Originally posted by Inviolable
I noticed that you had a sense of humor. So I was hoping I could joke around a little with you.

I enjoy a good wisecrack all the time, pretty high-humored fellow you are speaking with. But this being a serious discussion it is hard to joke straight-faced without giving the idea of an insult. So things get lost in translation sometimes.

I didnt mean to offend you.

You didn't at all.

You mentioned Ishvara who has something to do with yoga.

Ishvara is the name given to the one omniscient being in Hinduism, it is the supreme spirit Brahman that has more power than the other deities, or devas, of Hinduism. A monotheistic idea.

You also mentioned Hindusim and there are thousands of different forms of Hindusim. Some dating as far back as 500 BC.

And there are dozens and dozens of sects of Christianity over its history of two millenia. Relevance?

I was assuming that you may have been talking about a form of meditation and self awareness can not be compared to awareness of ones God.
Self awareness may bring them closer to understanding what it is their God may have wanted them to understand but that doesnt mean it brings them closer to understanding their God. Or seeing their God in the same manner I seen mine.

Well, I was referring to the average layman, not monks exclusively. But the term Ishvara was employed in reference to the mightiest of the gods in their belief system, much like Jupiter/Zeus in the Greco-Roman pantheon.
I wasn't referring to a meditation process to bring self-awareness, I was talking about practicing and celebrating their faith much in the way that most religions do.

What I mean to say is plainly, there are other religions that exist with very elaborate theologies as well. They believe thoroughly, and have their beliefs, you believe thoroughly and have your beliefs.
The problem arises when either party claims the other is wrong, both stand there without proof. How do you know 'God' exists and it really isn't 'Ishvara'? Same goes for the hindu man, but flipped of course. Neither can prove their beliefs in a concrete way, nor disprove the others in a reliable, feasible fashion.

Not saying the Hindu was the only one to feel what he felt. Just letting you know quite a few more people then myself have felt the same thing.

These feelings are all subjective of course, but despite the religious and cultural barriers, people of many faiths ascribe to these sort of emotions that you do. How is it that all these similar or identical feelings come out of completely different religions? If this is the case, how is it that the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) exists, and not the Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva)?
======================================
It was passed on for more then 2 thousand years now. The bible hasnt changed in all that time. You can say it has but you have no proof. The bible has remained the same I can assure you.

That depends on which "Bible" you are talking about. The Hebrew Bible, The Greek Bible, the various Protestant editions that exclude certain books or add some (Book of Tobit, Book of Mormon), Orthodox and Catholic differences in the Bible, information lost to the ages by time and tragedy(that met a worse fate then the Dead Sea Scrolls, problems with translations into other languages, and even some books that are left out of the Bible altogether (Gospel of Thomas).

The Bible has changed a great deal. Things may have been lost over time by mere accidents, weather, or human interference. Differences in language may have lead to problems. Not canonizing books because of some of the content was contradictory to the others, or did not agree with the denomination's beliefs, and so on.

No one from the bible used religion to gain power.

Sure they did, the most glaring example would be Jesus. God-incarnate or not, he used a faith to convert followers.

I keep telling you there is solid concrete proof of Jesus.
You deny yourself the proof.

The Bible was written in pieces, at different times and places, by a variety of different authors. Despite Judean and Roman recordkeeping practices, there is no mention of Jesus outside Biblical texts. The nearest records of Jesus in historical documents come more than half a century afterward, in a place and time different than where Jesus actually was, such as Josephus (who was a Jew, so the entire document is questionable in any case).

It is not denying proof so much as raising a few eyebrows here and there. The Bible itself has holes in it, scientific improbabilities, and contradictions. The other non-canonized books have great insight in more questions, the way churches have behaved over the years, and the lack of historical documentation of Jesus, all feeds into questioning the faith through and through.
As a priest once said to his seminarian students, "The Bible is mythology, it is poetry."

I already told you. God gives you proof after you ask Jesus for forgiveness.

God gives me proof that Jesus is the Lord after I accept Him and worship Him? How about tangible proof that Jesus existed, as that was the question.
Also, forgiveness in what respect?

Originally posted by Evakian
I enjoy a good wisecrack all the time, pretty high-humored fellow you are speaking with. But this being a serious discussion it is hard to joke straight-faced without giving the idea of an insult. So things get lost in translation sometimes.



You didn't at all.



Ishvara is the name given to the one omniscient being in Hinduism, it is the supreme spirit Brahman that has more power than the other deities, or devas, of Hinduism. A monotheistic idea.



And there are dozens and dozens of sects of Christianity over its history of two millenia. Relevance?



Well, I was referring to the average layman, not monks exclusively. But the term Ishvara was employed in reference to the mightiest of the gods in their belief system, much like Jupiter/Zeus in the Greco-Roman pantheon.
I wasn't referring to a meditation process to bring self-awareness, I was talking about practicing and celebrating their faith much in the way that most religions do.

What I mean to say is plainly, there are other religions that exist with very elaborate theologies as well. They believe thoroughly, and have their beliefs, you believe thoroughly and have your beliefs.
The problem arises when either party claims the other is wrong, both stand there without proof. How do you know 'God' exists and it really isn't 'Ishvara'? Same goes for the hindu man, but flipped of course. Neither can prove their beliefs in a concrete way, nor disprove the others in a reliable, feasible fashion.



These feelings are all subjective of course, but despite the religious and cultural barriers, people of many faiths ascribe to these sort of emotions that you do. How is it that all these similar or identical feelings come out of completely different religions? If this is the case, how is it that the Holy Trinity (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) exists, and not the Trimurti (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva)?
======================================


That depends on which "Bible" you are talking about. The Hebrew Bible, The Greek Bible, the various Protestant editions that exclude certain books or add some (Book of Tobit, Book of Mormon), Orthodox and Catholic differences in the Bible, information lost to the ages by time and tragedy(that met a worse fate then the Dead Sea Scrolls, problems with translations into other languages, and even some books that are left out of the Bible altogether (Gospel of Thomas).

The Bible has changed a great deal. Things may have been lost over time by mere accidents, weather, or human interference. Differences in language may have lead to problems. Not canonizing books because of some of the content was contradictory to the others, or did not agree with the denomination's beliefs, and so on.



Sure they did, the most glaring example would be Jesus. God-incarnate or not, he used a faith to convert followers.



The Bible was written in pieces, at different times and places, by a variety of different authors. Despite Judean and Roman recordkeeping practices, there is no mention of Jesus outside Biblical texts. The nearest records of Jesus in historical documents come more than half a century afterward, in a place and time different than where Jesus actually was, such as Josephus (who was a Jew, so the entire document is questionable in any case).

