This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
It's gotten thrown away, in our church bulletin two weeks ago, it said one goal of the United Methodist Church is to spread the Gospel.
As far as "Dehumanize", I've heard of believe there is something to the old, catching more flies whir sugar, than vinegar.
We are to love one another. Respecting one, another must be close to that.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
How did you come to this conclusion? Did you use the Bible or some other "holy" book? Or is this from a philosophy you came up with?
I couldn't care less what religion someone is, or if they have no religion at all (unless that person believes that their religion requires that they kill me or convert me.....then I guess I care). I prefer to judge people on their day to day actions, how they treat others, their position on government, etc...
Ironically the monergism that so many here reject as causing the hypocritical tendency laid forth in the OP: it is exactly the opposite.
Not the labors of my hands Can fulfil thy law's demands; Could my zeal no respite know, Could my tears for ever flow, All for sin could not atone; Thou must save, and thou alone.
Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to thy cross I cling; Naked, come to thee for dress, Helpless, look to thee for grace; Foul, I to the Fountain fly; Wash me, Saviour, or I die.
Rock of ages Cleft for me Let me hide Myself in thee
I have nothing in me that lead me to God; mysteriously He called me. That means I am the recipient of grace and only grace; gratitude can only be demonstrated as love for all who have been created in the image of Him who saved me.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
While your statement is correct, I’ve seen no evidence of that happening on this forum. Could you point out a post or two?
When people use the words of God the Father, or Jesus...or their professed beliefs in God the Father, or Jesus...to hurt people bearing the image of God, Jesus Himself would likely be quick to remind them that they were on the wrong side of God.
Everybody is somebody that God loves. Everybody is somebody for whom Jesus died.
With all due respect Wabi this thread should be exactly the subject that I started.
There is the appearance on the site of a lot of Pharisees thumping in their tiny impotent chests telling God and man what Holy people they are. The consideration should be on the publican who stood with his head bow to the ground not daring to look to the heavens while saying God have mercy on me a sinner. That’s what every man Jack of the pious section is. It’s what we all are.
I know some of you guys think you’re holy maybe you can enumerate those particular qualities that you find in yourselves.
For those of you with your shorts in a knot pointing out duplicity, as a Christian, is not Christian bashing.
I’m a sinner. I find the doctrine of glory that predominates the religious threads here to be anti Biblical, abusive of the purpose of the Law and degrading to the work and Person of Christ.
We are love all people. That does not mean agreeing with everyone, but truly valuing them as people. Every person has the right and ability to make their own decisions regarding faith, and I try to respect that( though I do offer my thoughts at times too ). I am not perfect by any means but I do strive to live this way.
Of course, I have not read and studied it all, but so far I have seen nothing in the Holy Scriptures that charges, or even encourages, a Christian to evaluate the worthiness of another person with regard to his/her status or favor in the eyes of the Lord. How could a person possibly make such judgments about another - how could one begin to make a determination about any elevation of his/her status or worthiness over another person with regard to the living of the Christian life? Do I recall something like "judge not - - -" All such sorting is the realm of the Lord.
That said, it is not difficult to find instances where the faithless, or doubters, or waverers, or professed non-believers feel that they are being viewed or labeled at some lesser level when engaged in discussions or even arguments about Christian elements - especially factors over which humans have no control. Often it is difficult to sort this out - to determine whether or not those injurious perceptions or feelings emanate from personal guilt or assumption of inferiority - rather than from any actual judgment or labeling by others.
Often it is not an easy task for most Christians to convey or relate to others God's expressed expectations, regardless of the sincerity with which it is done. The task seems to become even more difficult if the Christian could be seen as hypocritical, pompous, etc. Add to that the defensive, or guilty, or victimized posture of some non-Christians and the challenge increases.
I never read where God says it will be an easy process - for either.
Yet trashing folks because they believe remains fair game?
It is if they persist in pushing their belief upon others.
I think that, in the eyes of most, "believing" is something very different from "pushing". And, although the definition of "pushing" may vary greatly according to the interpretation of the person feeling pushed, I do not much appreciate or value that approach to individuals.
However, even a Christian who does not at all "push" his/her beliefs upon other individuals should expect to be seen here as fair game for attack. Comes with the nature of the matter.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
The same one who said judge not also said judge with righteous judgment. He went on to say that we are to judge those in the church He will judge those outside the church. A practicing Christian does not have the option to not judge if they're going to practice righteousness, they will judge those in the church with the righteous judgment. Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
The same one who said judge not also said judge with righteous judgment. He went on to say that we are to judge those in the church He will judge those outside the church. A practicing Christian does not have the option to not judge if they're going to practice righteousness, they will judge those in the church with the righteous judgment. Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
Just an excuse to look down your nose and feel superior.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
You mean like believing in evolution?
You mean you don't believe living organisms evolve?
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
I couldn't care less what religion someone is, or if they have no religion at all (unless that person believes that their religion requires that they kill me or convert me.....then I guess I care). I prefer to judge people on their day to day actions, how they treat others, their position on government, etc...
This ^^^^ - as a Christian, I believe in letting others make their own mistakes. The good Lord knows I've made enough of my own. Don't push your religion on me - 'cause I won't push mine on you. There's already enough strife in this world.
[quote=goalie]When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
I couldn't care less what religion someone is, or if they have no religion at all (unless that person believes that their religion requires that they kill me or convert me.....then I guess I care). I prefer to judge people on their day to day actions, how they treat others, their position on government, etc...
This ^^^^ - as a Christian, I believe in letting others make their own mistakes. The good Lord knows I've made enough of my own. Don't push your religion on me - 'cause I won't push mine on you. There's already enough strife in this world.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
My type of neighbor ^^
That's pretty eloquently stated for an old backwoodsman like you, isn't it?
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
"Special men" Just one example below... One among many .......
Is it "pushing their belief" for someone to start a thread on the fire?
Interesting question really...depends entirely on the content and how it is presented.
For instance, a thread that wishes seasons greeting and good cheer is inclusive.
A thread that includes "I want to hear my beliefs coming out of your mouth" is proselytizing
That would be true, if you can explain how a posted thread forces another poster to respond in some fashion.
Same way you responded to mine.
You didn't have to.
True. But, I'm not the one that's taking the position that a thread started in support of a belief in a higher power invites argument relative to the veracity of that belief.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
You mean like believing in evolution?
Actually, you can have a great debate about evolution, with both sides picking and choosing how to apply the scientific method to the data we have.
You can't do that with religion. And, since you can't logically "prove" a negative, it's all mental masturbation
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
You mean like believing in evolution?
Actually, you can have a great debate about evolution, with both sides picking and choosing how to apply the scientific method to the data we have.
You can't do that with religion. And, since you can't logically "prove" a negative, it's all mental masturbation
I guess you're not familiar with legal historical evidence. Facts are facts whether we accept them or not.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
You mean like believing in evolution?
Actually, you can have a great debate about evolution, with both sides picking and choosing how to apply the scientific method to the data we have.
You can't do that with religion. And, since you can't logically "prove" a negative, it's all mental masturbation
I guess you're not familiar with legal historical evidence. Facts are facts whether we accept them or not.
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
I don't know where you would get that idea. The believers here have taken the opposite stance. Example,
1. We don't have a religion that teaches that people are nothing more than higher evolved animals. Noted infamous evolutionists like Adolph Hitler, Magaret Sanger, Bill Gates and his parents do. They made attempts to " lower the population" and see people as lesser than us.
2. Even those who are unborn and not contributing $ to society are made in the image of God and thus endued with special status different from the animal kingdom.
3. The most polite of society I've met have been open out of the closet Christians. The most back stabbing evil people that have treated others with the most malthusian, end justifying the means actions have been out of the closet homosexual agnistics and atheists. Those have been my experiences, however not all of them are in those same two or three categories.
Noted infamous evolutionists like Adolph Hitler.....
Hitler was Catholic.....Just saying.
Correct. At least in affiliation. I think he and some of his close associates were more occultists than true catholics. Certainly he was a hard core evolutionist. He was philosophically a eugenicist.
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
That's some palpable hatred right there. Let it flow, let it flow.
Comparing me to Hitler is one thing but DEMOCRATS? Man that's a low blow.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
That's some palpable hatred right there. Let it flow, let it flow.
Comparing me to Hitler is one thing but DEMOCRATS? Man that's a low blow.
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Now don't be mean, I am sure ringy-thingy knows all about "special" Men.
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
😂
No. Not trying. I am accepting sober history.
So, what factual evidence do you have? It would be nice to see, as it would negate the need for faith.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
😂
No. Not trying. I am accepting sober history.
So, what factual evidence do you have? It would be nice to see, as it would negate the need for faith.
It's all about faith my friend. We are commanded to tell you about it. Whether or mot you believe is up to you.
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
😂
No. Not trying. I am accepting sober history.
So, what factual evidence do you have? It would be nice to see, as it would negate the need for faith.
It's all about faith my friend. We are commanded to tell you about it. Whether or mot you believe is up to you.
Noted infamous evolutionists like Adolph Hitler.....
Hitler was Catholic.....Just saying.
Bullshit.
It's true.
No, moron.
It's bullshit.
Moron? You should check the facts, not just resort to childish insults in the security of your anonymity. If you think it's BS, you should explain why.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
Try to prove something from the Koran wrong.
I'll wait.
Koran? Quran..and that one's easy. The Quran states King Saul fought with the Midianites, while Gideon fought against the Philistines. This is clearly not correct according to the old testament. The "translator " scrambled the stories. The Scriptures state that it requires spiritual discernment to understand the words on the page. "He that has ears to hear let him hear". Moreover the Scriptures also state that if any man lacks wisdom concerning these things let him ask God for help, and God will answer a genuine request for help.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
The contradictions, absurdities and failed prophesies are well established. The timeline of creation, no world flood, etc, etc.....
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
Try to prove something from the Koran wrong.
I'll wait.
Koran? Quran..and that one's easy. The Quran states King Saul fought with the Midianites, while Gideon fought against the Philistines. This is clearly not correct according to the old testament. The "translator " scrambled the stories. The Scriptures state that it requires spiritual discernment to understand the words on the page. "He that has ears to hear let him hear". Moreover the Scriptures also state that if any man lacks wisdom concerning these things let him ask God for help, and God will answer a genuine request for help.
So, I can use one religion's book to " prove" another religion's book wrong?
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
😂
No. Not trying. I am accepting sober history.
So, what factual evidence do you have? It would be nice to see, as it would negate the need for faith.
It's all about faith my friend. We are commanded to tell you about it. Whether or mot you believe is up to you.
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
😂
He also believes the world is only 6,000 years old. You are dealing with a hard core YEC here.
Moron? You should check the facts, not just resort to childish insults in the security of your anonymity. If you think it's BS, you should explain why.
Yes, you're a moron.
You get your bullshit talking points from the same sources as analube_slurper, and throw that drivel all over the fire.
Did it ever occur to you, moron, that maybe *you* should provide some support for the bullshit you post?
Obviously not.
Even liberals like you, except with half a brain, accept that AH wasn't Catholic, or even Christian, bein he killed millions of em, and all:
"The Roman Catholic Church suffered persecution in Nazi Germany. The Nazis claimed jurisdiction over all collective and social activity and the party leadership hoped to dechristianize Germany in the long term. Clergy were watched closely, and frequently denounced, arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps. Welfare institutions were interfered with or transferred to state control. Catholic schools, press, trade unions, political parties and youth leagues were eradicated. Anti-Catholic propaganda and "morality" trials were staged. Monasteries and convents were targeted for expropriation. Prominent Catholic lay leaders were murdered, and thousands of Catholic activists were arrested.
In all, an estimated one third of German priests faced some form of reprisal in Nazi Germany and 400 German priests were sent to the dedicated Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp. Persecution of the Church in Germany was at its most severe in the annexed Polish regions. Here the Nazis set about systematically dismantling the Church and most priests were murdered, deported or forced to flee. Of the 2,720 clergy imprisoned at Dachau from Germany and occupied territories, 2,579 (or 94.88%) were Catholic."
What, specifically, are you stating is "fact" that can be objectively verified and doesn't require faith to believe?
Just as evidence is presented in court one can present evidence from history. The most documented fact of history prior to the printing press is the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Both protagonist and antagonist gave opinions about the time Christianity starter. No one challenged His histoity.
Um, you're trying to say the resurrection, not just the life, of Jesus of Nazareth is historical fact????
😂
He also believes the world is only 6,000 years old. You are dealing with a hard core YEC here.
I know. It's amazing to watch the mental gymnastics though. I wonder why just saying "I believe" isn't good enough. The whole "fact" thing gets old. If one could actually prove the resurrection was factual, nobody would need faith.......
Moron? You should check the facts, not just resort to childish insults in the security of your anonymity. If you think it's BS, you should explain why.
Yes, you're a moron.
You get your bullshit talking points from the same sources as analube_slurper, and throw that drivel all over the fire.
Did it ever occur to you, moron, that maybe *you* should provide some support for the bullshit you post?
Obviously not.
Even liberals like you, except with half a brain, accept that AH wasn't Catholic, or even Christian, bein he killed millions of em, and all:
"The Roman Catholic Church suffered persecution in Nazi Germany. The Nazis claimed jurisdiction over all collective and social activity and the party leadership hoped to dechristianize Germany in the long term. Clergy were watched closely, and frequently denounced, arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps. Welfare institutions were interfered with or transferred to state control. Catholic schools, press, trade unions, political parties and youth leagues were eradicated. Anti-Catholic propaganda and "morality" trials were staged. Monasteries and convents were targeted for expropriation. Prominent Catholic lay leaders were murdered, and thousands of Catholic activists were arrested.
In all, an estimated one third of German priests faced some form of reprisal in Nazi Germany and 400 German priests were sent to the dedicated Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp. Persecution of the Church in Germany was at its most severe in the annexed Polish regions. Here the Nazis set about systematically dismantling the Church and most priests were murdered, deported or forced to flee. Of the 2,720 clergy imprisoned at Dachau from Germany and occupied territories, 2,579 (or 94.88%) were Catholic."
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
Prove Joseph Smith didn't talk to an angel name Moroni. Prove that we shouldn't be following to Torah instead of the New Testament. Disprove anything from the Bhagavad Gita. Prove to me that Odin isn't real.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
I had not considered the Special Men - hard to logic my way out of that one. Food for thought, thank you.
On the topic of special boys, are you familiar with Joseph Smith?
He was a very special boy. He received a record of sorts from an angel on some hill in BFE, NY. Gold tablets in a special angel language that only he could understand. He translated them and began to convert people. Some of the folks wanted to see the tablets, unfortunately he lost them. NOT to worry though, he promised he wouldn't lie about something important like the written word of god. Fast forward we now have the LDS and special undies.
Try to prove something from the Bible wrong. Many who try become converts to Christianity. Like Dr. Kindell says, "We would have a lot more serious converts if we had more serious sceptics."
Prove Joseph Smith didn't talk to an angel name Moroni. Prove that we shouldn't be following to Torah instead of the New Testament. Disprove anything from the Bhagavad Gita. Prove to me that Odin isn't real.
Man, you bible thumpers sure get all uppity and huffy. Kind of missing the whole religion point.
Ya think? Hilarious every time.
They definitely need to adjust their rhetoric to accommodate the delicate sensitivities of the lowbrows that jump their threads.
Hate ta see anybody get upset, just cause they got their ass handed to em.
Laughing at people who think that what's in their religious book proves that what's in another religion's book is wrong is hardly getting your ass handed to you, but it is funny.
Man, you bible thumpers sure get all uppity and huffy. Kind of missing the whole religion point.
Ya think? Hilarious every time.
They definitely need to adjust their rhetoric to accommodate the delicate sensitivities of the lowbrows that jump their threads.
Hate ta see anybody get upset, just cause they got their ass handed to em.
Laughing at people who think that what's in their religious book proves that what's in another religion's book is wrong is hardly getting your ass handed to you, but it is funny.
Jesus had his crown a thorns.
The 'fire got wrongman.
But outside of that, you won't find any that won't admit that their faith is their faith, and demand no more from anybody else.
Reading some of these opines reassures me that I wouldn't trust a bible thumpers withy lunch money..
Has anyone asked you to?
The fearful have a habit of demanding answers to questions that weren't at issue, and advancing red herrings.
No, but a bunch of guys standing on the stump professing to know all about all religions, is just setting yourselves up for the real people that do have a personal link with their god to be ridiculed.
Me and my god and saviour have a deal and it is just between us.
Reading some of these opines reassures me that I wouldn't trust a bible thumpers withy lunch money..
Has anyone asked you to?
The fearful have a habit of demanding answers to questions that weren't at issue, and advancing red herrings.
No, but a bunch of guys standing on the stump professing to know all about all religions, is just setting yourselves up for the real people that do have a personal link with their god to be ridiculed.
Me and my god and saviour have a deal and it is just between us.
Then, go fck with the know it alls, and leave the 'fire alone.
Josephus a secular historian who lived just after the time of Christ referred to Jesus as a "doer of wonderful deeds". Indeed because he had his religion correct and boom he had the power. Just like electricity. Complete a circuit and connect it to a power supply (God) and all kinds of good things can happen. But sadly many people won't understand it, and will refuse to understand it and therefore get burned
No, but a bunch of guys standing on the stump professing to know all about all religions, is just setting yourselves up for the real people that do have a personal link with their god to be ridiculed.
Me and my god and saviour have a deal and it is just between us.
SEE, that is what I keep fucking well telling them.
But too busy preaching to consider an alternative action.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !
“Faith Strawman”…
A dictionary might define faith as: “The firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Seems to me that that is how goalie sees it. He goes further by stating that it is “impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.” Get it? He says that one must have faith to believe… but he is giving the context that faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
Regarding Christian biblical interpretations, Goalie is incorrect and ......no, there is no “Winner Winner ..” here.
This is an oft used strawman.
Faith comes from…. Repeat .. from God…to the one who seeks….. Faith does not come before belief.
See Ephesians 2:8…”Ephesians 2:8-10. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God….”
Matthew 7:7-8
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Keep it simple….An honest man seeks God ….God sees this seeking by the man………God gives him/validates that quest…ie …..God responds and gives him faith. The man’s life with God begins. When that man receives the gift from God, he has his proof, he has real faith in something real… God. The man’s faith becomes firm. The man’s faith is rooted in God Himself.
Hard to understand? Perhaps…. Start with this…. “All men need to remain clearheaded, ponder eternity and be aware that there is true truth: God.”
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
The OP did appear to hit the nail on the head.....
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Regardless of what he was talking about, it is written, "The truth will set you free". Make fun of it if you wish, you see, I know what it did for me.
Josephus a secular historian who lived just after the time of Christ referred to Jesus as a "doer of wonderful deeds". Indeed because he had his religion correct and boom he had the power. Just like electricity. Complete a circuit and connect it to a power supply (God) and all kinds of good things can happen. But sadly many people won't understand it, and will refuse to understand it and therefore get burned
Evidence indicates that was a 4th century interpellation by Eusebius.
We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Unpardonable?
Yeah, you see, anyone who doesn't accept their god burns in hell forever even if they lived their entire life treating others well and being a good member of their community.
Even if they're right, that right there is a HUGE nope from me.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Regardless of what he was talking about, it is written, "The truth will set you free". Make fun of it if you wish, you see, I know what it did for me.
And it is written that Captian Kirk said "What does God need with a starship?"
We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Unpardonable?
Yeah, you see, anyone who doesn't accept their god burns in hell forever even if they lived their entire life treating others well and being a good member of their community.
Even if they're right, that right there is a HUGE nope from me.
Why should anyone chose to worship an immoral god?
We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Unpardonable?
Yeah, you see, anyone who doesn't accept their god burns in hell forever even if they lived their entire life treating others well and being a good member of their community.
Even if they're right, that right there is a HUGE nope from me.
But to be fair God never told anyone that...some Jew with a good line of bullshit did.
We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Unpardonable?
Yeah, you see, anyone who doesn't accept their god burns in hell forever even if they lived their entire life treating others well and being a good member of their community.
Even if they're right, that right there is a HUGE nope from me.
But to be fair God never told anyone that...some Jew with a good line of bullshit did.
Josephus a secular historian who lived just after the time of Christ referred to Jesus as a "doer of wonderful deeds"...
Evidence indicates that was a 4th century interpellation by Eusebius.
Josephus was a priestly family Jew who fought the Romans and then defected to them.
His works; 'LIfe' give his apology as a Jew , 'Contra Apionem' provides a positive view of Jewish faith and practice , and 'Antiquities' present his own religious interpretation of what he narrated.
Born 37 AD, we can rest assured Josephus never witnessed any of the alleged miracles Christians attribute to Jesus.
We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Unpardonable?
Yeah, you see, anyone who doesn't accept their god burns in hell forever even if they lived their entire life treating others well and being a good member of their community.
Even if they're right, that right there is a HUGE nope from me.
But to be fair God never told anyone that...some Jew with a good line of bullshit did.
Moron? You should check the facts, not just resort to childish insults in the security of your anonymity. If you think it's BS, you should explain why.
Yes, you're a moron.
You get your bullshit talking points from the same sources as analube_slurper, and throw that drivel all over the fire.
Did it ever occur to you, moron, that maybe *you* should provide some support for the bullshit you post?
Obviously not.
As an internet coward emboldened by anonymity, you brand yourself with the very label you use on those who disagree with your beliefs.
Mein Kampf (1925-1926) ''Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)''
1938 ''In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty...'' 1945
God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work. Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.
Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me.
''I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. '' Adolf Hitler in 1941 to General Gerhard Engel. In John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, p. 507.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
Winner Winner Chicken Dinner !
“Faith Strawman”…
A dictionary might define faith as: “The firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Seems to me that that is how goalie sees it. He goes further by stating that it is “impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.” Get it? He says that one must have faith to believe… but he is giving the context that faith is “firm belief in something for which there is no proof.”
Regarding Christian biblical interpretations, Goalie is incorrect and ......no, there is no “Winner Winner ..” here.
This is an oft used strawman.
Faith comes from…. Repeat .. from God…to the one who seeks….. Faith does not come before belief.
See Ephesians 2:8…”Ephesians 2:8-10. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God….”
Matthew 7:7-8
“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.
Keep it simple….An honest man seeks God ….God sees this seeking by the man………God gives him/validates that quest…ie …..God responds and gives him faith. The man’s life with God begins. When that man receives the gift from God, he has his proof, he has real faith in something real… God. The man’s faith becomes firm. The man’s faith is rooted in God Himself.
