Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Christians will never explain it in these terms, but it involves the fact that Jehovah is bloodthirsty. He is angry about sin. In Old Testament times the temple sacrifice system regularly sacrificed lambs, rams, bulls, goats, etc., to appease god and "cover for" the sins of the people. Why that as opposed to dancing on one foot and reciting poetry, or any other random thing? Well chalk that one up to the belief of the ancients that guilt demands the shedding of the guilty person's blood, e.g., their death. The temple sacrifices were simply made as a proxy to satisfy god's bloodlust concerning sin. (This made perfect sense back in the day, trust me).
The idea of Jesus being your savior is simply this: he was the ultimate sacrifice to cover for all people's sins for all time. The perfect sacrifice. The jobs is done. However, to make this efficacious for you personally, you have to have faith that this has been done for you, thus "accepting Jesus as your Savior", aka "having faith in the finished work of Christ". So saying "Jesus is my Savior" is a way of claiming this "free gift" for yourself.
Capiche? Perfectly muddy now? I feel so sheepish (pun slightly intended) explaining this to the uninitiated.
If it makes you feel any better probably nowhere near as sheepish as I felt in asking it.
Thanks for connecting up the dots for me - that does actually make sense. I can't believe I made 46 years without understanding that.
I could never understand why Jesus dying on a cross was 'for my sins'. That never made any sense to me, since he lived 2000 or something years ago. I have always been quite literal like that.
I don't think I have ever had that explained to me (well maybe at church some time in the distant past but I was probably day dreaming about the architecture or something) so thank you.
It requires faith to sit in your chair and believe that it will support you.
No. It does not. You just made that up and asserted it based on nothing. Probably just to fill the thread with more posts to hide the fact you dodged replying to my last one to you.
In fact it is a judgement call not a faith based belief. It is an extrapolation based on a working knowledge and experience of the world, an educated guess, and a cost-benefit decision.
All YOU are doing is diluting the meaning of the word faith into nothing at all in a fetid and desperate attempt to make it seem like EVERYONE has it. Because quite simply the only way you can justify faith to yourself is to pretend, based on nothing but assertion and mis-definition, that everyone else has it too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
That doesn't prove to me that you are capable of accepting evidence from a Christian.
And as I said many times, if you want to test if people like us are capable of accepting evidence from a christian.... you have to actually (for once in your posting career so far) start giving some. Until you do, you simply have no idea, just fantasy, to support your claims on how we will respond to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
And given the hundreds of little evidences which support Christianity
What evidence? Given you say there is "hundreds" it is amazing you have managed so far not to present even ONE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
I used my knowledge and personal experience to rationally conclude that God does indeed exist
Great, the proceed now to adumbrate that reasoning and the substantiation upon which it was based. Drop this canard you have been playing thus far of talking about how much evidence there is over and over in an obvious and transparent attempt to not actually give any of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
Hundreds of archaeological finds always support the Bible, never disprove it.
Even if that were true, and you have not evidenced it just asserted it, this would not for ONE MOMENT evidence the existence of god. You were asked for your evidence of god, not your evidence that places mentioned in the Bible were real.
So it seems your NEW dodge tactic for giving evidence of god is to instead give evidence for things you were never asked for evidence for?!?!?!?! Some decorum please!
You know that archaeological finds does not make fiction fact don't you? Imagine for example if 2000 years from now someone picks up the books from the series "The Bourne Identity" and then engages in trying to use Archaeology to prove the book was not fiction but fact.
The fact is such a person will find MUCH evidence to support this. Why? Because MUCH fiction is set against a real world back ground. Real places. Real events. Real businesses. Real religions. And often real people and politicians. Anyone attempting to prove the Bourne Series were fact not fiction will find that the vast majority of people, places, events, businesses and more mentioned within the pages actually very much did exist.
Will this substantiate the existence of a Super Soldier called Jason Bourne and the events within his story? No. Not even a TINY bit. Similarly does you supporting the existence of the occasional building in the Bible suggest there is a god? No. Not even a tiny bit. Not even close.