It is not denying proof so much as raising a few eyebrows here and there. The Bible itself has holes in it, scientific improbabilities, and contradictions. The other non-canonized books have great insight in more questions, the way churches have behaved over the years, and the lack of historical documentation of Jesus, all feeds into questioning the faith through and through.
As a priest once said to his seminarian students, "The Bible is mythology, it is poetry."



God gives me proof that Jesus is the Lord after I accept Him and worship Him? How about tangible proof that Jesus existed, as that was the question.
Also, forgiveness in what respect?

The revelence to me saying there are thousands of religions from that one, was to say I couldnt possibly know what you were talking about.
If they claim to have the same feellings I am claiming to have then I have no basis to debate it with you. I have no idea of how their religion works.
Jesus did convert people, but that doesnt mean he was using it for power.
If he already had the power he spoke of to begin with. That power being spiritual. I mean it didn't give him any extra comforts while he was here on Earth in the way of monetary gain. So what power are you speaking of?
There is proof that he does exist, it is up to you to find it. If you can not accept that it is there then that is your Testament to free will.

Originally posted by Inviolable
I already told you. God gives you proof after you ask Jesus for forgiveness.

So...if you ask Jesus for forgiveness and the proof is not forthcoming that means you weren't sincere...right?

Originally posted by Inviolable
There is proof that he does exist, it is up to you to find it. If you can not accept that it is there then that is your Testament to free will.

Why is it "up to me to find it" if you claim there is evidence that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, from a source outside the Bible, show me, otherwise your statement is meaningless. If it is "up to me" to "pray to God and find Jesus", that doesn't in any way prove that he existed here on Earth.

Originally posted by Evakian
Why is it "up to me to find it" if you claim there is evidence that Jesus was indeed a historical figure, from a source outside the Bible, show me, otherwise your statement is meaningless. If it is "up to me" to "pray to God and find Jesus", that doesn't in any way prove that he existed here on Earth.

I can only assume that you study religions in one form or another. In your studies it seems you witness some religions in the act of worship. I am again, just assuming.
In our talks you have admitted to knowing a few things, but you never seem to understand any of them. Or at least your questions suggest you dont. I can only guess that through all of your observations you remain unbiased.
That is to say, that if in fact you have studied people in the act of worship through out all kinds of different religions, you would have witnessed what I am saying. I am not saying you yourself have felt anything. I am saying you have seen other people feel it. By remaining unbiased through out it all you have denied yourself the truth I speak of. If you were not then you wouldnt be asking, why is it up to you.

In other words.
I dont have to show you, you have seen it for yourself.
How you translate what you see is up to you. Not me.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
So...if you ask Jesus for forgiveness and the proof is not forthcoming that means you weren't sincere...right?

You say that like the simple act of asking, would hurt you.

Yes that is what it means.

Originally posted by Inviolable
In our talks you have admitted to knowing a few things, but you never seem to understand any of them. Or at least your questions suggest you dont.

As I have stated before, I do not ask these questions about of ignorance or curiosity, but to spur debate. I do understand them and the ways of faith and religion regardless of whatever questions I ask, that doesn't mean they are full of holes to be poked and prodded.

I can only guess that through all of your observations you remain unbiased.

I hope so :D

That is to say, that if in fact you have studied people in the act of worship through out all kinds of different religions, you would have witnessed what I am saying. I am not saying you yourself have felt anything. I am saying you have seen other people feel it. By remaining unbiased through out it all you have denied yourself the truth I speak of. If you were not then you wouldnt be asking, why is it up to you.

I wouldn't say remaining "unbiased" denies me the truth in any respect. It allows me to look at an amalgam of religions in the same light, to see that they all produce similar after-effects despite their vehemet differences. Which in turn boils down to the debate where you have repeatedly avoided or beat around the bush, all these religions lead to a fulfillment in people's lives. Regardless of Jesus or some tribal god, it all comes full circle in similar if not identical respects, how can you be certain that yours, without any tangible proof to porve itself or disprove others, is in fact, the truth?

I dont have to show you, you have seen it for yourself.
How you translate what you see is up to you. Not me.

You're not here evangelizing, we're here debating. If you say the entire debate rests on my shoulders, despite my prodding and further questions, and leave all your points crutched on "spiritual exploration" inside the mind, you begin to slip down a slope.

Originally posted by Inviolable
You say that like the simple act of asking, would hurt you.

Yes that is what it means.

My point is that this idea is promoted by Christianity because it's a win-win situation for the religion, not because this is a good way to prove the existence of god. It only "proves" this existence to those who believe it does. In other words, if God is not revealed to someone through this process, it's the fault of the person, not a sign that God doesn't exist. Works pretty well for the religion.

Originally posted by Inviolable
Trying to keep this to one post so I added some questions of yours from another post.
You have absolute proof of God after you make the choice to worship him.

We've been over this it is not absolute truth{that would mean we could prove it to everyone}. I quess a better concept would be absolute belief by an individual.


The great fires?
Are you talking about the fires in London in 1666? I am assuming you are because you are also talking about paganism. Not quite sure. However the fire did stop the plaque and burned down the St Pauls Cathedral at the same time. I do not see how it changed the bible. Am I missing what fire you are talking about?

I am sorry I have read so many books about religion I can't remember which fire it was. There was a fire??{I'll try to find out which} that had lost many important records not only about Christianity but about other religions the monks had writen about. So it is very possible/most likely the bible has many flaws, then of course we can't forget how much has been lost in translation theft etc...


Are you talking about when the Huns over threw the Romans and burned down their library?

Like I said, sorry, I will try to find the info for you.


However the bible I read and the bible they use are different.
Catholics now of days do pass out the Holy Bible, however what they use and live by is different to some larg degree.
So you can not compare a Born again Christain to a Catholic. Even a catholic will tell you that.
If that is in fact what you are doing?

This is interesting also if you agree there are different bibles then how do you know which is true? After all this is suppose to be Gods word so how many different books did God make?



Yes there are people that worship the devil now. God never said he didn't make creatures that resemble him in one form or another. What he does say, is it is a sin to worship any other idles or put any other Gods before him.

Then why did God give the devil god like power over humans?


That doesnt mean that there are other Gods that just means that man shouldnt do those things.

Then God should take care of his creation just like a father would take care of his son. "IF" God made this devil dude then God also made another creature with god like powers, this does not sound like a loving creator?



Actualy hell isnt the place the devil runs. Its the prison God put him in. God did give the devil the ability to travel.

So if God loved/es his easily confussed creation then maybe It should destroy Its little shop of horrors. Kind of like the mad scientist torturing the rat in a maze of purposely made confussion.




You are right it is above the devil. God is in charge of judgement and he does love his creation. It is up to his creation to chose for themselves whether or not they want to be forgiven.

It would also be up to a loving God to take away the confussion of all the world. Sorry but a creator that creates a toture chamber is not loving infact It would be just the opposite.




