|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
There is now therefore no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Our righteousness is not of ourselves. It comes from being in Christ. Joined to Him by faith, through grace.
Those who claim some sort of practical holiness/obedience to some set of laws is required for salvation, my only question is "how much"? 90% conformance? 99%? 100%?
Yeah, 100% conformance. And the only way we can achieve that is if Christ's 100% is applied to our account....imputed to us.
Not going to happen by our hand.
This is what I believe the Bible teaches. We are completely dependent upon God for our salvation...from start to finish. We do labor regarding our sanctification, however!! Me too....
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian. All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of. Accept or reject....Choose wisely..... False dichotomy right there – not accepting is not the same as rejecting. Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue. MM, It is not my experience that other religions claim the same thing. I have been around plenty of Moslems and a few Hindus in my travels and had a number of”religious” conversations with more than just a few of them….. not once has a Muslim or Hindu said anything….not one word about the indwelling of the Almighty in them. Unless you can justify your statement, your statement that “all religions claim the same proof” is false. Just more cliches from you….. 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. 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….. You got proof of this? Not just what was written (people can write anything - doesn't even have to be true). Well, you are the one that made the claim that “other religions” claim the same “indwelling of God.” Can you back up your statement or not? Go ahead, give it a try…. Well, you are the one that made the claim that “other religions” claim the same “indwelling of God.” No I didn't. Can you back up your statement or not? Don't need to, I never made that statement. Can you back up your statement or not? Not Applicable - refer above. You religious dudes are funny buggers - you read between the lines and totally ignore the lines. Your mind is your self-contained source of befuddlement, and that's no bafflegab. No offense, but your statement fits you to a TEE...
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
The faith of Jesus’ original followers was anchored to the reality of the physical, literal, in-history resurrection of Jesus. And they didn’t give their lives because of what they believed. People give their lives because of what they believe all the time. They gave their lives because of what they saw. And since their faith was anchored to that, does it make sense that our faith should be anchored to that as well…?
If Jesus rose from the dead, then it’s game flippin’ on…!
And if He didn’t, then none of it matters anyway. Period.
Skeptics, especially those with a clear and biased agenda, choose the Bible…over and over and over…as the battleground for the faith of Christianity.
To me, the question that believers should wrestle to the ground is not is the whole Bible literally true and without error…?
To me, the question that believers should wrestle to the ground is simply did or did not Jesus rise from the dead…?
The epic culture shaping story of Christianity did not begin with a book; it began with an event.
When Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimethea removed Jesus’ lifeless body from the cross, there we no longer any believers. Zero. They all quit believing.
But nobody excepted no body.
The faith of Christianity didn’t begin in Genesis. It began on Easter morning. And not because somebody read something. But because some people saw something.
Christianity’s uniqueness is that it’s rooted in history. In an event. The event of the resurrection was the beginning of Christianity. Christianity doesn’t hang in the balance of whether the 66 different books of the Bible can all be proven to be literally true. Christianity hangs on a single event. Period.
Apostle Paul made it crystal clear when he said that if Jesus has not been raised from the dead, then all of our preaching is useless and so is your faith.
It all rises and falls on the death and resurrection of Jesus. Period. If He rose from the dead, then game on. And if He didn’t, then we’re wasting our time.
The faith of Christianity is anchored to that single, solitary event. It was for Jesus’ original followers. And it makes sense to me that our faith should be anchored to that as well. I agree, nice explanation....
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
DBT posted.....
"What a load of Crock. I don't write the definitions given in dictionaries.
As it happens, there is a condition where people hold convictions without the support of evidence....which is why we say they have faith that their conviction is true.
Now, as we are talking about religion, which is a belief in any of a number of versions of God or gods, without the support of evidence, what do our dictionaries tell us?
faith
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.
Definition of faith
b- 1: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
As anyone can see, these are not my definitions. It is not something I insist on, or how I ''understand it.''
This is just the definition of faith in relation to any belief that is held without the support of evidence.
As we have no evidence for the existence of any of the many versions of God or gods, to believe in these things is a matter of faith: as defined above.
You don't have a leg to stand on."
Nope and as usual you are either just plain wrong or in some clumsy attempt to “redefine” biblical. "What a load of Crock is right. You retreat into your own mind and dredge up nonsense based on your own opinion and NOT based on Jesus or Chrisian doctrine.
