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.
No of course not. God states so himself that if this is the only life where there is hope then our religion is meaningless (1Corinthians 15: 17: if Christ did not rise from the dead then your faith is futile). There's no reason to suffer here in this life if there's no hope in the next. If there's nothing after death, then the only logical thing to do is to enjoy this life the best you can. And if it gets bad enough, the only logical thing to do would be to end it.
You had some other posts that mentioned how God's word is meaningless in an argument and I would have to agree with you that when talking to someone who does not believe, it is meaningless to use God's word as a way to argue a point. For a Bible-believing Christian, that is the main thing that is used to argue their belief. What may be helpful to understand is that the Bible-believing Christian believes that the Bible exists outside of this world. It is the revelation from God about him, who also exists outside of this world. Everything in this world is corrupted by sin and thus can't be used to determine anything concrete about God.
Therefore, a lot of arguments the Bible-believing Christian can only make from God's word. It is basically circular reasoning, but we also see that the non-believer uses circular reasoning by using things from the world to argue about the world. I also understand why the non-believer would not accept that position (since they do not see the two things--God's word and the world--as two distinct realities). But it may help you understand the way the Bible-believing Christian argues and why there may not be able to be a discussion between us and someone who does not believe.
You write very well.
Let me go to your third paragraph. Yes, there is circular reasoning by christians regarding god and the bible. I have repeatedly mentioned to a couple of posters that I don't think that quoting bible passages convinces a non-believer of the bible of anything. But the bible is one book. A very limited book. On the other hand, "the world" is a very broad concept. It seems to me there's a lot more ammunition with the latter than there is with the former.
You obviously do not understand.
My statement was exactly what the facts are.
I never said anything about Jesus not being "human", or anything about future impact.
I said the concept and character of Jesus in those metaphorical stories has been epically influential to mankind...in a way few other things have been.
That is a fact...your nescience, notwithstanding.
Trying to discredit the most influential person in history, is like spitting into a strong wind.
TWO THOUSAND YEARS removed...and His effect is still undeniable and irrefutable. The example for conduct and interaction that is the standard by which all others are judged.
Any attempt to discredit Jesus just makes a person look biased and foolish.
His influence is so epic that it will be the reason you will consider it to be "2021" next week. Like it, or not...you pay your respects every time you write the date.
Abandon your family, finding other people attractive is a sin, bigotry towards homosexuals, do not think for yourself, turn the other cheek, not washing your hands before you eat, etc?
Whereas you agriculture was influenced by practices older than Christianity, your politics, morals and science as well.
No of course not. God states so himself that if this is the only life where there is hope then our religion is meaningless (1Corinthians 15: 17: if Christ did not rise from the dead then your faith is futile). There's no reason to suffer here in this life if there's no hope in the next. If there's nothing after death, then the only logical thing to do is to enjoy this life the best you can. And if it gets bad enough, the only logical thing to do would be to end it.
You had some other posts that mentioned how God's word is meaningless in an argument and I would have to agree with you that when talking to someone who does not believe, it is meaningless to use God's word as a way to argue a point. For a Bible-believing Christian, that is the main thing that is used to argue their belief. What may be helpful to understand is that the Bible-believing Christian believes that the Bible exists outside of this world. It is the revelation from God about him, who also exists outside of this world. Everything in this world is corrupted by sin and thus can't be used to determine anything concrete about God.
Therefore, a lot of arguments the Bible-believing Christian can only make from God's word. It is basically circular reasoning, but we also see that the non-believer uses circular reasoning by using things from the world to argue about the world. I also understand why the non-believer would not accept that position (since they do not see the two things--God's word and the world--as two distinct realities). But it may help you understand the way the Bible-believing Christian argues and why there may not be able to be a discussion between us and someone who does not believe.
Well said. That's why it doesn't seem to me to make much sense when the umpteenth person dances up in here demanding "evidence" for faith and then much less sense when someone responds attempting to defend their faith to a non-believer using not evidence, but faith.
I am not an atheist but I also have a very limited number of people with whom I think I could discuss ideas about faith and belief from my perspective, and I know I cannot discuss it in-depth with people who, for example, are believers in the Bible as the literal words of God. The conversation goes nowhere. I know that now, so all I really do when someone says, "But in his Word, God says XYZ", I will simply respond, "yes, I know you believe that, but not everyone sees it that way." The only time I will take further issue is when I see someone using "But it's GOD'S WORD" to harm or condemn or disparage others.
By the same token, when someone else prances up in here saying, "But there is no evidence for God and this and that" and repeating the same things that fifty other non-believers have already pranced up in here and chanted, I'm not going to engage with them either. The commonality is the lack of willingness to listen to the other side.
But, if the faith vs. evidence people get their enjoyment over arguing about the same things over and over again without the faintest interest in originality, they can have at it. It's not my problem except to make sure they remain within the TOS.
Well said. That's why it doesn't seem to me to make much sense when the umpteenth person dances up in here demanding "evidence" for faith and then much less sense when someone attempts to explain their faith to a non-believer using evidence that isn't really evidence, but faith.