Yes he did, did you talk to the doctor that revived him? Do you know the cause of his near death experience? What kind of brain trauma did he experience if any?

All I can remember is that he was considered dead by doc. {????} 2-3 times. I don't think he suffered any brain trauma.

Originally posted by Evakian
proof to porve itself or disprove

Ooooooopppssss you made a booboo :D I just noticed this while reading through your post. Sorry but you catch me all the time I just wanted to get you once, I won't do it again. ;)

Originally posted by Evakian
As I have stated before, I do not ask these questions about of ignorance or curiosity, but to spur debate. I do understand them and the ways of faith and religion regardless of whatever questions I ask, that doesn't mean they are full of holes to be poked and prodded.



I hope so :D



I wouldn't say remaining "unbiased" denies me the truth in any respect. It allows me to look at an amalgam of religions in the same light, to see that they all produce similar after-effects despite their vehemet differences. Which in turn boils down to the debate where you have repeatedly avoided or beat around the bush, all these religions lead to a fulfillment in people's lives. Regardless of Jesus or some tribal god, it all comes full circle in similar if not identical respects, how can you be certain that yours, without any tangible proof to porve itself or disprove others, is in fact, the truth?



You're not here evangelizing, we're here debating. If you say the entire debate rests on my shoulders, despite my prodding and further questions, and leave all your points crutched on "spiritual exploration" inside the mind, you begin to slip down a slope.

Then we have no basis for debate. I suppose all I have really been saying through out all of this, is it is up to the person to find their own way.

Originally posted by mad dog
We've been over this it is not absolute truth{that would mean we could prove it to everyone}. I quess a better concept would be absolute belief by an individual.

In this respect, I do not think I can debate with you. Faith needs to be free of absolute truth.
That doesn't mean that God doesnt show himself to you. That just means somewhere down the road you need at least a little faith for it to happen.




I am sorry I have read so many books about religion I can't remember which fire it was. There was a fire??{I'll try to find out which} that had lost many important records not only about Christianity but about other religions the monks had writen about. So it is very possible/most likely the bible has many flaws, then of course we can't forget how much has been lost in translation theft etc...

Check Attila the Hun and when he conquered the Romans. The Romans couldn't pay his ransom any more so he burned down a lot of important things. One of which was a really huge library, it had information from every where in it. Anything that was to be known about that time.
The Jews gave the Romans the bible to translate and in that building was their translations. However the Jews still had the original. So it wasnt lost.







This is interesting also if you agree there are different bibles then how do you know which is true? After all this is suppose to be Gods word so how many different books did God make?

The Holy Bible has always remained the same. It is the same bible the Jews have had to spread the word of God.
It's the christian bible, not the jewish or catholic and so on. I know I say the jews had it, but christianity was born among Jews.



Then why did God give the devil god like power over humans?

Well, the devil isnt a god, neither is he mortal. He just lives in a realm where that allows him more insight then we as mortals are allowed.



Then God should take care of his creation just like a father would take care of his son. "IF" God made this devil dude then God also made another creature with god like powers, this does not sound like a loving creator?


He did he sent down his son for our sins. He also gave us free will. So it is up to you to accept him.




So if God loved/es his easily confussed creation then maybe It should destroy Its little shop of horrors. Kind of like the mad scientist torturing the rat in a maze of purposely made confussion.


Thats all in the Old Testament. Before he sent down Jesus, he did destroy his creation a few times.





It would also be up to a loving God to take away the confussion of all the world. Sorry but a creator that creates a toture chamber is not loving infact It would be just the opposite.

Again, thats free will. Would the world be so bad if man didnt do the things he does?





All I can remember is that he was considered dead by doc. {????} 2-3 times. I don't think he suffered any brain trauma.

If you wouldnt mind skipping this part of our debate, I wouldnt mind skipping it either.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
My point is that this idea is promoted by Christianity because it's a win-win situation for the religion, not because this is a good way to prove the existence of god. It only "proves" this existence to those who believe it does. In other words, if God is not revealed to someone through this process, it's the fault of the person, not a sign that God doesn't exist. Works pretty well for the religion.

Yes thats a good point and one that I assumed you were making. That doesnt mean that the act of asking is bad for you. Just that I have no way to show you absolute proof before you ask.

Originally posted by Inviolable
In this respect, I do not think I can debate with you. Faith needs to be free of absolute truth.

I don't understand your point here, wouldn't absolute truth/proof and faith go hand in hand. I can understand how it is hard to prove a belief but the belief would be true if it had the proof to back it up? I would rather have a faith that had turth then one that didn't, wouldn't you?


That doesn't mean that God doesnt show himself to you. That just means somewhere down the road you need at least a little faith for it to happen.

I think this might be the problem, you tell me I have no faith because I don't buy into the Christ stuff, this is not true. There are alot of people that have strong faith that don't need a bible or any other book for that matter, why are they wrong and you right?





Check Attila the Hun and when he conquered the Romans. The Romans couldn't pay his ransom any more so he burned down a lot of important things. One of which was a really huge library, it had information from every where in it. Anything that was to be known about that time.

There were many fires that lost many things, I still can't remember the exact one I was thinking of I'll find it {just don't know when}
The Jews gave the Romans the bible to translate and in that building was their translations. However the Jews still had the original. So it wasnt lost.

Translations now there is a tricky debate. I bet we could take 2 people from the same church that read out of the exact same book and come up with two different interpertations?





The Holy Bible has always remained the same. It is the same bible the Jews have had to spread the word of God.
It's the christian bible, not the jewish or catholic and so on. I know I say the jews had it, but christianity was born among Jews.

I along with others won't agree that it has not changed, maybe will have to start another debate.




Well, the devil isnt a god, neither is he mortal. He just lives in a realm where that allows him more insight then we as mortals are allowed.

Lets look at it this way, say you are thrown into hell, who's your boss?




He did he sent down his son for our sins. He also gave us free will. So it is up to you to accept him.

I know who my father was without a doubt and I still have free will? I don't have to except my father but at the very least I know without a doubt who he is. Can you show me who God is without a doubt? no, but you can show me your belief, thats all well and good but it still doesn't prove a thing. I am not saying your wrong in your belief but without evidence how do we prove anything. If I told you 2+2=18 and that's my belief would you except that? Probably not because you can prove to me that 2+2=4.



Again, thats free will. Would the world be so bad if man didnt do the things he does?

Would the world have been so bad if Jesus had performed 1 miracle, a simple 1, proven to the whole world he was God? Just think how many wars arguments etc would not have happened, kind of sad don't you think?

Originally posted by mad dog
Ooooooopppssss you made a booboo :D I just noticed this while reading through your post. Sorry but you catch me all the time I just wanted to get you once, I won't do it again. ;)

Aww ;)

Originally posted by Inviolable
Then we have no basis for debate.