Hard to understand? Perhaps…. Start with this…. “All men need to remain clearheaded, ponder eternity and be aware that there is true truth: God.”
Moron? You should check the facts, not just resort to childish insults in the security of your anonymity. If you think it's BS, you should explain why.
Yes, you're a moron.
You get your bullshit talking points from the same sources as analube_slurper, and throw that drivel all over the fire.
Did it ever occur to you, moron, that maybe *you* should provide some support for the bullshit you post?
Obviously not.
As an internet coward emboldened by anonymity, you brand yourself with the very label you use on those who disagree with your beliefs.
Mein Kampf (1925-1926) ''Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)''
1938 ''In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty...'' 1945
God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work. Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.
Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me.
''I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. '' Adolf Hitler in 1941 to General Gerhard Engel. In John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, p. 507.
That fellow will never admit he was wrong...but the rest of us see your considered response.
Considering the good intents of the OP, there is a great deal of vitriol coming from his team members - why am I not suprised? Maybe the last couple of thousand years provides us with good prior examples?
Mein Kampf (1925-1926) ''Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)''
1938 ''In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty...'' 1945
God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work. Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.
Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me.
''I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. '' Adolf Hitler in 1941 to General Gerhard Engel. In John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, p. 507.
GFY, loser.
Internet coward?
Moron.
You found some anti-religion bullshit somewhere, and post it as legit.
But thanks, for pointing our the legitimacy of the Third Commandment.
AH hid behind Christianity to advance his agenda, as many illegitimate killers have.
The fact that you choose to believe the rantings of a lunatic, over his actions, proves your stupidity beyond any redemption.
'member the 6 million jews killed by the Nazis?
Well, there was a equal number of Catholics and others killed, by the guy that was such a devout Catholic.
No surprise, that a loser like you would grip onto internet bullshit, rather than examine the actions of Adolf "Catholic" Hitler.
But, when a person's desperate ta not look like a moron, the size of the crap that they pull outta their @sshole is often surprising.
1. Evolution- I believe in it. Like I told Preacher, they found the bones. I wish he would go to Fossil Butte, Wyoming and look but like a lot of folks he prefers beliefs over facts. No wonder they won't accept a preponderance of the evidence. 2. I am sure there was a catastrophic flood when the ice age ended. Black Sea spilled over into the ocean, Lake Missoula broke loose and washed over Idaho and Washington. There were big water events all over. 3. Jesus- I believe he is who he said he was. 4. A bunch of this extraneous stuff self styled prophets (Dr. Frankensteins) try to stitch on Jesus' teachings I don't believe. 5.No organization that has cruelly murdered millions is Christian.
P.S. For sure this earth is very ancient, like eons old, and man wasn't around the first week. What would a day be if you were at the center of the universe? Probably not 1 spin of the earth?
1. Evolution- I believe in it. Like I told Preacher, they found the bones. I wish he would go to Fossil Butte, Wyoming and look but like a lot of folks he prefers beliefs over facts. No wonder they won't accept a preponderance of the evidence. 2. I am sure there was a catastrophic flood when the ice age ended. Black Sea spilled over into the ocean, Lake Missoula broke loose and washed over Idaho and Washington. There were big water events all over. 3. Jesus- I believe he is who he said he was. 4. A bunch of this extraneous stuff self styled prophets (Dr. Frankensteins) try to stitch on Jesus' teachings I don't believe. 5.No organization that has cruelly murdered millions is Christian.
P.S. For sure this earth is very ancient, like eons old, and man wasn't around the first week. What would a day be if you were at the center of the universe? Probably not 1 spin of the earth?
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
As written by God through special men. Apparently "judge not" doesn't need interpretation. So it stands to reason "judge with righteous judgment" is just as clear. That is to those who are not "willfully ignorant."
"Special men" Just one example below... One among many .......
"“In Hitler’s eyes Christianity was a religion fit only for slaves,” wrote Alan Bullock “Hitler, A Study in Tyranny,” a seminal biography. “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle of the fittest.”
"Many theists claim that, like Stalin and Mao, Hitler was an atheist. Thus, they insist, his genocidal murders must be added to atheism’s overall death toll. Not so, counter the atheists. Not only was Hitler raised an Austrian Catholic, but he often declared his belief in God and even called himself a Christian. His persecution of the Jews, they say, was simply an extreme continuation of Christian anti-Semitism, of hating “the Jews” for killing Jesus.
The theists reply that Hitler’s occasional “Christian” rhetoric was just a savvy politician’s attempt to win over a largely religious populace. Privately, Hitler denied the existence of a personal God, rejected the concept of an individual afterlife, mocked Christian morality and sought to damage and, in the long term, to destroy the churches.
In fact, Hitler was a supremely cunning demagogue who routinely lied, and his record is mixed. However, Richard Weikart has recently published what is almost certainly the most sustained and exhaustive study of “Hitler’s Religion,” coming to a clear conclusion that seems to account for all the historical data.
Hitler, Weikart argues in “Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs that Drove the Third Reich” (Regnery History, 2016), was neither an atheist nor a Christian. His hatred of the Jews bears little or no resemblance to historical Christian anti-Semitism. Rather, it was based on certain strains of contemporary “science.” Nor, for that matter, despite some claims, was he a Germanic pagan or an occultist. Some prominent Nazis cultivated astrology and occultism, while some even sought to revive the pre-Christian Germanic religion of the high god Odin or Wotan. But Hitler himself disdained such things as unscientific.
Instead, Hitler was deeply devoted to the outdoors and to Nature (with a capital “N”), to which he referred using language that theists typically reserve for deity. The term that seems best to describe his view, contends Weikart, is “pantheism,” a doctrine that identifies God with the universe. “For Hitler,” Weikart concludes, “God was Nature.”
He was also devoted to science, as he understood it. Specifically, he was a follower of “social Darwinism.” From the Darwinian principle of “natural selection,” he deduced that the supreme law of Nature (and, thus, in Hitler’s view, of “the Lord”) is the survival of the fittest. All of life is a struggle in which superior animals — including the best of them, humans (and specifically “Aryan” or Germanic humans) — have the right and even the moral duty to eliminate or enslave “inferior” animals (including “lesser races” of humans).
From this understanding flowed the Nazi extermination camps (which engaged not only in the wholesale murder of such ethnic groups as Jews, Slavs and Romas, also know as Gypsies, but the destruction of children with disabilities), the forced sterilization of “defective” people, incentive programs to encourage high German birthrates, lack of interest in hospital care for the chronically ill and the Nazi glorification of war as something good for its own sake.
In Hitler’s mind, his actions were dictated by science and ruthless logic."
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Mein Kampf (1925-1926) ''Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)''
1938 ''In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty...'' 1945
God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work. Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.
Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me.
''I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. '' Adolf Hitler in 1941 to General Gerhard Engel. In John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, p. 507.
GFY, loser.
Internet coward?
Moron.
You found some anti-religion bullshit somewhere, and post it as legit.
But thanks, for pointing our the legitimacy of the Third Commandment.
AH hid behind Christianity to advance his agenda, as many illegitimate killers have.
The fact that you choose to believe the rantings of a lunatic, over his actions, proves your stupidity beyond any redemption.
'member the 6 million jews killed by the Nazis?
Well, there was a equal number of Catholics and others killed, by the guy that was such a devout Catholic.
No surprise, that a loser like you would grip onto internet bullshit, rather than examine the actions of Adolf "Catholic" Hitler.
But, when a person's desperate ta not look like a moron, the size of the crap that they pull outta their @sshole is often surprising.
I quoted the words of Hitler himself, you vitriolic little internet chicken. I quoted what Hitler himself wrote and said about his belief in God.
Apologists for Christianity do not alter Hitler's affirmation of faith in his own words. He wrote and spoke of his faith in God.
This is not to say that Hitler was a good christian or a decent moral theist, he was not, or that he did not cherry pick theology (a common practice) to suit his own needs: think of the inquisition where many were tortured and killed in the name 'of the Lord' - Ivan the Terrible first in church then to his torture chambers.
''The evidence that Hitler was a staunch Christian is overwhelming. He banned secular education in Germany on the basis that Christian religious instruction is essential to moral development, repeatedly vilified atheism, and although he often clashed with Catholic bishops over his ill-treatment of Jews, Hitler did not perceive himself as being anti-Christian, but rather as bringing the Church back to what he saw as its proper, traditional role in persecuting the pestilent. While negotiating the Reichskonkordat, Hitler said to Bishop Berning that suppressing Jews was, “doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”
There are numerous other examples, from Mein Kampf (“only fools and criminals would think of abolishing existing religion”), to Hitler’s letters (1941: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”), to the Gott Mit Uns motto on German army uniforms during the Nazi era, to the Lutheran Church in Berlin, full of carvings celebrating Hitler’s rise to power (including an exquisitely carved SA paramilitary trooper on the baptismal font), to the amended 1934 loyalty oath of the German military (“I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Führer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht…”).
Perhaps the most telling Hitler quote of all shows that not only did he believe in God, he believed his racial purity laws would protect God’s creation from spoliation by interbreeding. From Mein Kampf (vol. 2, chapter 2):
[H]undreds and hundreds of thousands of people voluntarily submit to celibacy, obligated and bound by nothing except the injunction of the Church. Should the same renunciation not be possible if this injunction is replaced by the admonition finally to put an end to the constant and continuous original sin of racial poisoning, and to give the Almighty Creator beings such as He Himself created?
After the Enabling Act of 1933 delivered dictatorial powers to Hitler, one of his first actions was to outlaw atheist and freethinking groups. His public speech, after the fact, boasted that, “we have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”
In short, there is overwhelming evidence that Hitler saw himself as a Christian doing God’s work (even if his own church often opposed him), and that he saw atheism as one of many insults to the German nation requiring ruthless suppression.''
According to some CF Christians no Catholic is a real Christian. and Taking the word of anyone who claims to be christian is an utter waste of time, for it cannot be proven true...we all know talk is cheap.
Some like to believe that if someone doesn't subscribe to their brand of Christianity they are not 'true Christians.'
Hitler was a cherry picker, mashing pagan beliefs with a selection of ideas from the bible...but that doesn't make him an atheist.
The implication appears to be that someone of faith would not do terrible things. Which ignores the work of the church during the inquisition, scum like Ivan the terrible, etc....theists who tortured and killed.
Some like to believe that if someone doesn't subscribe to their brand of Christianity they are not 'true Christians.'
Hitler was a cherry picker, mashing pagan beliefs with a selection of ideas from the bible...but that doesn't make him an atheist.
The implication appears to be that someone of faith would not do terrible things. Which ignores the work of the church during the inquisition, scum like Ivan the terrible, etc....theists who tortured and killed.
To be honest I think he was a wackjob that used anything to justify whatever he wanted...but that doesn't negate the fact that Germany as a nation was predominately Christian when they went on a killing spree. Not that it matters much for when things degrade to that point religious belief seems to take a back seat right next to civilised.
Mein Kampf (1925-1926) ''Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (p. 65)''
1938 ''In this hour I would ask of the Lord God only this: that, as in the past, so in the years to come He would give His blessing to our work and our action, to our judgement and our resolution, that He will safeguard us from all false pride and from all cowardly servility, that He may grant us to find the straight path which His Providence has ordained for the German people, and that He may ever give us the courage to do the right, never to falter, never to yield before any violence, before any danger... I am convinced that men who are created by God should live in accordance with the will of the Almighty...'' 1945
God the Almighty has made our nation. By defending its existence we are defending His work. Radio address, 30 January 1945; from Thomas Streissguth (2002). World War II. New York: Greenhaven Press, p. 118.
Only He can relieve me of this duty Who called me to it. It was in the hand of Providence to snuff me out by the bomb that exploded only one and a half meters from me on July 20, and thus to terminate my life's work. That the Almighty protected me on that day I consider a renewed affirmation of the task entrusted to me.
''I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so. '' Adolf Hitler in 1941 to General Gerhard Engel. In John Toland (1992). Adolf Hitler. New York: Anchor Publishing, p. 507.
GFY, loser.
Internet coward?
Moron.
You found some anti-religion bullshit somewhere, and post it as legit.
But thanks, for pointing our the legitimacy of the Third Commandment.
AH hid behind Christianity to advance his agenda, as many illegitimate killers have.
The fact that you choose to believe the rantings of a lunatic, over his actions, proves your stupidity beyond any redemption.
'member the 6 million jews killed by the Nazis?
Well, there was a equal number of Catholics and others killed, by the guy that was such a devout Catholic.
No surprise, that a loser like you would grip onto internet bullshit, rather than examine the actions of Adolf "Catholic" Hitler.
But, when a person's desperate ta not look like a moron, the size of the crap that they pull outta their @sshole is often surprising.
Went to another funeral yesterday, three preachers spoke at the service, three longtime sellers with well rehearsed SOP lines, felt like i was at a used car lot, sad really, even worse that so many are so gullible.
This guy’s an American philosopher and an atheist. He has a BA in Philosophy from Cornell University, a BPhil from the University of Oxford, and a PhD in philosophy from Harvard University. He has an interesting perspective...
“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel
This guy’s an American philosopher and an atheist. He has a BA in Philosophy from Cornell University, a BPhil from the University of Oxford, and a PhD in philosophy from Harvard University. He has an interesting perspective...
“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper–namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.” - Thomas Nagel
Well, if you stop and actually contemplate the ideas most religions, and all the major ones have, it's pretty scary stuff.
Christianity has the whole "believe or burn" thing going on. The idea that someone who did heinous things, but then found Jesus is saved, yet someone who (possibly without even knowing who Jesus was) lives by all the "rules" in the bible but doesn't "believe" burns forever doesn't make an objective observer jump in line to worship.
It's almost as if the "it's not your actions, but your conformity" thing is about control.......
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Ever read the ancient story of the blind men and the elephant??
Apparently when a person is desperate to not look like a moron he falls back on vitriol and denigration to bolster his dubious self worth.
Then there's no doubt you're desperate enough ta explain why a Catholic would slaughter millions of other Catholics.
Go for it, moron.
Crusades...middle ages...papacy...ring a bell?
I don't feel any need to call you names as you have already shown what you are...easy for any who read your last few posts to discern your metal.
Wasn't no Catholics murderin Catholics by the millions, in any of the bullshit examples you puked out.
You can either admit AH wasn't a Catholic, or you can continue to look like a fool.
Your choice.
4th Crusade wasn't against Muslims....
Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church.[12] The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood.[13] Women, including nuns, were raped by the Crusader army,[14] which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents.[13] The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors.[12] Although the Venetians engaged in looting too, their actions were far more restrained. Doge Dandolo still appeared to have far more control over his men.[citation needed] Rather than wantonly destroying all around like their comrades, the Venetians stole religious relics and works of art, which they would later take to Venice to adorn their own churches.
It was said that the total amount looted from Constantinople was about 900,000 silver marks.[15] The Venetians received 150,000 silver marks that was their due and the Crusaders received 50,000 silver marks. A further 100,000 silver marks were divided evenly between the Crusaders and Venetians. The remaining 500,000 silver marks were secretly kept back by many Crusader knights.[16][17]
Neither was the Albigensian Crusade
The Crusaders captured the small village of Servian and then headed for Béziers, arriving on July 21, 1209. Under the command of the papal legate, Arnaud Amalric,[61] they started to besiege the city, calling on the Catholics within to come out, and demanding that the Cathars surrender.[62] Neither group did as commanded. The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates.[63] The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. It was reported that Amalric, when asked how to distinguish Cathars from Catholics, responded, "Kill them all! God will know his own." Historian Joseph Strayer doubts that Amalric actually said this, but maintains that the statement captures the "spirit" of the Crusaders, who killed nearly every man, woman, and child in the town.[64]
Amalric and Milo, a fellow legate, in a letter to the Pope, claimed that the Crusaders "put to the sword almost 20,000 people".[65] Strayer says that this estimate is too high, but noted that in his letter "the legate expressed no regret about the massacre, not even a word of condolence for the clergy of the cathedral who were killed in front of their own altar".[66] News of the disaster quickly spread and afterwards many settlements surrendered without a fight.[65]
A lot of Crusades occurred in Europe before the Reformation, making them effectively Catholic vs. Catholic:
There were 5 Crusades against the Hussites, plus a half dozen more against various bohemian sects.Over 200 years there was a dozen or so crusades against the Poles, Slavs, Netherlands (sound familiar) Lithuanians, Estonians, Fins, and pretty much anyone else North and east of modern Germany. In other words, the Catholic Church had an established history of crusading in the invaded by Hitler. Heck there was 10 more crusades just on the Italian peninsula, all prior to the reformation.
Well, if you stop and actually contemplate the ideas most religions, and all the major ones have, it's pretty scary stuff. Christianity has the whole "believe or burn" thing going on. The idea that someone who did heinous things, but then found Jesus is saved, yet someone who (possibly without even knowing who Jesus was) lives by all the "rules" in the bible but doesn't "believe" burns forever doesn't make an objective observer jump in line to worship. It's almost as if the "it's not your actions, but your conformity" thing is about control.......
I’m not a fan of organized/institutional religion. My beliefs are mine. I don’t need or want them to be dictated to me by anyone or anything else. Organized/institutional religion has been misused to control, monopolize, and extort the masses. As have other institutions in our history. We see it today in our government and the media.
Anyway I found it interesting that he clearly didn’t solely...if at all...base his atheistic position on a “lack of objective evidence.” His position clearly involves his ‘will’; “...I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God...”. His statement of “I want atheism to be true...” also stands out.
Wabi, Religion or no religion, I sense you are a truly good man to your core. Your brand of faith allows you to tolerate us heathens in good humor, your faith in God I respect completely. When I go on my little soapbox, none of what I say applies to you and your like minded brethern. My beef is with the militant Christians who insist, 'my way or the highway'.
Wabi, Religion or no religion, I sense you are a truly good man to your core. Your brand of faith allows you to tolerate us heathens in good humor, your faith in God I respect completely. When I go on my little soapbox, none of what I say applies to you and your like minded brethern. My beef is with the militant Christians who insist, 'my way or the highway'.
Yep. There are many different christianities, and they are not all equal.
Of course, I have not read and studied it all, but so far I have seen nothing in the Holy Scriptures that charges, or even encourages, a Christian to evaluate the worthiness of another person with regard to his/her status or favor in the eyes of the Lord. How could a person possibly make such judgments about another - how could one begin to make a determination about any elevation of his/her status or worthiness over another person with regard to the living of the Christian life? Do I recall something like "judge not - - -" All such sorting is the realm of the Lord.
That said, it is not difficult to find instances where the faithless, or doubters, or waverers, or professed non-believers feel that they are being viewed or labeled at some lesser level when engaged in discussions or even arguments about Christian elements - especially factors over which humans have no control. Often it is difficult to sort this out - to determine whether or not those injurious perceptions or feelings emanate from personal guilt or assumption of inferiority - rather than from any actual judgment or labeling by others.
Often it is not an easy task for most Christians to convey or relate to others God's expressed expectations, regardless of the sincerity with which it is done. The task seems to become even more difficult if the Christian could be seen as hypocritical, pompous, etc. Add to that the defensive, or guilty, or victimized posture of some non-Christians and the challenge increases.
I never read where God says it will be an easy process - for either.
I can't disagree with your observations. There is a plague within the thinking of Modern Evangelicals and Fundamentalists in general that they are intrinsically or at least through cooperation with God becoming more Holy. This projection has been commonplace over the years that I've been reading religious discussions here.
A lot of posts here imply a level of self righteousness in the posters. If a human becomes righteous in the sight of God through his own efforts it's only reasonable for the people projecting that view to share their progress and tell us specifically what they have done and how they accomplished their claim.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
I read your statement as presupposing that there is no objective truth in terms of spirituality and religion and that all religions are social constructs. There is evidence for Christianity. It is from this body of evidence that Christ and then the Apostles taught. They did not appeal to blind faith but logic and intellect. It's unfortunate that most "believers" project their faith as nothing more than a hopeful wishing rather than an objective reality.
John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
what does that even mean??
You make a tangent point. Random Bible verses quoted without context are meaningless and quite a stupid way of spreading the Gospel if that is actually the purpose of the random quote.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
I read your statement as presupposing that there is no objective truth in terms of spirituality and religion and that all religions are social constructs. There is evidence for Christianity. It is from this body of evidence that Christ and then the Apostles taught. They did not appeal to blind faith but logic and intellect. It's unfortunate that most "believers" project their faith as nothing more than a hopeful wishing rather than an objective reality.
When's the last time you saw a frost giant wandering around? I guess Odin and Thor win in the evidence department.
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
Righteous judgment can only mean one thing you are using God's word as the judgment standard.
God's word. As written by whom again? And interpreted by...you?
👍👍👍
Now now you two, no picking on the challenged.
Valid questions. Doesn't matter who is speaking or what the subject is. A person should be educated enough on the subject that he is discussing to give a basic defense. Unfortunately, that is seldom the case and people who aren't believers are left with a "look what Jesus did for me and my life" answer. Sad thing is the person who doesn't believe looks in, after studied observation of said person, and says, "Meh. Hey bud. No thanks. You suck".
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
I don't know where you would get that idea. The believers here have taken the opposite stance. Example,
1. We don't have a religion that teaches that people are nothing more than higher evolved animals. Noted infamous evolutionists like Adolph Hitler, Magaret Sanger, Bill Gates and his parents do. They made attempts to " lower the population" and see people as lesser than us.
2. Even those who are unborn and not contributing $ to society are made in the image of God and thus endued with special status different from the animal kingdom.
3. The most polite of society I've met have been open out of the closet Christians. The most back stabbing evil people that have treated others with the most malthusian, end justifying the means actions have been out of the closet homosexual agnistics and atheists. Those have been my experiences, however not all of them are in those same two or three categories.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
I have no idea what you are talking about. Based on my attempts to understand your intent I'd rather you not make an attempt to further explain yourself. Reading that post was a painful exercise.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Bingo! If I'm ever in CO or you are ever in KY I'll by the beer.
I'm a Christian yet I'm dehumanized by someone else who claims faith in Christ being called a "Gutless Puke, push the gutless puke narrative".
The logic and flow of that post still leaves me a bit speechless.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Regardless of what he was talking about, it is written, "The truth will set you free". Make fun of it if you wish, you see, I know what it did for me.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
I have no idea what you are talking about. Based on my attempts to understand your intent I'd rather you not make an attempt to further explain yourself. Reading that post was a painful exercise.
