And he gave us his Son to tell the word of salvation and of judgement day. If there weren't a guiding hand in the creation; I don't see a possible way to get these scientific laws without having them be inconsistent. I don't want to get into a religious battle with anyone, its not worth it. I will give my opinion though, and thats all anyone is doing on here.

Agree to disagree then. But i'm just trying to help save you from the firey depths of hell.



It's a good thing you are a christian and will not be cast into the fiery depths of hell along with all the muslims, jews, hindus, buddhists, rastafarians, witches and atheists. Too bad God does not love them enough to save them from. :( But God loves you because you are a christian!!!

could jesus microwave a burrito so hot, he himself could not touch it?

<font color="blue"> personal attack deleted </font> As for you dsProtongs, God loves me because I am his own. I never said those others would be going to hell did I? Besides, Jews are christian in case you didn't know...and Jesus himself was called King of the Jews. I have not read enough about those other beliefs to understand them...but I know that you just gotta believe and have faith. I'm sure the bible is the most ever sold, and read book for nothing. It brings truth, you should read more, as should I.

Yes it is a good thing. But it could be for you as well. Just like in the final Matrix where Neo finally realizes what the it's all about, he says...

It's about choice,

John 14:1-10
...... "Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house there are many dwelling-places. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, so that where I am, there you may be also. And you know the way to the place where I am going."

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we do not know where you are going. How can we know the way?"

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied."

Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and you still do not know me? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father?' Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works."......


Yes we all have a choice. You can choose to believe in Jesus and be saved. Or you can choose to believe in something else and not be saved. So, yes, it is a good thing...

i dont know if jesus would approve of name calling, thats very un-christian

I'm forgiven because he was forsaken. He died on the cross for the worlds sins. Don't judge me either calling me un-christian...you have no clue about my relationship with the Lord. Even the thieves hanging on the crosses next to Jesus were forgiven by him. The non-christians led him to be persecuted on the cross...and in return...the wanted a vicious murderer let loose instead. Showing how they judged Jesus unfairly, and even put unfair lies to his name. But also, even his closest desciple denied knowing Jesus...but because he was afraid of getting killed too. He too was forgiven.

Besides, Jews are christian in case you didn't know



That is a funny statement.

You don't know if Jesus would approve, but yet you seem to know what is and what isn't good christian behavior? That always makes me feel good. Yiu know why? Because many people who do not know christ, know what he stands for. So if you think about, even a non-believer believes that Jesus is good and is a symbol of what it means to be good. So without even professing their belief in Christ, they profess their belief in his goodness, and thats a good thing....

ha, you must be thinking about it as "you are christian...." right?

I'm forgiven because he was forsaken. He died on the cross for the worlds sins. Don't judge me either calling me un-christian...you have no clue about my relationship with the Lord. Even the thieves hanging on the crosses next to Jesus were forgiven by him. The non-christians led him to be persecuted on the cross...and in return...the wanted a vicious murderer let loose instead. Showing how they judged Jesus unfairly, and even put unfair lies to his name. But also, even his closest desciple denied knowing Jesus...but because he was afraid of getting killed too. He too was forgiven.



Also the tortoise beat the hare because he did not stop to take breaks. I read it in a book. Therefore I shall live my life in the way of the tortoise, and always be hard working and diligent, though slow. That book taught me a good lesson.

ha, you must be thinking about it as "you are christian...." right?



No, I was thinking about the opinion I previously held. I held the opinion that jews are not christians. I had thought that christianity is an offshoot of judaism. But apprently I was wrong, apparently jews worship jesus christ our lord and savior and believe he existed. Thank you opening my eyes and thank you for calling ignce a moron to show me how to act as a christian.

Jews are not christians. Jews can become christians. God loves his people, but if a follower of Judaism doesn't accept Christ as the son of God before they die they will not be saved. Messianic Jews, who follow all tenets of Judaism, but who also believe in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God are the saved Jews. As for jews before Jesus time, the Bible is clear about their place in paradise. It is faith in God's word that makes us acceptable - whether it's his word of what he will do in the future or his word of what he has done in the past.

Jews are not christians. Jews can become christians. God loves his people, but if a follower of Judaism doesn't accept Christ as the son of God before they die they will not be saved. Messianic Jews, who follow all tenets of Judaism, but who also believe in Jesus as Messiah and Son of God are the saved Jews. As for jews before Jesus time, the Bible is clear about their place in paradise. It is faith in God's word that makes us acceptable - whether it's his word of what he will do in the future or his word of what he has done in the past.



It sounds like it would suck to not be saved. Does that mean you don't die?

To be saved means to have eternal life. So the answer is yes, you do not die. If you are not saved, you do.... Plain and simple.... Think of it this way, if you were to die today do you think God would save you? Do you think you are for the most part a good person and treat people with love and fairness? Even people who think they are, still think that they may have done a few things in the past that would keep God from accepting them if they died because they are not perfect. Well, there is good news, you don't have to be perfect. Why? because God sent His son to be perfect for you and to die for you so you can be saved.

OK so if someone is jewish and is a nice person and fair to everyone, he will not be saved because he is (non-messianic) jewish?

That is the accepted meaning of the new testament. Yes....

And just to head you off at the pass (just in case), I will add that many people make the assumption that just being nice and morally correct and loving will get you into heaven. Furthermore, people infer that God should not punish them for being ignorant etc. Well, that is just not the case as I quoted from John earlier, no one gets to the father except through the son....


"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."

I was just about to ask that question...if I am a good person that treats everyone with respect, does no harm to other people, and lives a kind meaningful life, but I live in northern Arctic and I have never heard of Jesus; am I going to hell? will I not be saved?

All this thread is proving is the narrow minded ignorance of brain washed overly religious people. I attended 12 years of Catholic schooling and another 8 public with extensive education in many DIFFERENT religions and would love to open a closed mind if anyone closed ones are interested in learning something thats nots forced down your throat from the time of conception?? Go read a book on the ancient religion of the Egyptians and you will see the fallible truth that is christianity....its an imitation...sorry

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."




I find it very disturbing when a grown intellectual man takes a metaphor as the truth..

WAIT I KNOW!! i'll go ask Ted Haggard if I smoke meth and love other men if I'll go to heaven b/c I am a christian and have accepted Jesus!! I know what he will say...of course son...and please donate $20 for the new stadium seating that Jesus wants in the West wing

Now I even got the boot from the moderator for using my rights to free speech.

Politics, politics, politics. Whatever happened to Land of the Free? I didn't give up any rights or privaleges by speaking my mind. Its only when you act on words that it becomes a problem. Sheesh, whats the world coming to?

How does one and only one star shine so bright that it can sustain life on ONLY one planet? and then have a bunch of planets orbit it.



I guess we'll need to agree to disagree on this one too.
What makes anyone so sure there is ONLY life on this one planet?

I can only be sure of what I have enough information to make a sound conclusion from. There are additional things I EXPECT to be true from the likelihood demonstrated by a limited amount of information on some subjects....but to be SURE requires a pretty high threshold for me.

I haven't found evidence YET of the life that exists on other planets. BUT, I've run "The Drake Equation", and I have pretty good understand of statistics and probability, and it's pretty tough to be sure that we're the only planet with life.
Google for Astrobiology if you're interested in what the collection of all scientific data accumulated to date indicates about the presence of life in the universe.

That's the nice thing about science. I'm willing to accept new facts, discoveries, and truths, because I don't believe what was written down about everything is now and will always be, true. I believe that what is written down about things is true to the best understanding of today...and that when we learn more about it, we'll update our belief of it.

Now I even got the boot from the moderator for using my rights to free speech.



personal attacks are not allowed on this board.....I am very hurt by you

I knew that would happen...whatever play off of it and make a big deal out of it. It shows the lack of confidence people have in themselves to get hurt by a word. And you never said anything anyways until I wrote that...personal attack is physical anyways, but whatever, i'm not the weak minded one.

FREE SPEECH! get over it

Man, I just can't resist. Enjoy, or cuss me, your choice. ;)


<font color="blue"> personal attack deleted </font> As for you dsProtongs, God loves me because I am his own. I never said those others would be going to hell did I? Besides, Jews are christian in case you didn't know...and Jesus himself was called King of the Jews. I have not read enough about those other beliefs to understand them...but I know that you just gotta believe and have faith. I'm sure the bible is the most ever sold, and read book for nothing. It brings truth, you should read more, as should I.


Jews are NOT CHRISTIANS, they are JEWS, thats why they are called JEWS.

<font color="blue"> </font> , please don't take this as offensive, but that scripture you posted from out of John 14:1-10 is WAAAAY outta context. What knowledge did they have of the cross and it's accomplishments at that time???? NONE! Yet 99% of so called "Christians" use this and John 3:16 to tell us just how much God loves us and what he did for us. The 12 apostles didn't know what the cross was going to accomplish, they were preaching and teaching about an EARTHLY Kingdom to come down and be set up, with Christ as their King. Look at Luke 24:44-45. After Christ was risen, he "opened" their understanding. Look at what Peter said to Christ when he was told by Christ that he would suffer, be killed and rise again in Matt 16:21-23. VS 21 Christ tells Peter these things, Verse 22 says that Peter began to rebuke him, then vs 23, Christ ends up calling Peter "Satan".
So, was Peter happy that Christ was going to do this? Same thing in Mark 8:29-33. Yet, as a believer today, I know that Christ's death on the Cross was the payment for my sin debt, and the worlds. Also look at Acts 2:22-24. Is Peter happy here? VS 22 is talking about Christ, then VS 23 says "and by wicked hands have crucified and slain" Senior, I have a few questions for you as a believer. If you are saved, are you not a "member" of the Body of Christ? Can you show me the Body of Christ in Matt-John? Can you show me that you are saved by the death, burial and ressurection of Christ in Matt-John? The answer is no to both questions.

<font color="blue"> </font> :
quote] The non-christians led him to be persecuted on the cross...and in return...the wanted a vicious murderer let loose instead. .

[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but it wasn't the "Non-Christians" that killed Christ, it was the religious people, the ones that were supposed to accept and worship him. Look again at Matt 16:21. It says he must go into Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the ELDERS, and CHEIF PRIESTS, and SCRIBES. All religious positions in the church at that time. Christ's own people rejected and had him killed.

<font color="blue"> </font>

[/QUOTE]
It sounds like it would suck to not be saved. Does that mean you don't die?

[/QUOTE]
It doen't necessarily suck to live as an un-saved person. You can have the best in life, good family, friends, etc, but the bad part comes when you die and spend eternity in hell. Saved and un-saved people die, the difference is where they go. Saved and un-saved people sin everyday, the difference is if their sin is paid for by themselves-unsaved, or if they have trusted that Christ has paid their entire sin debt for them by his death, burial, and ressurection. 1 Cor 15:1-4. It's not what you can do for Chrsit, it's what he has already DONE for you. You don't have to live a good life, repent every night, be baptized or any of that religious stuff, simply believe. All that other stuff is MAN made to get you into their religious system, so they can in turn guilt you into getting your wallet out. Church is BIG business :eek:

<font color="blue"> </font> :
[QUOTE]
I was just about to ask that question...if I am a good person that treats everyone with respect, does no harm to other people, and lives a kind meaningful life, but I live in northern Arctic and I have never heard of Jesus; am I going to hell? will I not be saved? <font color="blue"> </font>

The bible says that the gospel has been preached throughout the world, it's not God's fault that the person in the arctic's parents, and their parents did not heed to the truth. The problem is that we are all sinners Rom 3:23, there is none righteous Rom 3:9-10. We get our blood from Adam, he was the first sinner. That is why Christ was born of a virgin, that enabled him to live that perfect life that we could not, because of our bloodline. Oh yeah, I'm sorry for your 12 years wasted on the catholic church, my family has wasted several years in that stink. I was even stupid enough to get it tattooed on my side, with my dog tags when I was in the Marines /msgboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I have used the King James Version for all of my references. I am open to debate on the scriptures anytime. But, please don't give me opinions when you don't have verses to back them up ;)

Lowe,

I wish my apologetics were better than what they are, or I would have posted sooner. Is there any meaningful dialogue going on here, or it the usual back and forth volley?

My 2cents:

I became a Christian at age 28. I went to church all my life, but having a personal relationship with God was never emphasized. To boil down what happened to me, I had someone explain to me that God is perfect, and sinless, and he cannot have the sinful dwell with him in Heaven. Even one small sin committed over a lifetime was enough to keep you from God's presence in eternity. We cannot earn God's favor by our deeds. The only way we can be in God's presence for eternity is for our sins to be "covered over" or atoned for, and this is what Jesus of Nazareth, who was fully God and fully man, did for all of us. His death as the sacrificial Lamb allows His blood to cover our sins if we accept his sacrifice and acknowledge him as our Lord and Savior. Yes, I am still sinful, fallen, all that, and I still sin, and that bothers me, but even though God is just to forgive when we come to Him with a contrite heart, that doesn't give me full rein to sin without consequences!

Also, the Old Testament stated, "The heavens declare the glory of God". This and other verses emphasize that, even though a person may never hear the name of Jesus or what He did for us, there is enough in observing God's world around us to conclude that there is a God, and he is worthy of our worship.

PM me if there is anything I can help with.

Others,

I apologize for nodakripper's words. I don't know what they were, and I don't need to know. Please don't hold us up to a perfect standard in order to be convinced that the claims of Christ are worthy of your examination.

I don't know what you are rambling on about, because the discussion was about whether or not Jews will be saved... Todays jews, not the jews who have already died. The reason John 14 is relevent is because if a Jew today or back then knowingly denies the fact that jesus is the son of God, then they will not saved when either they die or when Jesus returns. Plain and simple. No one comes to the father except through Jesus.

Jews who were under gods old testament up until Christ 's death were may have already been saved.

No one ever said it sucks to be an unsaved person, they said it is unfair that God doesn't save the poor ******* who lives out his life in the boonies and has no knowledge of the scriptures. The point is that God sent his son, and gave us his new testament to make disciples of us so that the poor ******* could be saved by Jesus through us spreading the gospel to the world, including todays jews...

... I will add that many people make the assumption that just being nice and morally correct and loving will get you into heaven. Furthermore, people infer that God should not punish them for being ignorant etc. Well, that is just not the case as I quoted from John earlier, no one gets to the father except through the son....


"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."



Good point!

I became a Christian at age 28. I went to church all my life, but having a personal relationship with God was never emphasized. To boil down what happened to me, I had someone explain to me that God is perfect, and sinless, and he cannot have the sinful dwell with him in Heaven. Even one small sin committed over a lifetime was enough to keep you from God's presence in eternity. We cannot earn God's favor by our deeds. The only way we can be in God's presence for eternity is for our sins to be "covered over" or atoned for, and this is what Jesus of Nazareth, who was fully God and fully man, did for all of us. His death as the sacrificial Lamb allows His blood to cover our sins if we accept his sacrifice and acknowledge him as our Lord and Savior. Yes, I am still sinful, fallen, all that, and I still sin, and that bothers me, but even though God is just to forgive when we come to Him with a contrite heart, that doesn't give me full rein to sin without consequences!




Bill,

Thanks for what you shared. This is very clear and concise. Well written and true.

Lowe

its funny that you use the free speech argument, when you were the one who called me a moron for using my right of free speech, seems somewhat hypocritical

see now you're just trying to get the last word; i never said you shouldn't say your opinion. I'll let you have the last word, theres more important things in my life than arguing with you.

I find it amusing that people take as a fact that there is a heaven and a hell. How about this-

There is no heaven, there is no hell. Feel free to let me know when you have proof that either exists.

When we die, we die. Our bodies rot in the ground or are incinerated and scattered. HnH are ideas created by smart people to control stupid people.

Smart- "If you don't perform this action, you will suffer eternal damnation after you die!!"
Stupid- "Oh man that sounds like it sucks! I better perform this action! I want to live forever after I die..."

Of course, we all need hope that something happens to our consciousness after death. Everyone wants to believe that there is 'something else', that we can 'live forever'. That would be nice and happy like bunnies and butterflies.

There is a certain kind of instinct in every human being that compells them to seek the truth about the afterlife. At least most human beings. I guess an atheist has learned how to ingore that inner voice speaking to them. Am I going to go out on limb here and assume that you are like that based on your comments?