But do keep trying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ll0OoO0ll
You decide not to believe then its your call. You have a free will and free choice to make until you die.
Total misrepresentation from you there. I do not have a "choice" in what I believe. I can not simply choose to believe something is true or false. I need reason to think so. And I have been shown no reason to think there is a god. At all. Not even a little. Much less from you.
I can not understand how people can choose to believe things. One wonders just how labile your free will is on this matter. If I give you an open and clearly empty box, are you capable of "choosing" to believe it is full to the brim with 20 dollar bills?
I sure can not, but if you can it certainly explains your ability and willingness to subscribe to and espouse unsubstantiated nonsense.
I used my knowledge and personal experience to rationally conclude that God does indeed exist.
Personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's subjective personal revelation over that of another. Without corroborating data and/or repeatable experimental results, you've got nothing. You might as well claim that the tooth fairy really exists, for all it matters.
Yep, and for that you decide to wait for evidence - in contrast to - not asking God to show you the true path, and then you start your search - judge each religion by it's book by openly studying it - and then see what talks to you?
Its kinda ironic that if u get sick you do a research to find the best doctor. If you decide to earn a degree, u do a lot of research to find the best college. When you decide to buy a home, u do an extensive research to find all about the area, history, size, price, condition, neighborhood and school district to find the best you can afford BUT when it comes to finding faith, you decide not to do any research as you would before buying a house, but instead u will wait for someone to come and convince you with evidence as if its a sale pitch. Nobody is going to come and convince you, and if they do u will keep dismissing the evidence. It doesn't work his way, you will need to get out and do your research to find what you feel is the best.
Well, what can I say? it's your call that your decide to "wait for evidence" that perhaps won't come to you and your life will meet it's end.
But what if you do your research, and find that the entire idea of gods, any of them, just don't make sense? You are ssuiming that there is a religion that is correct, that a "right" choice can be made. What if the most factual choice is "None of the above"?
And it certainly isn't so much "waiting for evidence". I have done my homework, my investigations, and I find the ideas logically inconsistent enough that they are not at all compelling to me. The request for evidence comes when discussing it with folks like you, who are sure that all the available evidence leads to their god. I am pretty sure that I have not missed anything major, but the best way to test your understanding is to exercise it in some healthy debate. That is what I do here...
Like I said before, depending on what you mean by "god" I may not be able to be convinced that there is a god, because I am not sure that such a thing as a fully real god can exist. A "god" who is totally a part of the natural world around us doesn't seem to be much of a god, just a thing or a person, even if it is very big or very powerful. A god who is transcendent, somehow beyond reality itself, is in essence un-real. I tend to think that transcendence is a hall mark of the gods of human beings, which means that anything we are willing to think of as a god must not be real in the same sense that we are real.
You could certainly convince me that a powerful entity existed, just the same way that you would demonstrate that a rare elephant exists, or that the Sun exists. Show it to me, let me interact with it, let me measure it, let me observe it... But when asked for this believers fall back on the transcendence, the un-reality, of their god...
Getting everyone to all agree as to what was said - that's another issue altogether.
It isn't tough to get people to agree on things which are real. A vast majority of people agree that things fall towards the ground, for example. That's because there's consistent good evidence which we all can share which backs this up. What would be so tough for a god to present similar evidence for its existence?
Personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's subjective personal revelation over that of another. Without corroborating data and/or repeatable experimental results, you've got nothing. You might as well claim that the tooth fairy really exists, for all it matters.
Well there's the rub. You want to prove something spiritual by physical repeatable means. Not going to happen. The spirit realm operates on rules that we don't fully understand. Yet there are countless stories of encounters with the paranormal. It is not reasonable to automatically assume everyone is either lying or it's tricks of the imagination. I had friends who recounted a story of a haunted apartment. Both the husband and wife said objects would suddenly fly across the room, or the radio would turn on by itself and they heard voices. That's not a trick of the imagination. It is something that you have to experience personally, and that only happens if you approach the possibility with an open mind and heart.