IZH, Doc presumed you were a non-believer and subjected you to the normal venom he spews in reaction to even the mildest objections to non-believers. At least he didn't call you "Satan's spawn", and accuse you of sucking Satan's dick like he does on a regular basis. By all appearances, he believes his Christianity justifies this behavior.
When you tell people that, if they don't believe your specific ancient story/mythology (out of several thousand different religions currently "believed" to be true by their followers), despite no objective proof that said ancient story is true, they are going to eternal hell, well, some people don't take it nicely.
And when those people quote their own ancient story/book as their evidence of said story/book being true, well, again, you're gonna get a few eye rolls.
It is impossible to have a logical discussion about something that requires faith to believe.
While not impossible, it's very difficult to have a civil discussion about something that requires faith to believe unless everyone involved has the same beliefs.
I read your statement as presupposing that there is no objective truth in terms of spirituality and religion and that all religions are social constructs. There is evidence for Christianity. It is from this body of evidence that Christ and then the Apostles taught. They did not appeal to blind faith but logic and intellect. It's unfortunate that most "believers" project their faith as nothing more than a hopeful wishing rather than an objective reality.
When's the last time you saw a frost giant wandering around? I guess Odin and Thor win in the evidence department.
Maybe you can expand on your comment. I'm not following you.
Sugar and Vinegar maybe? in some cases. I'd lay it more to the idea that people think that their personal sins are less egregious than the others.
New a girl that was a stripper, slept with anything on two legs, smoked weed & got drunk, cursed like a sailor, but was always in church on Sunday and went off on anyone who used God's name in vain! Was all about how much she loved the Lord and claimed she was a dedicated Christian.
I'm no religious scholar but I personally have different thoughts on being dedicated to Christ.
I know that God is merciful but he is also vengeful (he laid down 10 laws that seem to be pretty cut & dry)
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
I have no idea what you are talking about. Based on my attempts to understand your intent I'd rather you not make an attempt to further explain yourself. Reading that post was a painful exercise.
IZH, Doc presumed you were a non-believer and subjected you to the normal venom he spews in reaction to even the mildest objections to non-believers. At least he didn't call you "Satan's spawn", and accuse you of sucking Satan's dick like he does on a regular basis. By all appearances, he believes his Christianity justifies this behavior.
Well. That's interesting isn't it?
I'm a Christian. Simul Justus et Peccator. I'm also a flaming monogamous heterosexual...........so that thing about satan.....
I'm not going to attempt to address a snippet of a quote from a post of mine. No context there.
You referred to “the essence of Christianity” here...
Originally Posted by IZH27
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
I’m asking you, in your estimation, what is “the essence of Christianity...?”
Sugar and Vinegar maybe? in some cases. I'd lay it more to the idea that people think that their personal sins are less egregious than the others.
New a girl that was a stripper, slept with anything on two legs, smoked weed & got drunk, cursed like a sailor, but was always in church on Sunday and went off on anyone who used God's name in vain! Was all about how much she loved the Lord and claimed she was a dedicated Christian.
I'm no religious scholar but I personally have different thoughts on being dedicated to Christ.
I know that God is merciful but he is also vengeful (he laid down 10 laws that seem to be pretty cut & dry)
Somewhere, I believe in my first two posts, I referenced a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Law in regards to what it accomplishes. The understanding or mis-understanding would apply to all of the points that you made.
As to the woman that you referenced I'd like to talk to her and find out what jacked up view of "Christianity" had led her to such a life. I'd lay down a thousand dollar bet that she was steeped in either a Charismatic church or a Holiness church. Again, the Law.
I'm not going to attempt to address a snippet of a quote from a post of mine. No context there.
You referred to “the essence of Christianity” here...
Originally Posted by IZH27
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
I’m asking you, in your estimation, what is “the essence of Christianity...?”
Again. You post a response of mine to another post yet I can't read the other post to contextualize my response.
My apology to one and all for spamming. I'm blitzing continuing education classes this week and am a bit limited on my ability to get into a flow of conversation.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Bingo! If I'm ever in CO or you are ever in KY I'll by the beer.
I'm a Christian yet I'm dehumanized by someone else who claims faith in Christ being called a "Gutless Puke, push the gutless puke narrative".
The logic and flow of that post still leaves me a bit speechless.
Thank you my friend, I accept. I look forward to it.
I'm not going to attempt to address a snippet of a quote from a post of mine. No context there.
You referred to “the essence of Christianity” here...
Originally Posted by IZH27
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
I’m asking you, in your estimation, what is “the essence of Christianity...?”
Again. You post a response of mine to another post yet I can't read the other post to contextualize my response.
Is “the essence of Christianity” different, in your estimation, depending upon the context in which it was referred to by you...? Or is “the essence of Christianity”, in your estimation, always the the same, regardless of the context in which it was referred to by you...? Basically, regardless of anything else, I’m asking you what, in your estimation, is “the essence of Christianity”...?
A wackjob with a set of insane beliefs, a blend of ideology and religion, which he packaged and sold to a nation, causing untold suffering.
He sold it to a Christian nation (62.7% Protestant, 32.5% Catholics, 4.8% other, 0.8% Jewish in 1933) of willing buyers.
Some describe Jesus as a wackjob rabbi who saw the world ending very soon...so there's nothing odd about such believers getting taken in by another wackjob...and what better way to get the gullible in than by utilizing their existing fear, paranoia and superstition based beliefs.
Some here should read about how the German 6th celebrated Christmas when they were encircled at Stalingrad at the same time they were conducting an all out ideological war of death and destruction and indifference to the immense human suffering they caused.
The Waffen SS identified as Christian in over 50% of its members..Himmler relaxing/adjusting his policy to accommodate them when they protested his original demands.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by flintlocke
Wabi, Religion or no religion, I sense you are a truly good man to your core. Your brand of faith allows you to tolerate us heathens in good humor, ....
Yep. There are many different christianities, and they are not all equal.
IIRC ,. wabi denigrates other people's gods by calling them false..which is a really cheap shot. (but commensurable for such a simpleton.)
He can no more prove such gods as false than he can prove his god to be real.
Originally Posted by NH K9
When's the last time you saw a frost giant wandering around? I guess Odin and Thor win in the evidence department.
Norse settled Greenland as pagans where a Frost Giant would certainly be fitting....then they converted to Christianity and their settlements failed, so Jesus and faith wasn't able to help them. One can still see the crumbled remains of a church.
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
Originally Posted by wabigoon
Well Doc, if we can help soften a few hearts--------.
Wabi,
Sure looks to me like there's a lot of hate in Doc's post.
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
Aaaand right there is a great reason to avoid organized religion and rely on your trusty blaster and Wookie co-pilot
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Did you actually read what he wrote?
'"Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence."
I'm not going to attempt to address a snippet of a quote from a post of mine. No context there.
You referred to “the essence of Christianity” here...
Originally Posted by IZH27
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
I’m asking you, in your estimation, what is “the essence of Christianity...?”
Again. You post a response of mine to another post yet I can't read the other post to contextualize my response.
Is “the essence of Christianity” different, in your estimation, depending upon the context in which it was referred to by you...? Or is “the essence of Christianity”, in your estimation, always the the same, regardless of the context in which it was referred to by you...? Basically, regardless of anything else, I’m asking you what, in your estimation, is “the essence of Christianity”...?
I want to know too. IZH27 - it was your comment so you should be able to say what you meant by it. You seem to be spending more effort avoiding answering the question than you could by simply answering it.
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
You are supporting my Post about judging Christians.
I want to know too. IZH27 - it was your comment so you should be able to say what you meant by it. You seem to be spending more effort avoiding answering the question than you could by simply answering it.
H27 is behaving no different to how Antlers avoids answering...ie. Antlers won't tell the CF if he actually read a book he recommended. Crazy I know.,
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
My take is that before God gave me the gift of faith I was also full of doubt and questions. The whole Bible is the story of God’s chasing down a people who, due to nothing in and of themselves, He loved.
How can I view people any other way?
Fact is I’ve met and shared friendships with some non-believers who had much greater depth of character than some believers I’ve known.
If God saw fit to sacrifice His Son to make communion with a lost race possible, what does it say if I choose to do otherwise?
Pastor Ray Comforts faith told him the Cavendish banana (a result of hybridization by man) was designed perfectly that way by his god. Prime example where faith does not lead to truth. Keep the flock ignorant and where you want them.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith is not the way to truth.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Did you actually read what he wrote?'"Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence."
Yes, I read it and can see what was requested. He offered zero proof, of anything. Kindly explain how you see "proof" in his mere expression of a view "Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence".
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
Right on Dr Jag....the usual collection of fools in these types of threads are always entertaining and oh so predictable.
Those who can not understand faith will certainly not understand the gift of the Holy Spirit. When one sees what the Holy Spirit does for a believer from within, it supports the faith which they can profess.
The true wish is that everyone can accept the gift and know the peace belief gives.
CCCC has shown numerous times how naive and ignorant he is to the everyday world around him...faith seems to destroy faculties of reason and logic.
Now, he arrives, You never fail to fail, Starman, for you always resort to personal attacks - can't seem to resist trying to wedge your nastiness into any old topic if it gives you an opportunity to try some bashing. Is that the only way you can hope to build your self-image? If a guy were to be ignorant and naive as you bash it, how can it be so easy for him to expose your lowly state? I am beginning to think you are a very unhappy and disgusting self-failure.
CCCC has shown numerous times how naive and ignorant he is to the everyday world around him.
Well, definitions are sometimes difficult to grasp.....
Well - now that you too are close to joining the senseless bashing of the unknown - consider the notion that fools are even more difficult to grasp. Are you as weak and as desperate as Starman?
Pastor Ray Comforts faith told him the Cavendish banana (a result of hybridization by man) was designed perfectly that way by his god. Prime example where faith does not lead to truth. Keep the flock ignorant and where you want them.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith is not the way to truth.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Did you actually read what he wrote?'"Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence."
Yes, I read it and can see what was requested. He offered zero proof, of anything. Kindly explain how you see "proof" in his mere expression of a view "Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence".
CCCC has shown numerous times how naive and ignorant he is to the everyday world around him...faith seems to destroy faculties of reason and logic.
Now, he arrives, You never fail to fail, Starman, for you always resort to personal attacks - can't seem to resist trying to wedge your nastiness into any old topic if it gives you an opportunity to try some bashing. Is that the only way you can hope to build your self-image? If a guy were to be ignorant and naive as you bash it, how can it be so easy for him to expose your lowly state? I am beginning to think you are a very unhappy and disgusting self-failure.
Pointing out facts concerning you is deemed a personal attack ?..LoL
How about just humbly owning the ignorance you display rather than playing the victim.
You are yet another example of where faith does not lead to truth.
I'm not going to attempt to address a snippet of a quote from a post of mine. No context there.
You referred to “the essence of Christianity” here...
Originally Posted by IZH27
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
I’m asking you, in your estimation, what is “the essence of Christianity...?”
Again. You post a response of mine to another post yet I can't read the other post to contextualize my response.
Is “the essence of Christianity” different, in your estimation, depending upon the context in which it was referred to by you...? Or is “the essence of Christianity”, in your estimation, always the the same, regardless of the context in which it was referred to by you...? Basically, regardless of anything else, I’m asking you what, in your estimation, is “the essence of Christianity”...?
The essence of Christianity? If God is unchanging the message of the Gospel is unchanged from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. The essence of Christianity is found in John 3:16. However, That passage, taken in context is descriptive and not prescriptive. There is a lot behind that conversation but it's not subject matter for this thread.
CCCC has shown numerous times how naive and ignorant he is to the everyday world around him...faith seems to destroy faculties of reason and logic.
Now, he arrives, You never fail to fail, Starman, for you always resort to personal attacks - can't seem to resist trying to wedge your nastiness into any old topic if it gives you an opportunity to try some bashing. Is that the only way you can hope to build your self-image? If a guy were to be ignorant and naive as you bash it, how can it be so easy for him to expose your lowly state? I am beginning to think you are a very unhappy and disgusting self-failure.
Pointing out facts concerning you is deemed a personal attack ?..LoL How about just humbly owning the ignorance you display rather that playing the victim.
Now you are really playing the fool, Starman. You do not cite, or even possess, fact one - you do not even know me. Try kindergarten - learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. Only a fool would try to conjure "facts" about another person in such a vacuous attempt to save face. It must be most dissatisfying to you (see Maslow) to find - every time - that I am never a victim to your nastiness. Actually, your personal revelations of frailty and emptiness are helpful - providing perspective with which to recognize the strong and upstanding persons we find everywhere. Does that come across as naive and ignorant?
Rabid, proselytizing, bible spouting Christians are no better, than rabid, proselytizing, Marx-Engels spouting Democrats( marxists, socialists, progressives). They both KNOW BETTER than the proletariat/unbeliever. The Christians and the Democrats, in their minds are so morally superior to the bourgeoisie that they feel it is their duty to tell the unbeliever not only how to live but what to believe. And also what is to be rendered unto Caesar. Stunning supreme elitist arrogance. Even the 'Master Race' did not require every person to join the Nazi Party. I suppose there are Christian bashing atheists, I don't know any, speaking for myself only, I just would prefer not to be told what is best for me or my family, by Democrats or Christians. Good Christians lead by example rather than finger pointing and lecturing, shunning and witch burning. When you are stuck in the bible belt, the Christian principles of humility, love, and tolerance are harder to find than one might suppose.
I agree with much of what you have observed having observed it and seen the impact of that mentality. I don't believe that such things are examples of Christianity but rather examples of moralism and legalism, neither of which is the essence of Christianity.
[i][/i][u][/u]
The context of my response and the specific statement, by flintlocke, to which I was responding.
...You do not cite, or even possess, fact one - you do not even know me. ..
We know you from your history of CF posts sufficient to deduce you are naive and ignorant to the world around and hiding behind your faith.
Originally Posted by CCCC
- that I am never a victim to your nastiness.
one post ago you claimed personal attack...🙄
Originally Posted by CCCC
...the strong and upstanding persons we find everywhere.
anyone who swallows the clueless brain-dead BS you have posted at times I would not consider strong and upstanding or even reasonably aware and intelligent.
…. The essence of Christianity? If God is unchanging the message of the Gospel is unchanged from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. The essence of Christianity is found in John 3:16. However, That passage, taken in context is descriptive and not prescriptive. There is a lot behind that conversation but it's not subject matter for this thread.
Yeah but you used the term in your post, so it must've meant something to you. That's an allusive non-answer if I've ever seen one, but keep up the subterfuge - it doesn't dissapoint.
Pastor Ray Comforts faith told him the Cavendish banana (a result of hybridization by man) was designed perfectly that way by his god. Prime example where faith does not lead to truth. Keep the flock ignorant and where you want them.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith is not the way to truth.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Did you actually read what he wrote?'"Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence."
Yes, I read it and can see what was requested. He offered zero proof, of anything. Kindly explain how you see "proof" in his mere expression of a view "Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence".
Google "dictionary" then type in "faith"
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
Pastor Ray Comforts faith told him the Cavendish banana (a result of hybridization by man) was designed perfectly that way by his god. Prime example where faith does not lead to truth. Keep the flock ignorant and where you want them.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith is not the way to truth.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Did you actually read what he wrote?'"Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence."
Yes, I read it and can see what was requested. He offered zero proof, of anything. Kindly explain how you see "proof" in his mere expression of a view "Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence".
Google "dictionary" then type in "faith"
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
Well the way I see it truth is supported by facts and evidence. Faith has no such reliance, and is devoid of facts and evidence. Believers want faith to be true and can only try and claim facts and evidence, which is actually living a lie. I would qualify onto DBT's statement "Faith is not the way to truth, and leads one away from it"
...You do not cite, or even possess, fact one - you do not even know me. ..
We know you from your history of CF posts sufficient to deduce you are naive and ignorant and hiding behind your faith.
Originally Posted by CCCC
- that I am never a victim to your nastiness.
one post ago you claimed personal attack.
Originally Posted by CCCC
]..the strong and upstanding persons we find everywhere.
anyone who swallows the clueless brain-dead BS you have posted at times I would not consider strong and upstanding or even reasonably aware and intelligent.
Keep digging, Starbucks - you're about six feet under by now. Weakly, you now resort to the papal "We" in a dumb attempt to infer that ypu have some universal affirmation of your opinion - such silliness. Is that a naive perception? Now - let's get somewhat serious, I challenge you to search backward and find/post one - a single one - instance where CCCC attempted to employ an iota of "faith" as a shield in the face of any of the baseless attacking by you and a few others. Go ahead - you are going to come up empty. And, please, do not flail around with some senseless and meaningless non-contextual quote.
As for victim status - why do you not learn the difference between a person recognizing your nastiness - and a person laughing it off and refusing to be victim to it? Wake up - you cannot create victims merely by being nasty - you have to get after someone weaker than you. (Good luck there.)
How silly - now you try to deride the various "strong and upstanding persons we find everywhere" in a vain effort support what you "consider". Keep digging.
.Keep digging, Starbucks - you're about six feet under by now. Weakly, you now resort to the papal "We" in a dumb attempt to infer that ypu have some universal affirmation of your opinion - such silliness. Is that a naive perception? Now - let's get somewhat serious, I challenge you to search backward and find/post one - a single one - instance where CCCC attempted to employ an iota of "faith" as a shield in the face of any of the baseless attacking by you and a few others. Go ahead - you are going to come up empty. And, please, do not flail around with some senseless and meaningless non-contextual quote.
As for victim status - why do you not learn the difference between a person recognizing your nastiness - and a person laughing it off and refusing to be victim to it? Wake up - you cannot create victims merely by being nasty - you have to get after someone weaker than you. (Good luck there.)
How silly - now you try to deride the various "strong and upstanding persons we find everywhere" in a vain effort support what you "consider". Keep digging.
Wow!..that's a long winded rant by someone who claims to be unaffected...LoL
.Keep digging, Starbucks - you're about six feet under by now. Weakly, you now resort to the papal "We" in a dumb attempt to infer that ypu have some universal affirmation of your opinion - such silliness. Is that a naive perception? Now - let's get somewhat serious, I challenge you to search backward and find/post one - a single one - instance where CCCC attempted to employ an iota of "faith" as a shield in the face of any of the baseless attacking by you and a few others. Go ahead - you are going to come up empty. And, please, do not flail around with some senseless and meaningless non-contextual quote.
As for victim status - why do you not learn the difference between a person recognizing your nastiness - and a person laughing it off and refusing to be victim to it? Wake up - you cannot create victims merely by being nasty - you have to get after someone weaker than you. (Good luck there.)
How silly - now you try to deride the various "strong and upstanding persons we find everywhere" in a vain effort support what you "consider". Keep digging.
Wow that's long winded rant by someonewho claims to be unaffected.
Looks like you don't get it Starbucks - maybe you are naive and ignorant - some folks get their jollies in the process of exposing you. Still digging?
..Looks like you don't get it Starbucks - maybe you are naive and ignorant - some folks get their jollies in the process of exposing you. Still digging?
Exposing ?..LoL..face it you got hurt by my post but your dumb pride won't allow you to admit it. Own your ignorance rather than trying to bury it in faith.
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
Well the way I see it truth is supported by facts and evidence. Faith has no such reliance, and is devoid of facts and evidence. Believers want faith to be true and can only try and claim facts and evidence, which is actually living a lie. I would qualify onto DBT's statement "Faith is not the way to truth, and leads one away from it"
Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
Pastor Ray Comforts faith told him the Cavendish banana (a result of hybridization by man) was designed perfectly that way by his god. Prime example where faith does not lead to truth. Keep the flock ignorant and where you want them.
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Faith is not the way to truth.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
Did you actually read what he wrote?'"Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence."
Yes, I read it and can see what was requested. He offered zero proof, of anything. Kindly explain how you see "proof" in his mere expression of a view "Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence".
Google "dictionary" then type in "faith"
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" seems a lot like "...a belief held without the support of evidence." So, DBT uses a valid definition of faith, and clarified which one he intended, but somehow you are still arguing this is a valid pathway to truth, or are you arguing for a different definition of faith as a pathway to truth?
..Looks like you don't get it Starbucks - maybe you are naive and ignorant - some folks get their jollies in the process of exposing you. Still digging?
Exposing ?..LoL..face it you got hurt by my post but your dumb pride won't allow you to admit it.Own your ignorance rather than trying to bury it in faith.
Wow - now you are going to play God and tell me how I feel? Did you send down a dangerous lightning bolt? Can you feel the effects of your delusion? Believe me - it is not grandeur. Shovel getting heavy there, Thor?
Wow - now you are going to play God and tell me how I feel? .
No god delusion involved..the evidence of your long winded defensive and deflective posts strongly suggest you didnt just laugh it off like you want the CF to believe.
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
My take is that before God gave me the gift of faith I was also full of doubt and questions. The whole Bible is the story of God’s chasing down a people who, due to nothing in and of themselves, He loved.
How can I view people any other way?
Fact is I’ve met and shared friendships with some non-believers who had much greater depth of character than some believers I’ve known.
If God saw fit to sacrifice His Son to make communion with a lost race possible, what does it say if I choose to do otherwise?
Maybe HE saw fit to sacrifice HIS son to save those who accepted with faith the Good News of HIS saving grace.
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" seems a lot like "...a belief held without the support of evidence." So, DBT uses a valid definition of faith, and clarified which one he intended, but somehow you are still arguing this is a valid pathway to truth, or are you arguing for a different definition of faith as a pathway to truth?
Well, if a Christian points to their religious book, and cites chapter and verse as "proof," then it would only be logical that all other religions could do so as well, and cite their own religious writings as "proof."
But, of course, they claim that only their special book is factual, while the other religion's books are lies, fairytales, and pagen mythology. All things other religions, coincidentally, claim about Christianity.......
Citing bible verses is not "proving" your god exists any more than someone from another religion quoting their religion's writings "proves" that their god exists.
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" seems a lot like "...a belief held without the support of evidence."So, DBT uses a valid definition of faith, and clarified which one he intended, but somehow you are still arguing this is a valid pathway to truth, or are you arguing for a different definition of faith as a pathway to truth?
I appreciated his post, and I have not argued anything about a definition. If you think I have, please quote my argument. I assume you understand that an ostensible disagreement does not constitute an argument - or, are you looking for one?
Wow - now you are going to play God and tell me how I feel? .
No god delusion involved..the evidence of your long winded defensive and deflective posts strongly suggest you didnt just laugh it off like you want the CF to believe.