The interesting thing is that even the most primal tribes in the amazon who have had no contact or influence from these so called smart controlling people, still know of and seek heaven, and understand what hell is (not going to heaven).

The thing about heaven and hell is that one does not need proof to know they exist. You just feel it inside. Your soul, or whatever you want to call it, is connected to to that realm.

If it is proof you are looking for, look inside yourself and look up at the night sky. Ever wonder what is on the other side of the ever expanding universe? Is it sort of like blank paper? or another universe being pushed out of the way?

I don't think that saying people who believe in heaven and hell are a bunch of stupid people being controlled by smart people is a very smart assessment of the secrets of our souls....

I find it amusing that people take as a fact that there is a heaven and a hell. How about this-

There is no heaven, there is no hell. Feel free to let me know when you have proof that either exists.



Can you prove that there is no Heaven and Hell? If I was going to believe that Heaven and Hell don't exist I want to make as sure as possible that I was right.

There is no heaven, there is no hell. Feel free to let me know when you have proof that either exists.



I know someone who's been to Heaven. He's incredibly intelligent and totally trustworthy. He told me that Heaven and Hell exist, and I believe Him. That's all I need.

Now I even got the boot from the moderator for using my rights to free speech.



You were never guaranteed the rights of free speech on this message board in the first place.

Wikipedia defines freedom of speech as follows:

Freedom of speech is the right to freely say what one pleases, as well as the related right to hear what others have stated. Recently, it has been commonly understood as encompassing full freedom of expression, including the freedom to create and distribute movies, pictures, songs, dances, and all other forms of expressive communication.

Freedom of speech is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies, where it is understood to outlaw <u>government censorship</u>. Thus states may still punish (but not prohibit) certain damaging types of expressions, notably sedition, defamation, publishing secrets regarding matters of state security, etc.

The PDGA does not seek to stifle free speech. As much as possible, we allow and encourage unpopular opinions to be expressed and discussed. However, the PDGA is also not obligated by the First Amendment to serve of the vehicle for your free speech. Therefore, if the moderators feel that your expressions violate United States laws against slander and libel and are detrimental to the cohesion of this community, we reserve the right to remove those contributions.

There is a certain kind of instinct in every human being that compells them to seek the truth about the afterlife. At least most human beings. I guess an atheist has learned how to ingore that inner voice speaking to them. Am I going to go out on limb here and assume that you are like that based on your comments?

The interesting thing is that even the most primal tribes in the amazon who have had no contact or influence from these so called smart controlling people, still know of and seek heaven, and understand what hell is (not going to heaven).

The thing about heaven and hell is that one does not need proof to know they exist. You just feel it inside. Your soul, or whatever you want to call it, is connected to to that realm.

If it is proof you are looking for, look inside yourself and look up at the night sky. Ever wonder what is on the other side of the ever expanding universe? Is it sort of like blank paper? or another universe being pushed out of the way?

I don't think that saying people who believe in heaven and hell are a bunch of stupid people being controlled by smart people is a very smart assessment of the secrets of our souls....



I sure do want to believe that there is something else waiting for me when I die, but I'm pretty sure that's just my fear of not existing anymore that I feel in my soul.

There is no heaven, there is no hell. Feel free to let me know when you have proof that either exists.



I know someone who's been to Heaven. He's incredibly intelligent and totally trustworthy. He told me that Heaven and Hell exist, and I believe Him. That's all I need.



Well, shiiii there's your proof. What's His name and when did you speak with Him about His trip to the afterlife?

[QUOTE]
I sure do want to believe that there is something else waiting for me when I die, but I'm pretty sure that's just my fear of not existing anymore that I feel in my soul.



It's called your conscience. We can call it fear or whatever we want. I think you may be grasping the idea a bit.

It's not really that important to have proof for someone who has come to realize that there are some things you just can't explain. But you can feel it. Deep down you know that there is more. So once you make that realization, you have made your first step into having faith.

To me, faith is like bricks. One by one you place a brick of faith and build your beliefs. So you place a brick here and there and strengthen your faith over time.

Soon you realize there is something missing from the house you have built out of your faith. It is a strong house, but it seems empty except for your own conscience. You know there is something that is holding the bricks together but you can't quite put you finger on it. Is it just your own fear? Is it something else?

Once somone meets Jesus (the person you were asking about) they have someone who lives in their house of faith. It all becomes clear, and the fear is gone. It is a very liberating feeling. The truth sets you free.

Well, faith is nice. It's good to have hope, I agree. Without hope, who cares about anything?


Once somone meets Jesus (the person you were asking about) they have someone who lives in their house of faith. It all becomes clear, and the fear is gone. It is a very liberating feeling. The truth sets you free.



Have you met Jesus?

Yes, but not like you and I would meet. I have met Jesus in my heart. If you are wondering how someone can say they met someone who lived thosands of years ago, then compare it to someone who has died but was a very influential and respected historical personage. You know their spirit and attitude by learning about them. Do you question that they existed? No, you accept that the history is true and learn about the person. I feel as if I have met Abraham Lincoln because I know so many things about him, but I have not actually met him, I know his spirit.

But it is different and an even more personal connection with Jesus. For me, Jesus is alive as the holy spirit and comes to me as such. When a person accepts jesus into their heart, His spirit enters you and washes over you. It is something you can feel and is very much a real physical sensation and touch. So when you ask someone if they have met Jesus Christ, and they say yes, most do not mean that they walked up to him on the street and asked him for directions. It is something you can feel daily when you have a personal relationship with Jesus and seek his spirit in your heart. This is accomplished by learning Gods word and living your life according to that word....

Well here is the definition of FREE SPEECH from my dictionary....which is just...if not more credible than wikipedia. here goes.... FREE SPEECH!! What else is there to say? This is precisely why our country's losing the faith of its people. We can only do a limited amount of things before someone steps in. It is warented in criminal activity yes... but I did nothing criminal and never have. Its a cold hard world out there and if a person can't take some criticizm then its beyond the topic of free speech...they have emotional coping issues. Stiffle me on here...i don't care!! I can handle it with the Lord my Sheppard as my guide. And without too...because I am strong. Hear me roar! I won't let my freedoms be taken away...EVER!

its alright man, jesus forgives you

Word!

This is accomplished by learning Gods word and living your life according to that word....



Where can I read 'God's word'?

In the bible, or more specifically I would recommend the new king james version. My personal preference.

This bible will contain the old testament and the new testament.

This is one of the things I love about Gods word. You can't have one without the other, and they are very much connected and dependent on the other. In the first Gods chosen had the Law, and in the second, we have Gods promise. The promise of life after death if we accept Jesus.

Senior, what denomination is your church? Just curious.

If I hurt anyones feelings, I'm sincerely sorry. I am not a bad person, but I wasn't about to let my beliefs get trampled on.

Non-denominational

Have you ever heard of the Calvary Chapel?

Nobody is looking to "take your freedoms away" or "trample your beliefs" but personal attacks against other members will not be allowed.

Amen.

nodakripper, if you can take some friendly advice, I would let it go now. I myself have been known to hang onto issues forever. I have learned that if you provoke an issue it comes back to bite you in the end... No pun intended... :D

Should I only focus on the nice happy 'God's word' or should I also make no covenant with nor show mercy to my enemies?

dsPROtongs,

As a person who has walked the earth for many years and as a christian, I will not offer any more responses to your questions, as I can tell you are now playing games with me.

I was wondering how long it would take. If you really want to know God's word and meet Jesus it will happen. But if you are not being serious, which is what I an assuming based on your attitude and verbage, then you will surely not want focus as you put it. You are just throwing out parts of verses out of context to be funny and cast doubt on the bible. So I think I will focus my energy somewhere else for the time being. Nice chatting with you and God bless you.

There is no heaven, there is no hell. Feel free to let me know when you have proof that either exists.



I know someone who's been to Heaven. He's incredibly intelligent and totally trustworthy. He told me that Heaven and Hell exist, and I believe Him. That's all I need.



Well, shiiii there's your proof. What's His name and when did you speak with Him about His trip to the afterlife?



His name is Jesus. He came from Heaven and He's very much alive.

dsPROtongs,

As a person who has walked the earth for many years and as a christian, I will not offer any more responses to your questions, as I can tell you are now playing games with me.

I was wondering how long it would take. If you really want to know God's word and meet Jesus it will happen. But if you are not being serious, which is what I an assuming based on your attitude and verbage, then you will surely not want focus as you put it. You are just throwing out parts of verses out of context to be funny and cast doubt on the bible. So I think I will focus my energy somewhere else for the time being. Nice chatting with you and God bless you.



Here (http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B05C007.htm) is Deuteronomy 7. I'm sure you have read it.

I'm glad you are happy. You seem to be a very nice and forgiving person as well. That is cool. You have found something that makes you happy and feel good about yourself. I'm glad you don't try to push your belief on others as some do, guilting with "he died for us" and threatening with "eternal hell". Those guys plss me off. But you are AOK in my book. Good luck.

and when did you speak with Him about His trip to the afterlife?

Have you ever heard of the Calvary Chapel?


No. Where in Ca is Forest Ranch? Isee that you have played several tournies in Nor Cal. I grew up in Ranco Cordova/Sac.

jesus used to be my co-pilot, but we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him

I saw this bumper sticker on a car in the parking lot at church:

Jesus Loves You
But I'm His Favorite

I love that one!

How come you won't answer my question???


I was just about to ask that question...if I am a good person that treats everyone with respect, does no harm to other people, and lives a kind meaningful life, but I live in northern Arctic and I have never heard of Jesus; am I going to hell? will I not be saved?

I attended 12 years of Catholic schooling and another 8 public with extensive education in many DIFFERENT religions and would love to open a closed mind if anyone closed ones are interested in learning something thats is not forced down your throat from the time of conception?? Go read a book on the ancient religion of the Egyptians and you will see the fallible truth that is christianity....its an imitation...sorry

"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, you will know my Father also. From now on you do know him and have seen him."




I find it very disturbing when a grown intellectual man takes a metaphor as the truth..

WAIT I KNOW!! i'll go ask Ted Haggard if I smoke speed and love other men if I'll go to heaven b/c I am a christian and have accepted Jesus!! I know what he will say...of course son...and please donate $20 for the new stadium seating that Jesus wants in the West wing

Forest Ranch is 20 miles east of Chico in the sierra nv, foothills on the deer creek hwy..... Just one mile north of paradise :D:D:D:D:D:D

I gave in, and admitted that God was God.
C. S. Lewis

Forest Ranch is 20 miles east of Chico in the sierra nv, foothills on the deer creek hwy..... Just one mile north of paradise :D:D:D:D:D:D



You think I'd know where that was at, I spent about 1/2 my life in Gridley. We used to play Paradise in high school.

How come you won't answer my question???

I was just about to ask that question...if I am a good person that treats everyone with respect, does no harm to other people, and lives a kind meaningful life, but I live in northern Arctic and I have never heard of Jesus; am I going to hell? will I not be saved?




The issue was addressed by Camerelli. Apparently it is the parents fault they did heed the message, or the parents' parents.



The bible says that the gospel has been preached throughout the world, it's not God's fault that the person in the arctic's parents, and their parents did not heed to the truth. The problem is that we are all sinners Rom 3:23, there is none righteous Rom 3:9-10. We get our blood from Adam, he was the first sinner. That is why Christ was born of a virgin, that enabled him to live that perfect life that we could not, because of our bloodline. Oh yeah, I'm sorry for your 12 years wasted on the catholic church, my family has wasted several years in that stink. I was even stupid enough to get it tattooed on my side, with my dog tags when I was in the Marines

How come you won't answer my question???



There are sufficient answers, but I don't think that you really want an answer. I'm not sure that you would accept any answer that was given. I may be wrong, but it seems like all you really want is to create a debate and try to show that the Bible has unresolvable problems. If that's the case, then it's a waste of time to write answers to these questions.

But there are good answers, and I don't think any good ones have been given here yet to the question about the fate of people who've never heard of Jesus.

Deadluva,

This is a sincere question- if what you're believing is not true would you want to know it? and would you act on what you learned?

But there are good answers, and I don't think any good ones have been given here yet to the question about the fate of people who've never heard of Jesus.



Obviously they're going to hell after they die, since they never accepted Jesus into their heart. Never mind that some have never heard of Jesus, it's their fault that they didn't accept him. Too bad for those poor unsaved souls, I guess.

But there are good answers, and I don't think any good ones have been given here yet to the question about the fate of people who've never heard of Jesus.



Obviously they're going to hell after they die, since they never accepted Jesus into their heart. Never mind that some have never heard of Jesus, it's their fault that they didn't accept him. Too bad for those poor unsaved souls, I guess.



I tried to respond, albeit in an incomplete way, in my previous post:

"Also, the Old Testament stated, "The heavens declare the glory of God". This and other verses emphasize that, even though a person may never hear the name of Jesus or what He did for us, there is enough in observing God's world around us to conclude that there is a God, and he is worthy of our worship."

Most Orthodox Christian scholars have concluded that if a person have never been exposed to Christianity, it is possible that they could spend eternity in God's presence. God is the ultimate Judge for what is in a person's heart, not man (thank God ! :D ).

I suggest you take a look at the below website:

http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

It gives a good overview of solid, non-denominational Christian theology.

Re: your question. In the reference URL, "Article VII�SALVATION ONLY THROUGH CHRIST" addresses your question, but I urge you to balance that with the last paragraph of "Article V�THE DISPENSATIONS", which discusses the righteous standing before God of the Old Testament saints, which I believe is applicatable to people in the Christian era that have never heard the name of Christ.

Good providence to you on your search for answers to your questions. If you are sincerely seeking answers, I believe that you will find them.

I bet Satan is an ok guy. He lets everyone in!! It doesn't matter what religion! Jesus seems kind of prejudice to me anyways...thats a sin!!

Most Orthodox Christian scholars have concluded that if a person have never been exposed to Christianity, it is possible that they could spend eternity in God's presence.



This is truly hilarious. How could a scholar conclude that it is possible to go somewhere in particular after death? Did they interview people that have been there, did they collect evidence? Side-splitting.

I have concluded that after I eat a dump truck full of ice cream in one sitting, I will go to Persnickety when I die. Persnickety is a great place, filled with magical gnomes and fauns, everyone loves each other, and violence and ill will do not exist. And all I have to do is eat a bunch of ice cream!! I know this to be a fact because I feel good when I eat ice cream.

Can't we just enjoy sin our entire life but accept JC on our deathbed and still make it through the pearly gates?

Nobody wants to even respond to your rediculous and buligerant comments. Thats more hilarious I think.

Nobody wants to even respond to your rediculous and buligerant comments. Thats more hilarious I think.



You are entitled to your own opinion, as long as you resist your inflammatory personal attacks.

Can't we just enjoy sin our entire life but accept JC on our deathbed and still make it through the pearly gates?



Yes, you can make it, but you will be like one who escaped from a fire - all you will have is you.

But if you have righteousness well before you die, and act upon your Christian call, you will have more to honor and glorify God with when you get there.

Most Orthodox Christian scholars have concluded that if a person have never been exposed to Christianity, it is possible that they could spend eternity in God's presence.



This is truly hilarious. How could a scholar conclude that it is possible to go somewhere in particular after death? Did they interview people that have been there, did they collect evidence? Side-splitting.



Ummm, from the Bible...

I'm done responding to him as well.

I understand. The Bible is thousands of years old and has been translated too many times for me to base my existence upon it.

In the current translation, the OT and NT contradict each other's ideas of god. If the 'facts' can change drastically in 2 thousand years back then, they probably changed again in the past 2 thousand years as well. I can't understand how people take the stories as fact.

Could someone PLEASE ask His Holiness The 14th Dalai Lama (http://www.dalailama.com/page.54.htm) How he feels about all this!? :cool:

http://www.dalailama.com/uploads/gallery/printable5.gif

The Bible is thousands of years old and has been translated too many times for me to base my existence upon it.




Just to clear up one misconception presented here. The Bible was only written in 3 languages: Hebrew (most of the Old Testament), Aramaic (a small part of the OT), and Greek (the New Testament). It has been translated from those 3 languages directly into the other languages of the world, but the original documents were in those languages. So there are not a string of translations of translations of tranlations... In our case, there is only the translation to English right from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

Most Orthodox Christian scholars have concluded that if a person have never been exposed to Christianity, it is possible that they could spend eternity in God's presence.



