking for it. There is none of this with faith.


I doubt that anyone would drive a vehicle assembled by talented chimpanzees and then prayed to god to establish road worthiness.

You missed the point… on purpose I suppose…... Only the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit fill the believer this side of eternity. Even you can admit that that is a very significant difference…..

Nope, I saw your point when you first wrote it. You are simply trying to avoid the “not God” choice/position by weakly saying you have “no reason to believe” so it is not a “choice.”

So, is it correct to refer to you as a “non-believer?”……. with respect to Jesus…

This guy gets me

So given to my 1st paragraph above....." Maybe because of the enormous evidence (no proof).....so my question to you in return is this: Given “all that we know today,” what are the odds that unguided evolution resulted in organisms like us with such remarkable abilities? Should primates really be good at physics, given our current theories in evolution and physics?"

I do not know what Jesus looks like, but if you saw the below in person, would that convince you of an afterlife...just curious...

You got proof of this? Not just what was written (people can write anything - doesn't even have to be true).

Non-believer would be okay and applicable to all gods/supernatural/etc in my case BTW - that is different to someone who believes something to be untrue. It's not a two option answer (hence the "false dichotomy" response earlier) - the choices are more like "I believe you; I believe the opposite is true; I don't believe you, but don't believe the opposite is necessarily true either (need proof to confirm either way)".

I would say "Who's the drag queen?".


Jesus (if he existed) was middle eastern and probably looked like this:




Your first paragraph is a typical "god of the gaps" fallacy response. You have to prove that a god exists and that he/she/it created everything. The correct answer is "we don't have all the answers (yet)". It's no excuse to make stuff up in the meantime.

I must have said it to you many times....that there is loads of evidence, but no actual proof....I also said I do not know what Jesus looks like....and I give you that he may have looked like your image....but, if you did see one of the images in person, what that convince you of an afterlife?

Never mind...you will say something snarky and will never say yes or no....