Tee Hee. Trying to read minds again? What causes you to think I want the CF to believe anything - at all? Tee Hee. Bye !
..Tee Hee. Trying to read minds again? What causes you to think I want eh CF to believe anything - at all? Tee Hee. Bye !
No mind reading just post reading, You sound a bit off the rails, but possibly just a 'normal' day for you. Faith drives some folks to all kinds of weird and wacky mind states.
Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance?
You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Uh, may GOD have mercy on the stiff necked masses ought to cover it for the dumbasses.
Look, is GOD a liar or not? Didnt HE say HE puts inherent knowledge in ALL or just in those HE wants to save? Did HE lie when HE said the wonders of HIS creation were there for all to see?
We are but the messenger of HIM. HE alone is the SAVIOUR. We can only plant the seed. HE is the one who makes it grow. He is the one who waters it and makes it sprout and gives it LIGHT.
Too many of us try to do HIS job for HIM. Look around and see how well that has worked out.
Your responsibility is to carry the message. If you dont, their sin falls on you. If they dont accept it, it falls on them. So, be sad for them. You aren't nearly as sad as HIM.
They have free will, by HIS grace, not ours. They have the right to go the way of the world. Who are we to keep pestering them? HE doesnt. HE gave them freedom. HE gave them life. They have their choice. Life or death.
It seems to me that the rationalist/materialist argument falls short in many areas; here are a few key places:
1) there are a great man things for which science has no explanation and in many instances even lacks the vocabulary with which to describe phenomena
2) if the human race is nothing but the culmination of a series of accidents that have been taking place down through the millennia, there can be no assurance that our rationality is something upon which we can rely
3) one cannot jump from what ought to be from what is; science may be capable of explaining mechanisms which brought about what is, but it cannot from explanation tell us what should be now that we’re here... and yet we all seem to agree upon basic precepts that we could maybe call “the golden rule”
Not exhaustive of my thoughts and I am not in any way claiming these to be original to me but they are a few.
Nor would I have it be assumed that my presentation of these is a mockery of the views of others.
Uh, may GOD have mercy on the stiff necked masses ought to cover it for the dumbasses.
Look, is GOD a liar or not? Didnt HE say HE puts inherent knowledge in ALL or just in those HE wants to save? Did HE lie when HE said the wonders of HIS creation were there for all to see?
We are but the messenger of HIM. HE alone is the SAVIOUR. We can only plant the seed. HE is the one who makes it grow. He is the one who waters it and makes it sprout and gives it LIGHT.
Too many of us try to do HIS job for HIM. Look around and see how well that has worked out.
Your responsibility is to carry the message. If you dont, their sin falls on you. If they dont accept it, it falls on them. So, be sad for them. You aren't nearly as sad as HIM.
They have free will, by HIS grace, not ours. They have the right to go the way of the world. Who are we to keep pestering them? HE doesnt. HE gave them freedom. HE gave them life. They have their choice. Life or death.
The LORD giveth and HE taketh away.
Yeah, your god, but what about the other 2/3+ of the worlds population that believes in something else?
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
Aaaand right there is a great reason to avoid organized religion and rely on your trusty blaster and Wookie co-pilot
Yep. Id prefer HELL to letting a sinner set me to worship my Creator. HE shoulda made me, a believer, better than you, where some of us werent sinners with shortcomings, like you. Good luck.
Tell GOD you told HIM to FO because you knew a believer who was a sinner.
Uh, may GOD have mercy on the stiff necked masses ought to cover it for the dumbasses.
Look, is GOD a liar or not? Didnt HE say HE puts inherent knowledge in ALL or just in those HE wants to save? Did HE lie when HE said the wonders of HIS creation were there for all to see?
We are but the messenger of HIM. HE alone is the SAVIOUR. We can only plant the seed. HE is the one who makes it grow. He is the one who waters it and makes it sprout and gives it LIGHT.
Too many of us try to do HIS job for HIM. Look around and see how well that has worked out.
Your responsibility is to carry the message. If you dont, their sin falls on you. If they dont accept it, it falls on them. So, be sad for them. You aren't nearly as sad as HIM.
They have free will, by HIS grace, not ours. They have the right to go the way of the world. Who are we to keep pestering them? HE doesnt. HE gave them freedom. HE gave them life. They have their choice. Life or death.
The LORD giveth and HE taketh away.
Yeah, your god, but what about the other 2/3+ of the worlds population that believes in something else?
Oh, yeah, your god roasts them for eternity.....
Seems like a great dude. 🙄
Yeah, if i were you id tell HIM to screw off. Oh, i forgot, you already did. Now you're just justifying it.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Bingo! If I'm ever in CO or you are ever in KY I'll by the beer.
I'm a Christian yet I'm dehumanized by someone else who claims faith in Christ being called a "Gutless Puke, push the gutless puke narrative".
The logic and flow of that post still leaves me a bit speechless.
Thank you my friend, I accept. I look forward to it.
Maybe HE saw fit to sacrifice HIS son to save those who accepted with faith the Good News of HIS saving grace.
Maybe? I don’t believe there is any maybe about it.
What exactly are you saying here that contradicts what I said?
Were you born a Christian? Was there a time when someone reached out to you in empathy and demonstrated to you God’s love while you were uncertain as to whether you “accepted” it, to use your term?
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
You, being a gutless puke, push the gutless puke narrative. Your inferiority complex leads you to think you are lesser than believers, not the actions of us believers. The inner knowledge ot truth you posess convicts you of this, not us believers. We know there are none who sin as do us, other than those who commit the unpardonable sin and deny HIM.,
Your own concience, HIM, chases and convicts you to your sin, not us.
May GOD bless you as your needs may be, and may HE, your Creator who gave you life and a soul, have mercy on it, as may HE, have with us.
In JESUS'S Holy name we pray.,
Amen
And here's the perfect example of what the OP was talking about.
Bingo! If I'm ever in CO or you are ever in KY I'll by the beer.
I'm a Christian yet I'm dehumanized by someone else who claims faith in Christ being called a "Gutless Puke, push the gutless puke narrative".
The logic and flow of that post still leaves me a bit speechless.
Thank you my friend, I accept. I look forward to it.
I hope you make it a cold one.
Originally Posted by Ringman
Originally Posted by jaguartx
Im wondering why the believers are conversing in this thread with the dead.
Do you believers not believe what HE said? HE said to shake their dust of your feet, didn't HE? Like in ashes to ashes and dust to dust.
Didnt HE say to not give pearls to swine. Are they not your enemy who would turn on you and kill you?
They are those of the flesh you consort with who long ago took your forebearers and burned them at the stake along the way and to light the way from their high places to the Coliseum, where their forefathers fed yours to the lions.
Why attend their jolly party of folly? Why wallow with pigs in the mud?
They arent too blind to see the state of their country and govt after they got HIM kicked out of school and government, yet there are those of you who think you will open their eyes.
You believers think you can make satan give his winnings up?
They know the word and the Good News, yet they reject it.
Convers with your own kind on your own thread.
HE has left those you argue with behind. If HE is your Master and you are HIS flock, follow HIM.
You are supporting my Post about judging Christians.
I am supporting HIS word of instruction. Christians wont face the Great White Throne of judgement.
I want to know too. IZH27 - it was your comment so you should be able to say what you meant by it. You seem to be spending more effort avoiding answering the question than you could by simply answering it.
H27 is behaving no different to how Antlers avoids answering...ie. Antlers won't tell the CF if he actually read a book he recommended. Crazy I know.,
don't count on those of faith having substance.
I have no substance but spit and clay, spirit and faith HE gave me. HE has substance for all i need. You too. One day you'll see what the maggots think of your substance.
….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
I want to know too. IZH27 - it was your comment so you should be able to say what you meant by it. You seem to be spending more effort avoiding answering the question than you could by simply answering it.
H27 is behaving no different to how Antlers avoids answering...ie. Antlers won't tell the CF if he actually read a book he recommended. Crazy I know.,
don't count on those of faith having substance.
I have no substance but spit and clay, spirit and faith HE gave me. HE has substance for all i need. You too. One day you'll see what the maggots think of your substance.
See, the whole "eternity with that self-rightous douchebag" thing isn't really that appealing.
I want to know too. IZH27 - it was your comment so you should be able to say what you meant by it. You seem to be spending more effort avoiding answering the question than you could by simply answering it.
H27 is behaving no different to how Antlers avoids answering...ie. Antlers won't tell the CF if he actually read a book he recommended. Crazy I know.,
don't count on those of faith having substance.
I have no substance but spit and clay, spirit and faith HE gave me. HE has substance for all i need. You too. One day you'll see what the maggots think of your substance.
See, the whole "eternity with that self-rightous douchebag" thing isn't really that appealing.
😂
Lots of folks who think they're going to make the cut are going to be surprised, I bet.
Well the way I see it truth is supported by facts and evidence. Faith has no such reliance, and is devoid of facts and evidence. Believers want faith to be true and can only try and claim facts and evidence, which is actually living a lie. I would qualify onto DBT's statement "Faith is not the way to truth, and leads one away from it" [/quote]
Ill make sure to let HIM know how mauserman sees it tonight in prayer. Im sure HE will be highly impressed.
If i were you i wouldnt hold my breath for an answer. Pretty sure HE already explained it to you as HE did in HIS message to us thats called the Bible.
OTOH, i better tell HIM you are a special case. Its obvious you need more than the usual amount of instruction.
I want to know too. IZH27 - it was your comment so you should be able to say what you meant by it. You seem to be spending more effort avoiding answering the question than you could by simply answering it.
H27 is behaving no different to how Antlers avoids answering...ie. Antlers won't tell the CF if he actually read a book he recommended. Crazy I know.,
don't count on those of faith having substance.
I have no substance but spit and clay, spirit and faith HE gave me. HE has substance for all i need. You too. One day you'll see what the maggots think of your substance.
See, the whole "eternity with that self-rightous douchebag" thing isn't really that appealing.
😂
Lots of folks who think they're going to make the cut are going to be surprised, I bet.
Wabi, efw, iirc HE said, seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be opened.
Do you see any of the unbelievers here seeking, or asking, or knocking?
I think it seems to me they are making false accusations and telling.
How many years have you seen this scenario on the fire. Its always ends up in s draw. Satans men retreat and so do HIS. Never seen anyone here saved by us.
Who grabbed and saved Saul by changing him into Paul? Who grabbed and changed and saved Trump or Mike Lindale? Wasnt done by anyone like us.
Many are called, few are chosen. HE chooses, not us. They want HIM they can invite HIM in. See how many want to do that. None of them. They want the worlds way. They have pride. You think any are ever going to bow down and say they were wrong? No way. Tbey know they are sinners. The have their pride. Not gonna say they are sorry for it. They are just going to justify it.
Like mauser. Well, the Lord didnt come down and have a special one on one with him. Why should he bow down?
Ha. You gotta be kidding me. GOD doesnt need to be preparing a place for us in Heaven. HE needs to be having a one on one with mouserman.
Well, AFAIC, let HIM forget to build you a place. Id just as soon HE kept building on mine.
[quote=CCCC]•••• You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
possible mix of both.
Hey, Starfool - you are becoming befuddled in your quest to attack - that quote is not mine.
You still carry hurt and consider yourself an attack victim and now become petty. Your safe space is in your faith,why not stay there and be quiet ?
Oh yes, it's petty to point out that Starfool posts something misleading and dishonest - or did you simply just go befuddled? Are you akin to Joe Bidet?. Well, no one here is responsible for your blunders.
You are so foolish to guess about such things - you have no idea where I would have a safe space (as if there is one, for anybody) and your presumptuous posture seems so naive and ignorant (where did I see that?) And - now - you are asking me to be quiet? Well - - - ZZzzz.
..Oh yes, it's petty to point out that Starfool posts something misleading and dishonest - or did you simply just go befuddled? Are you akin to Joe Bidet?. Well, no one here is responsible for your blunders.
Wabi, efw, iirc HE said, seek and ye shall find. Knock and the door will be opened.
Do you see any of the unbelievers here seeking, or asking, or knocking?
I think it seems to me they are making false accusations and telling.
How many years have you seen this scenario on the fire. Its always ends up in s draw. Satans men retreat and so do HIS. Never seen anyone here saved by us.
Who grabbed and saved Saul by changing him into Paul? Who grabbed and changed and saved Trump or Mike Lindale? Wasnt done by anyone like us.
Many are called, few are chosen. HE chooses, not us. They want HIM they can invite HIM in. See how many want to do that. None of them. They want the worlds way. They have pride. You think any are ever going to bow down and say they were wrong? No way. Tbey know they are sinners. The have their pride. Not gonna say they are sorry for it. They are just going to justify it.
Like mauser. Well, the Lord didnt come down and have a special one on one with him. Why should he bow down?
Ha. You gotta be kidding me. GOD doesnt need to be preparing a place for us in Heaven. HE needs to be having a one on one with mouserman.
Well, AFAIC, let HIM forget to build you a place. Id just as soon HE kept building on mine.
"Lord I thank thee that I am not as other men are.......or even this publican"
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" seems a lot like "...a belief held without the support of evidence."So, DBT uses a valid definition of faith, and clarified which one he intended, but somehow you are still arguing this is a valid pathway to truth, or are you arguing for a different definition of faith as a pathway to truth?
I appreciated his post, and I have not argued anything about a definition. If you think I have, please quote my argument. I assume you understand that an ostensible disagreement does not constitute an argument - or, are you looking for one?
CCCC, It's those darn definitions getting in our way again. To be clear, by argument ment:
2.a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
I did NOT mean:
1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
Especially the "heated or angry" part. I'll leave the "heated or angry" to Doc. I see no reason you and I cannot maintain our typical collegiate spirit to our discussion.
….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, that's why there are the multitudes of religious beliefs and disparity within the clans. Faith came about from a way to understand the world and to try and justify why things happened. It looks like the rules were modified over time to try and cover all bases and scenarios, resulting in particular in the contradicting fairy tale that they call the bible. If your faith works for you, then well and good. Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. We accept that we don't have all the answers but certainly have no reason to adopt any faith due to all the falsehoods contained within them - we don't share in the fear propaganda either. We don't believe lies.
# Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, ..
# Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. .
If one is raised on convoluted tales of antiquity it can be difficult to break free from the tangled web of nonsense...many find it easier to stay there and get offended when they look stupid.
One, like me, that has never learned, been taught, or possibly "stooped" to the depths of worshiping, begging, relying on not one mother fu-king thing on this earth or anywhere else simply requires PROOF.
I happen to be married to the most beautiful vagina in the world, would i die protecting her? you bet, do i worship or have ever begged to her for any damn thing? fu-k no, and will never, i think religious are mostly brow beaten easily lead men that stayed WAAYYY to fu-king long on mamas titties, hope the fu-k none bathe with mama either!
"general weakness in males causes the need to join a group/congregation," and that came from a lab coat guy a hell of a lot smarter than me, which isn't saying much.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of God and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
I would agree that your assertion applies equally across the board....believers, non-believers, black, white, Asian, atheists, etc ad nauseum. Looking down on others as less than human would not be something that I see Christ doing or wanting us to do.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place.
I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt!
How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
[/quote] "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" seems a lot like "...a belief held without the support of evidence." So, DBT uses a valid definition of faith, and clarified which one he intended, but somehow you are still arguing this is a valid pathway to truth, or are you arguing for a different definition of faith as a pathway to truth?
[/quote]
DBT uses only a "dictionary" type definition of faith. He also does not understand or refuses to see that faith is a gift.... of God... from God.... There is no doubt once God gives the gift.
The Bible's take on faith.... and where it comes from .....is very different from DBT's view....
Seek God....with an honest heart, and God will be found. Then God and the man will have an interaction... then the man is never the same.
Don't seek God.....? Want to live your life without Him? Ok, that is your choice.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Ever read the ancient story of the blind men and the elephant??
Ever heard of logical contradictions?....where if one claim is true the opposite cannot be true. Brahman in Hinduism is not the same as Yahweh as described in the bible. If one is true, the other must be false...or both are false. Both cannot be true.
Would you kindly explain how and why that statement is truth?
Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence. Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, etc, have faith in their own version of God or gods and theology, their own 'truth,' but logically they can't all have the truth, what they believe contradicts each other. What is being believed on faith is not necessary true and factual.
Your response is understandable and accurate to some degree - however, you have provided nothing that proves, or even demonstrates, truth in your original statement. It is neither simple, nor easy.
It is basic logic.
If something is believed without the support of evidence, it is called faith. In common usage, faith is used as a blanket term in reference to good will/in good faith, confidence, trust, etc....but this does not negate faith in the context of a conviction without the support of evidence, be it religious belief, ideology, politics, etc.
If you hold a belief without the support of evidence, your belief is held on the basis of faith. Simple as that.
mauserand9mm, thanks, however I did not ask for a definition - seems like I learned that a long time ago. (copied one below for you). For clarity, I asked the poster to provide "proof" of his statement about the way to truth. Have you seen that yet? Definition of faith 1a : allegiance to duty or a person : b(1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2a(1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs the Protestant faith on faith: without question took everything he said on faith faith verb faithed; faithing; faiths transitive verb archaic: believe, trust
Originally Posted by antelope_sniper
"firm belief in something for which there is no proof" seems a lot like "...a belief held without the support of evidence."So, DBT uses a valid definition of faith, and clarified which one he intended, but somehow you are still arguing this is a valid pathway to truth, or are you arguing for a different definition of faith as a pathway to truth?
I appreciated his post, and I have not argued anything about a definition. If you think I have, please quote my argument. I assume you understand that an ostensible disagreement does not constitute an argument - or, are you looking for one?
CCCC, It's those darn definitions getting in our way again. To be clear, by argument ment:
2.a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.
I did NOT mean:
1.an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.
Especially the "heated or angry" part. I'll leave the "heated or angry" to Doc. I see no reason you and I cannot maintain our typical collegiate spirit to our discussion.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, that's why there are the multitudes of religious beliefs and disparity within the clans. Faith came about from a way to understand the world and to try and justify why things happened. It looks like the rules were modified over time to try and cover all bases and scenarios, resulting in particular in the contradicting fairy tale that they call the bible. If your faith works for you, then well and good. Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. We accept that we don't have all the answers but certainly have no reason to adopt any faith due to all the falsehoods contained within them - we don't share in the fear propaganda either. We don't believe lies.
Your mini-lecture about faith seems coherent, and certainly not unique to such discussions, but I see that you did not answer my inquiries. You seem to miss the point - or, maybe wish to portray a non-existent situation. Have you read from my first post in this thread? It was a request that a poster offer proof for his/her assertion about the path to truth. I made no argument. Further, you had might as well not try to bait someone such as me with " Don't come crying to the non-believers " because, try as you might, you will not find an iota of that in my posts. I do not think of people as being "non-believers" and I certainly do not try to convince folks to "believe". Period. That is their business and they can try to justify it in any way they wish. If you think you saw that, or what you call "crying", kindly re-post it here and I will deal with it. Please note that you open your first line here citing the complication factor. I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak when you say "We"?
….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, that's why there are the multitudes of religious beliefs and disparity within the clans. Faith came about from a way to understand the world and to try and justify why things happened. It looks like the rules were modified over time to try and cover all bases and scenarios, resulting in particular in the contradicting fairy tale that they call the bible. If your faith works for you, then well and good. Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. We accept that we don't have all the answers but certainly have no reason to adopt any faith due to all the falsehoods contained within them - we don't share in the fear propaganda either. We don't believe lies.
Your mini-lecture about faith seems coherent, and certainly not unique to such discussions, but I see that you did not answer my inquiries. You seem to miss the point - or, maybe wish to portray a non-existent situation. Have you read from my first post in this thread? It was a request that a poster offer proof for his/her assertion about the path to truth. I made no argument. Further, you had might as well not try to bait someone such as me with " Don't come crying to the non-believers " because, try as you might, you will not find an iota of that in my posts. I do not think of people as being "non-believers" and I certainly do not try to convince folks to "believe". Period. That is their business and they can try to justify it in any way they wish. If you think you saw that, or what you call "crying", kindly re-post it here and I will deal with it. Please note that you open your first line here citing the complication factor. I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak when you say "We"?
DBT provided a logical assertion. He gave you a fact and you questioned it (because you didn't like that it threatened your faith, or ownership of it, maybe?) and it went on from there. Your questions are like a kid having a tantrum to get some response that they are in need of.
….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, that's why there are the multitudes of religious beliefs and disparity within the clans. Faith came about from a way to understand the world and to try and justify why things happened. It looks like the rules were modified over time to try and cover all bases and scenarios, resulting in particular in the contradicting fairy tale that they call the bible. If your faith works for you, then well and good. Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. We accept that we don't have all the answers but certainly have no reason to adopt any faith due to all the falsehoods contained within them - we don't share in the fear propaganda either. We don't believe lies.
Your mini-lecture about faith seems coherent, and certainly not unique to such discussions, but I see that you did not answer my inquiries. You seem to miss the point - or, maybe wish to portray a non-existent situation. Have you read from my first post in this thread? It was a request that a poster offer proof for his/her assertion about the path to truth. I made no argument. Further, you had might as well not try to bait someone such as me with " Don't come crying to the non-believers " because, try as you might, you will not find an iota of that in my posts. I do not think of people as being "non-believers" and I certainly do not try to convince folks to "believe". Period. That is their business and they can try to justify it in any way they wish. If you think you saw that, or what you call "crying", kindly re-post it here and I will deal with it. Please note that you open your first line here citing the complication factor. I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak when you say "We"?
DBT provided a logical assertion. He gave you a fact and you questioned it (because you didn't like that it threatened your faith, or ownership of it, maybe?) and it went on from there. Your questions are like a kid having a tantrum to get some response that they are in need of.
DBT did provide an assertion, and no doubt he believed it to be logical. I did not question it at all - I simply asked him for his proof basis. Now, kindly quote the "fact" he gave, to which you refer. A fact now, not a belief or assertion.
By now you might realize that your derogatory speculation about why I would question something amounts to mere hot air - a useless dig to go along with your puerile analogy. Why do proclaimed self-assured folks feel the need to stoop to ad hominem attacks if they are so sure of themselves. Get this: I do not need any response of any type from you or DBT- you could have shut up some time ago and that would have been fine with me. But, for as long as you persist, I may retort just for the exercise. I simply think it good to challenge some of the flimsy things offered up in threads like this. Asking you to justify something on factual grounds does not at all indicate what you speculate to be a need or a tantrum - but it could indicate curiosity and learning.