This is truly hilarious. How could a scholar conclude that it is possible to go somewhere in particular after death? Did they interview people that have been there, did they collect evidence? Side-splitting.

I have concluded that after I eat a dump truck full of ice cream in one sitting, I will go to Persnickety when I die. Persnickety is a great place, filled with magical gnomes and fauns, everyone loves each other, and violence and ill will do not exist. And all I have to do is eat a bunch of ice cream!! I know this to be a fact because I feel good when I eat ice cream.



So True, and I know plenty of people who have not been "exposed to christianity" who enjoy eterinity away from Christianity, including me. Now meeting The one true God, Jesus. Thats a different story all to gether!

Can't we just enjoy sin our entire life but accept JC on our deathbed and still make it through the pearly gates?


Thats what mosr "Chistians" do now! Me included! I hate it about myself but its true. The only difference between me and the "the guy on HIs death bed" is, Imforgiven now, and you dont know if you will see a deatyh bed. You could die today instantly! Think about it.!

But there are good answers, and I don't think any good ones have been given here yet to the question about the fate of people who've never heard of Jesus.



Obviously they're going to hell after they die, since they never accepted Jesus into their heart. Never mind that some have never heard of Jesus, it's their fault that they didn't accept him. Too bad for those poor unsaved souls, I guess.



Great Question!!!! :) Poor understanding of the Gospel :confused: Which logicaly leads you down the prgression of thinking that ends with that question.

Answer: Duh- If God loves us Humans so much that He came here and lived like us. Of course he had those people in mind ;) You should read "The Heavenly Man, its a story about a guy in China who met Jesus in a dream. No american skewed modern christianity influencing him at all. No Bible nothing. Just an Encounter with the living God Jesus!

any way I like you questions cynical or not keep them comming!!!!

sorry about all the missspelled words :o

There is not a person on this thread unworthy of Jesus Christ. The very fact that this discussion had become so passionate is an testament to our needs to beleive and understand the ways of the Lord. He is such a good God that he gave us a choice. I choose Jesus and I accept Him and His sacrafice for my sinful ways. I know in my heart that I have made the right choice for my life. I hope that others will make the right choice for theirs. Apologetics are a great place to start. However, you really have to open your mind and your heart to get it. You won't get anywhere with anyone that has a hard heart. The information is there, the opprtuinty is too. Seeds have been planted, and the Holy Spirit will continue to nurture the truth that has been shared wtih the non-beleivers. We are all here with purpose and there is only one peice to the puzzzle in our heart that we are trying to fill. Jesus Christ is the answer.

Joe,

Well said!

There is not a person on this thread unworthy of Jesus Christ. The very fact that this discussion had become so passionate is an testament to our needs to beleive and understand the ways of the Lord. He is such a good God that he gave us a choice. I choose Jesus and I accept Him and His sacrafice for my sinful ways. I know in my heart that I have made the right choice for my life. I hope that others will make the right choice for theirs. Apologetics are a great place to start. However, you really have to open your mind and your heart to get it. You won't get anywhere with anyone that has a hard heart. The information is there, the opprtuinty is too. Seeds have been planted, and the Holy Spirit will continue to nurture the truth that has been shared wtih the non-beleivers. We are all here with purpose and there is only one peice to the puzzzle in our heart that we are trying to fill. Jesus Christ is the answer.



Wow! well said Joe!

ya'll bible belters sound like a creepy brainwashed infomercial...scary. I've heard these things so many times it makes me wonder if any of you think for yourself.

The Bible is thousands of years old and has been translated too many times for me to base my existence upon it.




Just to clear up one misconception presented here. The Bible was only written in 3 languages: Hebrew (most of the Old Testament), Aramaic (a small part of the OT), and Greek (the New Testament). It has been translated from those 3 languages directly into the other languages of the world, but the original documents were in those languages. So there are not a string of translations of translations of tranlations... In our case, there is only the translation to English right from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.



What about the early Christian church and it's human leaders (potentially power hungry, corrupt, and greedy, like so many humans are), and the influence and interpretation that they have put into the body of religious doctrine and practices?
What about Constantine and the Nicene council?
What about the hypothetical "well if we package it this way (christmas tree, yule-fest for one example of many), it'll be easier for us to get all those pagans to convert"?
What about all the other "sacred texts" that were chosen by humans to "not quite make the cut" into the Bible that is used today?
What about the (historical) human beings that are so blindly ENTRUSTED to have made the right choices about what is really god's word, and what was some wannabe apostle pretending to be writing a gospel?

Jesus did not deliver the bible and say this is the complete story of ME and my dad, and our ghost-buddy. People collected these stories, and THEY decided which ones told the "best" story of god's world (as they wanted it told).
Remember this was a male-centric society too.

My problem is not that religion is inherently wrong. My problem is that human beings have distorted it, sometimes for their own interest and benefits, sometimes simply by accidentally getting it wrong, sooo far away from any semblance of it's original truth, that it's too difficult to know what are "God's words" as you say, or some guys (potentially MIS-)interpretation from some text written down thousands of years ago.
I have a hard enough time having a deep conversation in English with a British person; imagine the challenge in translating and interpreting something as deep and meaningful as "God's Word" to or from a non-native language.

My issue is not with God or Jesus or religion as a whole, my problem is with people. People are typically not worthy of deciding for me, all the great truths of existence.
I just do not trust people that much.

I'm trying to compile enough understanding, through the scientific process of observation, measurement, calculation, postulation, more observation, theorization, experimentation, exploration, and ...., in order for me to eventually have sufficient evidence of how and why things are they way they are.

I'll concede this approach has serious inherent risks. IF the jesus/heaven/hell thing IS true, I might die before I figure it out.
It's too bad for me that being a good person and trying to discover for myself the truth of all reality (rather than swallow it the way's it handed to me), I may be punished with eternal damnation. OR, maybe some guy added that part incorrectly.

It's too bad for me that being a good person...



Are you a good person? Is anyone a "good person"? I'm not.

What is a "good person" and how bad is bad? Where does one cross over from being a "good person" to being a "bad person"?

Have you ever broken your own moral standards? Have you ever broken God's moral standards? I've done both. (Well, maybe I haven't broken YOUR moral standards, but I've broken mine. ;))

Are you a good person? Is anyone a "good person"?

What is a "good person" and how bad is bad?



I can't tell you exactly what defines a good person or a bad person. Something deep inside me has a "feeling" about good and bad.

Maybe that feeling is simply the sum of my learning and socialization. (nurture?)
Maybe it is God secretly planting the truth there. (nature?)
I don't know, I just have a "feeling".

I have studied philosophy to help me determine for myself what constitutes good and bad...but I can't define it for you with an algebraic formula. (wish I could!)

To be honest, I haven't even proven to myself that good and bad actually exist. They very well COULD be imaginary concepts.
:eek:

interesting you ignored the 5 questions and all the other points I eluded to, and just clued into my claim of being a good person.

interesting you ignored the 5 questions and all the other points I eluded to, and just clued into my claim of being a good person.



Do you really want answers to those questions or are they just reasons to bolster your faith in not believing in Jesus? If you really do want answers I might have time to point you to some places where you can do some more in depth reading. If you don't really want answers then it would waste my time to reply.

If what you presently believe is not true then do you really want to know it, and are you willing to act on the truth?

What about the early Christian church and it's human leaders (potentially power hungry, corrupt, and greedy, like so many humans are), and the influence and interpretation that they have put into the body of religious doctrine and practices?



To start an answer lets look at the very first Christians who wrote the New Testament. Of Jesus' original 11 disciples 10 died martyrs deaths for proclaiming Jesus as the risen Lord and one died in exile. They didn't gain much in an earthly way from their beliefs. These beliefs are the core of what became recorded in the New Testament.

Lowe you are so scared of the truth that you have taken a metaphorical blasphemous book and turned it into your truth. What truly worries me: "those who have taken authority as the truth, instead of truth as the authority"

interesting you ignored the 5 questions and all the other points I eluded to, and just clued into my claim of being a good person.



Do you really want answers to those questions or are they just reasons to bolster your faith in not believing in Jesus? If you really do want answers I might have time to point you to some places where you can do some more in depth reading. If you don't really want answers then it would waste my time to reply.

If what you presently believe is not true then do you really want to know it, and are you willing to act on the truth?



OK. I'll believe those 11 humans may not have been the source of the potential problem I eluded to.

Let's move on to Constantine, the Nicene Council, and the rest of the humans who've influenced (or was it interfered with) religious ideas over the last 2000+ years.

Lowe you are so scared of the truth that you have taken a metaphorical blasphemous book and turned it into your truth. What truly worries me: "those who have taken authority as the truth, instead of truth as the authority"



That's ridiculous! I wonder if you're the one who's scared of the truth?

And I sure don't appreciate you saying that the Bible is blasphemous.

Also, the core message of the Bible is based on history. Most of it is NOT metaphor. Have you ever even read the whole book?

There are many more ancient manuscripts of the Old and New Testament than there are of any works of Homer, Aristotle, etc. Jesus of Nazarus was an historical figure, noted in extra-biblical sources written at the time.

As the old saying goes, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. It's your choice. Please don't ridicule my choice, and I will not ridicule yours.

One last thought. Why would people risk ridicule, at the very least, to tell others about Jesus? What personal gain will I get if someone here becomes a Christian? What is my motivation?

I am not meaning to ridicule anyone.

I am simply on a search for knowledge and understanding (wherever I can get it).

I seek to understand the true nature of reality and existence.

Bpkurt,

Would you mind answering the questions that I asked you at 1:56?


Do you really want answers to those questions or are they just reasons to bolster your faith in not believing in Jesus? If you really do want answers I might have time to point you to some places where you can do some more in depth reading. If you don't really want answers then it would waste my time to reply.

If what you presently believe is not true then do you really want to know it, and are you willing to act on the truth?

Bpkurt,

The Exczar and I have also been replying to Deadluva. That's who the exczar was addressing, not you.

Lowe

[QUOTE]
Bpkurt,

Would you mind answering the questions that I asked you at 1:56?

[QUOTE]


I am not asking you to evangelize me.

But, I'll restate: I am simply on a search for knowledge and understanding (wherever I can get it). I seek to understand the true nature of reality and existence.

I'll also restate that I do not trust most other humans to "figure it out for me"...I prefer to figure things out on my own as much as possible.

I suppose I may not be directly answering your q...but I also stated earlier: one of my favorite things about science is that I do not believe that what I currently expect to be true IS definitively true. I (and the scientific community) are willing to modify my beliefs based upon realization of new facts, knowledge and understanding.
So I am willing to act on (new) truth when discovered.

ARE YOU willing to accept new truths when discovered, or are you already convinced that how you currently understand (believe) things to be, IS absolutely and unequivocally correct?

ARE YOU willing to accept new truths when discovered, or are you already convinced that how you currently understand (believe) things to be, IS absolutely and unequivocally correct?



I hope that I'm willing to follow the truth wherever it leads. I do periodically reexamine what I believe. If I'm convinced that there is someone better to know than Christ then I'll follow that path. But in the past 31 years since I met Jesus I haven't found anything better, that works better, and gives satisfying more answers to life, so til then I'll stick with what I've got.

So it seems our key difference is the threshold for what we require to believe something as true.
For me, "working better" or "giving satisfying answers" isn't enough...I'm looking for truth as something that is indisputably correct.
While I may admit Jesus and the church might make people kinder and better humans than without them, that potential fact does not confirm the truth of it.

I don't trust other people...especially 2000+ years of other people...to pass it down to me.

I'd rather keep searching, (measuring, observing, discovering, etc...) for it rather than accept someone else's stories.

So it seems our key difference is the threshold for what we require to believe something as true.
For me, "working better" or "giving satisfying answers" isn't enough...I'm looking for truth as something that is indisputably correct.




OK, my answer was incomplete. First and foremost, I believe in Jesus because I believe that He is the truth. The fact that it works only confirms that it's true. At bedrock I believe that Jesus proved that He is God by His resurrection. Using the methods of law and history and I believe that it's a historical fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead, and that proves His claim to be God. Along with all historical issues it can't be proven scientifically because it was a one time event that can't be repeated.

It's quite a coincidence that Jesus was born right when we call the date zero. I'm surprised that God would find the folks born before then not worthy of being saved. It wouldn't be because time zero is about when man was had been recording history for a while would it? For if man didn't evolve, it's surprising why Adam &amp; Eve wouldn't have been given the same communication skills just a short 5 to 6 thousand years earlier and all of those born later could have been saved from an earlier incarnation of Jesus. But maybe evolution did happen under God's guidance. If so, then there are several million unsaved souls over several million years that for some reason were excluded from his message...

Responding to your post Chuck,
"I'm surprised that God would find the folks born before then not worthy of being saved."
God still had a way for those folks to be saved, but it was in a different manner then now, and they were in a different place, not Heaven above, but Paradise, below-in the center of the earth. That's why they sacrificed animals and such back then, that was their blood sacrifice for the sin they had committed.

The sad thing is that even the so called "believers" cannot agree on doctrinal issues. That's why there are thousands of churches in the tri cities here where I live, they can't even agree on the scripture. Makes it look pretty bad from the outside looking in. :(
I don't agree with several of the things Lowe has said, and several others. Not to offend, but most of the people on here and in the world are just religious, NOT SAVED.

Camerelli,

I'm curious, do you go to church? If so-- if you don't mind saying-- which one?

I love this thread!!!!!

When Humans wrestle with Absolutes set in time out side of there understanding. Trying to look into a Spiritual World.

Be patient with each other, Jesus is God he has shown the world this ove and over, its just hard to beleive sometimes ;)

Lowe,
Non-denominational Bible Study. I believe the Bible, KJV is the final authority. How far are you from Concord NC? Are you willing to look at some things? We can never say that we know too much to learn from others.

How far are you from Concord NC? Are you willing to look at some things? We can never say that we know too much to learn from others.



I'm 2.5 hours from Concord, but I occasionally go to Charlotte to play the fine courses there. Do you live in Concord? I'm always willing to look at things and learn; I'll assume that you are too.

I believe in {something} because I believe {something else}



Is reciprocal logic.

I believe in THIS, because I believe in THIS other thing, doesn't hold much weight in philosophical discussion.

Responding to your post Chuck,

God still had a way for those folks to be saved, but it was in a different manner then now, and they were in a different place, not Heaven above, but Paradise, below-in the center of the earth. That's why they sacrificed animals and such back then, that was their blood sacrifice for the sin they had committed.




I'll be the first to admit that my religious education is INcomplete, but I was raised in a church and studied from the KJ Bible that you referenced.
I have NEVER heard of this "Paradise" that is somewhere in the center of the earth.

Are you sure this is in the bible?

I'm pretty sure geologists have determined the make-up of the earths core to a pretty conclusive state, and I don't think there's a "paradise layer" to the distribution.

Could this be metaphor or something?

God still had a way for those folks to be saved, but it was in a different manner then now, and they were in a different place, not Heaven above, but Paradise, below-in the center of the earth. That's why they sacrificed animals and such back then, that was their blood sacrifice for the sin they had committed.



I don't want to cause dissension, or even a discussion of this point, but I do have to say that I don't believe this belief is true, nor can it be supported by the Bible. I just wanted those reading this thread to know that even after 3 years of study for my Masters at one of the leading evangelical seminaries I've never heard his idea before. It can only be held by a very small number of people, who's beliefs are on the fringe.

Camerelli, I hope this doesn't upset you, and I definitely don't want to get in a big discussion of this matter here, but for the sake of the truth I wanted to point this out.

Maybe in order to understand mankind we have to look at that word itself. MANKIND. Basically, it's made up of two separate words#'mank' and 'ind.' "What do these words mean? It's a mystery and that's why so is mankind.

There is no heaven, there is no hell. Feel free to let me know when you have proof that either exists.



I know someone who's been to Heaven. He's incredibly intelligent and totally trustworthy. He told me that Heaven and Hell exist, and I believe Him. That's all I need.



Lowe, you seem like an intelligent reasonable person. And so, you have to know that non-believers are not going to buy into your claim of having personally spoken to Jesus. Frankly, I don't understand how someone can make a claim of a personal relationship with someone who is no longer physically amongst us.