If we go by your projection of how this should happen, I should sit down and "find Jesus" on my own and not in any way disagree with the words that come out of your mouth because they are God-given knowledge.

You said the Bible has not changed, which was a fallacy, and you did not dispute it. You did not fully combat the idea that other religions offer the same emotional feelings that yours does in. You have failed to provide historical documentation of Jesus. You have failed to provide any evidence outside having me sit and discover 'God', as well as failing to disprove any part of another religion over yours. You continue to not supply yourself with the proper debating ammunition, and are falling back on a argument that does not work in practical debate.

You say, "find Jesus", but if you cannot provide evidence He ever was a mortal being, what reason has any person to fall in line with the thinking of His divinity?

Originally posted by Evakian
Aww ;)



If we go by your projection of how this should happen, I should sit down and "find Jesus" on my own and not in any way disagree with the words that come out of your mouth because they are God-given knowledge.

You said the Bible has not changed, which was a fallacy, and you did not dispute it. You did not fully combat the idea that other religions offer the same emotional feelings that yours does in. You have failed to provide historical documentation of Jesus. You have failed to provide any evidence outside having me sit and discover 'God', as well as failing to disprove any part of another religion over yours. You continue to not supply yourself with the proper debating ammunition, and are falling back on a argument that does not work in practical debate.

You say, "find Jesus", but if you cannot provide evidence He ever was a mortal being, what reason has any person to fall in line with the thinking of His divinity?

No I answered you to the best of my ability. You told me a group of people do something at the Ganges river and experience the same thing I said I have. I am not going to go to Ganges just to tell you it is or isnt. So I have to take your word on it. You can not say you are right or wrong without experiencing the same thing for yourself. Thats not to say that you havent been to the Ganges. Thats to say you have never had the feelling I am talking about. Until you do, you can not say where the emotion came from.
Thus, you have to take my word on it.
You are the one who came into a thread entitled "Reply to Inviolable" and asked Inviolable questions.

Oh, and you can agree or disagree with me all you want. If you were meant to follow God, you were meant to follow God. You can urinate on a church and be worshiping God 30 seconds after.
My point is, doesn't matter what you were thinking. If you feel remorse for your sins and ask God to forgive you. Your proof arrives.

Originally posted by Inviolable
No I answered you to the best of my ability.

I shall put the fact that you did not, again, address my post in its entirety and continue discussion. But please, do go back and address those points you left behind, if you would.

You told me a group of people do something at the Ganges river and experience the same thing I said I have. I am not going to go to Ganges just to tell you it is or isnt. So I have to take your word on it.

Done deal.

You can not say you are right or wrong without experiencing the same thing for yourself.

I can't imagine I would say I was wrong, if I did that it would lead to a prompt change in views. :D

I never ascribed to the idea that I was 'right' on these matters, but I do believe I've been asking some poignant questions to prod at the entire belief system.

Thats to say you have never had the feelling I am talking about. Until you do, you can not say where the emotion came from.

There are some people out there that cannot experience that emotion, because they cannot force their mind to accept such beliefs. You may say it is rebellion or they have turned away, but I'd venture to say that there are plenty of people who cannot, under any circumstances, truly believe and experience these things like you would.

Thus, you have to take my word on it.

One man's testimony, especially one that lacks any citations or proof, and whose only rebuttal relies in my taking up action to seek spirituality, is not a reliable source.

You are the one who came into a thread entitled "Reply to Inviolable" and asked Inviolable questions.

The beginning of the thread invited anyone to join in, thanks to Blob, also being a member of Allforums I am allowed to post in whichever thread I choose to inject myself into.

Originally posted by Evakian
I shall put the fact that you did not, again, address my post in its entirety and continue discussion. But please, do go back and address those points you left behind, if you would.

O.K
You say these people felt exactly what I felt? How do you know? where is your proof?




I can't imagine I would say I was wrong, if I did that it would lead to a prompt change in views. :D

Same here

I never ascribed to the idea that I was 'right' on these matters, but I do believe I've been asking some poignant questions to prod at the entire belief system.

If it makes you happy prod away. Your disbeliefe doesnt change the truth.



There are some people out there that cannot experience that emotion, because they cannot force their mind to accept such beliefs. You may say it is rebellion or they have turned away, but I'd venture to say that there are plenty of people who cannot, under any circumstances, truly believe and experience these things like you would.


It is a God given emotion, everyone can feel it. If the emotion doesnt come from the person then why would it matter what they do?
I am telling you the only way God gives it to you is if you are remorsefull of your sins. You tell me that some where some how someone else felt it and they had nothing to do with my God. Prove it. Prove it just as you ask me to prove it to you. Until then this subject is mute. You tear down nothing you only point out your own ignorance even further. Your search is in vien. You look but dont touch. Thats like masterbation. You can only imagin what it is you want. The experience is in your mind and in your mind alone. I felt what I felt and so have many others. Not just one or two but millions of people. Thats just the people alive now, over the course of time that number is beyond compare.
And you say there is no proof?
Anyone who sees a cat can tell it has basic emotions.
All you understand is that you feel yourself better then those that have had the understanding to go where you fear to. You want to understand. Figure it out for yourself. Is that beyond your comprehension? Don't tell me about a religion that is basically in the middle of no where and probably only has a few hundred followers and then blame me for not knowing enough about them to debate it with you.


One man's testimony, especially one that lacks any citations or proof, and whose only rebuttal relies in my taking up action to seek spirituality, is not a reliable source.

Then dont listen to me. Did I tell you, you were wrong? No, I answered what you wanted me to answer. I could ask you to prove Jesus didnt exist. Would you be able to? You can argue he didnt but you can not prove it. You do not have absolute proof. Of anything you say. So do not debate simply what you know with what someone else knows and then tell them they'er not a reliable sorce. Neither are you.


The beginning of the thread invited anyone to join in, thanks to Blob, also being a member of Allforums I am allowed to post in whichever thread I choose to inject myself into.

That is correct "Blob" did say welcome.
And I am glad you are catching onto where I can and can not go.

Originally posted by mad dog
I don't understand your point here, wouldn't absolute truth/proof and faith go hand in hand. I can understand how it is hard to prove a belief but the belief would be true if it had the proof to back it up? I would rather have a faith that had turth then one that didn't, wouldn't you?

Yes, but you keep telling me to prove it to you before you even think about asking Jesus for forgiveness. If you can't for one second think that you are sorry for your sins. Then you shouldnt be forgiven. You have to have some kind of faith and the faith that you will be forgiven for your sins is the thing that leads you to Forgivenss.
What you are saying is, lets go in circles and say we need faith to have reliegion but we also need proof before we have the faith.
I see where you say, you look for the truth in things. You search for the facts. Then you tell me about ghost and people with near death experiences. Can you prove that ghost exist? Can you prove that the man who died was shown anything when he died? Will you ever be able to?
If not you need some faith to find those things, otherwise you will stop looking for them.
I am saying all I did was one thing, ask God for forgiveness and all the proof I wanted was there.