No. It does not. You just made that up and asserted it based on nothing. Probably just to fill the thread with more posts to hide the fact you dodged replying to my last one to you.
Actually it does require faith. Let's said one day you sit in the chair and it breaks. You hurt your back. The chair gets fixed, but your "faith" is shaken. You will probably slowly sit down this time instead of just plop down. You still have faith that it will hold you, but not complete faith anymore. Let's say someone survives a plane crash. They are going to be leary and not have as much faith in the safety of flying anymore even though logistically, the odds are extremely rare that the plane will crash. Probability or cost-benefit analysis has no bearing in these cases once the faith is shaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
And as I said many times, if you want to test if people like us are capable of accepting evidence from a christian.... you have to actually (for once in your posting career so far) start giving some. Until you do, you simply have no idea, just fantasy, to support your claims on how we will respond to it.
And I can't present evidence until you define exactly what kind of evidence you will accept without question. Obviously, archaeology is out the door. What else? Leaving the door open gives you the benefit of being able to reject anything I bring to the table. That's being disingenuous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Even if that were true, and you have not evidenced it just asserted it, this would not for ONE MOMENT evidence the existence of god. You were asked for your evidence of god, not your evidence that places mentioned in the Bible were real.
You need to distinguish the difference between evidence and proof. I never claimed archaeology proved the existence of God. It is a single point of evidence that supports the validity of the Bible being accurate, and not a work of fiction. It moves the needle away from your baseless assertions towards God being real. Prove the Bible and you start to prove God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
So it seems your NEW dodge tactic for giving evidence of god is to instead give evidence for things you were never asked for evidence for?!?!?!?! Some decorum please!
You kept berating me for not providing ANY evidence. I did, and of course, you reject it, then go back to your claim that I never presented evidence. You can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
You know that archaeological finds does not make fiction fact don't you? Imagine for example if 2000 years from now someone picks up the books from the series "The Bourne Identity" and then engages in trying to use Archaeology to prove the book was not fiction but fact.
You know that archaeological finds also makes the ancient texts more likely to be fact, don't you? Otherwise, what good is the field if you are simply going to disregard it as worthless names and places. With your perspective, every single bit of ancient historical text must be regarded as fiction. Your Bourne example fails anyways because it would only take a bit of research to find that it was a work of fiction created by a specific author.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
The fact is such a person will find MUCH evidence to support this. Why? Because MUCH fiction is set against a real world back ground. Real places. Real events. Real businesses. Real religions. And often real people and politicians. Anyone attempting to prove the Bourne Series were fact not fiction will find that the vast majority of people, places, events, businesses and more mentioned within the pages actually very much did exist.
Was it prevalent for writers in the ancient world to create massive works of fiction for entertainment? How do you distinguish history from fiction?
Still waiting on a single example where you can show that you have agreed with one point that a Christian made in a debate.
No. It does not. You just made that up and asserted it based on nothing. Probably just to fill the thread with more posts to hide the fact you dodged replying to my last one to you.
In fact it is a judgement call not a faith based belief. It is an extrapolation based on a working knowledge and experience of the world, an educated guess, and a cost-benefit decision.
All YOU are doing is diluting the meaning of the word faith into nothing at all in a fetid and desperate attempt to make it seem like EVERYONE has it. Because quite simply the only way you can justify faith to yourself is to pretend, based on nothing but assertion and mis-definition, that everyone else has it too.
And as I said many times, if you want to test if people like us are capable of accepting evidence from a christian.... you have to actually (for once in your posting career so far) start giving some. Until you do, you simply have no idea, just fantasy, to support your claims on how we will respond to it.
What evidence? Given you say there is "hundreds" it is amazing you have managed so far not to present even ONE.
Great, the proceed now to adumbrate that reasoning and the substantiation upon which it was based. Drop this canard you have been playing thus far of talking about how much evidence there is over and over in an obvious and transparent attempt to not actually give any of it.
Even if that were true, and you have not evidenced it just asserted it, this would not for ONE MOMENT evidence the existence of god. You were asked for your evidence of god, not your evidence that places mentioned in the Bible were real.