There is no question that his spiritual presence is here and that his legacy is very evident in the world today. But any attempts to contact Jesus, set up a meeting, and have a one-on-one conversation with him will be as fruitless as attempting to meet with Pope John XXIII, JFK, or Ed Headrick.

Now, on the other hand, I believe that scholarly research can bring you very close to someone whom you have never met and you may interpret that as having a personal relationship with them. But it's not the same as meeting with them for tea at 4PM.

I'm not attacking you at all. Just pointing out that what you may call a personal relationship is not necessarily how others would characterize it. It seemed you were being baited into a guaranteed failure by someone looking for hard facts that are impossible to provide. I have no doubt that you have a close relationship with Jesus through studying the stories about his teachings. But I think the claims of a "personal relationship" do nothing to convince others of the importance of Jesus' earthly existence.

Lowe,
N,o, I don't live in Concord, but will be visiting there in late Oct. And yes, I am always open to look at the bible and discuss it with others. Let me find out the exact dates I will be over there and maybe we can get together.

Responding to your post Chuck,

God still had a way for those folks to be saved, but it was in a different manner then now, and they were in a different place, not Heaven above, but Paradise, below-in the center of the earth. That's why they sacrificed animals and such back then, that was their blood sacrifice for the sin they had committed.




I'll be the first to admit that my religious education is INcomplete, but I was raised in a church and studied from the KJ Bible that you referenced.
I have NEVER heard of this "Paradise" that is somewhere in the center of the earth.

Are you sure this is in the bible?

I'm pretty sure geologists have determined the make-up of the earths core to a pretty conclusive state, and I don't think there's a "paradise layer" to the distribution.

Could this be metaphor or something?



Ever read the story about the rich man and Lazarus?
Look at Luke 16:19-31
Paradise and Hell were both in the same location, Abraham's Bosom. There was a "great Gulf Fixed" vs 26 between the two, and you could actually see the people in Hell/Paradise, and they could speak to one another.

There is a problem when you trust Man's wisdom, rather then the word of God. I do admire you for your questioning though, NEVER take someone's word for it, make them prove it to you with the word-in context.

Lowe, you seem like an intelligent reasonable person. And so, you have to know that non-believers are not going to buy into your claim of having personally spoken to Jesus. Frankly, I don't understand how someone can make a claim of a personal relationship with someone who is no longer physically amongst us...


There is no question that his spiritual presence is here...

...I'm not attacking you at all. Just pointing out that what you may call a personal relationship is not necessarily how others would characterize it. I have no doubt that you have a close relationship with Jesus through studying the stories about his teachings. But I think the claims of a "personal relationship" do nothing to convince others of the importance of Jesus' earthly existence.



Mike,

Thanks for your gracious and thoughtful comments. I didn't claim that I've spoken with Jesus as one would face to face or even on the phone. I have talked with Him in prayer, though. I believe that He has spoken to me through His Word, and at times, given me guidance through impressions or wisdom according to circumstances. My comments about what Jesus told me about Heaven and Hell come from what He said in the Bible. God speaks to me most clearly through the Bible.

I don't expect those who don't believe to understand, but Jesus is alive. Since He's alive we can have a relationship with Him. That's what Christianity is-- a relationship with God.

Lowe

God still had a way for those folks to be saved, but it was in a different manner then now, and they were in a different place, not Heaven above, but Paradise, below-in the center of the earth. That's why they sacrificed animals and such back then, that was their blood sacrifice for the sin they had committed.



I don't want to cause dissension, or even a discussion of this point, but I do have to say that I don't believe this belief is true, nor can it be supported by the Bible. I just wanted those reading this thread to know that even after 3 years of study for my Masters at one of the leading evangelical seminaries I've never heard his idea before. It can only be held by a very small number of people, who's beliefs are on the fringe.

Camerelli, I hope this doesn't upset you, and I definitely don't want to get in a big discussion of this matter here, but for the sake of the truth I wanted to point this out.



No problem with dissention or upsetting me at all Lowe. What part of the post do you disagree with? Let me re-phrase what I said in that post. That shed blood from the animal sacrifices was the temporary payment for sin, until the blood of Christ was shed for all.

Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. To correctly interpret parables you have to understand that not every detail is meant to be literally true. The point of the parable is what is important. I don't think that Jesus meant for his listeners to think that there was an actual person named Lazarus. Everyone understands that this is just a story that Jesus was making up to illustrate truth. You get into real trouble by pressing every detail of a parable to mean too much. You must use the correct hermeneutics for interpreting parables.

In one parable Jesus says that the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that grows into a large tree that birds can nest in. If this was meant to be a real tree, have you ever seen it? No one has because everyone knows this was just a story to create a word picture illustrating a spiritual reality. That's how parables work.

Lowe, you seem like an intelligent reasonable person. And so, you have to know that non-believers are not going to buy into your claim of having personally spoken to Jesus. Frankly, I don't understand how someone can make a claim of a personal relationship with someone who is no longer physically amongst us...


There is no question that his spiritual presence is here...

...I'm not attacking you at all. Just pointing out that what you may call a personal relationship is not necessarily how others would characterize it. I have no doubt that you have a close relationship with Jesus through studying the stories about his teachings. But I think the claims of a "personal relationship" do nothing to convince others of the importance of Jesus' earthly existence.



Mike,

Thanks for your gracious and thoughtful comments. I didn't claim that I've spoken with Jesus as one would face to face or even on the phone. I have talked with Him in prayer, though. I believe that He has spoken to me through His Word, and at times, given me guidance through impressions or wisdom according to circumstances. My comments about what Jesus told me about Heaven and Hell come from what He said in the Bible. God speaks to me most clearly through the Bible.

I don't expect those who don't believe to understand, but Jesus is alive. Since He's alive we can have a relationship with Him. That's what Christianity is-- a relationship with God.

Lowe



Glad you cleared that up Lowe. I believe the ONLY way that God speaks to people is through his WORD, and that alone.
The bible says that God is "No respector of persons" (Rom 2:11, Eph 6:9, Col 3:25), these verses wouldn't be true if God spoke to you in another way then his word, and did not do the same for others.

Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. To correctly interpret parables you have to understand that not every detail is meant to be literally true. The point of the parable is what is important. I don't think that Jesus meant for his listeners to think that there was an actual person named Lazarus. Everyone understands that this is just a story that Jesus was making up to illustrate truth. You get into real trouble by pressing every detail of a parable to mean too much. You must use the correct hermeneutics for interpreting parables.



So, you don't believe this actually happened? Without meaning to offend you I have to say you don't believe the Bible then. There is no further need to discuss things when you don't even believe the words on the pages. Too much schooling and not enough believing the word, don't let people tell you that it doesn't mean what it says it means. Almost every religious school has their own twist to put on the scripture, to get things to "fit" into their systems. So is the "Kingdom on Earth" that God has promised Israel a parable also? That's why I have no respect for religious folks, they don't believe the Bible they pack. Again, I have no intention on offending you.

That shed blood from the animal sacrifices was the temporary payment for sin, until the blood of Christ was shed for all.


Serious inquiry, not joking:
Can anyone explain God's fascination with Blood?
Any history on how blood became the universal payment for sin?
Is it a death thing? Like dying/sacrifice is the point?
Is it a symbol of something?

The club's ace has grown to $750. I prayed and prayed for an ace this sunday morning. My wish wasn't granted.

There is a problem when you trust Man's wisdom, rather then the word of God.



In your face Einstein

just a story that Jesus was making up to illustrate truth.



Lying to illustrate truth......crystal clear.

Do you guys even listen to what your saying?

Luke 16:14-15 gives the reason why Jesus told the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Jesus had a specific point to make by creating a memorable word picture.

just a story that Jesus was making up to illustrate truth.



Lying to illustrate truth......crystal clear.

Do you guys even listen to what your saying?



Telling a story is certainly not a lie. No one who heard Jesus ever thought that this was a historical person. Have you ever read the story "The Gift of the Magii" by O. Henry? That story makes a great point about sacrificial love, but nobody thinks they were real, historical, living people. Parables are also stories that Jesus made up to illustrate a point. A work of fiction is not a lie unless it is purported to be historical fact. When I say, "the moon looks like bleu cheese" everyone understands that I'm speaking with a simile because it's an expected convention of speech. To understand something literally means to understand it in the way the speaker intended it.

Disc golf and parabolas, almost going around in circles...

There are many more ancient manuscripts of the Old and New Testament than there are of any works of Homer, Aristotle, etc. Jesus of Nazarus was an historical figure, noted in extra-biblical sources written at the time.

As the old saying goes, Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord. It's your choice. Please don't ridicule my choice, and I will not ridicule yours.

One last thought. Why would people risk ridicule, at the very least, to tell others about Jesus? What personal gain will I get if someone here becomes a Christian? What is my motivation?



I'll address you post in several sections.

You have many different motivations for telling others about Jesus.

1) If you are of a Protestant faith, it is your moral obligation to help people share your belief in Jesus, otherwise they burn in Hell.

2) If you are of a Catholic Faith, if is your moral obligation to help people share in your knowledge of the One Church, otherwise they burn in Hell. (No more Purgatory, the Pope decided that wasn't real after all).

3) Like most people, you are motivated by sharing what you view as the right way to live. If you don't share that knowledge, you deny people the truth.

4) People are motivated by a need to be important. Ridicule and suffering makes what they do meaningful to them. People sacrifice themselves or suffer all the time, not just for religion.

5) You can be motivated by greed. It's an option, I don't know you.

6) You can be motivated by fear. Convincing people around you to share in your belief structure makes you feel more secure if you have doubts. You can't all be wrong, right?

As far as Jesus liar, lunatic or Lord - alliteration doesn't make a statement more true. How about Jesus was a guy, like many other people, who had a really great perspective on life that many people were attracted to?

Another option; he didn't exsist. There are lots of great manuscripts about Gilgamesh, Beowulf and King Arthur. Gilgamesh was a real king, so all of those stories must be true, monsters included. And no one could write all of those stories about Arthur unless he were real. Volume equals validity. That's why I know Harry Potter is real.

And finally, I believe it is my obligation to question your beliefs, even if you feel I am belittling them. You are free to believe what you like, but that does not mean freedom from having those beliefs challenged. People are free to say that black people are inferior to whites, but I will challenge that belief anytime I encounter it.

Just like I will challenge religious belief.

The best motivation to tell people about Jesus should be love.

Another option; he didn't exsist. There are lots of great manuscripts about Gilgamesh, Beowulf and King Arthur. Gilgamesh was a real king, so all of those stories must be true, monsters included. And no one could write all of those stories about Arthur unless he were real. Volume equals validity. That's why I know Harry Potter is real.



Here's another "L" then -- "Legend". But I don't think that fits the facts.

And finally, I believe it is my obligation to question your beliefs, even if you feel I am belittling them. You are free to believe what you like, but that does not mean freedom from having those beliefs challenged. People are free to say that black people are inferior to whites, but I will challenge that belief anytime I encounter it.

Just like I will challenge religious belief.



I agree with you, it is your obligation. In fact, I'd call it a moral obligation. I welcome you challenging my beliefs. If I'm believing something that isn't true I'd sure like to know it. To tell you the truth, I'm in the ministry, so if this isn't true then I'm really wasting my time. Also, I could be making a whole lot more money too.

All I ask is that it work both ways and that you allow your beliefs to be scrutinized too. So what do you believe about the spiritual realm? Do you think that Jesus lived? Do you believe that there is a god?

Here's another "L" then -- "Legend". But I don't think that fits the facts.



Facts. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Mohammed was a real person, there are facts that prove it. If there were facts about the existence of Jesus, there wouldn't be a debate. There are suggestions and opinions, or what is called belief.

What truly worries me: "those who have taken authority as the truth, instead of truth as the authority"



That's ridiculous! I wonder if you're the one who's scared of the truth?

And I sure don't appreciate you saying that the Bible is blasphemous.

Also, the core message of the Bible is based on history. Most of it is NOT metaphor. Have you ever even read the whole book?



Yes I have read the entire book and it has just as many metaphors and fictional tales as Forrest Gump...I went to Catholic school for 12 years, CCD for many and was also raised by parents that taught CCD. As for the book being blasphemous; I was refering to the ancient book of the Egyptians (thousands of years before Jesus or the Old Testamnet) and many older religious writings than the bible that use the same metaphors and have all the same "historical facts". The bible has just put Jesus's name where other "gods" names were.

And what I meant by my question "do you really want to know the truth and by my quote; is that you seem to enjoy having a one-sided Christian based knowledge while attending your school b/c that is what has been pounded down your throat for generations by the authority and you accept that b/c "it seems to be make the most sense".

I agree with you, it is your obligation. In fact, I'd call it a moral obligation. I welcome you challenging my beliefs. If I'm believing something that isn't true I'd sure like to know it. To tell you the truth, I'm in the ministry, so if this isn't true then I'm really wasting my time. Also, I could be making a whole lot more money too.

All I ask is that it work both ways and that you allow your beliefs to be scrutinized too. So what do you believe about the spiritual realm? Do you think that Jesus lived? Do you believe that there is a god?



Wow, and I just came here for disc golf.

But, I opened this can, so I'll respond.

No, I don't believe there is a God. This is not for lack of people trying to convince me otherwise for 18 years. And for a long time, I went along with it.

Do I think Jesus lived? I don't care one way or the other. I don't know if Siddartha Gotama lived, and it doesn't matter. If you want to take value from teachings, the existence of the person is irrelevant. Their existence only begins to matter if your belief system hinges on their existence. So, it matters to you, because you believe Jesus was the physical embodiment of God who died for our sins. I'm fine with thinking real or not, he had some very valid statements about values and how to live with other people.

Spiritual Realm. Who knows, although I have yet to see any indication that there is one.

I understand why people have religion, and the comfort that it brings people. The idea that there is an overriding universal truth out there that will make everything OK is appealing to lots of people. And there was a time that it was the only thing that made sense. Why do people act bizarre and see things that aren't there? Demons. Why are people born with birth defects? Punishment from God. Why do people suddenly get ill and die for no reason while others stay alive? Gods divine plan.

But we know better know. We know about Germ Theory, and have gained insight into mental disorders like schizophrenia. We know that doing a rain dance won't change air and moisture patterns that develop over months and years. We know how plants grow, and a good harvest is dependent on a variety of factors, very little of which is based on sacrificing doves and lambs.

But we have continued to make excuses and adapt religion to fit the changes instead of just acknowledging that we were wrong. No one believes in Zeus anymore. The Greeks were wrong. You would be hard pressed to find a Zoroastrian. You don't believe in Mohammed or Ganesha. But somehow you feel you have insight into the mind of the One True God.

To steal a phrase, we are both Atheists, I just believe in one less God than you.

/I'm a Chris Hitchens fan

Boognish,

Thanks for telling us all those things you believe.

Lowe

P.S.- You'd probably better change your a word in your signature b/c the moderators don't like that kind of language.

Boognish,

Thanks for telling us all those things you believe.

Lowe

P.S.- You'd probably better change your a word in your signature b/c the moderators don't like that kind of language.



I appreciate the heads up on the signature. It was time for a new one. :)

Disc golf and parabolas, almost going around in circles...



All the shots go off on tangents.

Disc golf and parabolas, almost going around in circles...



All the shots go off on tangents.



Just show me a sine.

Thanks Lowe. I appreciate that clarification of what is meant by "personal relationship" with God or Jesus. So many people have said that to me expecting me to know what they mean. The phrase has always puzzled me because in my Roman Catholic upbringing (1960's), it was not used.

The best motivation to tell people about Jesus should be love.



How true! The problem is that religion sometimes gets in the way of that motivation.

I don't think that Jesus meant for his listeners to think that there was an actual person named Lazarus. Everyone understands that this is just a story that Jesus was making up to illustrate truth.



I can't say that I'm confident that everyone believes this. There seem to be many versions of Christianity that take every word in the Bible literally. The rattlesnake people come to mind.

I believe every word of the Bible to be true and I take it literally. The Bible is a big book filled with many different types of genres. There is historical narrative, historical fact, poems, metaphors, similes, prophecy, parables... By "literally" I interpret each type of writing according the standard rules of biblical interpretation (called hermeneutics) for each genre.

Here is a description of Solomon's bride from Song of Solomon 4:
4:1 Your hair is like a flock of goats
4:3 Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate
4:4 Your neck is like the tower of David
4:13 Your shoots are an orchard of pomegranates
4:15 (you are) a garden fountain, a well of living water
If you don't take this as poetry, metaphor, and simile then she was quite unusual! My wife wasn't thrilled when I told her that her neck is like the tower of David.