I think this might be the problem, you tell me I have no faith because I don't buy into the Christ stuff, this is not true. There are alot of people that have strong faith that don't need a bible or any other book for that matter, why are they wrong and you right?

I am saying that once I got my proof I didnt have to keep looking for it. I have faith but I dont have to keep searching for reasons to keep it.





There were many fires that lost many things, I still can't remember the exact one I was thinking of I'll find it {just don't know when}

O.K take your time.


Translations now there is a tricky debate. I bet we could take 2 people from the same church that read out of the exact same book and come up with two different interpertations?

Yes things can be translated differently from one person to the next. But with so many different examples of what the bible is suppose to say, I doubt any of the information it was meant to convey was lost or misinterpreted. So many people have copies of the bible in its untouched form that the chances are slim at best.





I along with others won't agree that it has not changed, maybe will have to start another debate.

Sounds good.






Lets look at it this way, say you are thrown into hell, who's your boss?


No one. The devil is a prisoner in hell not the warden. Well I guess you can say God.




I know who my father was without a doubt and I still have free will? I don't have to except my father but at the very least I know without a doubt who he is. Can you show me who God is without a doubt? no, but you can show me your belief, thats all well and good but it still doesn't prove a thing. I am not saying your wrong in your belief but without evidence how do we prove anything. If I told you 2+2=18 and that's my belief would you except that? Probably not because you can prove to me that 2+2=4.

We cant. You can not prove anything any more then I can. You can say your facts are there. But you can not tell me what you know has more truth then what I know.





Would the world have been so bad if Jesus had performed 1 miracle, a simple 1, proven to the whole world he was God? Just think how many wars arguments etc would not have happened, kind of sad don't you think?

Jesus performed several miracles while he was on the earth. There were still people who seen them and didnt believe what they seen.
People are skeptical. We always need to know where the wires are.

Originally posted by Inviolable
You say these people felt exactly what I felt?

I used the phrase similar, if not identical.

How do you know? where is your proof?

Adherents giving similar or identical testimony, as you said- go by
what you say.

If it makes you happy prod away. Your disbeliefe doesnt change the truth.

It just reveals it. ;)

It is a God given emotion, everyone can feel it.

Untrue, I know people that went to Church and got nothing, tried Eastern spiritualism later in life to seek fulfillment and still got nothing, they cannot, even if physically coerced or presented it all day, do not and cannot believe it.

If the emotion doesnt come from the person then why would it matter what they do?

Pardon?

I am telling you the only way God gives it to you is if you are remorsefull of your sins.

So the only way to believe in God, is to believe in God. How profound.

You tell me that some where some how someone else felt it and they had nothing to do with my God. Prove it.

There have been hundreds, even thousands of different types of religions through human history. Now we stand with 6.5 billion people on the planet, about half of whom worship the Abrahamic God more or less, while the others stick to their faiths that have extensive histories and theologies about them. They do feel it, some do feel it, just like in Christianity some people do not have an intimate relationship with their spirit. You ask me to prove it, but that would be tricky as all I could give was to quote the words of someone talking about their spiritual enlightenment in ways that a Christian might also speak of their inner-flourishing joy, but being human testimony-it also lacks proof. Proof without backup proof, as odd as that sounds, falls on its face.

Religion all has core values and disciplines it seeks to give Mankind out of our uneasy ego and lack of self-control. Because we are all human, and because all religions are Man-made creations operated and run by men, the case can be made that it is all the same effect, as it all is derived by the essentially same thing.

Prove it just as you ask me to prove it to you.

As stated above, difficulty arises in offering up proof. Just like when I ask you to prove it, in reality you cannot-because it is all based on things that neither have proof nor need proof.

Until then this subject is mute.

moot*

You tear down nothing you only point out your own ignorance even further.

You have out-and-out lied on this very thread with the assertion that the Bible has not changed. You have explained you haven't looked into other faiths, when we spoke of Hinduism. You have even failed to bring up ANY piece of documentation proving Jesus' tangible existence.
You are the one who is falling out of line and exposing a lack of clarity of view.

Your search is in vien.

My search is in Vienna? Sehr gut.

But, on a more serious note, what search?

You look but dont touch.

Not taking into account the mass of hysteria that one can view and their capability to never fall prey to such thinking.

Thats like masterbation.

Actually masturbating involves a lot of touching, do you just stare at your genitals for pleasure?

I felt what I felt and so have many others.

Collective agreed upon views do not equal truth in these respects.

Thats just the people alive now, over the course of time that number is beyond compare.

The number alive today versus everyday in the past 10,000 years added up is greater. So its not as big as you make it seem.

And you say there is no proof?

Yep.

All you understand is that you feel yourself better then those that have had the understanding to go where you fear to.

Oh, really? What else do I think Aunt Cleo?

You want to understand.

I want to arouse thought and debate.

Figure it out for yourself. Is that beyond your comprehension?

I already have, and continue to work on doing so.

Don't tell me about a religion that is basically in the middle of no where and probably only has a few hundred followers and then blame me for not knowing enough about them to debate it with you.

I have only mentioned Hinduism specifically, which has 900 million adherents.

I could ask you to prove Jesus didnt exist.

Why would the burden of proof fall on the defendent, not the accuser? You are the one who claims He existed, so it is you who has to prove He did exist.

Would you be able to?

The lack of evidence suggests such.

You can argue he didnt but you can not prove it.

Same goes for proving He did exist.

You do not have absolute proof.

You think I haven't thought that over?
Of course, neither do you, so I am not shaking in my boots.

So do not debate simply what you know with what someone else knows and then tell them they'er not a reliable sorce. Neither are you.

What makes me an unreliable source, and in regards to what subject?

That is correct "Blob" did say welcome.
And I am glad you are catching onto where I can and can not go.

I don't recall ever claiming or attempting to restrict your visitation to this site.

Originally posted by Evakian
I used the phrase [i]similar, if not identical.

You compared it to what I was talking about. With out feeling it for yourself you have no base of compairison. Other then mine.



Adherents giving similar or identical testimony, as you said- go by
what you say.

Been there, done that.


It just reveals it. ;)

Yes it does. To both of us. You see it the way you want to and I'll see it the way I want to.



Untrue, I know people that went to Church and got nothing, tried Eastern spiritualism later in life to seek fulfillment and still got nothing, they cannot, even if physically coerced or presented it all day, do not and cannot believe it.

Whats your point?
Read below before you answer.