. I do not think of people as being "non-believers"
You think of some as believers of the faith,but don't differentiate others as non-believers?
Starbucks - are you back again - and still trying to tell me what I think? Repeated failures - doesn't that make you weary? "Believers" must be your term. It's not mine.
... I do understand the contextual aspect with regard to Christians being "caught up" (Latin term 'Rapere,' meaning ''to catch up.' ) but have not thought about the promise of Christ's return and the aftermath in any terms other than those applied to the individual believer. To that, I have a ticket.
….Thanks for providing the way you see it - although the rationale for your differentiation seems overstated and possibly inconsiderate to a degree. Disagreements of this particular nature seem unsolvable by humans, particularly when they become overtly adamant - which was the driver for my original question to that poster.
So which planet do you originate from? The planet delusion from the galaxy avoidance? You're way overcomplicating this - is this deliberate or from a parable-addled mind?
Do you Aussies always start out by deriding someone who does not accept your total view - most I've met in the past have not been that way. It seem difficult to over complicate a very complicated matter. Let's see how the rational part of your mind works. Sans Divine guidance or intervention, do you not think that the experienced human views on the importance and power of faith are quite diverse, and complicated? Do you see the varied human beliefs about faith being easily resolvable into one coherent view? If so, how? If you engage someone who does not flatly accept you rationale - or someone else's rationale - regarding "the" path to truth, do you immediately label them "parable-addled"? If my dictionary were to define you as a bigot, would that be proof that you are a bigot? In my book, a human definition of something such a faith is not a proof - it is an attempt.
Faith complicates everything, because it lacks substance, so it's a case of anything goes, that's why there are the multitudes of religious beliefs and disparity within the clans. Faith came about from a way to understand the world and to try and justify why things happened. It looks like the rules were modified over time to try and cover all bases and scenarios, resulting in particular in the contradicting fairy tale that they call the bible. If your faith works for you, then well and good. Don't come crying to the non-believers and say it's all too complicated. We accept that we don't have all the answers but certainly have no reason to adopt any faith due to all the falsehoods contained within them - we don't share in the fear propaganda either. We don't believe lies.
Your mini-lecture about faith seems coherent, and certainly not unique to such discussions, but I see that you did not answer my inquiries. You seem to miss the point - or, maybe wish to portray a non-existent situation. Have you read from my first post in this thread? It was a request that a poster offer proof for his/her assertion about the path to truth. I made no argument. Further, you had might as well not try to bait someone such as me with " Don't come crying to the non-believers " because, try as you might, you will not find an iota of that in my posts. I do not think of people as being "non-believers" and I certainly do not try to convince folks to "believe". Period. That is their business and they can try to justify it in any way they wish. If you think you saw that, or what you call "crying", kindly re-post it here and I will deal with it. Please note that you open your first line here citing the complication factor. I speak only for myself. For whom do you speak when you say "We"?
DBT provided a logical assertion. He gave you a fact and you questioned it (because you didn't like that it threatened your faith, or ownership of it, maybe?) and it went on from there. Your questions are like a kid having a tantrum to get some response that they are in need of.
DBT did provide an assertion, and no doubt he believed it to be logical. I did not question it at all - I simply asked him for his proof basis. Now, kindly quote the "fact" he gave, to which you refer. A fact now, not a belief or assertion.
By now you might realize that your derogatory speculation about why I would question something amounts to mere hot air - a useless dig to go along with your puerile analogy. Why do proclaimed self-assured folks feel the need to stoop to ad hominem attacks if they are so sure of themselves. Get this: I do not need any response of any type from you or DBT- you could have shut up some time ago and that would have been fine with me. But, for as long as you persist, I may retort just for the exercise. I simply think it good to challenge some of the flimsy things offered up in threads like this. Asking you to justify something on factual grounds does not at all indicate what you speculate to be a need or a tantrum - but it could indicate curiosity and learning.
It wasn't an assertion. People do happen to believe in things without the support of evidence. It happens. There are countless examples of this, in religion, ideology, politics, etc.
Something that is believed to be true without the support of evidence is called faith.
That is not an unfounded assertion or claim, just an observation, basic logic and semantics.
…. The essence of Christianity? If God is unchanging the message of the Gospel is unchanged from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation. The essence of Christianity is found in John 3:16. However, That passage, taken in context is descriptive and not prescriptive. There is a lot behind that conversation but it's not subject matter for this thread.
Yeah but you used the term in your post, so it must've meant something to you. That's an allusive non-answer if I've ever seen one, but keep up the subterfuge - it doesn't dissapoint.
There is no subterfuge on my part. I am simply trying to keep the thread from drifting from my OP. If you would like to discuss Christianity and my view of what the religion is and means I am more than happy to do so. Just not here in this thread. This thread was written for the purpose of trying to get some of the people here that dehumanize non-believers to consider their error.
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of God and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
I would agree that your assertion applies equally across the board....believers, non-believers, black, white, Asian, atheists, etc ad nauseum. Looking down on others as less than human would not be something that I see Christ doing or wanting us to do.
Enemies are a different matter. 😁
Yes. It certainly does go across the board no matter. I regret that the thread has devolved into a discussion of religion with a few random off topic thoughts thrown in. Contextually this thread wasn't started with the hope of proselytizing or deep discussion on the Christian faith. Thanks for bringing the OP up as a quote in your response. Hopefully it redirects the conversation.
I certainly agree that the dehumanization of others is not a Christian virtue but it certainly seems to be practiced as one. This thread is very instructive in that respect. I think that it is dehumanizing to demean others by such things as name calling, "pukes", "[bleep]", etc. because someone doesn't believe the same things. I think that it is equally dehumanizing to throw up random religious cliches and statements that have no context. Random verses and cliches pretty much have no meaning in isolation. It would seem that respect of the other would require contextualization.
With all due respect Wabi this thread should be exactly the subject that I started.
There is the appearance on the site of a lot of Pharisees thumping in their tiny impotent chests telling God and man what Holy people they are. The consideration should be on the publican who stood with his head bow to the ground not daring to look to the heavens while saying God have mercy on me a sinner. That’s what every man Jack of the pious section is. It’s what we all are.
I know some of you guys think you’re holy maybe you can enumerate those particular qualities that you find in yourselves.
Matt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
So you come here to make some poignant statement about religion to a bunch of guys that find it acceptable to post pictures of nearly nude and some totally nude pictures of women.
With all due respect Wabi this thread should be exactly the subject that I started.
There is the appearance on the site of a lot of Pharisees thumping in their tiny impotent chests telling God and man what Holy people they are. The consideration should be on the publican who stood with his head bow to the ground not daring to look to the heavens while saying God have mercy on me a sinner. That’s what every man Jack of the pious section is. It’s what we all are.
I know some of you guys think you’re holy maybe you can enumerate those particular qualities that you find in yourselves.
Matt 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
So you come here to make some poignant statement about religion to a bunch of guys that find it acceptable to post pictures of nearly nude and some totally nude pictures of women.
What did you hope to accomplish?
Good point. And which groups in society are trying to save unborn lives, elderly, disabled, and unbelievers? Hint, it's not the local chapters of the Humanism Societies, or Athiests for Life. Lol
BTW, IF you needed a morning devotional, I finally got around to posting a Bible thumping sermon .
Ever heard of logical contradictions?....where if one claim is true the opposite cannot be true. Brahman in Hinduism is not the same as Yahweh as described in the bible. If one is true, the other must be false...or both are false. Both cannot be true.
Maybe all of them have a lot of truth in them and were pretty similar to begin with. Truth that has been obscured by those that amend the original and sell their version to control, maintain societal stratification, and last but not least cash in and live as a parasite on the masses. I know Hindus and Moslems that accept the teachings of Jesus which is more than several books of the New Testament do in ascribing teachings to Jesus that he never uttered and in fact contradicted. If an atheist reads this long thread and decides to remain an atheist, I understand.
You're a student of history. Last century. You ever notice that more people were murdered by their own governments than any recorded time in history? Most of the slaughters were committed by Communists. Although some communists dictators tolerate a form of so called "christianity" as long as it submits to the state as supreme god. One main tenant of communism is the elimination of God. That means, no auonomous Biblically based, non state approved teaching/ preaching. Much like what some here want. Dehumanization is EASY when people are not considered to be created in the image of their Creator. Highly EVOLVED animals are already dehumanized. This thread has only THAT leg to stand upon and it's already fallen.
Here's a good Bible thumping sermon (after 32) if you haven't had devotions yet today.
I'm not gonna guess how many here read Mundari; but introducing strangers, made in the image of their God to the Prince of Life is certainly Pro-life and pro-human. I'm going to make a list of pro human organizations below from my phone book led by atheists and agnostic evolutionists. (University included.)
Here's just one pro human group in Arizona. Large groups from here go to other countries every year and indian tribes, and schools, and unbelievers in other communities because they saturated their own. Why? To humanize them by providing them the biggest assets that they could not even earn in a lifetime.
You need to read mine. You are too busy trying to make a point that is almost as confusing as the Nicene Creed. Then you sit back and watch the whole point of your thread get derailed and wonder why it happened here.
You need to read mine. You are too busy trying to make a point that is almost as confusing as the Nicene Creed. Then you sit back and watch the whole point of your thread get derailed and wonder why it happened here.
The derailing happened the way it does on every thread. People start talking about different things. I didn’t cause that.
I regret that the thread has devolved into a discussion of religion with a few random off topic thoughts thrown in.
Yeah, well that’s what people do on a wide open discussion forum...they ‘discuss’.
Originally Posted by IZH27
Contextually this thread wasn't started with the hope of proselytizing or deep discussion on the Christian faith
Again, it’s a wide open discussion forum; and that some chose to discuss deeply on the Christian faith (from ‘both’ sides) isn’t a bad thing.
Originally Posted by IZH27
I think that it is equally dehumanizing to throw up random religious cliches and statements that have no context.
GMAB
Originally Posted by IZH27
Random verses and cliches pretty much have no meaning in isolation.
The three verses that Jim1611 posted up on this thread clearly have meaning...and a lot of it...in and of themselves. At least to many ‘believers’.
At least to many believers. Maybe. Mostly they were verses that get quoted in isolation so often they they take on their own meaning outside the text.
You make my point. Random verses and cliches have no meaning to those who don’t believe. It is an ignorant means of communicating a message no matter how sincere the attempt.
Random verses and cliches pretty much have no meaning in isolation.
Originally Posted by antlers
The three verses that Jim1611 posted up on this thread clearly have meaning...and a lot of it...in and of themselves. At least to many ‘believers’.
Originally Posted by IZH27
At least to many believers. Maybe. Mostly they were verses that get quoted in isolation so often they they take on their own meaning outside the text.
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”
“For by one man's disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
These verses clearly have a lot of meaning, in and of themselves, to many believers. Just as John 3:16 does; they mean what they mean. And they stand on their own. Period. Can others be taken out of context...? Sure.....
A young man wanted to know God’s will, so he opened the Bible randomly and put his finger down on the first verse he saw: “So Judas went away and hanged himself” (Matthew 27:5). Not content with that, the young man flipped through the Bible again and landed on the verse: “Go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37).
The verses that Jim1611 posted stand on their own. Just as John 3:16 does.
Originally Posted by IZH27
You make my point. Random verses and cliches have no meaning to those who don’t believe. It is an ignorant means of communicating a message no matter how sincere the attempt.
But this thread, ‘your’ thread, was clearly “aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.”
It wasn't an assertion. People do happen to believe in things without the support of evidence. It happens. There are countless examples of this, in religion, ideology, politics, etc. Something that is believed to be true without the support of evidence is called faith. That is not an unfounded assertion or claim, just an observation, basic logic and semantics.
Hello DBT - when mauserand9mm stated that you made an "assertion" I simply took the discussion from there - did not get wrapped into a characterization of what you were making. I have no disagreement with what you say above, other than a general observation that your definition of "faith" here is too strictly limited and simple to serve the discussions here. Not everyone defines faith in the same terms - and differing people see "evidence" differently - leaves a bunch of room for argument, and potential misunderstanding. I rather knew what would happen when someone pushed the "definition' aspect. Over these many years, i have seen countless efforts by arguers to strictly control the meaning of certain terms in order to insure support for their arguments - a reasonable human trait - but actuality is not shaped that way. The dynamics of faith (maybe see Paul Tillich so titled, as well as The Courage to Be) cause me to see it as beyond control by the individual human, no matter how fervent the quest for control. Good day - fare thee well.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
XXClaro, exactly, and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
XXClaro, exactly, and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
Because humans are involved. Humans will screw up a one car funeral.
XXClaro, exactly, and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
Because humans are involved. Humans will screw up a one car funeral.
So 'man' can/has ruined houses of God because of greed, the flesh, other perversions, and turned many away who were searching for the light...........
XXClaro, exactly, and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
Because humans are involved. Humans will screw up a one car funeral.
So 'man' can/has ruined houses of God because of greed, the flesh, other perversions, and turned many away who were searching for the light...........
XXClaro, exactly, and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
Because humans are involved. Humans will screw up a one car funeral.
So 'man' can/has ruined houses of God because of greed, the flesh, other perversions, and turned many away who were searching for the light...........
Got it, Thanks JG.
Wild, ain't it!
Yessir, the reasons i'll just let it go and run as is my Friend, all good.
Thought real hard about a man bending his knees, kneeling, crying, begging with face in hands and claiming to surrender it all to worship something:
How does one [a man] get there? That cant be real or sincere! Our [men] dna, genetic binaries say, no weakness, no begging, no damn crying, no surrendering!
This is aimed at those who name the name of Christ as important and integral to their life.
If your view of others in relation to your view of Christ and yourself cause you to view non-believers or those of another religion in such a way that you dehumanize them, see them in a lesser way than you view yourself, your view of God and yourself is in need of a catastrophic immediate evaluation.
Amen!
Originally Posted by wabigoon
This thread should be about Faith in The Lord Jesus Christ, and not about any of us.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I understand where you’re coming from, the best I can. And I can’t blame you for feeling as you do about it.
Originally Posted by gunner500
.....and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
I think JGR addressed that about as good as it can be said...
Originally Posted by JGRaider
Because humans are involved. Humans will screw up a one car funeral.
Originally Posted by gunner500
So 'man' can/has ruined houses of God because of greed, the flesh, other perversions, and turned many away who were searching for the light...........
Clearly, yes. But thankfully, following Jesus doesn’t mean following His followers. I do think that following Jesus...’not’ His followers, but Him...has as much or more to do with this life as it does the next. I do like some of what these type threads have to offer. I actually learn from them; and not only from some other believers, but from some others period...such as yourself, for example. Seeing things from another’s perspective...believer or not...I’ve found to sometimes be pretty educational and eye-opening. More so than I thought I would. There are some smart guys here, and some insightful guys.
[The dynamics of faith (maybe see Paul Tillich so titled, as well as The Courage to Be) cause me to see it as beyond control by the individual human, no matter how fervent the quest for control. Good day - fare thee well.
And that may very well be true. As I recall, Sam Harris touches on this when he discusses the complexities of "free will", and how brain scans neuroscientist can observe the brain making decision before the brain contemplates the input. I'm not sure I accept all those claims, but it's an interesting field of study with many implications.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I understand where you’re coming from, the best I can. And I can’t blame you for feeling as you do about it.
Originally Posted by gunner500
.....and to further muddy the waters, if all this goodness, grace, shed blood, forgiven sins, the book of life, mansions with streets of gold are all joyful and easily available with nothing more than confessing with one's tongue, then why the F all the infighting, bickering, outright hatred etc, etc? it's rabid crazy stuff man.
I think JGR addressed that about as good as it can be said...
Originally Posted by JGRaider
Because humans are involved. Humans will screw up a one car funeral.
Originally Posted by gunner500
So 'man' can/has ruined houses of God because of greed, the flesh, other perversions, and turned many away who were searching for the light...........
Clearly, yes. But thankfully, following Jesus doesn’t mean following His followers. I do think that following Jesus...’not’ His followers, but Him...has as much or more to do with this life as it does the next. I do like some of what these type threads have to offer. I actually learn from them; and not only from some other believers, but from some others period...such as yourself, for example. Seeing things from another’s perspective...believer or not...I’ve found to sometimes be pretty educational and eye-opening. More so than I thought I would. There are some smart guys here, and some insightful guys.
Yep, that'll leave me in the live and let live trying to be a good man camp with 'Ol Raeford, much less complicated, and no judging if certain topics are never discussed with others in person.
[The dynamics of faith (maybe see Paul Tillich so titled, as well as The Courage to Be) cause me to see it as beyond control by the individual human, no matter how fervent the quest for control. Good day - fare thee well.
And that may very well be true. As I recall, Sam Harris touches on this when he discusses the complexities of "free will", and how brain scans neuroscientist can observe the brain making decision before the brain contemplates the input. I'm not sure I accept all those claims, but it's an interesting field of study with many implications.
The brain is the decision maker. Information is acquired and processed before decision making and conscious thought, a delay of milliseconds between input and conscious response.
Ever heard of logical contradictions?....where if one claim is true the opposite cannot be true. Brahman in Hinduism is not the same as Yahweh as described in the bible. If one is true, the other must be false...or both are false. Both cannot be true.
Maybe all of them have a lot of truth in them and were pretty similar to begin with. Truth that has been obscured by those that amend the original and sell their version to control, maintain societal stratification, and last but not least cash in and live as a parasite on the masses. I know Hindus and Moslems that accept the teachings of Jesus which is more than several books of the New Testament do in ascribing teachings to Jesus that he never uttered and in fact contradicted. If an atheist reads this long thread and decides to remain an atheist, I understand.
The truth is that the human mind seeks answers...and sometimes fills gaps with imaginative stories when there are no answers.
The truth is, we don't have the answers on how the universe came about, or if it, it may be cyclic or whatever. We don't know, we are in the dark.
Our big list of gods are our attempts at explaining the inexplicable. They all differ enough to be incompatible, Zeus is not Yahweh in disguise, the Rainbow Serpent is not Allah....
Religious claims of supernatural acts are about as valid as Big Foot claims.
Scholars deem the accounts of Cortés's soldiers in Mexico written some 40 yrs after the fact as not reliable and subsequent embellished alterations of the same even less reliable .. nor do they deem the letters of Cortés himself as an impartial source concerning events of the time..nor can one trust the gospels for much the same reasons. ..but the world has never been short of impressionable gullible types.
Ever heard of logical contradictions?....where if one claim is true the opposite cannot be true. Brahman in Hinduism is not the same as Yahweh as described in the bible. If one is true, the other must be false...or both are false. Both cannot be true.
Maybe all of them have a lot of truth in them and were pretty similar to begin with. Truth that has been obscured by those that amend the original and sell their version to control, maintain societal stratification, and last but not least cash in and live as a parasite on the masses. I know Hindus and Moslems that accept the teachings of Jesus which is more than several books of the New Testament do in ascribing teachings to Jesus that he never uttered and in fact contradicted. If an atheist reads this long thread and decides to remain an atheist, I understand.
The truth is that the human mind seeks answers...and sometimes fills gaps with imaginative stories when there are no answers.
The truth is, we don't have the answers on how the universe came about, or if it, it may be cyclic or whatever. We don't know, we are in the dark.
Our big list of gods are our attempts at explaining the inexplicable. They all differ enough to be incompatible, Zeus is not Yahweh in disguise, the Rainbow Serpent is not Allah....
Not sure what others think, and I certainly don't understand it all myself, but their may be some merit in Julian Jaynes idea around breakdown of the bicameral mind - where we developed introspective consciousness by a better (?) connection of the function of our brain halves. Before this happened one half of the mind delivered information to the other half that made it appear as coming from another source (ie divine?). Churches and temples with idols and images were used to initiate or enhance the divine sensation.
The breakdown of separation, or connection, was made through the pressure of increasing civilisation group sizes and the complexities of interactions, as is a learned change rather than anything physical - having language also helped pave the way. At this time there was also a perceived abandonment by the gods when the divine went away.
Schizophrenia occurs when these 2 minds separate and maybe somewhat of a legacy from our earlier development.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Pondering may be a choice. If your pondering leads you to a place where you are convinced that you have found the truth, you will beleive. On the other hand, if you find it all sounds absurd to you, and doesn't ring true, you won't beleive.
I could probably read and study Scientology for as long as I could bear it and not become a believer. Its simply too absurd and nonsensical for my mind to accept, I have no choice in that matter. Others, obviously, have a very different experience, and I have to assume its the same for them.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Pondering may be a choice. If your pondering leads you to a place where you are convinced that you have found the truth, you will beleive. On the other hand, if you find it all sounds absurd to you, and doesn't ring true, you won't beleive.
I could probably read and study Scientology for as long as I could bear it and not become a believer. Its simply too absurd and nonsensical for my mind to accept, I have no choice in that matter. Others, obviously, have a very different experience, and I have to assume its the same for them.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Pondering may be a choice. If your pondering leads you to a place where you are convinced that you have found the truth, you will beleive. On the other hand, if you find it all sounds absurd to you, and doesn't ring true, you won't beleive.
I could probably read and study Scientology for as long as I could bear it and not become a believer. Its simply too absurd and nonsensical for my mind to accept, I have no choice in that matter. Others, obviously, have a very different experience, and I have to assume its the same for them.
I mostly agree..... but if “if it all sounds absurd.... you won’t believe.” Would it not be a “choice” to deem the “study” to be insufficient?
If the fruits of one’s “study” are deemed “insufficient” ....or leads to something being deemed “absurd”..... is that consequence the fault of what is studied..... or that the “student” somehow failed in his pursuit?
Ever heard of logical contradictions?....where if one claim is true the opposite cannot be true. Brahman in Hinduism is not the same as Yahweh as described in the bible. If one is true, the other must be false...or both are false. Both cannot be true.
Maybe all of them have a lot of truth in them and were pretty similar to begin with. Truth that has been obscured by those that amend the original and sell their version to control, maintain societal stratification, and last but not least cash in and live as a parasite on the masses. I know Hindus and Moslems that accept the teachings of Jesus which is more than several books of the New Testament do in ascribing teachings to Jesus that he never uttered and in fact contradicted. If an atheist reads this long thread and decides to remain an atheist, I understand.
The truth is that the human mind seeks answers...and sometimes fills gaps with imaginative stories when there are no answers.
The truth is, we don't have the answers on how the universe came about, or if it, it may be cyclic or whatever. We don't know, we are in the dark.
Our big list of gods are our attempts at explaining the inexplicable. They all differ enough to be incompatible, Zeus is not Yahweh in disguise, the Rainbow Serpent is not Allah....