Here's a trivia quiz. Who said this?
"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."

Bonus points: name the 2 places in the Bible where this saying is recorded.

Thanks Lowe. I appreciate that clarification of what is meant by "personal relationship" with God or Jesus. So many people have said that to me expecting me to know what they mean. The phrase has always puzzled me because in my Roman Catholic upbringing (1960's), it was not used.



Mike,
You're welcome.

Lowe

Here's a trivia quiz. Who said this?
"Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather."

Bonus points: name the 2 places in the Bible where this saying is recorded.



Thanks, but I'll decline the invitation. I usually don't like to discuss religion, but since there seemed to be some reasonable people doing so, I thought it would be safe to put in my $0.02. I've done that safely it appears and so I'll bow out at this point.

I don't think that Jesus meant for his listeners to think that there was an actual person named Lazarus. Everyone understands that this is just a story that Jesus was making up to illustrate truth.



I can't say that I'm confident that everyone believes this. There seem to be many versions of Christianity that take every word in the Bible literally. The rattlesnake people come to mind.


:DFunny, but true :DThe thing is, those people actually believe what the words on the page say. They are wrong in doing it though, because it was not written to us Gentiles. When that was written, they (Israel/Believing Jews) were able to do those things. I think it says they can drink deadly poison after that doesn't it? We all know how that turned out for Jim Jones don't we. The real issue with studying your bible, is WHO is God talking to when he says those things. In Matt-John, he was talking to the NATION ISRAEL/JEWS, about a literal Earthly Kingdom that was going to be set up. All things were focused on, and about the EARTH. Where as now, the apostle Paul says to "Set your affections on things above." He was not looking for a Kingdom to come down to Earth, but he was looking to acsend to meet the Lord in the air. The 12 apostles that taught those things were operating under the LAW. Every thing was conditional.Example: IF you forgive your brother, then I shall forgive you. BUT, if you do not forgive, I will NOT forgive you. Today under grace, we should forgive each other "for Christs sake" because he HAS (past tense) forgiven us. We already have his forgiveness, it's no longer conditional. We are under Grace now, not the Law.

Thanks, but I'll decline the invitation.



Mike,

Gotcha. Actually, although I hit reply to you I wasn't intending that question for you specifically, but I can see how you might think that. I was throwing it out to the general public, just for fun.

Lowe

I usually don't like to discuss religion {with religious people}, but since there seemed to be some reasonable people doing so, I thought it would be safe to put in my $0.02. I've done that safely it appears and so I'll bow out at this point.



My thoughts exactly.

A few final thoughts...

Boognish, you touch on some very interesting points. It is this type of thinking that welcomes open and honest discussion and debate and real thinking...minimal pre-conceived notions of what you already believe (know?) to be true (IMO).

I hope this isn't offensive, but Camerelli, it is this type of thinking that confuses me beyond comprehension. I'm tempted to inquire further, but I don't think I'll choose that route.

Someone had mentioned earlier that what they needed to believe something had to be indisputable truth. Well if that is the case, ask yourself a few simple questions and test your own faith. Because if you define indisputable truth, it means impossible to doubt or dispute and so it is surely true by your own witness. So with that, consider outer space . Do you believe there are stars, planets and other celestial formations in outer space? Can you see them? Do you personally know if these things really exist? If you want to understand how a christian can believe in God without indisputable truth, consider that millions of people believe there are planets, stars, and other things, but they have no first hand knowledge of these things. They just take it in faith that they exist based on someones word. Some things in this world and universe are impossible to completely explain yet we except that they are true based on estimations. Those estimations are based on what we know about our own planet and other peoples observations and history. You have probably heard this one before.... Did man really walk on the moon? Some people like to say they they made the whole thing up. Hollywood studio magic is all it is... What a crock! If you just face the fact that at some point in your life you are going to have to accept some truth on faith alone, you will realize that the idea of one God creating the universe isn't hard to comprehend and believe in.

Senior,

A very good point. Another example is, do you believe there is love? Have you seen it? You've seen the effects of it, but you haven't actually seen it. Do you have irrefutable proof of it?

Also, if someone is truly intellectually honest then they must subject there own spiritual beliefs to the same criteria. When talking about the spiritual realm-- God, life after death, the spirit-- you can only make statements of faith. The key question is, does your faith correspond to reality?

Lowe

I have seen stars everyday and every night...I have felt the sun(which is a star) burn my neck. Has god physically burned you for sinning? Have you seen him floating in the sky at night? Your silly comparisons might be good with small children coercing them in believing your god, but come on now

I was one of the people who stated the need for indisputable, irrefutable evidence to KNOW something is in fact an absolute TRUTH.

I also stated that there are numerous other things that I EXPECT to be true based on the limited knowledge and understanding available today...not absolute truth, but likely to prove true given comprehensive study.

I know of ZERO Absolute Truths about the spiritual world...yet many people argue that their belief is in fact a truth.

Consider aerodynamics. I cannot (usually) SEE Turbulence. Yet, I KNOW Turbulence exists because I can measure it and it's effects. Measuring it, in this case, was enough evidence for me to conclude the existence of Turbulence is an Absolute Truth.

I'm still looking for enough evidence that the spiritual world TRULY exists (and how)....until then, I'll wait to form a conclusion.
AND in the mean time, I'll not tell other people that what I believe/expect, IS absolutely True.

And about the celestial bodies...The Hubble Space Telescope has observed and measured the properties of numerous spacial bodies, and that leads me to expect their existence is TRUE...I may later be proven otherwise.

(And I thought I was leaving this thread)

LOL, Welcome to the message board california: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave!

Thanks for the input...

Someone had mentioned earlier that what they needed to believe something had to be indisputable truth. Well if that is the case, ask yourself a few simple questions and test your own faith. Because if you define indisputable truth, it means impossible to doubt or dispute and so it is surely true by your own witness. So with that, consider outer space . Do you believe there are stars, planets and other celestial formations in outer space? Can you see them? Do you personally know if these things really exist? If you want to understand how a christian can believe in God without indisputable truth, consider that millions of people believe there are planets, stars, and other things, but they have no first hand knowledge of these things. They just take it in faith that they exist based on someones word. Some things in this world and universe are impossible to completely explain yet we except that they are true based on estimations. Those estimations are based on what we know about our own planet and other peoples observations and history. You have probably heard this one before.... Did man really walk on the moon? Some people like to say they they made the whole thing up. Hollywood studio magic is all it is... What a crock! If you just face the fact that at some point in your life you are going to have to accept some truth on faith alone, you will realize that the idea of one God creating the universe isn't hard to comprehend and believe in.



Your rant at the beginning was right. You shouldn't take things on faith. If you can't experience it or repeat it, then you have no obligation to accept it. That's the point of science, and the reason knowledge grows. Even Buddhism encourages questioning. If a monk tells you that reincarnation exists, and you have no personal experience that it is true, then you have no obligation to accept it.

You should, however, explore the world, and your own mind, to find knowledge and experience. Using your mind to examine knowledge is called logic and reason. Logic can be defined, and has errors. If you can avoid them, you get closer to true knowledge.

But in your rant above, you stop at simply challenging and disagreeing. It is the worst argument of religion: You can't prove it doesn't exist, so it does. You have to go the extra step and actually use your mind to figure it out. Hopefully you can build a foundation where you don't have to examine everything, but if at any point you disagree with something, you can stop and make sure.

You say millions of people believe in stars and planets. Most people only believed in that in the last 400 years. Before that, no one had any idea what they were, but they came up with pretty outrageous ideas. It took hundreds and thousands of great minds building knowledge, developing math, and making observations to learn what stars and planets were. And even then people still didn't believe them, and the church actively sought to silence them, through intimidation, or flat out killing them. But some of those people who disagreed educated themselves, did their own study, and came to the same conclusions. There came a tipping point where the profound powerful ignorance of religion couldn't deny the evidence.

In your definition, once you have an idea of what something is, there is no point questioning it, you just have to have faith. If we follow your path, we still wouldn't know what stars and planets are. Germs can't be seen with the naked eye, so we wouldn't develop medicine. Children are blank slates, so we can beat them until they stop stuttering.

What you call just taking someone's word for it, others will call a foundation of human knowledge, and at any point, that knowledge can be challenged. There are intellectuals who have spent decades of their lives working on a theory, and had someone show up suddenly and prove it all wrong.

But if that person simply ignores the evidence, sticks their head in the sand, or surrounds themselves with people who will nod their heads and agree, despite the evidence, then you have faith. Scientology does it every day. Make up information, have no way to validate it, separate believers from anyone who can challenge their views, and then explain that you can't understand unless you experience it.

That's faith.

/btw, ... You offered up a term, and then offered your own definition to and based your argument on it. Bad logic. It assumes we view things the same way.

Finally an opened mind that can reason clearly!! not spout out some regurgitated nonsense with no evidence or sense.

by the way they won't read your whole post...that would cause them to open their mind

I was not trying to define indisputable truth on my own. That definition is what it is. If someone uses a specific term they had better understand that term, don't you agree? I was simply making an observation about human nature. Are you implying that you knew what I was thinking when I made my observation. How can you then also assume that I assumed what you are thinking? I was trying to make a point about Man's limitations, and his reliance on faith for truth. We may have science to tell us what makes things work and so on, but we obviously have to take some things on faith alone as discussed. I do not dispute that some people ingore evidence, but others take that evidence, process it, and put it into context with their own faith in God.

Finally an opened mind that can reason clearly!!



And one that, just coincidentally, agrees with you! ;)

You shouldn't take things on faith. If you can't experience it or repeat it, then you have no obligation to accept it.



Those are two statements made by faith.

You shouldn't take things on faith. If you can't experience it or repeat it, then you have no obligation to accept it.



Those are two statements made by faith.



Sorry, but your reply makes no sense. Faith is the absence of thought or examination. If you are thinking about it and subjecting it to skepticism, its not faith, its reasoning.

There are very clear definitions of what you should and should not believe in Christianity. Are you suggesting that you are under no obligation to actually believe that in order to be a Christian?

Finally an opened mind that can reason clearly!! not spout out some regurgitated nonsense with no evidence or sense.

by the way they won't read your whole post...that would cause them to open their mind



I had probably finished reading his entire post while you were writing that little beauty of yours.

I would also like to mention that what I was writing has no need for specific evidence to back it up as it was simply a personal opinion based on my own observations. Take it or leave it, your choice.

And one more thing, are you saying that what I wrote is regurgitated nonsense with no evidence or sense. Sounds like a border line personal attack, are you trying to offend me?

PS. All you needed to write was "regurgitated nonsense with no evidence"

Saying "regurgitated nonsense with no evidence (or sense)" is redundant.... nonsence and no sence are kind of the same.... There is some logic for you guys :D

You shouldn't take things on faith. If you can't experience it or repeat it, then you have no obligation to accept it.



Those are two statements made by faith.



Sorry, but your reply makes no sense. Faith is the absence of thought or examination. If you are thinking about it and subjecting it to skepticism, its not faith, its reasoning.

There are very clear definitions of what you should and should not believe in Christianity. Are you suggesting that you are under no obligation to actually believe that in order to be a Christian?



1) Faith has many definitions. It is by nature possibly the essence of reason. Some argue that without faith one has no basis to reason or accept any given evidence.

2) As for Christians, we can believe in Christ and never even see one word of the bible and be save by faith alone.

Sorry, but I have to dissect.


I was not trying to define indisputable truth on my own. That definition is what it is. If someone uses a specific term they had better understand that term, don't you agree?



I absolutely agree. You used an inaccurate definition to frame an argument to your benefit. I am proposing that if you want to make a clear and valid argument, you shouldn't post your own definitions. That gets into unnecessary semantics, and should be avoided.


I was simply making an observation about human nature. Are you implying that you knew what I was thinking when I made my observation. How can you then also assume that I assumed what you are thinking?



I don't even know what this is supposed to mean, or what it has to do with my post.


I was trying to make a point about Man's limitations, and his reliance on faith for truth. We may have science to tell us what makes things work and so on, but we obviously have to take some things on faith alone as discussed. I do not dispute that some people ingore evidence, but others take that evidence, process it, and put it into context with their own faith in God.



This is the meat of the argument, and where I disagree completely. I don't have faith that the sun is a giant burning star. I have access to knowledge of a variety of different sources, and I can replicate the math, given the right background and education. No part of science takes things on faith. There are theories, and those theories are tested. As long as they stand up, we keep moving forward with the theory. But if there are 999 tests that validate the theory, and 1 valid test that disproves it, you have to rewrite the theory. You can't take on faith that you were right because 999 were fine.

As far as processing information in context with God, you're right, tons of people do that. They specifically find things that fit their view, and dismiss things that don't. I haven't met a Christian who won't use science or logic if it even slightly supports their view, but then will dismiss any other logic with a statement like, "you have to take it on faith."

That is, in the end, why you need faith. Because without it, your beliefs would have no other support.

You need circular arguments: I know God exists because the Bible tells me, and the Bible is the word of God.

You need irrational arguments: God designed everything, and put the structure in the world, and tells us how to live, and we have a book that tells us his thoughts...but the will of God is unknowable by man.

I'm happy to have a logical discussion, but I haven't seen a logical response yet. Just bumper stickers and random statements.

/I don't mean you specifically, I mean this entire thread.

You may think the therories are tested, but against what? These theories are still based on man who is sitting on a planet 90 million miles away from that giant burning hunk of gas. I agree that we can say what it is made out of by comparing burning gases here on earth and buning gases we view through space. But I still have to accept that reasoning and evidence on faith because I can't fly to the sun and take sample....

Finally an opened mind that can reason clearly!! not spout out some regurgitated nonsense with no evidence or sense.

by the way they won't read your whole post...that would cause them to open their mind




Don't open your mind too much your brains might fall out.

You shouldn't take things on faith. If you can't experience it or repeat it, then you have no obligation to accept it.



Those are two statements made by faith.



Sorry, but your reply makes no sense. Faith is the absence of thought or examination. If you are thinking about it and subjecting it to skepticism, its not faith, its reasoning.



Faith uses reason. Faith always has evidence. Faith is merely committing yourself to something based on what has the strongest weight of evidence. Every time you fly in an airplane you're exercising faith in the pilot and in the equipment.

You made two declarative statements which people can believe or not. Exercising belief is faith.

sorry I'm not meaning to lowering myself to insults, or phrases that come off that way. I was just happy to see someone articulate what I have been thinking.

Just to let you all know I do respect your own opinions and the way that you present them and not pushing your beliefs down my throat. I was raised christian and have opened my eyes to new truths and feel as you do, that the knowledge I have gained is better to be shared than hidden. Sometimes I have a bad way of getting that knowledge out politely...

You may think the therories are tested, but against what? These theories are still based on man who is sitting on a planet 90 million miles away from that giant burning hunk of gas. I agree that we can say what it is made out of by comparing burning gases here on earth and buning gases we view through space. But I still have to accept that reasoning and evidence on faith because I can't fly to the sun and take sample....



It seems that you do not understand the process of scientific discovery with respect to spacial exploration. Look into Radio Astronomy and other techniques used to measure properties of objects throughout the universe....you'll find the answer to your "against what?" question. Check out the robotic devices that we've used to collect particles shed from the sun.

There are many methods used to generate the "knowledge base" that is building to make up the scientific understanding of the sun and planets, that are not simple comparisons to something we can reproduce on earth; not a single one of them is "we'll just have faith that Einstein was right about everything, because it seems to fit".

I understand that scientists can collect particles and sent out robots for scientific exploration in space. The point I am trying to make is about choice. I can choose to believe what the scientist is telling me or I can choose not to believe it. Just like you hear about numbskulls saying that our first trip to the moon was a hoax, you will hear people doubting discovery. You still have to take in the evidence and make up your own mind and sometimes that requires faith in the unseen and unproven, as far as indisputable truth goes. You can tell me that the universe goes on forever, but in my mind I might think it has to stop somewhere. How can you prove to me one thing if I refuse to believe it. We can't fly to the edge of the expanding universe, but we can believe it is through faith in our own ability to calculate and reason why it is infinate.