Pardon?


It is an emotion "given" to you by God as proof he exist. The person does "nothing". However God will not give you the emotion until you are remorseful of your sins. There is nothing to build up to. No way for a person to work themselves into a position to feel it.



So the only way to believe in God, is to believe in God. How profound.

Read the above.



There have been hundreds, even thousands of different types of religions through human history. Now we stand with 6.5 billion people on the planet, about half of whom worship the Abrahamic God more or less, while the others stick to their faiths that have extensive histories and theologies about them. They do feel it, some do feel it, just like in Christianity some people do not have an intimate relationship with their spirit. You ask me to prove it, but that would be tricky as all I could give was to quote the words of someone talking about their spiritual enlightenment in ways that a Christian might also speak of their inner-flourishing joy, but being human testimony-it also lacks proof. Proof without backup proof, as odd as that sounds, falls on its face.

True, you made my point to some degree. You said "just like Christianity"
Then you said "all I could give was to quote the words of someone talking about their spiritual enlightenment "
You can not tell me what I am saying is in fact anything you can associate with. You dont know because you haven't felt it. So there is no way for you to prove me wrong. Neither is there a way for me to prove it to you, other then for you to accept that quite a few people have felt it.


Religion all has core values and disciplines it seeks to give Mankind out of our uneasy ego and lack of self-control. Because we are all human, and because all religions are Man-made creations operated and run by men, the case can be made that it is all the same effect, as it all is derived by the essentially same thing.

It can by you, but you wont go past saying it can. You yourself will not prove me wrong for the fear of losing what you have now. You wish to retain the information you have worked to instil in your life. The only way you can prove me absolutely wrong, is to try it for yourself.



As stated above, difficulty arises in offering up proof. Just like when I ask you to prove it, in reality you cannot-because it is all based on things that neither have proof nor need proof.


The millions of people I speak of are my testament to the truth you are asking about.


moot*


Yes, I remember now.


You have out-and-out lied on this very thread with the assertion that the Bible has not changed. You have explained you haven't looked into other faiths, when we spoke of Hinduism. You have even failed to bring up ANY piece of documentation proving Jesus' tangible existence.
You are the one who is falling out of line and exposing a lack of clarity of view.

How so? because I can not give you absolute proof he did exist? Give me absolute proof he didnt.



My search is in Vienna? Sehr gut.

But, on a more serious note, what search?

For the truth.



Not taking into account the mass of hysteria that one can view and their capability to never fall prey to such thinking.




Actually masturbating involves a lot of touching, do you just stare at your genitals for pleasure?

Touching yourslef, not actualy experiencing the act of sex.
That would require two people.


Collective agreed upon views do not equal truth in these respects.

Why not? Thats how scientist distinguish truth in something.



The number alive today versus everyday in the past 10,000 years added up is greater. So its not as big as you make it seem.

Prove it.







Oh, really? What else do I think Aunt Cleo?

"There are some people out there that cannot experience that emotion, because they cannot force their mind to accept such beliefs. You may say it is rebellion or they have turned away, but I'd venture to say that there are plenty of people who cannot, under any circumstances, truly believe and experience these things like you would."

That represents a thought pattern that suggest people are better then.
You did say you are among them.



I already have, and continue to work on doing so.

Not yet there.



I have only mentioned Hinduism specifically, which has 900 million adherents.

No you mentioned the Ganges river, Ishvara and Hinduism. Thats not to say they all dont have something to do with Hinduism. When I said there are thousands of different forms of Hinduism and that I could not possibly know what you were talking about. You went on to say how a ceremony was performed on the Ganges river. You never said it was common place.


Why would the burden of proof fall on the defendent, not the accuser? You are the one who claims He existed, so it is you who has to prove He did exist.


Why should I be the defendent?


The lack of evidence suggests such.


To you, yes.


Same goes for proving He did exist.


Red rover red rover send Evak over!
Or should we play ring around the roses? Personaly I like the current game we are playing. Not really but it seems to bring you great joy. Who am I to deny you happieness?


You think I haven't thought that over?
Of course, neither do you, so I am not shaking in my boots.

Is this duck duck goose?



What makes me an unreliable source, and in regards to what subject?

The one we are currently talking about.
I know more about believing in God then you do about not believing in God.



I don't recall ever claiming or attempting to restrict your visitation to this site.

So why even bother bringing up why I am here? Because the conversation isnt going the way one should here? Then stop talking to me.

I didnt lie about the bible. Why do you think I did?

Originally posted by Inviolable
You compared it to what I was talking about. With out feeling it for yourself you have no base of compairison. Other then mine.

I can't compare an apple and an orange unless I've eaten them both? I don't think so.

Yes it does. To both of us. You see it the way you want to and I'll see it the way I want to.

You see it the way that is devoid of facts, reason, and proof. You see it the way your emotions tell you, and then parade about proclaiming it is God interfering with your life. All other religionists in this world go through a similar trial, for them they just substitute God for whatever they choose.

Whats your point?

My point is that your idea is complete garbage. It is not in any form or fashion a "God-given emotion", some people cannot experience it. Saying they must be remorseful of their sins before they experience it full requires them to step into the water before they dive in, but some people can't take that step. Say it's the Devil, say it's their own rebellious nature, but in the end it is really a matter of biology and psychology.

It is an emotion "given" to you by God as proof he exist.

*alarms go off*

However God will not give you the emotion until you are remorseful of your sins.

So to be aware of God fully, you have to take part, however minimally, in the ideas about religion. I'm sorry, but that neither adds up nor makes sense.

No way for a person to work themselves into a position to feel it.

Ummm...aside from ascribing to religious beliefs involving sins...

You can not tell me what I am saying is in fact anything you can associate with.

Yes I can say what I am associated with and what I am not associated with, it is ME who is feeling it, no one else, so no one else with know one way or the other.

You dont know because you haven't felt it.

"I can't offer proof because my argument rests on you coming to terms with my faith and joining, otherwise you're wrong. Now that you continue to debate I'll grab at straws."

So there is no way for you to prove me wrong.

If Jesus did not exist, the entire, believe me, ALL of it falls to bits. Without a Messianic figure that died for your sins the basis of the faith obliterates. If one cannot prove Jesus existed, then he is to be disbelieved until proven to have existed(innocent until proven guilty).

Regardless of your "feelings" on the matter, if proof came out that Jesus never existed, then yes you would be without a doubt, wrong in your belief system. That doesn't mean there are other worthwhile parts of the faith itself, and other good or bad things, but Jesus existence is what the entire organization relies on.

Neither is there a way for me to prove it to you, other then for you to accept that quite a few people have felt it.

Lemmings. "If everyone does it, you should too!"

You yourself will not prove me wrong for the fear of losing what you have now.

Again you've decided to tell me what I am thinking, why?