Not sure what others think, and I certainly don't understand it all myself, but their may be some merit in Julian Jaynes idea around breakdown of the bicameral mind - where we developed introspective consciousness by a better (?) connection of the function of our brain halves. Before this happened one half of the mind delivered information to the other half that made it appear as coming from another source (ie divine?). Churches and temples with idols and images were used to initiate or enhance the divine sensation.
The breakdown of separation, or connection, was made through the pressure of increasing civilisation group sizes and the complexities of interactions, as is a learned change rather than anything physical - having language also helped pave the way. At this time there was also a perceived abandonment by the gods when the divine went away.
Schizophrenia occurs when these 2 minds separate and maybe somewhat of a legacy from our earlier development.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Pondering may be a choice. If your pondering leads you to a place where you are convinced that you have found the truth, you will beleive. On the other hand, if you find it all sounds absurd to you, and doesn't ring true, you won't beleive.
I could probably read and study Scientology for as long as I could bear it and not become a believer. Its simply too absurd and nonsensical for my mind to accept, I have no choice in that matter. Others, obviously, have a very different experience, and I have to assume its the same for them.
I mostly agree..... but if “if it all sounds absurd.... you won’t believe.” Would it not be a “choice” to deem the “study” to be insufficient?
If the fruits of one’s “study” are deemed “insufficient” ....or leads to something being deemed “absurd”..... is that consequence the fault of what is studied..... or that the “student” somehow failed in his pursuit?
No one has infinite time, energy or interest to study things we find to be absurd. If I study the greek Gods or maybe the gods of Hinduism, I'm sure I could probably dedicate years trying to learn all there is to know. At the end of it all, I'd know alot about those religions but I still doubt I'd believe in an elephant god or Zeuss. If something seems nonsensical to you, I don't think you find yourself inclined to make a more serious study of it.
As DBT said "If we only knew what actually happened". I would love to be able to see a real time video of what all went on in Jerusalem that week. Jesus rode in a hero on a borrowed donkey and was greeted befitting a hero. He went to the temple to clear out the franchise holders who were shaking down the pilgrims and you can be sure that was a bloody battle with tables turned over stiff resistance from the "merchants" and their temple official sponsors. I am thinking the very short redacted version in the gospels didn't portray what may well have been a full scale riot type of rebellion causing Pilate to brutally put it down with the army. Then we have the strange trial of Jesus where he pleads basically no contest and the judge initially gives a directed verdict of acquittal but then allows the prisoner executed. Pilate desperately wanted to get those Passover Jews out of town and resume normalcy. Pilate obviously understood the motives of the Jewish leadership in wanting Jesus dead. Maybe in the next life we will get to watch the replay of their secret meetings and plotting. I would like to see what went on with Judas' meetings where he first ratted out Jesus and then repented and at the next meeting threw the money down and went out so distraught that he hanged himself.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Pondering may be a choice. If your pondering leads you to a place where you are convinced that you have found the truth, you will beleive. On the other hand, if you find it all sounds absurd to you, and doesn't ring true, you won't beleive.
I could probably read and study Scientology for as long as I could bear it and not become a believer. Its simply too absurd and nonsensical for my mind to accept, I have no choice in that matter. Others, obviously, have a very different experience, and I have to assume its the same for them.
I mostly agree..... but if “if it all sounds absurd.... you won’t believe.” Would it not be a “choice” to deem the “study” to be insufficient?
If the fruits of one’s “study” are deemed “insufficient” ....or leads to something being deemed “absurd”..... is that consequence the fault of what is studied..... or that the “student” somehow failed in his pursuit?
No one has infinite time, energy or interest to study things we find to be absurd. If I study the greek Gods or maybe the gods of Hinduism, I'm sure I could probably dedicate years trying to learn all there is to know. At the end of it all, I'd know alot about those religions but I still doubt I'd believe in an elephant god or Zeuss. If something seems nonsensical to you, I don't think you find yourself inclined to make a more serious study of it.
Sure, I could give consideration to the idea that Haile Selassie was God Incarnate. It would take me a very short period of time to discard that idea as "absurd." But, the point is..... a choice was indeed made.... I discarded the Haile Selassie notion.
It is also absurd to propose that one study every crackpot idea that comes down the pike. Choices are made and absurdities are discarded.
However, the question of ...God? Would remain.....
God promises that those who seek Him .... honest seekers.........will find Him.
Do not be misled by blind guides..... truth matters and choices are being made.
“All men need to remain clearheaded, ponder eternity and be aware that there is true truth: God.”
..He went to the temple to clear out the franchise holders who were shaking down the pilgrims and you can be sure that was a bloody battle with tables turned over stiff resistance from the "merchants" and their temple official sponsors. I am thinking the very short redacted version in the gospels didn't portray what may well have been a full scale riot type of rebellion causing Pilate to brutally put it down with the army...
The temple courts holding the merchants are not a small area , to think a Jesus could enter and widely disrupt the place in such manner for such length of time without temple guards intervening sounds like a bullch*t story.
Originally Posted by Hastings
Then we have the strange trial of Jesus where he pleads basically no contest and the judge initially gives a directed verdict of acquittal but then allows the prisoner executed. .
Blasphemy as put forward by the Sanhedrin council was not recognized in Roman law , so how can one be put on trial for such in the Roman system?
Pilate could find no cause to prosecute Jesus under Roman law. but as governor had the discretionary power to permit the Jews to decide what to do with him...ultimately Sanhedrin required Romans to carry out execution for only Rome had authority to conduct capital punishment in the province.
Ok, I’ll bite..... Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not? Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
TF49, you are not biting on anything unfamiliar to normal human experience. The "choices" you note are most real and common to most of humankind, and have been occurring all day, every day. for a long, long time. It simply does not become conversational currency because most folks do it internally - infrequently through interaction with others. The "choices" seem to become conversational primarily under certain circumstances.
Some persons feel called to create such circumstances - to preach, to call out, to post provocative messages or chunks of Scripture, to challenge or advise others, etc. Others simply look for opportunities to be supportive and helpful for folks who may be searching toward, or researching, such choices. Others will share or express their thoughts and recommendations only if directly asked. Some good people will never engage such issues with another.
Then too, some people seem to disdain the very existence, or at least the idea, of any such choices. They may act as if supremely knowledgeable, challenge the choices and beliefs of others, create diversions, you name it. Humans are diverse - thus the differences.
However, we do seem to have some important commonalities in the core. And, with some, the reaching and making of such a monumental choice will prompt significant changes of belief and behavior - changes that can be huge.
This is just a tiny slice of singular human experience.
We can't just switch belief on or off at will. Conviction is a process by which we come to accept or reject propositions, teachings, claims or whatever.
One exercise I saw named by Eric Weinstein (I could be wrong and am open to correction on that) is “steel-manning” as a verb.
We all know what a straw man argument is; one poses the weakest available case for an opponents’ position and tears it to shreds. The steel man exercise is just the opposite; one attempts to verbalize the best argument his opponent has... and keeps attempting until his opponent admits he has characterized the position in a satisfactory light.
Whatever neuroscientists may hypothesize about the mechanics of decision making, the exercise described above seems to me to offer a way to intelligently converse with people of differing opinions.
Of course to do so one must set aside the prevailing sentiment of deconstructionism so rife in our society which tears every “old” idea down as a mere power grab by those who seek to manipulate the masses and embrace the possibility that there is ultimate truth somewhere. Additionally one must have the courage of intellect to recognize the old adage that it is possible to engage in and consider an idea seriously without subscribing to it.
One exercise I saw named by Eric Weinstein (I could be wrong and am open to correction on that) is “steel-manning” as a verb.
We all know what a straw man argument is; one poses the weakest available case for an opponents’ position and tears it to shreds. The steel man exercise is just the opposite; one attempts to verbalize the best argument his opponent has... and keeps attempting until his opponent admits he has characterized the position in a satisfactory light.
Whatever neuroscientists may hypothesize about the mechanics of decision making, the exercise described above seems to me to offer a way to intelligently converse with people of differing opinions.
Of course to do so one must set aside the prevailing sentiment of deconstructionism so rife in our society which tears every “old” idea down as a mere power grab by those who seek to manipulate the masses and embrace the possibility that there is ultimate truth somewhere. Additionally one must have the courage of intellect to recognize the old adage that it is possible to engage in and consider an idea seriously without subscribing to it.
Again, sorry to the OP for the “off topic” post.
Hmm.... three good and relevant posts in a row..... good sign!
There’s been a big migration away from from Christianity in this country...especially the organized/institutional aspect of it. And it’s not because they find atheism so appealing, it’s because they find Christianity so unappealing. And certainly much of it ‘is’ the church’s fault. The reason that many people have disengaged from it, as I see it, is not because of the message...it’s because of the messengers. At the end of the day, the reason that many find it so unappealing, and so unscientific, and so irrational...is because of the messengers. The general public that Jesus interacted with...who were nothing like Him, liked Him, and He liked them back. If Christianity isn’t compelling or attractive nowadays, is it possible that much of it is because we don’t practice the same ‘version’ of it nowadays that He practiced Himself...?
I like the disengenuous posts from guys who are turned from believing in GOD because a believer posted some scripture on the Fire saying believers cram their beliefs on them, as if they had been planning on getting out of bed some Sunday AM, getting cleaned up, dressing up, warming the truck and driving to some Church somewhere to hear the words from a preacher.
Hahaha. TFF.
As if they had no choice in deciding to click on the thread in the first place. Man, i hate having to carry that guilt trip.
HE was right. There is power in the Word. It convicts. I feel soory for the misery they have when driving by a church. Of course, they can do that without having to look at it, and i will guarantee you many look away when they drive by one.
He said that, but how is that presented nowadays...?
Is it presented as a description of an elitist type of exclusivity...?
Or is it presented as a simple description that a narrow gate is harder to pass through than one that is wide...?
Do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “only a few of us get to go through, I’m one of them, ‘maybe’ you can be too...?
Or do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “getting on that path and going through is something that requires effort and focus...?
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Let's be clear. We are not "rejecting god(s)", we are rejecting claims made by theist due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support their claims.
He said that, but how is that presented nowadays...?
Is it presented as a description of an elitist type of exclusivity...?
Or is it presented as a simple description that a narrow gate is harder to pass through than one that is wide...?
Do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “only a few of us get to go through, I’m one of them, ‘maybe’ you can be too...?
Or do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “getting on that path and going through is something that requires effort and focus...?
Good questions. I believe the “narrow gate” is used to illustrate the discipline and difficulty required. None of us are perfect, making the requirements a daily challenge.
Let's be clear. We are not "rejecting god(s)", we are rejecting claims made by theists due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support their claims.
I get that. But some clearly do reject God. Maybe not you, but some. And that’s their prerogative. Just as it’s the prerogative of Jesus followers to believe what they do...even though they cannot provide what many deem to be ‘proof’ regarding the existence of God and all that that entails pertaining to their specific faith.
One exercise I saw named by Eric Weinstein (I could be wrong and am open to correction on that) is “steel-manning” as a verb.
We all know what a straw man argument is; one poses the weakest available case for an opponents’ position and tears it to shreds. The steel man exercise is just the opposite; one attempts to verbalize the best argument his opponent has... and keeps attempting until his opponent admits he has characterized the position in a satisfactory light.
Whatever neuroscientists may hypothesize about the mechanics of decision making, the exercise described above seems to me to offer a way to intelligently converse with people of differing opinions.
Of course to do so one must set aside the prevailing sentiment of deconstructionism so rife in our society which tears every “old” idea down as a mere power grab by those who seek to manipulate the masses and embrace the possibility that there is ultimate truth somewhere. Additionally one must have the courage of intellect to recognize the old adage that it is possible to engage in and consider an idea seriously without subscribing to it.
Again, sorry to the OP for the “off topic” post.
Good post my friend. Sounds like something Weinstein would say, and yes, it's very much on topic.
Let's be clear. We are not "rejecting god(s)", we are rejecting claims made by theists due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support their claims.
I get that. But some clearly do reject God. Maybe not you, but some. And that’s their prerogative. Just as it’s the prerogative of Jesus followers to believe what they do...even though they cannot provide what many deem to be ‘proof’.
In order for someone to "Reject God", they must first believe that God exists. One someone accepts the god exists I can see rejecting them, or refusing to follow them on moral grounds, but not logical grounds. Plenty of gods are too evil for an enlightened moral person to follow.
In order for someone to "Reject God", they must first believe that God exists. Once someone accepts the god exists I can see rejecting them, or refusing to follow them on moral grounds, but not logical grounds. Plenty of gods are too evil for an enlightened moral person to follow.
I get that too, but I think it’s also possible for one to flat-out reject the existence of God, without ever having accepted the existence of God in the first place. And again, that’s their prerogative.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Let's be clear. We are not "rejecting god(s)", we are rejecting claims made by theist due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support their claims.
I understand the bit about “rejecting claims made by theist....”
I worked for a boss one time and we had a major business issue to address. I went to him and explained in great detail about how he needed to change his course of action and reverse a decision he had made. He did not accept what I had told him, made a couple of smart remarks and the meeting was over. About 6 weeks later, he called on the phone and told me in no uncertain terms to “get my.....” over,to his office, we had a major problem. Trying to cut the story short, I told him he had failed to heed my prior advice and now we had a mess on our hands. He erupted in even more furious rage.... he thundered at me: “You mean you knew I was making a mistake and let me go ahead and make it? YOU FAILED TO CONVINCE ME!” I then got one of the most memorable a** chewings of my life.
I never forgot it and he was right in a way..... I knew I had been right.... I knew he was making a mistake and I had indeed failed to convince him. But he made a mistake as well.... he was “the boss” and was exerting his right to make decisions. He also dismissed my best efforts to convince him of his error.
Just because a “theist” .... in your view.... fails to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims ......does not absolve ....you...of your responsibility to seek and listen.
He said that, but how is that presented nowadays...? Is it presented as a description of an elitist type of exclusivity...? Or is it presented as a simple description that a narrow gate is harder to pass through than one that is wide...? Do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “only a few of us get to go through, I’m one of them, ‘maybe’ you can be too...? Or do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “getting on that path and going through is something that requires effort and focus...?
Good questions. I believe the “narrow gate” is used to illustrate the discipline and difficulty required.
I see it that way too. It’s much harder to love others, especially those who are hard to love...first and foremost, regardless of anything else, no matter what...than it is to follow some cherry-picked rules and regulations.
In order for someone to "Reject God", they must first believe that God exists. Once someone accepts the god exists I can see rejecting them, or refusing to follow them on moral grounds, but not logical grounds. Plenty of gods are too evil for an enlightened moral person to follow.
I get that too, but I think it’s also possible for one to flat-out reject the existence of God, without ever having accepted the existence of God in the first place. And again, that’s their prerogative.
It's a fine point, but in your example above, what's being rejected it the proposition, or the claim a god(s) exists, not the god(s) itself.
He said that, but how is that presented nowadays...? Is it presented as a description of an elitist type of exclusivity...? Or is it presented as a simple description that a narrow gate is harder to pass through than one that is wide...? Do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “only a few of us get to go through, I’m one of them, ‘maybe’ you can be too...? Or do believers who say that to others do so from the perspective of “getting on that path and going through is something that requires effort and focus...?
Good questions. I believe the “narrow gate” is used to illustrate the discipline and difficulty required.
I see it that way too.
And it that context it can apply to any set of principles intended to lead a person to a better way of life, be those principle Christian or otherwise.
And it that context it can apply to any set of principles intended to lead a person to a better way of life, be those principles Christian or otherwise.
Agreed. For me personally, trying to follow Jesus’ teachings has made my life better, and it’s made me better at life. I have no doubt that...had I done so much sooner than I did...those that I loved most would’ve had better lives as well.
There’s been a big migration away from from Christianity in this country...especially the organized/institutional aspect of it. And it’s not because they find atheism so appealing, it’s because they find Christianity so unappealing. And certainly much of it ‘is’ the church’s fault. The reason that many people have disengaged from it, as I see it, is not because of the message...it’s because of the messengers. At the end of the day, the reason that many find it so unappealing, and so unscientific, and so irrational...is because of the messengers. The general public that Jesus interacted with...who were nothing like Him, liked Him, and He liked them back. If Christianity isn’t compelling or attractive nowadays, is it possible that much of it is because we don’t practice the same ‘version’ of it nowadays that He practiced Himself...?
I think there is a tendency on our part to think there was at some point in history (whether that be US, World, or Church) a “golden age”. People mess stuff up and people have always been messing stuff up. If you read the NT you see this and if you read Church history it’s also apparent.
There was never a time when people acted like Jesus. He was the only perfect Jew and the only perfect Christian. That’s why we are in such dire need of His death on the cross; because we’re flawed humans who by our nature screw stuff up.
I’d be ecstatic if we could get to a point where the only thing that offends people is Christ and the necessity of His death, burial, and resurrection. That’s what I strive for when I discuss these things with people anyway... imperfectly...
There’s been a big migration away from from Christianity in this country...especially the organized/institutional aspect of it. And it’s not because they find atheism so appealing, it’s because they find Christianity so unappealing. And certainly much of it ‘is’ the church’s fault. The reason that many people have disengaged from it, as I see it, is not because of the message...it’s because of the messengers. At the end of the day, the reason that many find it so unappealing, and so unscientific, and so irrational...is because of the messengers. The general public that Jesus interacted with...who were nothing like Him, liked Him, and He liked them back. If Christianity isn’t compelling or attractive nowadays, is it possible that much of it is because we don’t practice the same ‘version’ of it nowadays that He practiced Himself...?
I think there is a tendency on our part to think there was at some point in history (whether that be US, World, or Church) a “golden age”. People mess stuff up and people have always been messing stuff up. If you read the NT you see this and if you read Church history it’s also apparent. There was never a time when people acted like Jesus. He was the only perfect Jew and the only perfect Christian. That’s why we are in such dire need of His death on the cross; because we’re flawed humans who by our nature screw stuff up. I’d be ecstatic if we could get to a point where the only thing that offends people is Christ and the necessity of His death, burial, and resurrection. That’s what I strive for when I discuss these things with people anyway... imperfectly...Soli Deo Gloria
That's my point. I run across very few people who actually have a problem with Jesus Himself; I run across very few people who actually have a problem with His teachings; and I actually run across very few people who have a problem with Jesus and the necessity of His death, burial, and resurrection.
That's my point. I run across very few people who actually have a problem with Jesus Himself; I run across very few people who actually have a problem with His teachings; and I actually run across very few people who have a problem with Jesus and the necessity of His death burial, and resurrection.
Gotcha; that’s interesting. I have friendships with all kinds of people who object vehemently to their need. Other people maybe... some reject the human condition as conceived by Christianity altogether.
I don’t know anyone inside or outside the visible Church who don’t have a problem with people in the Church. I tend to think that’s part of the reason why God established it; because His project wasn’t merely to make us right with Him but also to build a community of people who’ve been made right with Him and need to work on getting right with each other. And that’s no small endeavor; certainly nothing that is going to be terribly attractive to people who haven’t seen that they’re just as tough to love as you and I are. It isn’t even attractive to us!
And it that context it can apply to any set of principles intended to lead a person to a better way of life, be those principle Christian or otherwise.
Avowed and celebrated atheists Walter Lippmann & HL Menken praised the book Christianity & Liberalism by J Gresham Machen. In that seminal work the author asserted that an intellectually honest assessment of Historic Christianity reveals it is not a “set of principles intended to lead a person to a better way of life” but something altogether different. His assertion is that Christianity is a message from the One true God inviting men into communion with Him through the sacrifice of His Son. Now a right relationship with God will result in a better way of life for them and those around them but that isn’t the end goal.
If you’re interested in such a work I’d highly recommend it; great read even if you (as did the two aforementioned gentlemen) disagree with the truth of our religion.
I run across very few people who actually have a problem with Jesus Himself; I run across very few people who actually have a problem with His teachings; and I actually run across very few people who have a problem with Jesus and the necessity of His death burial, and resurrection.
...that’s interesting. I have friendships with all kinds of people who object vehemently to their need. Other people maybe... some reject the human condition as conceived by Christianity altogether.
I get that, to many people, there are certain things about theism and God and Christianity in particular that are unsettling. On the other hand, to many people, there’s something about a godless universe where everything is reduced to the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology that’s unsettling as well.
Christianity is not a “set of principles intended to lead a person to a better way of life” but something altogether different. Christianity is a message from the One true God inviting men into communion with Him through the sacrifice of His Son. Now a right relationship with God will result in a better way of life for them and those around them but that isn’t the end goal.
... Christ and the necessity of His death, burial, and resurrection. That’s what I strive for when I discuss these things with people anyway... imperfectly...
Human ritual sacrifice had been practiced by variety of civilizations for some millenia and it failed them, despite them also putting much faith in such.
> Why would it work for Christians or a Hebrew tribe of Bronze-Age antiquity ?
If anyone has an argument based on facts , well and good, but I don't really care for more subjective make believe waffle and desparate attempt quotes from an error filled Bible.
Originally Posted by efw
... That’s why we are in such dire need of His death on the cross; because we’re flawed humans who by our nature screw stuff up...
The biblical perfect God came out with a flawed design....Why purposely design something to fail then endlessly complain that it doesn't meet ones own high 'perfect' standards?..then take it to the extent of torturing and killing them simply for being what they were orig. created to be?
Adam and Eve tale shows they were scripted actors set up to be thrown under the bus. For their 'bad choice' (and events leading up to such) was all predestined.
Let's be clear. We are not "rejecting god(s)", we are rejecting claims made by theist due to a lack of sufficient evidence to support their claims.
Their God is real until proven otherwise is the stance of some CF Christians...yet they reject same approach being equally applied to others gods.
Then theres the Christian element that says you cant prove my god dont exist, yet the world is still waiting for Christians to prove many other gods are false.
There’s been a big migration away from from Christianity in this country...especially the organized/institutional aspect of it. And it’s not because they find atheism so appealing, it’s because they find Christianity so unappealing. And certainly much of it ‘is’ the church’s fault. The reason that many people have disengaged from it, as I see it, is not because of the message...it’s because of the messengers. At the end of the day, the reason that many find it so unappealing, and so unscientific, and so irrational...is because of the messengers. The general public that Jesus interacted with...who were nothing like Him, liked Him, and He liked them back. If Christianity isn’t compelling or attractive nowadays, is it possible that much of it is because we don’t practice the same ‘version’ of it nowadays that He practiced Himself...?