I understand that scientists can collect particles and sent out robots for scientific exploration in space. The point I am trying to make is about choice. I can choose to believe what the scientist is telling me or I can choose not to believe it. Just like you hear about numbskulls saying that our first trip to the moon was a hoax, you will hear people doubting discovery. You still have to take in the evidence and make up your own mind and sometimes that requires faith in the unseen and unproven, as far as indisputable truth goes. You can tell me that the universe goes on forever, but in my mind I might think it has to stop somewhere. How can you prove to me one thing if I refuse to believe it. We can't fly to the edge of the expanding universe, but we can believe it is through faith in our own ability to calculate and reason why it is infinate.



Yes, you can CHOOSE to believe something. You can choose not to believe researchers who have done vast amounts of peer reviewed study. You could choose to believe the earth is flat, and ignore collected knowledge. You would just be choosing to be wrong.

That's the whole point of this argument. You choose to believe something, but that doesn't make that choice right. If someone chooses to believe that Muhammad went to heaven on a winged white horse, does that mean it happened and is a valid statement or belief? You could argue that we know there are winged white horses, because not only does the Koran say it, but even the Greeks knew about winged horses. Oh, and don't forget unicorns. They were just different perceptions of the white winged horses, which is even more proof that, obviously, the story of Muhammad is right.

You and I will both agree that this is nonsense. Muhammad did not fly on a white winged horse. Never happened. Belief in a thing does not make it true.

You said above that "in your mind" the universe has to stop somewhere. I'm sorry, but just because you need something to make yourself feel better or understand things doesn't make it true. Computers may be too complicated for you, so you need to believe they are powered by a hamster in a wheel, but that doesn't make it true, it means you are delusional and uneducated.

You may choose to believe scientists without any need for proof, but I believe scientists when their findings are studied, peer reviewed and reported. And its never fact, its information. A wealth of information that grows, adapts and corrects over time. Researchers can stand up and say they were wrong, and show why and move forward with better knowledge. Then we get better pieces of knowledge. Smaller pieces that help us slowly get answers to questions, step by step.

Religion will die, and more importantly kill to show that only they believe the right thing. Only Protestants have the right way to Heaven, anyone who disagrees will burn in hell. Only Muslims know the right way to treat women, we parade them around like whores. Only Catholics know the real way to talk to God, which is through an intermediary. Only Jews eat food the right way.

That is what belief gets you. Nowhere. Same ideas and megalomania that has existed for 3500 years. Oh, but you have the RIGHT belief. How could I have not seen?

But that is the point about belief, it doesn't have to be true, it only need be possible. If people didn't have faith, they would never take chances. Here, I decided to go look up a little tidbit to try and explain what I am refering to. Its not about religion, its about relationships and trust and beliefs and faith....



Many noted philosophers and theologians have espoused the idea that faith is the basis of all knowledge. One example is St. Augustine of Hippo. Known as one of his key contributions to philosophy, the idea of "faith seeking understanding" was set forth by St. Augustine in his statement "Crede, ut intelligas" ("Believe in order that you may understand"). This statement extends beyond the sphere of religion to encompass the totality of knowledge. In essence, faith must be present in order to know anything. In other words, one must assume, believe, or have faith in the credibility of a person, place, thing, or idea in order to have a basis for knowledge.

One illustration of this concept is in the development of knowledge in children. A child typically holds parental teaching as credible, in spite of the child's lack of sufficient research to establish such credibility empirically. That parental teaching, however fallible, becomes a foundation upon which future knowledge is built.[citation needed] The child�s faith in his/her parents teaching is based on a belief in their credibility. Unless/until the child�s belief in their parents� credibility is superseded by a stronger belief, the parental teaching will serve as a filter through which other teaching must be processed and/or evaluated. Following this line of reasoning, and assuming that children have finite or limited empirical knowledge at birth, it follows that faith is the fundamental basis of all knowledge one has. Even adults attribute the basis for some of their knowledge to so called "authorities" in a given field of study. This is true because one simply does not have the time or resources to evaluate all of his/her knowledge empirically and exhaustively. "Faith" is used instead.

However, a child's parents are not infallible. Some of what the child learns from them will be wrong, and some will be rejected. It is rational (albeit at a perhaps instinctive level) for the child to trust the parents in the absence of other sources of information, but it is also irrational to cling rigidly to everything one was originally taught in the face of countervailing evidence. Parental instruction may be the historical foundation of future knowledge, but that does not necessarily make it a structural foundation.

It is sometimes argued that even scientific knowledge is dependent on 'faith' - for example, faith that the researcher responsible for an empirical conclusion is competent, and honest. Indeed, distinguished chemist and philosopher Michael Polanyi argued that scientific discovery begins with a scientist's faith that an unknown discovery is possible. Scientific discovery thus requires a passionate commitment to a result that is unknowable at the outset. Polanyi argued that the scientific method is not an objective method removed from man's passion. On the contrary, scientific progress depends primarily on the unique capability of free man to notice and investigate patterns and connections, and on the individual scientist's willingness to commit time and resources to such investigation, which usually must begin before the truth is known or the benefits of the discovery are imagined, let alone understood fully. It could then be argued that until one possesses all knowledge in totality, one will need faith in order to believe an understanding to be correct or incorrect in total affirmation.

Again, scientific faith is not dogmatic. Whilst the scientist must make presuppositions in order to get the enterprise under way, almost everything (according to some thinkers, such as Quine, literally everything) is revisable and discardable.

From wikipedia:

Yep, child psychology is a great analogy. Being a child is the same as religious belief. It just accepts without questioning. A child's brain is physiologically set up to just accept. Of course, children grow up, and begin to question. They realize their parents don't know everything, and go to new sources. They may even have to unlearn teachings of their parents, such as racism. Overtime, they will even surpass their parents in knowledge, and the cycle will start again.

Are you content to think like a child for your entire life? Or only when it comes to your religion?


Again, scientific faith is not dogmatic. Whilst the scientist must make presuppositions in order to get the enterprise under way, almost everything (according to some thinkers, such as Quine, literally everything) is revisable and discardable.



This is the best part of your article posting. Is your belief in Jesus as Saviour revisable and discardable?

A certain number of religious rationalists, as well as non-religious people, criticize implicit faith as being irrational, and see faith as ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence. In this view, belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by logic or scientific evidence. Some say that belief in scientific evidence is based on faith in positivism. Others claim that faith is perfectly compatible with and does not necessarily contradict reason, "faith" meaning a belief in the existence of a deity. Many Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that there is adequate historical evidence of their God's existence and interaction with human beings. As such, they may believe that there is no need for "faith" in God in the sense of belief against or despite evidence; rather, they hold that evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that their God probably exists or certainly exists.

No historical evidence has managed to convince the entirety of the community of historians on earth that any one religion is true. For people in this category, "faith" in a God simply means "belief that one has knowledge of [any particular] God[s]". It is logically impossible that all these different religions with their mutually contradictory beliefs can simultaneously be objectively true. Therefore, most historians with religious beliefs hold others to be "false", or essentially wrong. This is a standard tenet of most religions as well, though there are exceptions. An example of this is some forms of Hinduism, which hold the view that the several different faiths are just aspects of the ultimate truth that the several religions have difficulty describing or understanding. They see the different religions as just different paths to the same goal. This does not explain away all logical contradictions between faiths but these traditions say that all seeming contradictions will be understood once a person has an experience of the Hindu concept of moksha.

Some religious believers � and many of their critics � often use the term "faith" as the affirmation of belief without an ongoing test of evidence. In this sense faith refers to belief beyond evidence or logical arguments, sometimes called "implicit faith." Another form of this kind of faith is fideism: one ought to believe that God exists, but one should not base that belief on any other beliefs; one should, instead, accept it without any reasons at all. "Faith" in this sense, belief for the sake of believing, is often associated with S�ren Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling and some other existentialist religious thinkers.

Faith as Religious belief, has been advanced as being desirable, for example for emotional reasons or to regulate society, and this can be seen as �positive� when it has 'benign� effects. However rationalists may become alarmed that faithful activists, perhaps with extreme beliefs, might not be amenable to argument or to negotiation over their behaviour

Robert Todd Carroll, author of skeptic.com, argues that the word "faith" is usually used to refer to belief in a proposition that is not supported by a perceived majority of evidence. Since many beliefs are in propositions that are supported by a perceived majority of evidence, the claim that all beliefs/knowledge are based on faith is a misconception "or perhaps it is an intentional attempt at disinformation and obscurantism" made by religious apologists:[1]

"There seems to be something profoundly deceptive and misleading about lumping together as acts of faith such things as belief in the Virgin birth and belief in the existence of an external world or in the principle of contradiction. Such a view trivializes religious faith by putting all non-empirical claims in the same category as religious faith. In fact, religious faith should be put in the same category as belief in superstitions, fairy tales, and delusions of all varieties."

but according to "Ten myths about Christianity" (ISBN 9780945914411), faith is:

"Self-commitment on the basis of evidence"

"This is the best part of your article posting. Is your belief in Jesus as Saviour revisable and discardable?"


Yes, it is. That is what is so interesting to me about the human mind and soul. It can reason, explore, choose, have faith in God. At the same time we question Gods existence we bow down and pray to God. It's not that we can't see the evidence of science, even in the presence of all that evidence we can still choose to have faith that God is real.

Faith is believing something you know cannot be true. jdoherty

No, it most definitely is not: that's a far too simplistic view. 'Belief that' is similar to 'know that', but lacks incontrovertible evidence. For example, I may believe that the train standing at platform 3 is the train to Geneva, but, because I cannot see its destination board, I do not know that it's the train to Geneva. Therefore, 'belief that' is a conviction that can be shared through persuasion, which may include factual information, but cannot be considered incontrovertible. In fact many 'knowledge' statements are belief statements because we cannot eliminate doubt completely. Karl Popper went so far as to say that all science is ultimately a belief system, in that it has to be based on certain assumed axioms. Moving on from 'belief that', there is 'belief in', which involves a substantial amount of trust to overcome basic doubts in the main statements of the overall theorem.
Perhaps this article should start with such a philosophical view of what faith is. There could be some mention of the vague, general use of the word in the realm of 'faithfulness'. Then there are at least three religious definitions of 'faith' � personal belief in a deity or central religious tenet, a religion itself (e.g. the Christian faith) or a certain orthodoxy (e.g. 'the true faith'). Even though there is a non-religious use for this word, it is rather vague and certainly not as nuanced as its religious use. � Gareth Hughes 21:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is the best part of your article posting. Is your belief in Jesus as Saviour revisable and discardable?"


Yes, it is. That is what is so interesting to me about the human mind and soul. It can reason, explore, choose, have faith in God. At the same time we question Gods existence we bow down and pray to God. It's not that we can't see the evidence of science, even in the presence of all that evidence we can still choose to have faith that God is real.



Finally we are getting somewhere. Now THIS is something that can be discussed. Now, I'm assuming, of course, that you are a Christian, which might be a wrong assumption, but I'm going with it. You can correct me if I'm wrong.

You can revise and discard your belief in Jesus as Saviour. That is a profound statement, and one I would like to explore. Now, I was raised Methodist, and I can't say I know the teachings of every different offshoot of Christianity, but one of the mainstays of Christianity seems to be this belief:

Jesus Christ, son of God (and technically God him/herself) was crucified, and this sacrifice washed away all sin, and was then resurrected, so that we humans, who are incapable of being without sin, could be saved and spend eternity in salavation. But without belief in Jesus, we are doomed. In short, he was the Messiah.

Now, there are other variation of this general statement, and other things that people may find more or less important, but this is the main gist. Jesus as Saviour of mankind. If you don't believe that, but still believe in God, you cease to be Christian, and fall into some other category; Jewish (no messiah yet), Muslim (Muhammad was the last prophet), or some other variation such as Deism. This covers just the Abrahamic relgions. There is also Dharmic religions, Animism, and more.

But Christ is at the core of Christianity. Xians have a reason to believe Jesus was real. They have to, or the rest starts to fall apart pretty quickly. You cease to be a Xian, and become something else.

So if you can revise or discard the belief that Jesus is Saviour, then lets take him out of the equation.

What is your foundation for your religious belief? What is your evidence and reason you point to? Most Xians would say the Bible, so if we remove Jesus, then we only have to address the old testament. This is not a light question. I'm just trying to pare down ideas to the core so that we can discuss them, and if we can get rid of Jesus in the discussion, that's really something.

"Self-commitment on the basis of evidence"-- that describes what I think.

Lowe

"Self-commitment on the basis of evidence"-- that describes what I think.

Lowe



You keep using this word Evidence. Please, actually post some. Use your own words, use rational thought, and show us some evidence. I would really like to discuss it. You are a minister after all. You spend all day thinking about this and researching it. I imagine you have a variety of points that I can think about.

Caveat: You can't use the Bible as evidence. Its a circular argument. You can use teachings to make a point, that's fine, but no blanket, "the bible says" statements. I, as many people, view the Bible as a great piece of literature with many valuable stories and ideas. I view the Lord of the Rings the same way, but wouldn't use it as proof of anything.

Senior,

You said, "But that is the point about belief, it doesn't have to be true, it only need be possible." Are these your words were you quoting someone else? Taken by themselves, as I quoted them, I'd have to disagree. Faith must be in what is true or it is worthless.

Many things may be possible but not true and have deadly results. The people who drank poison koolaid in Jonestown may have thought it was possible that they were going straight to heaven by doing that, but the possibility didn't create reality. Or to use another example, one of my close relatives said, "I don't like the idea of Hell." meaning that if she doesn't believe in it then it just doesn't exist. The mere possibility that she suggests cannot change reality. Hell exists whether she likes it or not. Faith must be in what is true and real.

Lowe

So if you can revise or discard the belief that Jesus is Saviour, then lets take him out of the equation.



I may be wrong, but I think that Senior implied that it is possible to stop believing in Jesus as Savior and discard that belief. However, to do so one stops being a Christian, since as you said this is a core belief. You can't be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God. I don't think that he was saying that would discard his belief in Jesus, only that would be possible.

Senior, am I representing you correctly?

Lowe

I am so glad someone else out there in the discgolf world stands for something they believe in. A lot of discgolfers around my parts don't let their beliefs known if they are christian. It is either they don't have Him in their life or they just want to fit in, which if you truely have Him in your life then you would not just want to fit into society.

You keep using this word Evidence. Please, actually post some. Use your own words, use rational thought, and show us some evidence.



Evidence-
The Roman historian Tacitus, in *Annals*, xv. 44, 64 A.D.
�And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executes at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome,�

1. By 64 A.D.there was a group called "Christians".
2. People in this group were followers of "Christ". This was a title meaning "Messiah". His name was Jesus.
3. Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate just as the Bible records show.
So will you agree that there was a historical person named Jesus who was executed by the Romans?
4. The religion slowed for a while then grew again and spread to Rome.

That's enough evidence to start with. More will follow as I have time.

Lowe

So if you can revise or discard the belief that Jesus is Saviour, then lets take him out of the equation.



I may be wrong, but I think that Senior implied that it is possible to stop believing in Jesus as Savior and discard that belief. However, to do so one stops being a Christian, since as you said this is a core belief. You can't be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God. I don't think that he was saying that would discard his belief in Jesus, only that would be possible.

Senior, am I representing you correctly?

Lowe



Well, he needs to make a restatement then. I thought it was a pretty amazing statement myself, and the point of my question in the original posting.

Researchers can cast aside a steady state universe for an expanding universe if the evidence supports it. Christians can't change their belief in Jesus unless they choose to stop being Christian. That's the difference between reason and belief. The ability to change.

You keep using this word Evidence. Please, actually post some. Use your own words, use rational thought, and show us some evidence.



Evidence-
The Roman historian Tacitus, in *Annals*, xv. 44, 64 A.D.
�And so, to get rid of this rumor, Nero set up as the culprits and punished with the utmost refinement of cruelty a class hated for their abominations, who are commonly called Christians. Christus, from whom their name is derived, was executes at the hands of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. Checked for the moment, this pernicious superstition again broke out, not only in Judea, the source of the evil, but even in Rome,�

1. By 64 A.D.there was a group called "Christians".
2. People in this group were followers of "Christ". This was a title meaning "Messiah". His name was Jesus.
3. Jesus was executed under Pontius Pilate just as the Bible records show.
So will you agree that there was a historical person named Jesus who was executed by the Romans?
4. The religion slowed for a while then grew again and spread to Rome.