Like MM, you are simply making things up in an apparent attempt to convince ... yourself.....IDK...
So…..in this case you build a strawman to knock down.
Faith…..
1. - Where does “faith in God” come from?
Romans 1:16-17 ….”Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.”
2. – How does one receive “faith.” Faith is a gift but you must stretch out your hand and receive it. A “gift” is not a gift unless the recipient takes it. Believe the testimony of the Spirit about your own sin and the truth about Jesus and “choose” or “believe” …. Or “accept”…… use your own descriptor words here …. and faith is imparted to you. When it is imparted, there is no more doubt.
Ephesians 2:8-9……”For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
3. – Once you have faith, it is very very real.
Hebrews 11:1…..”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…”
Get that? “… the EVIDENCE of things not see.”
Simple terms…. “proof”
One can view this faith as “assurance”… or as confidence or simple “reality” …. Or as a “firm foundation”…. Or….. “the real being of..”…. or “ the actual existence of” ….or a “resolute trust” …. Or as “the substantial nature of….”
There are two points here... the first is that yes, there is real, reliable evidence..... the second is..... you... as yet, do not have it. Hebrews 11:1 does not refer to external, objective evidence as a foundation for belief, it tells us that faith is its own justification. ''Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'' - Hebrews 11:1 equates to ''belief that is not based on proof'' You say that there is evidence, but what you mean is subjective experience, which is an expression of faith. Well, you are still wrong. You keep going back to a dictionary definition of faith and yet the general discussion regards “faith” as set forth in the Bible. You are apparently unprepared to discuss biblical faith. No surprise there. Your comment on Hebrews 11:1:is simply incomprehensible. Faith is not it’s own justification. Just more bafflegab on your part. You are also still wrong about God being not being detectable. Jesus performed many miracles during his earthly ministry and yet the Pharisees denied him and continued to reject Him. He was definitely “detectable” but no, He was still rejected. In the same way, even if Jesus walked among us today, I suspect you would find reason to reject. To a certain extent, you are doing the same as the Pharisees……. The evidence of God is all around us and the ministry of the Holy Spirit is active and ongoing. But…. You are like the Pharisee that denies God. The Pharisees had the Old Testament writings that they seemingly ignored…. And then they had Jesus in their midst and yet denied Him. I am pretty sure you will not do it…..your mind seems to be closed…. but your own investigation into why the Pharisees rejected Jesus may be instructive. Btw… God is indeed “detectable” …… Seek and Find….. Don’t seek, Don’t Find…… Seemingly you and MM are both choosing “Don’t Seek”…… do not be fooled, this is a choice. That you deny the accepted definition of faith in the context in which it is being used doesn't mean its not valid. You invoke context when it suits you and dismiss it when it works against your beliefs That you cannot comprehend my comment on Hebrews 11:1 does not make it incomprehensible. It is quite simple and straightforward, in two parts we are told that ''faith is the substance of things hoped for...'' which means that faith - the substance of things hoped for - is self justifying. Which is confirmed in the conclusion: faith itself is ''the evidence of things not seen.'' There is no suggestion of supporting evidence, we are told that faith itself is sufficient justification. I can understand why you don't want to understand what is plainly there to see and read.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. Probability. Given an absence of evidence and plenty of claims. How likely is that Allah exists and Mohammad was His prophet? How likely is it that Brahman manifests the Universe and is all that exists? You know that God is not believed to be the same even in Abrahamic faiths? Christianity has Jesus as the son of God, sacrificed himself for the sin sin of mankind, etc, Judaism does not have this belief. It can't all be true. What has this to do with Mauserand9mm claim that evidence is proof??? Evidence is the means by which to prove a claim or proposition. If there is sufficient evidence, a claim may be established as being true and factual. Without sufficient evidence, you have degrees of probability and you are left to hypothesize or guess. An hypothesis or guess may be right or wrong, but that has yet to be established.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,640 |
Evidence that demands a verdict: Josh McDowell BookThis guy was a big time Atheist who turned into a believer after realizing his opinion wasn't based on facts. Atheists who search for the truth eventually find it and become transformed in the process. Ask and you will receive. Seek and you will find. It's your life, choose wisely. Facts? Facts are established through evidence. I'm not aware of there being any evidence that supports the existence of a God or gods. The existence of the universe isn't evidence for a creator because there are other explanations and possibilities. What is written in our holy books is not evidence because they are contradictory and what is written in a book is not evidence that what is written is true - which would be begging the question/circular reasoning.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800 |
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have. Just look up the meaning of evidence. You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping. No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof. Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you: ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/YNqm9IA.jpg) I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was. You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought. You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof.... ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/tFH1eqG.jpg) Wikipedia and I are in agreement.... I understand your source of confusion. You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days. I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice. I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.)