I think there is a tendency on our part to think there was at some point in history (whether that be US, World, or Church) a “golden age”. People mess stuff up and people have always been messing stuff up. If you read the NT you see this and if you read Church history it’s also apparent. There was never a time when people acted like Jesus. He was the only perfect Jew and the only perfect Christian. That’s why we are in such dire need of His death on the cross; because we’re flawed humans who by our nature screw stuff up. I’d be ecstatic if we could get to a point where the only thing that offends people is Christ and the necessity of His death, burial, and resurrection. That’s what I strive for when I discuss these things with people anyway... imperfectly...Soli Deo Gloria
That's my point. I run across very few people who actually have a problem with Jesus Himself; I run across very few people who actually have a problem with His teachings; and I actually run across very few people who have a problem with Jesus and the necessity of His death, burial, and resurrection.
Responding to the declaration in the OP, and with regard to the three posts above, what I have found in Scripture, does not privide a single reason why a Christian would be justified in seeing himself/herself as being better, more important, or more deserving of rank than any other human being. We all are sinners and, as someone recently posted, Christian people are saved by grace. With that gift of grace, Christians also are charged with expectations for the conduct of their lives. Through the range of Christian behavior, in keeping with imperfection, not all Christians will live up to the expectations - even when trying diligently. It is the nature of the being. As duly noted, some people who are not Christians seem to try every bit as strongly to behave according to very moral and righteous standards. All of us are imperfect.
To the posts by efw and antlers about the Christian example as lived, one observation from here is that Christians automatically open them selves to criticism and judgement by non-Christians (and, by Christians as well) when they declare their commitments to God - and yet concomitantly fall short of the mark - as all will. Enough of this failure, in the minds of others, usually results in judgements of "hypocrisy". Such an assessment, whether or not accurate/true, can place a serious mark on the persona of the Christian. For the non-Christian who is a true seeker of belief, faith and salvation, the sight/feeling of such a hypocritical mark can be a significant deterrent. For the Non-Christian who is simply on the negative bent - seeking to to deny, denigrate, undermine the concept of Christian belief, the opportunity to cite any "hypocrisy"is a big sword. Such is life. Grace is essential, behavior matters a lot.
In keeping with your observation about non-Christians not finding fault with Jesus, His teachings, and the reason for His death and resurrection - that finding seems to ring true in my experiences. However, I have seen no absence of complaint, attack, derision and scorn with regard to many structures organized under the general banner of Christianity. We know plenty of examples of bad motives, bad behavior and bad outcomes perpetrated by humans professing to act under the Christian umbrella. As humans, we tend to detest hypocrisy and fraud. When those charges are made against Christian types, Christians must expect some determination of failures with regard to the commanded and expected witness.
One final view. I do not necessarily agree with the comment that people have been moving away from Christianity in recent times. But, I do think many have been distancing themselves from the evolved positions of some "Christian" organizations and from what seem to be gross examples of hypocrisy. The charge for Christians has not changed - and, as it ever has been, the challenges require introspection, assessment, improvement and even housecleaning.
Good post CCCC. It’s also likely detrimental for Christians to judge outsiders for not embracing the values of something they’ve never signed up for in the first place.
..The charge for Christians has not changed - and, as it ever has been, the challenges require introspection, assessment, improvement and even housecleaning.
I doubt they are truelly capable of house cleaning, much like Law Enforcement and politicians they are far more likely to keep accomodating the rot and hypocrisy...Go after one's own tribe only as last resort and at much peril. Christian scripture even tells how everyone failed and deserted Jesus in his time of need in self preservation...but what can one expect when his flock are the weak and sick.
..The charge for Christians has not changed - and, as it ever has been, the challenges require introspection, assessment, improvement and even housecleaning.
I doubt they are truelly capable of house cleaning, much like Law Enforcement and politicians they are far are more likely to keep accomodating the rot and hypocrisy...Go after one's own tribe only as last resort and at much peril. Christian scriopture even tells how everyone failed and deserted Jesus in his time of need.
I have no doubt about your doubt, and even could doubt that you understand the concept under review. Maybe it is due to the " scriopture" you have been consulting.
CCCC..talk is cheap , get to the 'house cleaning' you suggest is required and show the results.After your displays of blatant dishonestyI don't count your words for much.
There you are Starfool - immediately resorting to the personal attacks and misspelled words. You are nothing if not consistent.
So, as you command - we comply and houseclean. Attention ! You are OUT of here - into the trash bin - down to the dumpster. Never to return.
Now - you dumpster divers out there - do not go in and pull him out.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Oh, make no mistake, you have a choice. Choose wisely. Its a choice for life or death. You get to choose for free. Which you choose matters not to me. You can even refuse to choose, and the choice will be made for you.
Sorry, thats the price you pay for life you see. Its a price not given to rocks.
Will one of you parishioners not tell us [me] how you learned/were taught, to submit, beg, worship? how does a man bend a knee, kneel, cry, plead, submit, give up, quit, and really mean it? i cant/will never be able to get to that place. I dont believe that what you ask for 'demand' "without ridicule" is honestly possible for some, and i mean honest, fu-k acting,performing, singing for your supper bullshlt! How did you arrive, and still be in possession of your balls?
gunner500, did you feel that way yourself last Fall, and for the preceding year, when you said you had some real interest of going to church with your wife full time...? I doubt it, but idk...that’s why I’m askin’.
Was simply looking for truth, honesty, 'REAL' and proof, Sir, but realizing i had never learned to yield [kneel/beg/worship] i let it go, dont want to be a fake/hypocrite in anything i do, the fighting/hypocrisy here amongst "the believers" didn't help the possible explorative journey either, it's all good though i'll just continue to live to be a good husband, neighbor, son and friend, full well remembering the road to hell is paved with good intentions, we shall see someday.
I've tried to raise that point here several times in the past. "It's your choice" is a phrase that many are fond of using when confronting those who don't believe the way they do. Its an obviously false statement, and easily provable to be so, but it gets brought out time and again anyway.
Ok, I’ll bite.....
Why is it not a “choice” to ponder and pursue God...... or not?
Why is it not a choice to reject God.... or in context with this thread, to reject Jesus?
Pondering may be a choice. If your pondering leads you to a place where you are convinced that you have found the truth, you will beleive. On the other hand, if you find it all sounds absurd to you, and doesn't ring true, you won't beleive.
I could probably read and study Scientology for as long as I could bear it and not become a believer. Its simply too absurd and nonsensical for my mind to accept, I have no choice in that matter. Others, obviously, have a very different experience, and I have to assume its the same for them.
Regardless of who says this, that or the other, beliefs or convictions are justified through evidence, not faith. No good complaining, that's just how it is.
CCCC..talk is cheap , get to the 'house cleaning' you suggest is required and show the results.After your displays of blatant dishonestyI don't count your words for much.
There you are Starfool - immediately resorting to the personal attacks and misspelled words. You are nothing if not consistent.
So, as you command - we comply and houseclean. Attention ! You are OUT of here - into the trash bin - down to the dumpster. Never to return.
Now - you dumpster divers out there - do not go in and pull him out.
I'm with Starman. Your responses have been elusive and evasive - certainly comes across as dishonesty.
The story of Washington kneeling in prayer originated from Isaac Potts, who recounted it some 40 years after it happened to his pastor, Rev. Nathaniel Randolph Snowden. The story was included in Rev. Snowden’s book, “Diary and Remembrances” in hopes that it would be protected for posterity. As the story goes, Potts was riding alone one day when he found General Washington praying alone in the Valley Forge woods. Potts was originally against the war, but was moved and had a change of heart upon seeing Washington in prayer.
Regardless of who says this, that or the other, beliefs or convictions are justified through evidence, not faith. No good complaining, that's just how it is.
The blind look to the clay to verify the potter.
Those who tarried under St Helens waited for evidence.
To the original post ~ Jordan Peterson, in ‘12 Rules for Life’, said “Christianity achieved the well-nigh impossible. The Christian doctrine elevated the individual soul, placing slave and master...and commoner and nobleman alike on the same metaphysical footing, rendering them equal before God and the law. The implicit transcendent worth of each and every soul established itself against impossible odds.”
Regardless of who says this, that or the other, beliefs or convictions are justified through evidence, not faith. No good complaining, that's just how it is.
The blind look to the clay to verify the potter.
Those who tarried under St Helens waited for evidence.
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame..... Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16
This fact that Jesus stated motivates me to point everyone to my signature.
"And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame..... Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16
This fact that Jesus stated motivates me to point everyone to my signature.
If there is sufficient evidence, there is no argument. Nobody argues over the existence of the Sun, Moon or stars....
There’s been a big migration away from from Christianity in this country...especially the organized/institutional aspect of it. And it’s not because they find atheism so appealing, it’s because they find Christianity so unappealing. And certainly much of it ‘is’ the church’s fault. The reason that many people have disengaged from it, as I see it, is not because of the message...it’s because of the messengers. At the end of the day, the reason that many find it so unappealing, and so unscientific, and so irrational...is because of the messengers. The general public that Jesus interacted with...who were nothing like Him, liked Him, and He liked them back. If Christianity isn’t compelling or attractive nowadays, is it possible that much of it is because we don’t practice the same ‘version’ of it nowadays that He practiced Himself...?
Anyone arguing for or expecting proof of faith or proof for the basis of faith is woefully ignorant, sadly misguided and intellectually vacuous. Enough so that even in the face of such “proof”, were it even possible to present, denial, demands for more “proof” or tangible physical proof of something that’s thousands of years old and obfuscation through semantics would preclude their understanding. It’s been a common theme in these threads over the years, the same tired old refrain from most of the same actors demanding the same impossibilities.....physical evidence of the basis for religious FAITH. That word is either impossible for some to understand the meaning of or they’re being intentionally obtuse in order to feel superior. The atheists here do more proselytizing for their “religion” of no beliefs than all the “Christians” combined.
I don’t have to prove to anyone that what I believe, what I have faith in, is “real”. My salvation isn’t dependent upon the number of non-believers that I convert nor is it dependent upon supplying proof of the unprovable to unbelievers. 😉. I don’t proselytize or preach. I’ll gladly share my faith and try my best to explain my beliefs if someone is genuinely curious but I don’t feel compelled to make them believe me. I’d encourage them to do their own “research” and soul searching because only when you have an honest and personal relationship with the Lord will it become unquestionably real and your faith unshakable.
My ticket into heaven does not lie with those that refuse to see or with those that make excuses so they can pretend not to see. We all have free will and with free will comes full responsibility for its exercise. I have no interest in fighting with those that use semantics as a fallback position and ignore the real definitions of the words they throw around in their futile attempts to appear intelligent. While we’re all human and we all have our faults I’ve noticed that arrogance is a hallmark trait of the atheists that I’ve known. That’s not to say that all atheists are arrogant, just the many that I’ve known. 😉. I don’t know why someone that doesn’t believe in something would try so hard to convince others that it doesn’t exist?....
Anyone arguing for or expecting proof of faith or proof for the basis of faith is woefully ignorant, sadly misguided and intellectually vacuous. Enough so that even in the face of such “proof”, were it even possible to present, denial, demands for more “proof” or tangible physical proof of something that’s thousands of years old and obfuscation through semantics would preclude their understanding. It’s been a common theme in these threads over the years, the same tired old refrain from most of the same actors demanding the same impossibilities.....physical evidence of the basis for religious FAITH. That word is either impossible for some to understand the meaning of or they’re being intentionally obtuse in order to feel superior. The atheists here do more proselytizing for their “religion” of no beliefs than all the “Christians” combined.
I don’t have to prove to anyone that what I believe, what I have faith in, is “real”. My salvation isn’t dependent upon the number of non-believers that I convert nor is it dependent upon supplying proof of the unprovable to unbelievers. 😉. I don’t proselytize or preach. I’ll gladly share my faith and try my best to explain my beliefs if someone is genuinely curious but I don’t feel compelled to make them believe me. I’d encourage them to do their own “research” and soul searching because only when you have an honest and personal relationship with the Lord will it become unquestionably real and your faith unshakable.
My ticket into heaven does not lie with those that refuse to see or with those that make excuses so they can pretend not to see. We all have free will and with free will comes full responsibility for its exercise. I have no interest in fighting with those that use semantics as a fallback position and ignore the real definitions of the words they throw around in their futile attempts to appear intelligent. While we’re all human and we all have our faults I’ve noticed that arrogance is a hallmark trait of the atheists that I’ve known. That’s not to say that all atheists are arrogant, just the many that I’ve known. 😉. I don’t know why someone that doesn’t believe in something would try so hard to convince others that it doesn’t exist?....
Well said in toto - and I, too, do not know why someone would try so hard to do that.(But, are there are not suspicions ?)
Anyone arguing for or expecting proof of faith or proof for the basis of faith is woefully ignorant, sadly misguided and intellectually vacuous. Enough so that even in the face of such “proof”, were it even possible to present, denial, demands for more “proof” or tangible physical proof of something that’s thousands of years old and obfuscation through semantics would preclude their understanding. It’s been a common theme in these threads over the years, the same tired old refrain from most of the same actors demanding the same impossibilities.....physical evidence of the basis for religious FAITH. That word is either impossible for some to understand the meaning of or they’re being intentionally obtuse in order to feel superior. The atheists here do more proselytizing for their “religion” of no beliefs than all the “Christians” combined.
I don’t have to prove to anyone that what I believe, what I have faith in, is “real”. My salvation isn’t dependent upon the number of non-believers that I convert nor is it dependent upon supplying proof of the unprovable to unbelievers. 😉. I don’t proselytize or preach. I’ll gladly share my faith and try my best to explain my beliefs if someone is genuinely curious but I don’t feel compelled to make them believe me. I’d encourage them to do their own “research” and soul searching because only when you have an honest and personal relationship with the Lord will it become unquestionably real and your faith unshakable.
My ticket into heaven does not lie with those that refuse to see or with those that make excuses so they can pretend not to see. We all have free will and with free will comes full responsibility for its exercise. I have no interest in fighting with those that use semantics as a fallback position and ignore the real definitions of the words they throw around in their futile attempts to appear intelligent. While we’re all human and we all have our faults I’ve noticed that arrogance is a hallmark trait of the atheists that I’ve known. That’s not to say that all atheists are arrogant, just the many that I’ve known. 😉. I don’t know why someone that doesn’t believe in something would try so hard to convince others that it doesn’t exist?....
CCCC..talk is cheap , get to the 'house cleaning' you suggest is required and show the results.After your displays of blatant dishonestyI don't count your words for much.
There you are Starfool - immediately resorting to the personal attacks and misspelled words. You are nothing if not consistent.
So, as you command - we comply and houseclean. Attention ! You are OUT of here - into the trash bin - down to the dumpster. Never to return.
Now - you dumpster divers out there - do not go in and pull him out.
I'm with Starman. Your responses have been elusive and evasive - certainly comes across as dishonesty.
Fun might happen when a fellow deliberately is being evasive and elusive - and it is tempting to do so with Starbucks because he seems to have no receptor for blunt common sense. But, we sock it to him straight up anyway. You can paint what "comes across" to you any way you wish - you are talking about your receptors. Do I seem touched by your paint job?
Now - you say you are "with" Starfool - so you have jumped into the dumpster to keep him company? Maybe good, and less housecleaning needed.
- immediately resorting to the personal attacks and misspelled words.
Evidence of your dishonesty had been displayed. Your ignorance and denial dont change that fact.Taking it as 'personal attack' is lame and absurd.Hey - you constantly make the attacks - I don't take them - at least not seriously.
Originally Posted by CCCC
So, as you command - we comply and houseclean. Attention ! You are OUT of here - into the trash bin - down to the dumpster. Never to return.
LoL .."house cleaning" was your suggestion.
Difficult to hear you, but this post sounds dumb. Weak. Open the lid of the dumpster a bit so we can hear you.
Thanks for asking, Starbucks - feeling great. But, you have read this entire thread and seems you still don't understand Christianity. If you did, you would know that the devil made me do it. He knows the way to the trash bag.
Yes, certainly downhill - you guys went right down to the dumpster.
(Is there a metaphor in this stuff?)
Bed time - good night - put the lid down and sleep tight in there.
Reasonable folk support their reasonable claims with reasonable evidence. Wackos expect others to buy their extraordinary claims with no supporting evidence.
the most ardent vocal Christians/believers here are in the second category.
If anyone choses to believe them , one may as well give merit to a Santa flying through the sky and Vikings fighting and feasting in Valhalla.
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
..Anyone arguing for or expecting proof of faith or proof for the basis of faith is woefully ignorant, sadly misguided and intellectually vacuous. ...
Yet some who claim to be devout Christians with God dwelling inside them have repeatedly argued they have supporting evidence.
If I'm not mistaken Ace is calling BS on such claims. It gets interesting when believers doubt believers..
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
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.
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
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. Any other group would have been absorbed into the dominant population and disappeared.
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
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. Any other group would have been absorbed into the dominant population and disappeared.
Hitler had his own version of "divine intervention"
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
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. Any other group would have been absorbed into the dominant population and disappeared.
Hitler had his own version of "divine intervention"
And the ones Hitler failed to kill became a nuclear super power in just over a generation. They are the wealthiest "race" per capita on earth, control the central banks, hold sway far above their numbers in our nation and many others. All this was predicted and is already or is coming to pass shortly. God and Israel will have their say and their due. I am a believer in the Jewish Jesus who preached salvation through true repentance and the law.
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
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. Any other group would have been absorbed into the dominant population and disappeared.
Hitler had his own version of "divine intervention"
And the ones Hitler failed to kill became a nuclear super power in just over a generation. They are the wealthiest "race" per capita on earth, control the central banks, hold sway far above their numbers in our nation and many others. All this was predicted and is already or is coming to pass shortly. God and Israel will have their say and their due. I am a believer in the Jewish Jesus who preached salvation through true repentance and the law.
So god didn't mind sacrificing 6 million jews for the better good? Or he was a bit late with the intervention?
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.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
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.
Not necessarily. Archeologists continue to uncover relics and whole ancient communities that are proof of things the Bible tells us. And nearly 400 fulfilled prophesies over thousands of years regarding Jesus alone is an impossible act to follow, let alone deny. Particularly when many of them have odds so miniscule no sentient being would bet against them. Yet, many still do.
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. Any other group would have been absorbed into the dominant population and disappeared.
People set about achieving that goal. Selection bias filters out hits from misses. Failure being dismissed as 'Gods Will' 'We are being tested,' The hits? Well, praise the Lord for His infinite mercy....never mind all the dead bodies.
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.
Originally Posted by mauserand9mm
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
Originally Posted by RickyD
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
Originally Posted by CCCC
Originally Posted by DBT
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Interesting.
I believe, and that belief is between God and I.
Furthermore I do not really care if others believe or not, nor do I care about proof of either my belief or what leads to it.
What I DO care about is cunts pushing THEIR beliefs on to me...I won't have it.
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.
Interesting.
I believe, and that belief is between God and I.
Furthermore I do not really care if others believe or not, nor do I care about proof of either my belief or what leads to it.
What I DO care about is cunts pushing THEIR beliefs on to me...I won't have it.
Fair enough. Your belief is your own business. Nobody has to discuss their belief or their lack of conviction. It's up to the individual.
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.
Evidence of supper is when you eat it. Denying it exists and claiming the only thing supporting the existence of supper is a recipe card.
I know you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time here denying God’s existence, because you would cease to live. God is the sustenance for the soul and that is eternal, your body isn’t.
One day, like all that deny God, you will find out how wrong you are and the only thing to provide you with any consolation, will be the forgiveness of the very being you say doesn’t exist.
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.
Evidence of supper is when you eat it. Denying it exists and claiming the only thing supporting the existence of supper is a recipe card.
I know you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time here denying God’s existence, because you would cease to live. God is the sustenance for the soul and that is eternal, your body isn’t.
One day, like all that deny God, you will find out how wrong you are and the only thing to provide you with any consolation, will be the forgiveness of the very being you say doesn’t exist.
Surprised you didn't just say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"...and stick your tongue out.
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.
Evidence of supper is when you eat it. Denying it exists and claiming the only thing supporting the existence of supper is a recipe card.
I know you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time here denying God’s existence, because you would cease to live. God is the sustenance for the soul and that is eternal, your body isn’t.
One day, like all that deny God, you will find out how wrong you are and the only thing to provide you with any consolation, will be the forgiveness of the very being you say doesn’t exist.
Evidence of supper is on the plate for anyone who is present to see. To lack convinction is a matter of insufficient evidence rather than a 'denial of God.' Justification is the issue. Your culture and circumstances brought you to Christianity, other cultures and other circumstances bring people to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever the case may be....
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.
Evidence of supper is when you eat it. Denying it exists and claiming the only thing supporting the existence of supper is a recipe card.
I know you don’t believe that or you wouldn’t waste everyone’s time here denying God’s existence, because you would cease to live. God is the sustenance for the soul and that is eternal, your body isn’t.
One day, like all that deny God, you will find out how wrong you are and the only thing to provide you with any consolation, will be the forgiveness of the very being you say doesn’t exist.
Surprised you didn't just say "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah"...and stick your tongue out.
Because that is what you typed amounted to.
You are better than that, don’t demean yourself with a pathetic analysis here such as this.
Evidence of supper is on the plate for anyone who is present to see. To lack convinction is a matter of insufficient evidence rather than a 'denial of God.' Justification is the issue. Your culture and circumstances brought you to Christianity, other cultures and other circumstances bring people to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, whatever the case may be....
Beliefs have little to do with what is. One day, all mankind will come to terms with what is absolute, and regardless of where you were born and who taught you what, the truth will be manifested.
No judgement here, it isn’t for me to judge. No condemnation either, just a voice in the wilderness confessing a witness to the existence of only one God that we will all be subject to, regardless of our upbringing or country of origin.
I can’t prove it, but no one can prove me wrong and I am not alone in my convictions.
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?
If you were going to explain how everything we know came into existence what would you say? If you don't know, well what do you think was the primal creative force? Even if you subscribe to the big bang (which I sort of do) where did all this energy and matter come from? I am interested in what you believe. We know what you disbelieve.
Furthermore I do not really care if others believe or not, nor do I care about proof of either my belief or what leads to it.
What I DO care about is cunts pushing THEIR beliefs on to me...I won't have it.
I don’t have any more issue with you thinking differently about God and wanting to keep it to yourself than I do with a guy who’d prefer a .270 vs my .30-06... and I don’t mind a good spirited “argument” over which is “best”.