That's enough evidence to start with. More will follow as I have time.

Lowe



I have no problem saying Jesus was a real person, although I'm not aware of any records of his crucifixion or existence, so number 3 is a bit of a stretch. But people were crucified, I know there were people who followed his teachings, so I have no problem saying there was a guy named Jesus who had followers. As I stated in a previous entry, his existence doesn't change things one way or the other for me. We will agree he was real for this discussion.

So we are on the same page. Continue.

I am so glad someone else out there in the discgolf world stands for something they believe in. A lot of discgolfers around my parts don't let their beliefs known if they are christian. It is either they don't have Him in their life or they just want to fit in, which if you truely have Him in your life then you would not just want to fit into society.



No offense, but I don't think you are in a minority when you profess your belief of Jesus, even in the disc golf world. 76% of people identify themselves as Christian. You may not like their actions or feel that they are "real christians", but that's your lines of division.

If you want to feel uncomfortable in society, try standing up at work and sharing with people that you don't believe in God. See how that affects your life.

The foundation of my belief is faith. I have something in me that makes that faith strong. That strength is the love of GOD and his ability to love me and give me grace. I accept his word as it is written as the truth.

Caveat: You can't use the Bible as evidence. Its a circular argument. You can use teachings to make a point, that's fine, but no blanket, "the bible says" statements. I, as many people, view the Bible as a great piece of literature with many valuable stories and ideas. I view the Lord of the Rings the same way, but wouldn't use it as proof of anything.



That's only partially true. The Bible is great literature, but also contains history. I'd like to build a case that doesn't use circular reasoning for why I can believe that the Bible is true.

I'll start with the assertion that the Bible is at least generally reliable. What tests would you use to judge the historical reliability of an ancient document? I have three. These are:
1. The Bibliographical test
2. The Internal Evidence test.
3. The External Evidence test.
Using these tests the Bible far surpasses all works of antiquity that historians use, such as Caesar's *Gallic Wars*. (There's tons more detail behind this.)

So step 1: The Bible is generally historically reliable.

Step 2. In the New Testament, in every place where the history can be tested it has been shown to be true.

Nuff for now, because I've gotta go. More later...

Lowe

May I call you Craig?

You aaid:

although I'm not aware of any records of his crucifixion or existence, so number 3 is a bit of a stretch.


But the Tacitus quote I just gave supplied both of these! There are alsonother outside sources that can also be brought in if needed, but you said you agreed to the point, so I won't bring them in.

Lowe, that is my opinion. I believe that the world is where it is today both inteletually and spirtually because we are willing to take a chance in our own faith in God and that gives us the strength to believe regardless of someone trying to say that I am a monkeys uncle.... I believe that Gods word is completely true. Ther are some that try to hypothesis that God created the world in 6 mega days, that each day was millions of years. I don't try to justify Gods word, I accept it with faith.

So if you can revise or discard the belief that Jesus is Saviour, then lets take him out of the equation.



I may be wrong, but I think that Senior implied that it is possible to stop believing in Jesus as Savior and discard that belief. However, to do so one stops being a Christian, since as you said this is a core belief. You can't be a Christian and not believe that Jesus is God. I don't think that he was saying that he would discard his belief in Jesus, only that would be possible.

Senior, am I representing you correctly?

Lowe



Yes, you are Lowe....

It is Gods will that man shape his own destiny and choose freely to follow his word. I believe this is true. He has a plan for us, but it is dependent on our decisions. We could even denounce Christ and still come to Him back ten years later and save a thousand of the lost....

But by being a servant of God and committed to belief in His word we begin a process that brings Gods will closer and closer to His perfect purpose. God may not walk right up to me on the street, but he speaks to me through His word and His servants and the people I live and work and play with. It is all relative. We find our way to peace and truth through the journey of our lifes and our ability to learn and choose.....

Bye, I gotta go.... Peace out

You aaid:

although I'm not aware of any records of his crucifixion or existence, so number 3 is a bit of a stretch.


But the Tacitus quote I just gave supplied both of these! There are alsonother outside sources that can also be brought in if needed, but you said you agreed to the point, so I won't bring them in.



As I said, I have no problem saying he was a real person. Lets not get caught up debating a point that we can agree on.


I'll start with the assertion that the Bible is at least generally reliable. What tests would you use to judge the historical reliability of an ancient document? I have three. These are:
1. The Bibliographical test
2. The Internal Evidence test.
3. The External Evidence test.
Using these tests the Bible far surpasses all works of antiquity that historians use, such as Caesar's *Gallic Wars*. (There's tons more detail behind this.)



1 - I'm not following your term use . Bibliographical would mean the study of organized writing, as far as I know the definition. Not sure what you mean by it as proof. I know a book exists and is studied, if that's what you mean.

2 and 3 - I assume you want to use these together. Internal Evidence on its own has absolutely no merit. I again point to Lord of the Rings. The description of the landscape is extremely detailed, so much so you can make a map. The time frame is also extremely accurate, and matches the seasons. That doesn't mean its factual, just because the book itself matches its own details. If you use internal evidence alone, then its a very weak argument indeed. Thus, when someone tries to show they know what God wants of mankind by using "the bible says..." statements, logic breaks down.

I assume, however, you suggest that if external evidence matches internal evidence, then the book is validated. I wouldn't say it validates an entire book, but feel free to use it as evidence in your argument. I, again, don't see a problem with it, because if you are using external evidence as proof of internal evidence, then that evidence can be examined and challenged.

You make a comparison to writings about the Gallic Wars, which if I remember was written by Caesar himself. Caesar's writings and the writings of other historians at the time have been already found to be exaggerated, such as in numbers of troops, ease of battle, etc. Another example is the battle of Troy. No one knows for a fact that it happened, but excavations have found remains of a city that is likely Troy. If we assume the battle did happen, we know that the numbers of ships and men were grossly exaggerated. This has been shown by determining the general population at the time in history and available resources. So we can say a battle may have happened, but to say that the battle of Troy was a factual event requires buying into assumption.

I have no problem using the Bible as a historical basis, but if you want to use the Bible for specifics, it starts to break down a bit.



So step 1: The Bible is generally historically reliable.

Step 2. In the New Testament, in every place where the history can be tested it has been shown to be true.



No problem using this as a foundation. I don't think anyone will argue that the Old and New Testament doesn't take place in real places. We know there were Jews in Egypt that were slaves. Now, if you want to start saying that because there were Jews in Egypt, and Exodus talks about those Jews, it is proof that Moses parted the Red Sea, we start to have a problem again, and will have to start examining the event itself.

If we are on the same page, feel free to continue.

The foundation of my belief is faith. I have something in me that makes that faith strong. That strength is the love of GOD and his ability to love me and give me grace. I accept his word as it is written as the truth.



You believe in God because you have a feeling inside. That feeling can be nothing but God. Therefore the word of God is true.

As discussed previously, this truly is the rationale of a child. In that statement, you could substitute God with any word and believe in anything. But somehow you have the special feeling that proves its the right God, and you know the right word of God, unlike others. And you believe, so that's all you need.

Truly remarkable. Insight into a mindset that given the right setting and background would drink poisoned Kool-Aid, or chop the head off of an infadel.

I wouldn't take it that far. What I am trying to convey to you is the emotional part of the equation we are discussing. I understand that the Bible has many examples that would make most people wonder if could be true. Take for example what I referred to earlier. God created the world in six days and on the seventh rested. Man and even belivers, have a hard time beilieving this notion given all the scientific data and carbon dating methods etc. But I myself accept it to be true because of a feeling inside. That feeling is faith. I'm not about to join some cult and sacrifice myself in the name of some self proclaimed prophet. I simply have a very strong belief in Christ and his word. It wasn't too long ago that I finished my undergraduate in the college of engineering. I have explored all of the wonderous connections between math, physics and chemistry and began to question to origin of man and earth. But even after all that, I can still choose to believe in Gods word. I just learned how to put Gods word into context with modern science. It doesn't mean I am some mindless sheeple. It just means that through faith I can examine the evidence and make a calculated conclusion regarding Gods word and science. It is a choice to seek Gods will.

I have explored all of the wonderous connections between math, physics and chemistry and began to question to origin of man and earth. But even after all that, I can still choose to believe in Gods word. I just learned how to put Gods word into context with modern science.



Of course you can put it into context. You are actively trying. You want it to be true, so you go about finding any idea that will make it fit. I'll never disagree that people can believe anything if they try hard enough. If your goal is to make something fit, you can twist it and alter it and shave it until it does. You can ignore what is inconvenient, and in the end, if it just doesn't work, you can fall back on faith. The most recent example of that is the Catholic church, (the Pope is infallible), saying that religion is not at odds with evolutionary theory. This is despite religion fighting evolutionary theory for 150 years. But there is an easy out. Now we just say God is responsible for evolution. Prove that he isn't!! I'll make the evidence fit what I already believe, so that I don't have to change.

That is just utter nonsense.


God created the world in six days and on the seventh rested. Man and even belivers, have a hard time beilieving this notion given all the scientific data and carbon dating methods etc. But I myself accept it to be true because of a feeling inside. That feeling is faith.



I think this really ends our conversation, as you come back to the same point. You state that you simply choose to ignore evidence because of a feeling inside. You actively choose to disregard something in order to confirm your own personal belief, and you adapt your own knowledge to fit that belief. That is called delusion, and there is no way to have a discussion about a delusion.

I think this really ends our conversation, as you come back to the same point. You state that you simply choose to ignore evidence because of a feeling inside. You actively choose to disregard something in order to confirm your own personal belief, and you adapt your own knowledge to fit that belief. That is called delusion, and there is no way to have a discussion about a delusion.




Actually it's called fideism. I take fideism to be "faith in faith" or just "faith for the sake of faith" or "faith without evidence". Craig, I agree with you that fideism is a dead end in looking for the truth. Following Christ, or believing that the Bible is true, need not be dependent on fideism.

I don't know how to even join this conversation when a grown educated man still believes that the world was created in 6 days?

--It is an indisputable scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old

Although he may of existed, Jesus was by no means a "god"

Horus: Egypt 3000 B.C.
-Born on Dec. 25th
-Born of a virgin
-Adorned by three kings
-Teacher at age 12
-Baptized with ministry by age 30
-had 12 disciples
-performed miracles
-called the "Lamb of God"
-Crucified
-Dead for three days
-resurrected

Attis: 1200 B.C.
-Born of a virgin
-on Dec 25th
-Crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected

Read the book "Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion" by Ahmed Osman

Post deleted by Boognish

I don't know how to even join this conversation when a grown educated man still believes that the world was created in 6 days?

--It is an indisputable scientific fact that the Earth is billions of years old



Careful using absolute terms like "indisputable scientific fact". Exact details are still in dispute, and although there is a mountain of evidence to support your view of the age of the earth, it is not yet to the level of Law. Still a theory, just a really good theory.

BTW, I completely agree with you. There is a "museum" in Glenrose, TX that I drive by all the time when camping in Dinosaur Valley State Park. There are dino foot prints in the river there, and someone decided to set up a Creationist museum to show that man and dino existed at the same time, roughly 6000 years ago. The sign has a tarzan guy in loincloth swinging above a brontosaurus.

I laugh everytime I see it, and I really want to go in. Their main evidence is a human foot by a dino foot in the rock. Unfortunately, when I'm leaving my camping trip (and have time to go inside), its Sunday, and they aren't open. :)

[QUOTE]
Actually it's called fideism. I take fideism to be "faith in faith" or just "faith for the sake of faith" or "faith without evidence".



See, I learned something new. Not a term I was familiar with. Definitely a nicer term, as well, than delusional.

I would like to point out that this is the second time (or possibly third time) that you have corrected or disagreed with the logic of Senior. Presumably, you both believe in the same God, but disagree on how to validate that.

Not that I want to start a new topic, but possibly something to think about for your response in our other discussion:

Is it acceptable to you as a minister for a person to have incorrect knowledge or assumptions, as long as they end up at the right conclusion? (In this case, belief in Jesus as Saviour). Is it encouraged that people simply believe, and use any means, even incorrect ones, to support that belief? For example, if one day we discover cell life on Europa or some other location, and one of your congregation would have their faith shaken, or even lose faith, to find that live was somewhere other than Earth (as stated in the Bible), would you allow, or even encourage, that person to simply disregard the information to ensure their faith remained strong?

As the leader of a flock, you must realize that people are often wrong in their knowledge, but do you feel the ends justify the means when it comes to faith? Is faith, even when based on fideism (as you put it), just as valid as faith based on research and experience?

Let me repshrase that...there is mountains of conclusive evidence that the world's canyons and rivers were formed from billions of years of erosion. Fossils from millions of years ago, and of course caveman and human remains from tens of thousands of years ago.

Let me repshrase that...there is mountains of conclusive evidence that the world's canyons and rivers were formed from billions of years of erosion. Fossils from millions of years ago, and of course caveman and human remains from tens of thousands of years ago.



Its a trick, played by the Devil, to keep you from accepting God.

Isn't this fun!! I can do this all day. Gimme some more! :)

Although he may of existed, Jesus was by no means a "god"

Horus: Egypt 3000 B.C.
-Born on Dec. 25th
-Born of a virgin
-Adorned by three kings
-Teacher at age 12
-Baptized with ministry by age 30
-had 12 disciples
-performed miracles
-called the "Lamb of God"
-Crucified
-Dead for three days
-resurrected

Attis: 1200 B.C.
-Born of a virgin
-on Dec 25th
-Crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected

Read the book "Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion" by Ahmed Osman



I'm amazed at how easily you have FAITH in those "facts". Do you believe that mainly because you want to believe it?

I never claimed to be a fideist. It may seem that based on what I am offering that some points fit with fideism, but that is not me. I Don't care if the world is or isn't a billion years old. I care that Gods word is what I trust in. I can see the evidence and study it and even believe it has merrit. The fact that a man can have both is a very beautiful thing. Think about it. I can seek the truth and pray and worship God and still be a very active scientist. Just because our methods of dating say something is very old doesn't necessarily mean that it is absolutly true. For me to have peace in my heart and mind I go to my faith to put things into context. I'm not blindly faithful, I am using faith and reason as tools to make sense of the physical world around me and spiritual world I cannot see.

Fideism
Main article: Fideism
In Christian theology, fideism is any of several belief systems which hold, on various grounds, that reason is irrelevant to religious faith. According to some versions of fideism, reason is the antithesis of faith; according to others, faith is prior to or beyond reason, and therefore is unable to be proven or disproven by it.

The word is also occasionally used to refer to the Protestant belief that Christians are saved by faith alone: for which see sol&amp;#257; fide. This position is sometimes called solifidianism.

The Earth has aged remarkably quickly in the last 30 years. When I was in college it was 4.5 billion years old, and now it's over 20 billion years old. My how time flies! How assured are these "facts" about the age of the universe?

(And I believe that the universe probably is old, and that an old universe is not incompatible with biblical faith.)

I differ in many ways. I do not believe you are saved on faith alone. I believe faith is the foundation of my belief (personal foundation), but i do not believe it is the only thing. This discussion went in this direction because some of you were asking what faith is and why it matters. I am trying to give you some insight into the heart of a Christian man. one who loves his lord and his lords word, but at the same time is able to reason with the physical world.

Although he may of existed, Jesus was by no means a "god"

Horus: Egypt 3000 B.C.
-Born on Dec. 25th
-Born of a virgin
-Adorned by three kings
-Teacher at age 12
-Baptized with ministry by age 30
-had 12 disciples
-performed miracles
-called the "Lamb of God"
-Crucified
-Dead for three days
-resurrected

Attis: 1200 B.C.
-Born of a virgin
-on Dec 25th
-Crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected

Read the book "Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion" by Ahmed Osman



I'm amazed at how easily you have FAITH in those "facts". Do you believe that mainly because you want to believe it?




Sorry, but that's a really silly question. People don't believe those "facts", even though they were written down and believed by people years ago.

But you do believe it about one person, who came years later. See my quote below.

Senior 8/23 -
I do not believe you are saved on faith alone. I believe faith is the foundation of my belief (personal foundation), but i do not believe it is the only thing.



Senior 8/21 -
2) As for Christians, we can believe in Christ and never even see one word of the bible and be save by faith alone.