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
DBT posted.....
"What a load of Crock. I don't write the definitions given in dictionaries.
As it happens, there is a condition where people hold convictions without the support of evidence....which is why we say they have faith that their conviction is true.
Now, as we are talking about religion, which is a belief in any of a number of versions of God or gods, without the support of evidence, what do our dictionaries tell us?
faith
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.
Definition of faith
b- 1: firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
As anyone can see, these are not my definitions. It is not something I insist on, or how I ''understand it.''
This is just the definition of faith in relation to any belief that is held without the support of evidence.
As we have no evidence for the existence of any of the many versions of God or gods, to believe in these things is a matter of faith: as defined above.
You don't have a leg to stand on."
Nope and as usual you are either just plain wrong or in some clumsy attempt to “redefine” biblical. "What a load of Crock is right. You retreat into your own mind and dredge up nonsense based on your own opinion and NOT based on Jesus or Chrisian doctrine.
Like MM, you are simply making things up in an apparent attempt to convince ... yourself.....IDK...
So…..in this case you build a strawman to knock down.
Faith…..
1. - Where does “faith in God” come from?
Romans 1:16-17 ….”Faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ.”
2. – How does one receive “faith.” Faith is a gift but you must stretch out your hand and receive it. A “gift” is not a gift unless the recipient takes it. Believe the testimony of the Spirit about your own sin and the truth about Jesus and “choose” or “believe” …. Or “accept”…… use your own descriptor words here …. and faith is imparted to you. When it is imparted, there is no more doubt.
Ephesians 2:8-9……”For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, that no one should boast.”
3. – Once you have faith, it is very very real.
Hebrews 11:1…..”Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen…”
Get that? “… the EVIDENCE of things not see.”
Simple terms…. “proof”
One can view this faith as “assurance”… or as confidence or simple “reality” …. Or as a “firm foundation”…. Or….. “the real being of..”…. or “ the actual existence of” ….or a “resolute trust” …. Or as “the substantial nature of….”
There are two points here... the first is that yes, there is real, reliable evidence..... the second is..... you... as yet, do not have it. Hebrews 11:1 does not refer to external, objective evidence as a foundation for belief, it tells us that faith is its own justification. ''Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.'' - Hebrews 11:1 equates to ''belief that is not based on proof'' You say that there is evidence, but what you mean is subjective experience, which is an expression of faith. Well, you are still wrong. You keep going back to a dictionary definition of faith and yet the general discussion regards “faith” as set forth in the Bible. You are apparently unprepared to discuss biblical faith. No surprise there. Your comment on Hebrews 11:1:is simply incomprehensible. Faith is not it’s own justification. Just more bafflegab on your part. You are also still wrong about God being not being detectable. Jesus performed many miracles during his earthly ministry and yet the Pharisees denied him and continued to reject Him. He was definitely “detectable” but no, He was still rejected. In the same way, even if Jesus walked among us today, I suspect you would find reason to reject. To a certain extent, you are doing the same as the Pharisees……. The evidence of God is all around us and the ministry of the Holy Spirit is active and ongoing. But…. You are like the Pharisee that denies God. The Pharisees had the Old Testament writings that they seemingly ignored…. And then they had Jesus in their midst and yet denied Him. I am pretty sure you will not do it…..your mind seems to be closed…. but your own investigation into why the Pharisees rejected Jesus may be instructive. Btw… God is indeed “detectable” …… Seek and Find….. Don’t seek, Don’t Find…… Seemingly you and MM are both choosing “Don’t Seek”…… do not be fooled, this is a choice. That you deny the accepted definition of faith in the context in which it is being used doesn't mean its not valid. You invoke context when it suits you and dismiss it when it works against your beliefs That you cannot comprehend my comment on Hebrews 11:1 does not make it incomprehensible. It is quite simple and straightforward, in two parts we are told that ''faith is the substance of things hoped for...'' which means that faith - the substance of things hoped for - is self justifying. Which is confirmed in the conclusion: faith itself is ''the evidence of things not seen.'' There is no suggestion of supporting evidence, we are told that faith itself is sufficient justification. I can understand why you don't want to understand what is plainly there to see and read. Nope, I am not denying the accepted meaning of faith at all. Again, you are just making stuff up. But, “today’s” definition of faith is pretty much like uncertain “hope.” This is not how faith is described, defined and used in the Bible….. but you can’t grasp that.