If people are to argue about stuff over which I care not, I don’t participate. If someone wants to tell me I’m wrong for an opinion I hold I engage or don’t engage by choice; no one can force me to read a thread or a post I do so of my own free will.
Everyone has the right to speak. How I respond to them is what’s up to me. I make a decision to engage when I open a thread, or post a comment. That’s on me.
Originally Posted by JSTUART
Originally Posted by DBT
Fair enough. Your belief is your own business. Nobody has to discuss their belief or their lack of conviction. It's up to the individual.
Be nothing wrong with having you for a neighbour...something that cannot be said for a lot of others.
I completely agree with DBT.
It’s also up to you if you want to discuss your ideas... and even do so in a manner that displays poor taste by my standards... on a public forum. I won’t ever complain.
Again, if I don’t care to participate I don’t open the thread.
Speech is not violence; verbalizing an opinion is not automatically an attempt to convert those who disagree.
Public discussion boards are for public discussion.
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.
Interesting views - seems to be nothing worth arguing but would point out that you open with a comment about the function of science. All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion has not been about science - it has been about faith. My experienced observations have been made in that light.
DBT, again we have the evidence based faith types in CCCC raising their heads...they don seem to have any consistent std. of evidence they go by with the aim of constituting proof.
Now Stabucks, you went out with the housecleaning, and how did you get out of that dumpster anyway - or have you simply raised the lid? Well - you missed some stuff - you are way off topic. Now, close the lid and re-assume your banishment like a good boy.
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.
Interesting views - seems to be nothing worth arguing but would point out that you open with a comment about the function of science. All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion hs not been about science - it has been about faith. My experienced observations have been made in that light.
Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions. That was the quality of the evidence and the quality of the interpretation of said evidence matter. It's also why I as for "good evidence" and not just "evidence". Let me give a example from an actual call in T.V. show. A lady calls in claiming she can prove the existence of God. He proof? She was driving down the road and low tire pressure warning light went on. She wasn't close to home was worried about being able to safely drive her vehicle, so she prayed to God for a solution. At the next exit she pulled into a gas station, and the gas station attendant aired up her tires for he. This was her "proof" God existed. I'd seriously question both the quality of this evidence and her interpretation, and if it's anywhere nearly sufficient to prove her extraordinary claim.
That's the issue with so much of what theist consider "evidence". They present poor interpretations of poor evidence, and often, it's the worst possible kind of evidence, that which cannot be independently verified. This evidence is even worse than that in the example above, because even though her argument is so terrible, at least we could verify the existence of the gas station and gas station attendant if we cared to go interview him just after the event.
... All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion has not been about science - it has been about faith...
You haven't provided any std. by which you judge or discern the quality of evidence you use for your faith, which means 'anything goes' in the head of a Christian.
History has repeatedly shown such approach to be a disaster.
Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions. That was the quality of the evidence and the quality of the interpretation of said evidence matter. It's also why I as for "good evidence" and not just "evidence". Let me give a example from an actual call in T.V. show. A lady calls in claiming she can prove the existence of God. He proof? She was driving down the road and low tire pressure warning light went on. She wasn't close to home was worried about being able to safely drive her vehicle, so she prayed to God for a solution. At the next exit she pulled into a gas station, and the gas station attendant aired up her tires for he. This was her "proof" God existed. I'd seriously question both the quality of this evidence and her interpretation, and if it's anywhere nearly sufficient to prove her extraordinary claim.
That's the issue with so much of what theist consider "evidence". They present poor interpretations of poor evidence, and often, it's the worst possible kind of evidence, that which cannot be independently verified. This evidence is even worse than that in the example above, because even though her argument is so terrible, at least we could verify the existence of the gas station and gas station attendant if we cared to go interview him just after the event.
I agree with a number of statements in this post, and especially the first statement.
Interesting views - seems to be nothing worth arguing but would point out that you open with a comment about the function of science. All well and good, if you are conducting a rigorous scientific experiment, go ahead and define terms and evidence any way you wish - it is your science. But, this discussion hs not been about science - it has been about faith. My experienced observations have been made in that light.
As I said in another post earlier in this thread, the scientism of modernity gave way to post modernity because societally we all know on a very deep level that science cannot explain some of the central phenomena that make us human.
Scientism is just another myth which seeks to help us understand the world in which we dwell. It fit a time and place and lead to much progress by any objective standard, but has collapsed under the weight heaped upon it by many who claim to have been its most zealous adherents.
Remember science started, imperfectly as it was, to show that the laws of nature are predictable because their author was equally so. Separated from that foundational presupposition and asked to support explanations for what should be rather than simply the processes that brought about what is, it collapses.
Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions.
I agree absolutely. That is why I subscribe to all the tenets of orthodox (small o) Christianity AND agree with the enlightened pluralism enshrined in the Constitution. For me they go together like peanut butter and jelly.
I’ve met far smarter men who rejected my faith; I have met far more ethical, moral men who eschewed Christianity’s claims. There can be no doubt there are a great many who deny my Lord and make wonderful neighbors.
Actually, evidence can support contradictory and opposing conclusions.
I agree absolutely. That is why I subscribe to all the tenets of orthodox (small o) Christianity AND agree with the enlightened pluralism enshrined in the Constitution. For me they go together like peanut butter and jelly.
I’ve met far smarter men who rejected my faith; I have met far more ethical, moral men who eschewed Christianity’s claims. There can be no doubt there are a great many who deny my Lord and make wonderful neighbors.
There's a big difference between Christians, and Fundamentalist Christians, and atheist and Marxist.
Supposed 'proof of creation' presented by believers has actually totally backfired and done nothing more than prove pastors to be complete idiots.
Nothing funnier when a Christian imbecile preaching to the flock shoots himself in the foot with a simple banana....LoL.
Do you have any proof of the pastor’s foolishness? Any evidence that proves he <figuratively> shot himself in the foot with a banana or any evidence at all to support your assertion that “prove pastors to be complete idiots”?
...or is that simply your opinion that you’re presenting as fact?
Evidently Ace has never heard of pastor Ray Comfort and his wacko 'banana tale'..LoL. But hey it's a broad church where Jesus accepts all types - even the ones Ace would reject.
Btw: ..got a question for you ... When you attended those church groups where you found "No presence of God"...
What happened to that 'Omnipresence' .. ???
Perhaps God was there and you just ain't capable of genuinely detecting such presence.
Supposed 'proof of creation' presented by believers has actually totally backfired and done nothing more than prove pastors to be complete idiots.
Nothing funnier when a Christian imbecile preaching to the flock shoots himself in the foot with a simple banana....LoL.
Do you have any proof of the pastor’s foolishness? Any evidence that proves he <figuratively> shot himself in the foot with a banana or any evidence at all to support your assertion that “prove pastors to be complete idiots”? ...or is that simply your opinion that you’re presenting as fact?
Incisive questions, and a truthful answer would admit the situation is the latter. However, do not hold your breath while waiting for that - that fellow reps the idea of housecleaning and the dumpster.
.When you attended those church groups where you found "No presence of God"... What happened to that 'Omnipresence' .. ???
Try really hard now to concentrate - squish over into the corner by the coffee grounds - and think. You can do it - realize that all men fall short, are weak in some ways - and that the Omnipresence of God is not always felt or realized by mortal little humans. The fact that you cannot sense or find something does not mean it is not present - like evidence, etc. Please keep the lid down.
CCCC, ..I believe Ace is a grown man that doesn't need you to answer for him each time.
You need to get over your hurt and resentment if you want to be a better Christian...but I do understand the inherent sickness and weakness of Christians might prevent such.
Originally Posted by CCCC
- realize that all men fall short, are weak in some ways - and that the Omnipresence of God is not always felt or realized by mortal little humans..
Perhaps Ace was correct and God was not present.
It's not like you can prove Omnipresence. just reading about it somewhere doesn't automatically make it true.
I am interested in what you believe. We know what you disbelieve.
Since you believe in supernatural acts .. Do you even mildly entertain the possibility that pagan gods the Romans worshipped, divinely assisted them in their empire building.? Why would some deity help Israel and not Rome?
In answer to your questions, I don't know what all the Deity allows vs. assists. I have stated that I believe the Jewish people maintaining their identity in their dispersal all over the world for almost 2000 years and the re-establishment of the modern super power Israel to not be explainable except by supernatural intervention. Especially their victory in the 1948 war. Basically a few thousand stood off the Arab Moslem hordes. Now as to the literal bible the very first chapter is not to be taken literally. A 7 day creation that took place 5000 years ago is not close to accurate. But my answer to that would be to ask. What is a day to a creator at the center of our vast universe. So yes, I believe there is a "Deity". My question to you remains what do you believe? As I said, we know what you disbelieve. God bless.
Supposed 'proof of creation' presented by believers has actually totally backfired and done nothing more than prove pastors to be complete idiots.
Nothing funnier when a Christian imbecile preaching to the flock shoots himself in the foot with a simple banana....LoL.
Do you have any proof of the pastor’s foolishness? Any evidence that proves he <figuratively> shot himself in the foot with a banana or any evidence at all to support your assertion that “prove pastors to be complete idiots”?
...or is that simply your opinion that you’re presenting as fact?
The actions of Hitler outraged the world and helped to realize the dream.
God was nowhere to be seen.
Omnipresence suggests God was in the death camps and gas chambers with his chosen people. Even in the Fuhrer's Wolf's Lair when the bomb went off and Berlin bunker when Hitler finally ended it all.
And all those yrs Hitler was plotting/scheming his rise to power from humble beginnings , God was right there with him all along the way.
OTOH, it could be a totally remote god that has no earthly presence and makes no interventions even from a distance.
God employed fallen Lucifer to have dominion over the earth...could have destroyed all that wickedness and evil right there and then, but didn't want to put such an asset to waste.
Why appoint an angel in heaven and make him your most cherished , when you already know he is going to rebel and cause havoc ?
Satan is an agent of God, according to Judaism. Both are described canoodling together in the book of Job, having a friendly bet on faithfulness of Job, Satan following instructions from God, etc.
He rode into Jerusalem knowing full well what kind of fate was awaiting Him. He stood against the injustice of the Roman empire and the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders. His life wasn’t ‘taken’ from Him; He gave it. He wasn’t dragged kickin’ and screamin’ to his scourging, or His crucifixion. He went willingly, to both. He was tough as nails.
He rode into Jerusalem knowing full well what kind of fate was awaiting Him. He stood against the injustice of the Roman empire and the hypocrisy of the Jewish religious leaders. His life wasn’t ‘taken’ from Him; He gave it. He wasn’t dragged kickin’ and screamin’ to his scourging, or His crucifixion. He went willingly, to both. He was tough as nails.
As someone said here a while back, He would have done It for me, if I was the only one,
I don't know what all the Deity allows vs. assists. ..
So as Christian you still think theres possibility Pagan gods provided divine assistance to the ambitions of Rome? And to be honest you don't really know if there was divine intervention on behalf of Israel. We can conclude: You know no more about Israel than you do about Rome concerning divine intervention.
If there wasn't divine intervention I cannot come up with any other reasonable explanation. I believe the Jews were punished mightily during their centuries long dispersion all over the world as a lesson to them and the world. This culminated in the bloody 20th century with 3 final solutions attempted in the space of 20 years by 3 powerful enemies. First the Germans, next the British in Palestine, and finally by the combined forces of the Moslem nations representing millions and millions of blood thirsty Arabs. Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help. There is nothing like it in the history of the world. I was 14 years old when the 67 war broke out. We listened to the dire news from the Middle East every night. It was going to be a bloodbath. The U.S. did not have time or ability to send help or material. Next thing we .knew Israel had destroyed Syria's Russian air for force and captured the Egyptian Army. They were headed to Cairo to finish off the Egyptians when the U.S. and Russia reined them in. Now for this present time the Jewish nation no larger than some U.S. counties prospers among enemies. They have delivery systems for their nuclear weapons which all the world knows they will use, Jews control the finance of the world. The situation as it exists today was prophesied over 2000 years ago. Now you tell me how a miniscule fraction of the world human population came into the position they are in.
All that said you will not tell what you believe about the creation of our universe. It is not my business but if you would be so kind please tell us. I can assure you I will be respectful as I admit I don't know it all, not even close.
I don't know what all the Deity allows vs. assists. ..
So as Christian you still think theres possibility Pagan gods provided divine assistance to the ambitions of Rome? And to be honest you don't really know if there was divine intervention on behalf of Israel. We can conclude: You know no more about Israel than you do about Rome concerning divine intervention.
If there wasn't divine intervention I cannot come up with any other reasonable explanation. I believe the Jews were punished mightily during their centuries long dispersion all over the world as a lesson to them and the world. This culminated in the bloody 20th century with 3 final solutions attempted in the space of 20 years by 3 powerful enemies. First the Germans, next the British in Palestine, and finally by the combined forces of the Moslem nations representing millions and millions of blood thirsty Arabs. Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help. There is nothing like it in the history of the world. I was 14 years old when the 67 war broke out. We listened to the dire news from the Middle East every night. It was going to be a bloodbath. The U.S. did not have time or ability to send help or material. Next thing we .knew Israel had destroyed Syria's Russian air for force and captured the Egyptian Army. They were headed to Cairo to finish off the Egyptians when the U.S. and Russia reined them in. Now for this present time the Jewish nation no larger than some U.S. counties prospers among enemies. They have delivery systems for their nuclear weapons which all the world knows they will use, Jews control the finance of the world. The situation as it exists today was prophesied over 2000 years ago. Now you tell me how a miniscule fraction of the world human population came into the position they are in.
All that said you will not tell what you believe about the creation of our universe. It is not my business but if you would be so kind please tell us. I can assure you I will be respectful as I admit I don't know it all, not even close.
...or, if everyone you have met in the past two thousand years hates your guts there may be a chance that you are the problem.
We can conclude: You know no more about Israel than you do about Rome concerning divine intervention.
If there wasn't divine intervention I cannot come up with any other reasonable explanation...
How much have you read up on 1947-1949 Palestine war and 1967 Six Day War?
Originally Posted by Hastings
This culminated in the bloody 20th century with 3 final solutions attempted in the space of 20 years by 3 powerful enemies. First the Germans, next the British in Palestine, and finally by the combined forces of the Moslem nations representing millions and millions of blood thirsty Arabs. Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help...
There were not millions and millions of Moslem combatants in 1947-1949 or 1967 Six Day War.
If there wasn't divine intervention I cannot come up with any other reasonable explanation...
I don't consider Mossad hiring and training WW2 Nazis such as Hitler's right hand man kommando SS-Obersturmbannführer Otto Skorzeny as divine intervention...LoL.
From what I understand an intel network which included very talented post war Nazis under the leadership of Reinhard Ghelen were able to assist Israel to conduct a very effective pre-emptive strike on the airforces of Egypt and Syria.
Originally Posted by Hastings
There is nothing like it in the history of the world
there are numerous claims through the ages since antiquity, that attribute victory to divine will and intervention.
You still won't say if you consider it possible that Pagan gods divinely assisted the ambitions of 8th century BC Latin tribes of Rome.
CCCC, ..I believe Ace is a grown man that doesn't need you to answer for him each time. You need to get over your hurt and resentment if you want to be a better Christian...but I do understand the inherent sickness and weakness of Christians might prevent such.
Originally Posted by CCCC
- realize that all men fall short, are weak in some ways - and that the Omnipresence of God is not always felt or realized by mortal little humans..
Perhaps Ace was correct and God was not present.It's not like you can prove Omnipresence. just reading about it somewhere doesn't automatically make it true.
Starfool - you have lost it down there in the dark. You are the silly goose that introduced Omnipresence to the discussion and, of course, Aces is a great fellow and fully capable. But you need reminding that in an open forum your silly blunders are fair game for comment - by anyone - and it is fun to pull your chain. Certainly I could use any good help, so your goofy comments about how one can be a better Christian are priceless - as in priceless means useless. Bed time - close the lid.
Unfortunately for cccc he bruises easily and heals very slowly...and his posts have degraded to juvenile nonsensical rants.
Re: Omnipresence , I've heard it claimed many times by Christians , so it is relevant to the discussion , especially when a believer says he can't detect the presence of God in church groups.
either God is present and Ace is unable to detect such ....or Omnipresence is a myth.
Unfortunately for cccc he bruises easily and heals very slowly...and his posts have degraded to juvenile nonsensical rants. Re: Omnipresence , I've heard it claimed many times by Christians , so it is relevant to the discussion , especially when a believer says he can't detect the presence of God in church groups. either God is present and Ace is unable to detect such ....or Omnipresence is a myth.
If you want to say it is none of our business I understand, but I asked you to tell us what force do you believe created the universe. We know it extends way beyond our imaginations and contains unknowable energy and matter. If it was the big bang, where did that energy and matter originate? If you wish to say "I don't know", well that puts you in the same place I am. I am just going with the evidence I see of some outside force dealing with us and occasionally intervening. I have no idea whether or not the Pagans, Buddhists, Moslems, Hindus, etc. all perceive the same super natural power I see dealing with the Hebrew people. Again, please share with us what you believe.
Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help.
😂
Or, one could look at the Iran-Iraq war and compare/contrast with the gulf war and come to the realization that Arabs suck at war.
Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help.
😂Or, one could look at the Iran-Iraq war and compare/contrast with the gulf war and come to the realization that Arabs suck at war. Like, really, REALLY suck. It's a cultural thing. 😉
You are absolutely right about Arabs, but when they attacked the new state of Israel was barely organized and it is a hard thing to beat overwhelming force even with excellent military leadership. Witness the battle of the Little Bighorn where well led, well armed troops were over run by stone age savages. Arabs are not much against the Western or Big Asian powers but the infant state of Israel was almost in a helpless condition in 1948 except for the Hebrews knowing surrender was death, and then I admit there was the Arab penchant for retreat.
Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help.
😂Or, one could look at the Iran-Iraq war and compare/contrast with the gulf war and come to the realization that Arabs suck at war. Like, really, REALLY suck. It's a cultural thing. 😉
You are absolutely right about Arabs, but when they attacked the new state of Israel was barely organized and it is a hard thing to beat overwhelming force even with excellent military leadership. Witness the battle of the Little Bighorn where well led, well armed troops were over run by stone age savages. Arabs are not much against the Western or Big Asian powers but the infant state of Israel was almost in a helpless condition in 1948 except for the Hebrews knowing surrender was death, and then I admit there was the Arab penchant for retreat.
Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help.
😂Or, one could look at the Iran-Iraq war and compare/contrast with the gulf war and come to the realization that Arabs suck at war. Like, really, REALLY suck. It's a cultural thing. 😉
You are absolutely right about Arabs, but when they attacked the new state of Israel was barely organized and it is a hard thing to beat overwhelming force even with excellent military leadership. Witness the battle of the Little Bighorn where well led, well armed troops were over run by stone age savages. Arabs are not much against the Western or Big Asian powers but the infant state of Israel was almost in a helpless condition in 1948 except for the Hebrews knowing surrender was death, and then I admit there was the Arab penchant for retreat.
Little Bighorn....well armed and well lead? Both of those are debatable. The Springfields in the hands of Custer's men that day experienced serious extraction issues, nor did that lead element have sufficient ammo, hence the note to Benteen to "Bring Packs, P.S Bring Packs", i.e. bring up the ammo because we are going to need it, and of course they never arrived in time.
As for being "well lead", Custer was a horrible leader. He graduated last in his class at WestPoint and and had more men die under his leadership than any one else similarly situated in the entire Civil War. Custer was a terrible leader out for his own glory who under estimated his enemy and got got him men killed in the process....but I digress
Tell me how a bunch of ill equipped but very determined refugees were able to throw the combined Moslem armies into confusion and rout them without Divine help.
😂Or, one could look at the Iran-Iraq war and compare/contrast with the gulf war and come to the realization that Arabs suck at war. Like, really, REALLY suck. It's a cultural thing. 😉
You are absolutely right about Arabs, but when they attacked the new state of Israel was barely organized and it is a hard thing to beat overwhelming force even with excellent military leadership. Witness the battle of the Little Bighorn where well led, well armed troops were over run by stone age savages. Arabs are not much against the Western or Big Asian powers but the infant state of Israel was almost in a helpless condition in 1948 except for the Hebrews knowing surrender was death, and then I admit there was the Arab penchant for retreat.
Little Bighorn....well armed and well lead? Both of those are debatable. The Springfields in the hands of Custer's men that day experienced serious extraction issues, nor did that lead element have sufficient ammo, hence the note to Benteen to "Bring Packs, P.S Bring Packs", i.e. bring up the ammo because we are going to need it, and of course they never arrived in time.
As for being "well lead", Custer was a horrible leader. He graduated last in his class at WestPoint and and had more men die under his leadership than any one else similarly situated in the entire Civil War. Custer was a terrible leader out for his own glory who under estimated his enemy and got got him men killed in the process....but I digress
Don't have time now, but when I get back from church I'll make a comment or two about Little Bighorn. I understand that Custer made some Terrible mistakes that day. I've been there 4 times. He could have prevailed.
Unfortunately for cccc he bruises easily and heals very slowly...and his posts have degraded to juvenile nonsensical rants. Re: Omnipresence , I've heard it claimed many times by Christians , so it is relevant to the discussion , especially when a believer says he can't detect the presence of God in church groups. either God is present and Ace is unable to detect such ....or Omnipresence is a myth.
In short - you seem to have convinced yourself that you can read the minds and feelings of others, and the reality is that you don't even know crap. Does that reality give you some comfort? You can do all of the name-calling and personal attacking you need - although ineffective and puerile, that seems to be what saves your psyche, and most folks here are onto you anyway. Now, your comments about God - I have no view on that behavior. I think that God does.
![[Linked Image from i.postimg.cc]](https://i.postimg.cc/PrDNtjgx/85827663.jpg)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/MShu71y6CIJ5kiClUm/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from st3.depositphotos.com]](https://st3.depositphotos.com/3637391/17841/v/950/depositphotos_178416990-stock-illustration-bible-verse-this-is-the.jpg)
.
![[Linked Image from i.pinimg.com]](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e9/a3/ec/e9a3ec922ac9ff3bbed91f4fc977b8d5.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.ebayimg.com]](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/i/160380313923-0-1/s-l1000.jpg)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/1sbfNx5.jpg)
![[Linked Image from hosting.photobucket.com]](https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/oo15/antlers163/D37C6D9B-DFF5-41E4-B0E6-BA2362F8CD20.gif)
![[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]](https://i.imgur.com/apS6eyo.jpg)