I am not an atheist but I also have a very limited number of people with whom I think I could discuss ideas about faith and belief from my perspective, and I know I cannot discuss it in-depth with people who, for example, are believers in the Bible as the literal words of God. The conversation goes nowhere. I know that now, so all I really do when someone says, "But in his Word, God says XYZ", I will simply respond, "yes, I know you believe that, but not everyone sees it that way." The only time I will take further issue is when I see someone using "But it's GOD'S WORD" to harm or condemn or disparage others.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you're mistaking what some of us are often asking. Most of us are not asking for proof of faith. We're asking for proof of what's stated as fact.
You obviously do not understand.
My statement was exactly what the facts are.
I never said anything about Jesus not being "human", or anything about future impact.
I said the concept and character of Jesus in those metaphorical stories has been epically influential to mankind...in a way few other things have been.
That is a fact...your nescience, notwithstanding.
Trying to discredit the most influential person in history, is like spitting into a strong wind.
TWO THOUSAND YEARS removed...and His effect is still undeniable and irrefutable. The example for conduct and interaction that is the standard by which all others are judged.
Any attempt to discredit Jesus just makes a person look biased and foolish.
His influence is so epic that it will be the reason you will consider it to be "2021" next week. Like it, or not...you pay your respects every time you write the date.
thats right.
Thats why it has to avoided at all cost. We can't have activism against believing when the evidence clearly point to believing ion something more is more rational than not believing that.
No of course not. God states so himself that if this is the only life where there is hope then our religion is meaningless (1Corinthians 15: 17: if Christ did not rise from the dead then your faith is futile). There's no reason to suffer here in this life if there's no hope in the next. If there's nothing after death, then the only logical thing to do is to enjoy this life the best you can. And if it gets bad enough, the only logical thing to do would be to end it.
You had some other posts that mentioned how God's word is meaningless in an argument and I would have to agree with you that when talking to someone who does not believe, it is meaningless to use God's word as a way to argue a point. For a Bible-believing Christian, that is the main thing that is used to argue their belief. What may be helpful to understand is that the Bible-believing Christian believes that the Bible exists outside of this world. It is the revelation from God about him, who also exists outside of this world. Everything in this world is corrupted by sin and thus can't be used to determine anything concrete about God.
Therefore, a lot of arguments the Bible-believing Christian can only make from God's word. It is basically circular reasoning, but we also see that the non-believer uses circular reasoning by using things from the world to argue about the world. I also understand why the non-believer would not accept that position (since they do not see the two things--God's word and the world--as two distinct realities). But it may help you understand the way the Bible-believing Christian argues and why there may not be able to be a discussion between us and someone who does not believe.
So If I understand what you wrote, you only believe out of fear of mortality. That is probably the saddest reason I can imagine for holding something to be true.
Suggestion:
How about holding something to be true or not, based on evidence or not. Give it a whirl. Put your fears out of the picture. Cowering makes a poor basis upon which to build a life, IMHO.
It seems to me (and I could be wrong) that you're mistaking what some of us are often asking. Most of us are not asking for proof of faith. We're asking for proof of what's stated as fact.
I get that, and that's an issue I have (as you know because we've discussed this before) with not presenting beliefs as beliefs. These same old same old tired conversations could be nipped in the bud if the believers would just say something to the effect of "I have looked into this aspect of faith, and my experience coupled with what I read has led me to believe this." The jeerers will still jeer, but it kind of takes the wind out of their sails if the believer doesn't argue back as if they've got facts on their sides.
It's not that hard. Katzpur has done it, as well as a few others.
I get that, and that's an issue I have (as you know because we've discussed this before) with not presenting beliefs as beliefs. These same old same old tired conversations could be nipped in the bud if the believers would just say something to the effect of "I have looked into this aspect of faith, and my experience coupled with what I read has led me to believe this." The jeerers will still jeer, but it kind of takes the wind out of their sails if the believer doesn't argue back as if they've got facts on their sides.
It's not that hard. Katzpur has done it, as well as a few others.
Yes, I would have very little problem with statements like that.
So If I understand what you wrote, you only believe out of fear of mortality. That is probably the saddest reason I can imagine for holding something to be true.
Suggestion:
How about holding something to be true or not, based on evidence or not. Give it a whirl. Put your fears out of the picture. Cowering makes a poor basis upon which to build a life, IMHO.
I have found that not to be the case more often than not. For example, all I say is that we are in a system that matches alive more than not alive. That's what theist are mistaken as a god thing.
If I offer evidence for it and hold my ground against the na Sayers, it gets reported and is not allowed. If I offer evidence for my belief that is the exact same evidence sciences uses, it is not allowed. We were told that it doesn't get us anywhere and there for not allowed.
Now you, being of the more aggressive type, will probably not have a problem with being allow to fight loud mouth militant atheist with facts. Some people feel that using other beliefs that have actual science behind them doesn't help scarred atheist recovery or activism against religion.
Yes, I would have very little problem with statements like that.
Then why are you so opposed to the same being expected of your negative belief about God? Atheists who demand the default are hypocrites.
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.