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. Probability. Given an absence of evidence and plenty of claims. How likely is that Allah exists and Mohammad was His prophet? How likely is it that Brahman manifests the Universe and is all that exists? You know that God is not believed to be the same even in Abrahamic faiths? Christianity has Jesus as the son of God, sacrificed himself for the sin sin of mankind, etc, Judaism does not have this belief. It can't all be true. What has this to do with Mauserand9mm claim that evidence is proof??? Evidence is the means by which to prove a claim or proposition. If there is sufficient evidence, a claim may be established as being true and factual. Without sufficient evidence, you have degrees of probability and you are left to hypothesize or guess. An hypothesis or guess may be right or wrong, but that has yet to be established. As always, you ask for “evidence” and when t is presented, you act as your own “judge” and the reject the evidence presented. The evidence is clear, but you choose….. yep…. Choose…. to reject it. Remember….. at the end of the day, you will not be the judge, God will be the judge. “God, you failed to convince me” will not be a defense. He, so-to-speak may “roll the video tape and show you dozens, perhaps hundreds or thousands of time thst He provided you with clear evidence of his existence and of His authority. Btw, the comments in a previous post about witch burning is silly and childish. Grasping at straws…..
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Further, the Holy Spirit.....".... lives with you (us) and will be IN you. So, when a Christian says "I have proof." He really does... the Spirit of Truth is living in that born again Christian. All other religions claim the same “proof” – you sure you haven’t been fooled by Satan? It sounds like the sort thing that he would convince you of. Accept or reject....Choose wisely..... False dichotomy right there – not accepting is not the same as rejecting. Serious consideration would require evidence. Faith choices are made without demonstrable evidence and sounds more like a gambling issue. MM, It is not my experience that other religions claim the same thing. I have been around plenty of Moslems and a few Hindus in my travels and had a number of”religious” conversations with more than just a few of them….. not once has a Muslim or Hindu said anything….not one word about the indwelling of the Almighty in them. Unless you can justify your statement, your statement that “all religions claim the same proof” is false. Just more cliches from you….. 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. 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….. You got proof of this? Not just what was written (people can write anything - doesn't even have to be true). Well, you are the one that made the claim that “other religions” claim the same “indwelling of God.” Can you back up your statement or not? Go ahead, give it a try…. Well, you are the one that made the claim that “other religions” claim the same “indwelling of God.” No I didn't. Can you back up your statement or not? Don't need to, I never made that statement. Can you back up your statement or not? Not Applicable - refer above. You religious dudes are funny buggers - you read between the lines and totally ignore the lines. Your mind is your self-contained source of befuddlement, and that's no bafflegab. You sure did make the statement that “all religions claim…the same proof.” Can’t back it up ….? Also…..is it correct that You can be referred to as a “non-believer in Christ?”
The tax collector said: “Lord Jesus, have mercy on me, a sinner.” Jesus said he went home “justified.”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have. Just look up the meaning of evidence. You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping. No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof. Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you: I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was. You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought. You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof.... Wikipedia and I are in agreement.... I understand your source of confusion. You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days. I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice. I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.) Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better .... Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)... Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it. ![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/8oSln3N.jpg)
Last edited by Raspy; 06/17/22. Reason: spelling
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,276
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,276 |
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have. Just look up the meaning of evidence. You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping. No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof. Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you: I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was. You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought. You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof.... Wikipedia and I are in agreement.... I understand your source of confusion. You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days. I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice. I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.) Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better .... Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)... Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it. PROOF can be presented from one to another, I can see YOUR proof.... My faith works for me, and for me ALONE..... for faith to work for someone else, they have to acquire it, go get it, find it........... I can point you, but I can't give it to you, like 'Proof', which can be displayed and shown to be... ROM 10:17
Last edited by Muffin; 06/17/22.
