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.
I would say 'credulity' ( blind faith ) fits with the ^ above ^.
Human Jesus was Not irresponsible because Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrews Scriptures to base his teachings.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So, it was Not blind faith but Jesus explaining or expounding the Scriptures for us.
The Bible writers are in harmony as shown by the many corresponding cross-reference verses and passages.
A comprehensive concordance responsibly puts Bible topics or subjects in alphabetical order for us to compare.
So what. Faith = False. Remember that, your faith is but lies.
I would say 'credulity' ( blind faith ) fits with the ^ above ^.
Human Jesus was Not irresponsible because Jesus used logical reasoning on the old Hebrews Scriptures to base his teachings.
Jesus often prefaced his statements with the words, " it is written...." meaning already recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures.
So, it was Not blind faith but Jesus explaining or expounding the Scriptures for us.
The Bible writers are in harmony as shown by the many corresponding cross-reference verses and passages.
A comprehensive concordance responsibly puts Bible topics or subjects in alphabetical order for us to compare.
How is that evidence of a soul/spirit? It isn't even evidence that Jesus' opinions are valid, let alone your ciaim that they are 'logical'. Rather we simply get Jesus' opinions validated by a magic trick or two. Or so the Gospels claim it.
I think you have a few claims to validate before we can accept your assertions as valid, and God knows how you are going to relate it to topic.
your post leaps into "interpret" quite soon, before the second sentence is even complete.
your interpretation and personal opinion asserting "best model of what reality is."
yup, that is you "cherry picking bits that fit what you believe" dismissing the bits that don't.
No, it is cherry picking what we observe and 1) rejecting what we do not observe, and 2) rejecting that which ignores what we know.
The inability or unwillingness to know or recognize what is sound and valid evidence is primarily why we get discussions from atheists that deny valid evidence because the extrapolations from them belie their fundamental premise about our Reality. That is why the religion of panentheism and the like are restricted to a single thread. It demolishes the majority of atheist argumentation against the existence of God and requires them to justify the unjustifiable - excluding existing evidence as evidence of God.
We are excluding nothing. You are avoiding telling us what that alleged evidence is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If not for Arach, or Gldn, and many others here, my faith in the power of intellect regarding these issues would be severely damaged.
Most atheists are no more anti-theism than theists are. Nearly everyone can appreciate that destructive sects within religion exist. The destructive sects themselves aren't innocent either because they are going around condemning everyone to hell or annihilation. But it's the atheists that your worried about?
yes, but we are in a religion and spirituality forum so the focuses for me is how people are forming their beliefs. No matter what they are.
If we were in an activism against religion forum I would be addressing that. And make no mistake, trans would love me if we are only addressing activism against bad religion.
But we aren't in that type of forum. We are in one about all beliefs.
I try to say some "activism atheist" are as bad as some "fundy theism. If I don't make that more clear, just remind me and I will try and make sure I say it.
I am only here to talk about religion and spirituality. Activism and recovery are separate issues and I would address them differently.
The inability or unwillingness to know or recognize what is sound and valid evidence is primarily why we get discussions from atheists that deny valid evidence because the extrapolations from them belie their fundamental premise about our Reality. That is why the religion of panentheism and the like are restricted to a single thread. It demolishes the majority of atheist argumentation against the existence of God and requires them to justify the unjustifiable - excluding existing evidence as evidence of God. If not for Arach, or Gldn, and many others here, my faith in the power of intellect regarding these issues would be severely damaged.
I love the "we do take on challengers. We have have nothing to hide" Its a bold face lie. And they say it with a smile.
No, it is cherry picking what we observe and 1) rejecting what we do not observe, and 2) rejecting that which ignores what we know.
= 100% interpretation
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.