So it seems your NEW dodge tactic for giving evidence of god is to instead give evidence for things you were never asked for evidence for?!?!?!?! Some decorum please!
You know that archaeological finds does not make fiction fact don't you? Imagine for example if 2000 years from now someone picks up the books from the series "The Bourne Identity" and then engages in trying to use Archaeology to prove the book was not fiction but fact.
The fact is such a person will find MUCH evidence to support this. Why? Because MUCH fiction is set against a real world back ground. Real places. Real events. Real businesses. Real religions. And often real people and politicians. Anyone attempting to prove the Bourne Series were fact not fiction will find that the vast majority of people, places, events, businesses and more mentioned within the pages actually very much did exist.
Will this substantiate the existence of a Super Soldier called Jason Bourne and the events within his story? No. Not even a TINY bit. Similarly does you supporting the existence of the occasional building in the Bible suggest there is a god? No. Not even a tiny bit. Not even close.
But do keep trying.
Total misrepresentation from you there. I do not have a "choice" in what I believe. I can not simply choose to believe something is true or false. I need reason to think so. And I have been shown no reason to think there is a god. At all. Not even a little. Much less from you.
I can not understand how people can choose to believe things. One wonders just how labile your free will is on this matter. If I give you an open and clearly empty box, are you capable of "choosing" to believe it is full to the brim with 20 dollar bills?
I sure can not, but if you can it certainly explains your ability and willingness to subscribe to and espouse unsubstantiated nonsense.
You've obviously wasted your time. I'm done wasting mine. Reasonable lurkers can see your point.
Well there's the rub. You want to prove something spiritual by physical repeatable means. Not going to happen. The spirit realm operates on rules that we don't fully understand. Yet there are countless stories of encounters with the paranormal. It is not reasonable to automatically assume everyone is either lying or it's tricks of the imagination. I had friends who recounted a story of a haunted apartment. Both the husband and wife said objects would suddenly fly across the room, or the radio would turn on by itself and they heard voices. That's not a trick of the imagination. It is something that you have to experience personally, and that only happens if you approach the possibility with an open mind and heart.
I'm not trying to prove anything. Moreover, I don't have a claim to prove. Disbelief is the default setting here. And for the record, 10 anecdotes are no better than one. And as I've already pointed out, personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's subjective personal revelation over that of another. You may be the most honest person on the planet, but I still need evidence other than your word that your friends experienced a haunting. If your doctor told you that you needed your gall bladder removed based on a reading of tea leaves, you wouldn't let him remove it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you expect me to believe your friends' alleged paranormal experience based on your say so?
I'm not trying to prove anything. Moreover, I don't have a claim to prove. Disbelief is the default setting here. And for the record, 10 anecdotes are no better than one. And as I've already pointed out, personal revelation is, by definition, first person in nature. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one person's subjective personal revelation over that of another. You may be the most honest person on the planet, but I still need evidence other than your word that your friends experienced a haunting. If your doctor told you that you needed your gall bladder removed based on a reading of tea leaves, you wouldn't let him remove it, would you? Of course you wouldn't. So why would you expect me to believe your friends' alleged paranormal experience based on your say so?
That's why I can accept an agonistic position, but not an atheist. An agonist is open to the possibility that God exists, but feels that there is no convincing evidence. But an atheist will boldly say that there is no God or life after death. You don't know that for sure. That's your claim so the onus is on you to back it up. The whole "can't prove a negative" response is a copout because simply changing the wording turns it into a positive statement.
Prove God does not exist - can't prove a negative!
Prove that God is a myth - same thing, but not a negative now.
Let's say a foreigner from Alaska traveled and discovered a lost tribe in the Amazon. He tells them about snow. They've never seen snow. He says many people can testify that this white substance really exists. They do not believe him. It sounds too fantastical to them. Therefore, is 100% fact that snow does not exist then even though in reality, it is not true. The default position shouldn't be that it is 100% fact until proven otherwise.
Yet that is the exact same position which atheists take in regards to Christianity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