"...A man's rights rest in three boxes: the ballot box, the jury box and the cartridge box..." Frederick Douglass, 1867
( . Y . )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,409 |
[quote=Raspy]Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have. Just look up the meaning of evidence. You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping. No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof. Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you: I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was. You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought. You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof.... Wikipedia and I are in agreement.... I understand your source of confusion. You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days. I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice. I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.) Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better .... Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)... Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it. PROOF can be presented from one to another, I can see YOUR proof.... My faith works for me, and for me ALONE..... for faith to work for someone else, they have to acquire it, go get it, find it........... I can point you, but I can't give it to you, like 'Proof', which can be displayed and shown to be... ROM 10:17[ Right on!
Illegitimi non carborundum
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800 |
You sure did make the statement that “all religions claim…the same proof.”
Can’t back it up ….?
Also…..is it correct that You can be referred to as a “non-believer in Christ?” You sure did make the statement that “all religions claim…the same proof.” Probably. They all say that they are the only true religion and you have to feel it with your heart yada yada yada.... They all share the same amount of proof ie none. Refer above. Also…..is it correct that You can be referred to as a “non-believer in Christ?” I'm not sure what people refer to me as - it may actually be much worse that what you wrote. I have no reason to believe a lot of things presented to me - no need for you to feel specially persecuted. I think I should make a t-shirt that says "NON-BELIEVER OF UN-VALIDATED CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY THE FANTASTIC ONES." That shouldn't offend anyone. I can sit across the bus from the Christian couple and smile and nod at them while wearing this t-shirt.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 5,800 |
Mauserand9mm=[quote/]
You don't realise that evidence is proof, and confirms a proposition. You see stuff that you think is evidence, but without a valid proposition, it's just stuff without a valid proposition. You claim it's evidence for your invalid proposition.[quote/]
Evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses….We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.
Proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....now, as for me, because of all the evidence, I am a true believer. What you define as evidence is actually data. You claim as evidence because you have a preconcieved belief of a god, and are therefore ascribing the data as evidence of god. You have to prove a god exists first and then prove the data is a result of the god's actions, irrespective of how much data you have. Just look up the meaning of evidence. You are trying to make the data fit the god belief. This is just what the bible writers did, except they fabicated stories to try and make it fit - just look at how many things they got wrong as our understanding of the natural world grew. God never told them, they were bullcrapping. No, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief....you state that evidence is proof....I said you are wrong in that proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....then I added, as for me, because of all the evidence (leading me in the direction of a fact) (but no PROOF), I choose to be a believer....you say evidence is proof and I say you are wrong....it is simple, leave the God factor out, and it is very simple even more...evidence is not proof. Evidence is proof. It only becomes evidence of x when x has been proven to be true. Before that it is just exhibit, data or observations. I did the Google hard yards for you: I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV. They sometimes use the term "evidence" along with the accusation of guilt but that's just a supposition - if the supposition is false then the "evidence" isn't actually evidence and never was. You're just collecting the data and pretending it's potential evidence for your belief in Allah, or space apes or whatever you are wanting to believe in, as if it provides more credibility to your belief. It's only leading you to where you want to go and isn't actually leading you anywhere at all. It's more of a mental masturbation exercise than anything. Why are you trying so hard to convince yourself of your faith - it just takes one big leap I would've thought. You are bigly wrong...First, you were telling me I'm trying to make a fit for God, and now you say I'm watching too many lawyer shows...again, evidence will never be 100% — there’s always the chance that everything you think you know turns out to be false — but the evidence allows you to make current-best-evidence-guesses…. We can build up piles and piles of evidence for ideas. When the pile reaches a certain height, it behooves us to begin to take it rather seriously. That is, until someone removes a critical piece from the bottom of the pile, and the entire edifice comes crashing down.....here is an image from Wikipedia, maybe it will help you see better regarding evidence vs proof.... Wikipedia and I are in agreement.... I understand your source of confusion. You are relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better - it's the same thinking and reasoning that resulted in the burning of witches for example. The earlier use of the term "evidence" is now known as what is observed or experienced and is just data. The modern definition of Evidence confirms a proposition, or supports a proposition already proved by other means ie is proof, as defined in the Oxford