Really, you should stop while you are ahead. Your arguments are becoming slightly convoluted, and you are beginning to have to restate yourself to correct previous assertions.

I understand what you are saying about your faith. Faith of your sort is mirrored by suicide bombers and people who practice marriage to prepubescent girls and female genital mutilation.

I simply reject your way of thinking.

The Earth has aged remarkably quickly in the last 30 years. When I was in college it was 4.5 billion years old, and now it's over 20 billion years old. My how time flies! How assured are these "facts" about the age of the universe?

(And I believe that the universe probably is old, and that an old universe is not incompatible with biblical faith.)



When did the world become 20 billion years old? What reputable source of knowledge has ever stated that? You can try to use scorn, but use it properly. Don't just make things up because it suits your joke.

Although he may of existed, Jesus was by no means a "god"

Horus: Egypt 3000 B.C.
-Born on Dec. 25th
-Born of a virgin
-Adorned by three kings
-Teacher at age 12
-Baptized with ministry by age 30
-had 12 disciples
-performed miracles
-called the "Lamb of God"
-Crucified
-Dead for three days
-resurrected

Attis: 1200 B.C.
-Born of a virgin
-on Dec 25th
-Crucified, dead for 3 days and resurrected

Read the book "Christianity: An Ancient Egyptian Religion" by Ahmed Osman



I'm amazed at how easily you have FAITH in those "facts". Do you believe that mainly because you want to believe it?




Sorry, but that's a really silly question. People don't believe those "facts", even though they were written down and believed by people years ago.

But you do believe it about one person, who came years later. See my quote below.



I don't think that you understood my point. I'm not saying you believe that those Egyptian guys were factual. I was saying that I doubt the veracity of the author who said that there were these beliefs. He'd have to prove it to me. It sounds way too convenient, so I have my doubts about the "facts" that he presented. I doubt that ancient Egyptians really even had those beliefs, but you've presented this as a fact. Just because sth is written in a book doesn't make it true. (Sound familiar?) Does that make more sense?

Lowe

The Earth has aged remarkably quickly in the last 30 years. When I was in college it was 4.5 billion years old, and now it's over 20 billion years old. My how time flies! How assured are these "facts" about the age of the universe?

(And I believe that the universe probably is old, and that an old universe is not incompatible with biblical faith.)



When did the world become 20 billion years old? What reputable source of knowledge has ever stated that? You can try to use scorn, but use it properly. Don't just make things up because it suits your joke.



I wasn't just making things up. My understanding is that the earth is currently said to be over 20 billion years old. I may be wrong. How old do you think the earth is (please give your source)?

Lowe

I made that statement in response to someone talking about people out in the wild who have never heard the gospel. A man can receive Jesus and be saved and never have read a single word of the bible if his faith in Gods saving grace is strong enough. What that level of faith is I don't really know. I only know what it says. I don't contend that I think I can be saved on faith alone, only that it is possible if it is Gods will.

I'm amazed at how easily you have FAITH in those "facts". Do you believe that mainly because you want to believe it?


First off, why would I believe b/c I want to believe? I want to be the minority? I want to believe against what 75% of the free world, my family, and friends believe? If I'm wrong I go to hell, if you are wrong you rust decompose as every animal does.

How are those "facts" from direct quotes from that religions "bible" different from Christianity's bible? Those are attributes to those gods written in there holy books long before Jesus. If they are fact or not is irrelevant. The bible is still plagiarizing.

I have an unbiased view on this topic...I have read the entire bible and have 12 years of Christian and Catholic education. I also have an open mind and am willing to look a the possibility of other truths in this universe. All of your research, quotes, facts, are from one side of the argument. It seems to me that you have done no research within a neutral context. And by the way that book was written by someone from the "Holy Land" as Christians call it. The book cites direct lines from the Ancient book of the Dead, the Egyptian religion's bible...just as every piece of "evidence" you use is from the Christian bible (which has been translated more than any other piece of literature known to man). Are your facts better..Why would they be better?

I know...you believe mainly b/c you want to believe it

Those points about Horus the sun god, or son of god (sound familiar), are extremely fictional. But the fact is they were written down 3000 years before Jesus was born!! Still has to make you think a little about what you believe. It did me

Reject my way of thinking, but don't try to twist and convolute my discussion points. It seemed like we were having a good discussion on the difference between what we believe. I think it is a good way to learn and become better people. If you take and compare everything I have said and don't put thiose things into the proper context it would be really easy to make me look foolish, but to what end? Is this what your purpose is here? To be the post detective and look back at every thing said and use it to your advantage. And if so what does it gain you here? Nothing. We are trying to understand each other, not break apart a court room testimony....

I wasn't just making things up. My understanding is that the earth is currently said to be over 20 billion years old. I may be wrong. How old do you think the earth is (please give your source)?




It is generally agreed upon by geologists the world is approximately 4.5 billions years old. You can view Wikipedia for a variety of references. I've pasted the US Geological society link below, with a description of why that age is generally agreed upon, and what basic methods are used to come to that number.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

I'm curious where you got 20 billion. It took me 15 seconds with a google search to find the USGS. Nowhere could I find any scientific or geological source listing 20 billion years as the age of the Earth. Not one single source, even after 5 minutes of searching. I did, however, find a Christian site that used that number, in order to cast doubt on any dates scientists offer.

http://www.ch-of-christ.beaverton.or.us/AGEEARTH.htm

I can assume from your glib response about the change of the age of the Earth in the last 30 years is a phrase you have used before to deride the opinions of scientists.

Will you now say you were wrong to make that statement?

I was responding to Lowe...not you

"Those are attributes to those gods written in their holy books"

These are the facts that I'm questioning. I'm skeptical about whether those beliefs really were written or if they were just made up by the author. I'm not talking about the veracity of the beliefs themsselves; I'm just questioning the statement that they're thereat all.

Lowe

Is this the forum to debate religion? If so, then I found my home. I have a minor in Philosophy and Religous studies and I've got some very intersting ideas.

But the fact is they were written down 3000 years before Jesus was born!!



How can you prove this statement? This is the statement that I'm claiming you've easily accepted by faith. Were you there 5000 years ago? No. Do you know someone who was there who really believed that? No. Have you seen the actual books? If there are such writings, have you done the translation yourself? If you've done none of these things then you're accepting those statements on faith.

Lowe

Reject my way of thinking, but don't try to twist and convolute my discussion points. It seemed like we were having a good discussion on the difference between what we believe. I think it is a good way to learn and become better people. If you take and compare everything I have said and don't put thiose things into the proper context it would be really easy to make me look foolish, but to what end? Is this what your purpose is here? To be the post detective and look back at every thing said and use it to your advantage. And if so what does it gain you here? Nothing. We are trying to understand each other, not break apart a court room testimony....



It wasn't taken out of context, it was a direct reply to a post I made. You were simply caught making a conflicting statement. I posted it to suggest that we are getting nowhere in this conversation.

And we are truly getting nowhere, which is why I choose to end the conversation. You are not offering up evidence or rational arguments that can be examined. You are stating opinion, and then saying that your feeling and opinion is all that you need as proof.

There is no reply to that. Its a dead end street. I'm not trying to change your mind, that will never happen. I simply hope others will see your postings, and try to go beyond your ideas of feelings and suggestions, and truly examine why they believe what they believe.

Thanks for your time.

Will you now say you were wrong to make that statement?



I'll take your word for it that 4.5 billion years is the currently accepted age of the earth. Sure, I was wrong to say that currently scientists believe the age of the earth to be 20 billion years. I stand corrected. I have no recollection of where I got that idea.

Lowe

But the fact is they were written down 3000 years before Jesus was born!!



How can you prove this statement? This is the statement that I'm claiming you've easily accepted by faith. Were you there 5000 years ago? No. Do you know someone who was there who really believed that? No. Have you seen the actual books? If there are such writings, have you done the translation yourself? If you've done none of these things then you're accepting those statements on faith.

Lowe



I completely agree...but
You have just proved my point for the bible and every thing I have heard you state as fact.

Were you there 4000-2000 years ago when the bible was being written? Do you know someone who was there? Have you seen the original version of the bible before it was translated by 1000 people, religions, and countries?

If you have done none of these things then you are accepting everything in the bible as faith, and opinion, not fact as you have stated. No matter what I say, or read in literature that is just as credible as the bible; you will still be able to distort it to your liking. That is what you are taught in Ministry school. Not proof or fact, purely blind faith and how to defend that faith and instill it in others.

And what i am saying is not from my mouth but from an uncle of mine that is a FORMER pastor.

I don't agree that we are "getting nowhere". And if the statement I made was not out of context then at least try to understand what I was refering to. I do not believe that all Christians are saved by faith alone. I believe that we can be if God grants it. There is a big difference. As for getting somewhere, I have come to unsderstand your point of view through this discussion regarding faith and science. Have you not come to understand my position? Isn't it possible examine and discuss the fact that people of faith can beilieve in God and seek scientific understanding at the same time? And like wise discuss why a scientist may reject the notion of faith?

Craig,

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Now I'm wondering where I ever came up with 20 billion. I really have no recollection. The best I can figure is that I was mixing up the age of the universe with the age of the earth. One recent estimate of the age of the universe (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html) puts it at 13.7 billions years. A useful fact to know.

I am not here to prove anyone right or wrong, but to understand differing points of view. This thread's title is "disc golfers for Jesus" and has been going for 5 years! I am barely a part of that. But as a christian I am interested in discussing the issues. This is not a contest for who is right, but a discussion about being a christian or maybe not being a christian....

But the fact is they were written down 3000 years before Jesus was born!!



How can you prove this statement? This is the statement that I'm claiming you've easily accepted by faith. Were you there 5000 years ago? No. Do you know someone who was there who really believed that? No. Have you seen the actual books? If there are such writings, have you done the translation yourself? If you've done none of these things then you're accepting those statements on faith.

Lowe



You seem to bent on having us use the word faith. It is not faith, however, to use documentation and previous human knowledge. Horus, as previously stated, is documented in engravings in Egypt. It is a mystery religion, in that we don't fully understand the beliefs, but using the writings that have been found, a good deal of information can be put together. There are photos of the engravings. I do not read heiroglyphics, but I trust that when many people who do read them all come to an agreement on what an engraving says, its likely true. And if we suddenly learn the translation was wrong, we can adjust our thoughts. This is not faith, its logic. If one person said that only he had seen it, I would not consider the information valid.

Of course, if you want to know for yourself, you can learn how to read hieroglyphs and travel to Egypt, find the monuments, and translate them yourself. No one said knowledge was easy.

You never knew your great-great grandfather. But you know how babies are born, and understand genetics, so you can make some very real assumptions based on that information, without having met him. If you told me that your great-grandmother was a virgin her whole life, we could do some genetic tests to determine if that was true. Again, not easy, but it can be done. You just have to educate yourself.

And again, we come to the difference between faith and reason. If I have pause to believe a fact, I do not accept it. I may be wrong, but I only suffer from ignorance. However, if countless people show repeated evidence over and over, and that evidence is accepted by independent review, I'm not accepting that information on faith, no matter how much you'd like to say I am. I'm accepting it on reason and knowledge.

This last post is a great example of why we are getting "somewhere". Christians are bent on the notion of faith. Remenber stars wars... Obi-wan tells Luke about the force

"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

I kind of always loved that one, because thats how I feel about faith. No proof needed. If you rephrase it:

"Faith is what gives a Christian his power. It's an energy field created by Gods love. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

Lowe,

Before we stray to much, we were having a discussion about evidence. We were setting some good ground rules for the discussion, and I'd like to hear your follow up.

This last post is a great example of why we are getting "somewhere". Christians are bent on the notion of faith. Remenber stars wars... Obi-wan tells Luke about the force

"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

I kind of always loved that one, because thats how I feel about faith. No proof needed. If you rephrase it:

"Faith is what gives a Christian his power. It's an energy field created by Gods love. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."



But the Force isn't real. Its science fiction. Not a great comparison, even though you are just using the quote because you like it.

Unless you mean you believe in something fictional because you like how it sounds. Then I won't argue.

Craig,

Thanks for pointing out my mistake. Now I'm wondering where I ever came up with 20 billion. I really have no recollection. The best I can figure is that I was mixing up the age of the universe with the age of the earth. One recent estimate of the age of the universe (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html) puts it at 13.7 billions years. A useful fact to know.



If you are interested in this subject, you should read, "God and the New Physics" by Paul Davies. Tough read, and much of the beginning was way above my head, but a very good read.

This last post is a great example of why we are getting "somewhere". Christians are bent on the notion of faith. Remenber stars wars... Obi-wan tells Luke about the force

"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

I kind of always loved that one, because thats how I feel about faith. No proof needed. If you rephrase it:

"Faith is what gives a Christian his power. It's an energy field created by Gods love. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."



But the Force isn't real. Its science fiction. Not a great comparison, even though you are just using the quote because you like it.

Unless you mean you believe in something fictional because you like how it sounds. Then I won't argue.



Faith is unprovable. And as such religions use it as a way to get people to blindly believe what they are told to do. And that is the bottom line, religion is a tool used to control what people do based on unprovable claims of faith and fear of the unknown. The underlying principles are great, but the application is terrible.

This last post is a great example of why we are getting "somewhere". Christians are bent on the notion of faith. Remenber stars wars... Obi-wan tells Luke about the force

"The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."

I kind of always loved that one, because thats how I feel about faith. No proof needed. If you rephrase it:

"Faith is what gives a Christian his power. It's an energy field created by Gods love. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together."



But the Force isn't real. Its science fiction. Not a great comparison, even though you are just using the quote because you like it.

Unless you mean you believe in something fictional because you like how it sounds. Then I won't argue.



Faith is unprovable. And as such religions use it as a way to get people to blindly believe what they are told to do. And that is the bottom line, religion is a tool used to control what people do based on unprovable claims of faith and fear of the unknown. The underlying principles are great, but the application is terrible.



Preaching to the choir here man. If people want to see two examples religious psychology in work to manipulate people, they should learn about North Korea (cult of personality), and Scientology (mulit-level marketing scheme wrapped in religion).

But, these people reading have faith, which requires no evidence and is beyond explanation. They definitely have an unassailable position. :)

I will argue, however, that the underlying principles you refer to are not a specific to religion. The idea that values and religion are inherently linked is a complete fallacy.

Amen

Faith is unprovable. And as such religions use it as a way to get people to blindly believe what they are told to do. And that is the bottom line, religion is a tool used to control what people do based on unprovable claims of faith and fear of the unknown. The underlying principles are great, but the application is terrible.



I don't think I've ever seen it put so succintly. There are so many obvious examples of the inappropriate application of religion. U. S. Slavery, the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Jonestown.

I could go on.

Amen



What exactly are you amening? I hope it wasn't my quote. I was indicating (to paraphrase another thinker) that we don't need religion to do good things, but we must have religion to do terrible things.

Are you amening that? I somehow doubt it.

PS, just trying to have a bit of fun... I love the way some movies have correlations to faith. The Lord of the Rings, the Matrix, they all have a theme of good and evil and faith is something that is very much a part of the good prevailing in the end.

The idea that values and religion are inherently linked is a complete fallacy. Amen

This part certainly is not new: "religion is a tool used to control what people do .." The communists in Russia and China have been saying that since the early 20th century.

This part certainly is not new: "religion is a tool used to control what people do .." The communists in Russia and China have been saying that since the early 20th century.


The egyptions used it too. Most great societies used religion of some form of it as a means to control the weak thinking peons of society into not committing crimes and blindly excepting that today's life is meaningless. That helps justify their pitifull exisitance here on earth for the great afterlife.

This may been posted already but ....
One of the 3 foundations of Judeo-Christain beliefs is that God is all powerfull. If god is all powerfull can god create a rock so heavy that god can not lift it?

If god is all powerfull can god create a rock so heavy that god can not lift it?



Now that one's easy to answer. No, God cannot do it. Even though He is all powerful He can't contradict His essential nature (His attributes). He cannot NOT be all powerful, so he can't create such a rock. In the same way God cannot NOT be holy, or loving; it's just not possible.

Lowe

This may been posted already but ....
One of the 3 foundations of Judeo-Christain beliefs is that God is all powerfull. If god is all powerfull can god create a rock so heavy that god can not lift it?



Or better yet, can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

/mmmm...god burrito