definition I provided. We're not all superstitious savages these days. I suspect that the mountains of observations that you are behoovering your way through will actually have natural causes that have been proven to be true by the natural causes thanks to critical thinking and scientific explanations. I wouldn't be surprised that the critical piece has already collapsed the entire edifice. I'd be keen to see examples of some of your more profound observations that you are having trouble with and flippantly wanting to assign against supernatural origin. (Generalities are generally useless.) Let's see all this started when you said, "evidence is proof"..... I said, no, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement....you said, I am trying to make the data fit the god belief....I said, no, I was not trying to make it fit the God belief..... I said you are wrong, meaning that, proof is the final verdict that removes all doubts, whereas evidence only leads one in the direction of a fact or statement (again)....you said, I think you've been watching too many lawyer shows on TV....I said, what a joke....now you say, I am relying on old school thinking where they didn't know better .... Let me try again on disagreeing with you that evidence and proof are not the same....look at the below scenario (again)... Say DBT cannot find his chocolate bar, and sees chocolate on the napping mauserand9mm's face, this evidence can cause one to believe mauserand9mm ate the chocolate bar. But DBT does not know mauserand9mm ate it. It may turn out that mauserand9mm put the candy away when straightening up, but was thus inspired to go eat his own chocolate. Only if one directly experiences proof of mauserand9mm eating it, perhaps by walking in on him doing so, does one know the mauserand9mm did it. Not sure where you got that image from but the text it contains is hilariously wrong. If it came from a book that you have, the best thing you should do is to simply burn it. One other thing that you don't understand is that under your definition "evidence" can be proven false of the claim made with it - in that case it's not evidence and never was. It was only ever "observation", "data" or "exhibits". Evidence doesn't suddenly become non-evidence. I thought that would have been evident. As an example: A body is discovered, by neighbors, of person who has been very obviously stabbed to death and the knife is nowhere to be found in the vicinity. Constable Raspy happens to find a blood covered knife in a ditch just down the road of the crime scene. He puts on rubber gloves, carefully picks up the knife and places it inside a plastic zip-lock lunch bag, and puts on a label sticker and writes "ËVIDENCE" on it. At the subsequent investigations the forensics team discover that the blood on the knife is not the victims and is actually chicken blood. So the knife is not evidence at all, and never was. It was an exhibit that was proven to not be evidence of the crime. (The premise that it was evidence of the crime turned out to be false and it was premature and wrong to consider it as evidence in the first place. Constable Raspy was subsequently demoted having made this mistake, and receiving warnings, many times before.) [As a side note: The fingerprints on the knife were found to belong the leader of the satanic chicken chokers cult but no case was launched since no fowl play was reported.] I'm still keen to see what observational data you have that you are setting aside as your unproven "evidence" of god.
Whatever you said...everyone knows you are a lying jerk. That's a bold assertion. Point out where you think I lied. Well?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,487
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 18,487 |
To me, when Apostle Paul said that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, it was clearly a reference to Jesus and His appearance on earth. The grace that He brought was responsible for bringing salvation to all people (both Jews and Gentiles).
Every day on this side of the ground is a win.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,621
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,621 |
“We labor regarding our sanctification “
While not a new thought or sentiment this statement gets to the heart of my original post to start this thread.
For those who “labor” regarding their sanctification what have you accomplished with your laboring?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,859 |
To me, when Apostle Paul said that the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, it was clearly a reference to Jesus and His appearance on earth. The grace that He brought was responsible for bringing salvation to all people (both Jews and Gentiles). Where's a "LIKE" button when you need one?
"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,785
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,785 |
“We labor regarding our sanctification “
While not a new thought or sentiment this statement gets to the heart of my original post to start this thread.
For those who “labor” regarding their sanctification what have you accomplished with your laboring? Pretty sure I would answer that differently, depending upon the state of my walk at any given time. But in general, I would say that the accomplishments that matter to me: Becominging more like Christ through study and practical application of the scripture. Learning to become a disciple. Everything else flows from that. I have a long ways to go...
USMC 0351
We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,621
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,621 |
But you see, Your response is all feeling. There is nothing objective there. How have you worked to make yourself more like Christ.
If sanctification is fully up to me or is some synergistic work that I do in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit there must be something objective to show for it.
|
|
|
|
|
590 members (007FJ, 10gaugemag, 10gaugeman, 160user, 1beaver_shooter, 12344mag, 53 invisible),
2,035
guests, and
1,147
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,191,877
Posts18,478,964
Members73,947
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