You wish to retain the information you have worked to instil in your life.

And more...

The only way you can prove me absolutely wrong, is to try it for yourself.

Don't go into psychology. Also, since you and I are unaware of each other's beliefs and backgrounds to a mildly full extent, such claims are horsehockey.

The millions of people I speak of are my testament to the truth you are asking about.

Millions of people saying Jesus was here two millenia ago, makes it so?
If millions of American school children mistakenly say the Civil War was during the 1880s, would that make it so?

How so? because I can not give you absolute proof he did exist? Give me absolute proof he didnt.

For the third time, the burden of proof falls on the accuser. If you say He existed, it is you who must come up with verifiable historical data. Not any "feeling" or "majority agreement", cold hard facts. I don't have to do anything but sit back and watch.

For the truth.

Who said I was on a search for the truth?

Why not? Thats how scientist distinguish truth in something.

No, concrete facts derive from experimentation and theoretical calculations. It is collective observation that drives scientists, not collective opinion.

Prove it.

http://www.prb.org/images/e-01(world_pop_growth).gif

Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects, The 1998 Revision; and estimates by the Population Reference Bureau.

There are more people on the Earth today, then throughout all of history, as far as we know. Historians and anthropologists can come up with rough estimates such as the ones in the graph above.

That represents a thought pattern that suggest people are better then.

That suggests a thouhgt pattern that shows people are different. Homosexuals are different in the way of their sexual inclination, does that make them better? No.

You did say you are among them.

That is a lie.

Not yet there.

How do you know I'm not? ;)

No you mentioned the Ganges river, Ishvara and Hinduism. Thats not to say they all dont have something to do with Hinduism. When I said there are thousands of different forms of Hinduism and that I could not possibly know what you were talking about.

Yes you could, like Christianity, the different sects of Hinduism are all the same at their core.

You went on to say how a ceremony was performed on the Ganges river. You never said it was common place.

It is a religious celebration for most if not all Hindus, the largest gathering of people on Earth, in the history of the world, comes during that gathering.

Why should I be the defendent?

You are the accuser, you have to prove He existed. I've got nothing but time, there is nothing required of me in this court case but to listen and watch.

To you, yes.

Therein lies a problem, as it should be for everyone with cranial capacity to operate in the world.

The one we are currently talking about.
I know more about believing in God then you do about not believing in God.

Tell me Confucius, how did you arrive at this ever, astute (completely extrapolation of a statement) observation.

I didnt lie about the bible. Why do you think I did?

Because you did. Saying "The Bible did not change" is a lie.

Originally posted by Evakian
I can't compare

No you can't.


apple

Used to make pies, juice, sauce and sometimes goes in cake.


an orange

Used to make juice.


I don't think so.

No you don't.



You see it the way

It should be seen, you havent a clue how the christian religion should be seen.


that is devoid of facts

People that have no clue how the christian religion should be seen. Cant see the facts in it.




reason

Because they dont have a clue how it works.


and proof.

You cant prove something if someone else is unwilling to see the proof.


You see it the way your emotions tell you

Yes the emotions God gave me.


and then parade about proclaiming it is God interfering with your life.

With out a doubt.


All other religionists in this world go through a similar trial,

No trial to go through. So it is not similar.


for them they just substitute God

No you substitute God with whatever works best to make your point.


for whatever they choose.

Yes you do.



My point

Is not valid so far. You havent shown any knowledge that suggest you know anything about the christian religion.


your idea is complete garbage.

As explained by you, it would be considering you haven't any idea of what you are talking about.


It is not in any form or fashion a "God-given emotion",

Prove it.


some people cannot experience it.

If you live on this planet, you can experience it.


Saying they must be remorseful of their sins before they experience it

Is to say they must be remorseful of thier sins, nothing more.


requires them to

Be remorseful of their sins, nothing more.


but some people can't take that step.

Because they dont have a clue.


Say it's the Devil,

If you want to say that go ahead.


say it's their own rebellious nature,

So far you're the only one to say that.


but in the end it is

Up to the person.


psychology.

Doesn't work in your favor.


*alarms go off*

They should, youre not batting a 100 here.



So to be aware of God fully,

You have to be remorseful of your sins.


you have to take part

In being remorseful of your sins.


however minimally

Being remorseful of your sins.


in the ideas about religion.

Nope, just be remorsful of your sins.


I'm sorry,

You should be.


but that neither adds up nor makes sense.

It wouldn't to you, you have your own ideas about what the christian religion is and what you have to do to be one.









Yes I can say

Yes you can, good for you.


what I am associated with

I am surprised.


and what I am not associated with

Still shocked.


it is ME who is feeling it

Alright now we're getting some where.


no one else

Again, true. Getting closer to home plate.


so no one else with know one way or the other.

Home run!



I can't offer proof

No you cant.


argument rests on you coming to terms with my faith

looks like you are starting to see what I am saying.


Now that you continue to debate I'll grab at straws."

So far, thats all you have done. To bad you cant come to tearms with what I am saying.



If Jesus did not exist, the entire, believe me, ALL of it falls to bits. Without a Messianic figure that died for your sins the basis of the faith obliterates. If one cannot prove Jesus existed, then he is to be disbelieved until proven to have existed(innocent until proven guilty).

Regardless of your "feelings" on the matter, if proof came out that Jesus never existed, then yes you would be without a doubt, wrong in your belief system. That doesn't mean there are other worthwhile parts of the faith itself, and other good or bad things, but Jesus existence is what the entire organization relies on.

There in lies the truth you are searching for


Lemmings. "If everyone does it, you should too!"

Like finding a way to prove Jesus didn't exist?



Again you've decided to tell me what I am thinking, why?

Because you have stated what you are thinking.






Don't go into psychology.

lead by example and stop telling me what I felt.


since you and I are unaware of each other's beliefs

Yes of course. I have said repeatedly that I am a born again christian and you have shown repeatedly that you don't have a clue what that is.


such claims are horsehockey.

So please stop making them.


Millions of people saying Jesus was here two millenia ago

That and it points how God exist.


If millions of American school children mistakenly say the Civil War was during the 1880s, would that make it so?

Generaly speaking grown adults don't listen to children in that manner.



the burden of proof falls on the accuser.

Yes it does.


If you say He existed

Then it is up to you to prove he didn't.


it is you who must come up with verifiable historical data.

Exaclty. Wheres your data?


Not any "feeling" or "majority agreement"

Again, thats how scientist find truth.


cold hard facts.

I dont see yours.


I don't have to do anything

Then why should I?




Who said I was on a search for the truth?

You did.


No, concrete facts derive from experimentation and theoretical calculations. It is collective observation that drives scientists, not collective opinion.

Ideas like, The theory of relativity and evolution are now considered truth, due to popular scientific beliefe.





Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects, The 1998 Revision; and estimates by the Population Reference Bureau.

There are more people on the Earth today, then throughout all of history, as far as we know. Historians and anthropologists can come up with rough estimates such as the ones in the graph above.

That doesn't mean that the percentage of people worshiping God through out that time was diminished. The number would still represent the vast majority I indicated before.



That suggests a thouhgt pattern that shows people are different. Homosexuals are different in the way of their sexual inclination, does that make them better? No.

Has I stated before, if you live on this planet, you can have the feelling.
You really should have just said that, instead of the horse hocky you have been saying.









Christianity

is nothing like Hinduism other then they are both religions.


the different sects of Hinduism are all the same at their core.

There are miles of crust between the surface and the core at times.



It is a religious celebration for most if not all Hindus, the largest gathering of people on Earth, in the history of the world, comes during that gathering.

You seem to know more about that then you do about christianity, which is nothing as far as I can see.



You are the accuser

you have to prove

I've got nothing but time

there is nothing required of me

You said all I wanted to say.


Therein lies a problem, as it should be for everyone with cranial capacity to operate in the world.

Once again. All I wanted to say.







Because you did. Saying "The Bible did not change" is a lie.

Thanks for clarifying.

Originally posted by Inviolable
No you can't.

Then you're wrong. Completely, because you are ignoring facts and logic.

No you don't.

When you take fragments of a sentence to make pointless comments, the discussion is pointless.

you havent a clue how the christian religion should be seen.

Once again, you are extrapolating about other people. You can say I "haven't a clue" about the Christian religion's representation, that doesn't make it so.

People that have no clue how the christian religion should be seen. Cant see the facts in it.

Because they dont have a clue how it works.

Or maybe because the entire belief system is devoid of the standard logical constructs that are present in the real world?

You cant prove something if someone else is unwilling to see the proof.

That doesn't make it unproven or disproven, that just makes them an ignoramus.

No trial to go through. So it is not similar.

Apparently, you're lacking a proper grasp of the language we're speaking.

No you substitute God with whatever works best to make your point.

You substitute God for anything you fail to understand. Also, you act as if the opposition "flip-flops", they don't need to--logic and reason are sufficient tools against ignorance.

Yes you do.

Yay! Take apart sentences and only address parts of them, then make shrill comments that just annoy the other debater. Whoopee!

You havent shown any knowledge that suggest you know anything about the christian religion.

Which means you are either not reading or have a memory that is less than a mouse. I have stated that I've read the Bible, read up on some Christian theology, discussed the facets of the faith with priests, ministers, and laymen, am aware of the history and celebrations of the churches, and so on.

Prove it.

Provided you can prove that it is a God-given emotion, then I would try to disprove it. The accuser must present proof, not the defendent, it is not my battle to fight.

If you live on this planet, you can experience it.

So a human being on the Moon couldn't?
Your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of people's outlook on faith and religion.

Because they dont have a clue.

This is possibly the hardest response to get back to, you restate an ALREADY discussed point repeatedly.

So far you're the only one to say that.
Doesn't work in your favor.
You have to be remorseful of your sins.
In being remorseful of your sins.
Being remorseful of your sins.
Nope, just be remorsful of your sins.
You should be.

ROFL

It wouldn't to you, you have your own ideas about what the christian religion is and what you have to do to be one.

My own? My ideas about being a Christian derive from The Nazrene's words, yours seem to lack a full understanding of His teachings.

Yes you can, good for you.
I am surprised.
Still shocked.
Alright now we're getting some where.
Again, true. Getting closer to home plate.
Home run!

Don't waste bandwidth, it is neither funny, nor polite, nor Christian. :D

So far, thats all you have done. To bad you cant come to tearms with what I am saying.

Were you raised in a mental hospital, or a special education program?

Like finding a way to prove Jesus didn't exist?

No one needs to find that He didn't exist, you need to find that He did.

Because you have stated what you are thinking.

That's what you're thinking that I am thinking about these thoughts.

lead by example and stop telling me what I felt.

But you've so graciously spewed out over and over about what you've felt, why should I stop?

I have said repeatedly that I am a born again christian and you have shown repeatedly that you don't have a clue what that is.

How long have you been going to church?

Then it is up to you to prove he didn't.

For the fifth time, you are the accuser who said He existed, you have to prove, I don't have to disprove anything.

Exaclty. Wheres your data?

Bingo, you've been lacking in data to prove He existed.

Ideas like, The theory of relativity and evolution are now considered truth, due to popular scientific beliefe.

And an enormity of scientific and mathematical backing...

That doesn't mean that the percentage of people worshiping God through out that time was diminished. The number would still represent the vast majority I indicated before.

I didn't say anything about percentages, why did you?

You seem to know more about that then you do about christianity, which is nothing as far as I can see.

From what I can see, you've the understanding of Christianity that does not exceed that of a nine year-old. You've presented little if any knowledge about the faith, I'd venture to say that I know far more about Christianity then you do.

Thanks for clarifying.

Thanks for getting upset, thanks for wasting bandwidth, thanks for tearing apart single sentences, thanks for plenty of smart-aleck quips, thanks for not reading.

You seemed rather upset and ornery in your last post, and I was a tad too crude in my last. I suggest that we both walk away from this thread, and allow anyone else who wishes to take it up, to do so.

Originally posted by Evakian
You seemed rather upset and ornery in your last post, and I was a tad too crude in my last. I suggest that we both walk away from this thread, and allow anyone else who wishes to take it up, to do so.

Yeah, youre right. It looks more like Abbot and Costello then a conversation.

I bet you dont know Whos on first.

Originally posted by Inviolable
Yes, but you keep telling me to prove it to you before you even think about asking Jesus for forgiveness. If you can't for one second think that you are sorry for your sins. Then you shouldnt be forgiven. You have to have some kind of faith and the faith that you will be forgiven for your sins is the thing that leads you to Forgivenss.

Why is forgivness so important, we are human and we do make mistakes? If person A harms person B then the only forgivness needed is that from person B. I also can not ask for forgivness from something that has not proven itself to even exist.


What you are saying is, lets go in circles and say we need faith to have reliegion but we also need proof before we have the faith.
I see where you say, you look for the truth in things. You search for the facts. Then you tell me about ghost and people with near death experiences. Can you prove that ghost exist? Can you prove that the man who died was shown anything when he died? Will you ever be able to?

This is my point, I have no problem with a persons belief, but it still would be nice to have solid proof. How can there be preachers etc that say do this do that but then they have nothing to back up their claim?

If not you need some faith to find those things, otherwise you will stop looking for them.

I can believe in something and still try to answer what it is with facts. I say I might have seen a ghost so instead of saying believe me, I search for what I have seen. Someday maybe we will have proof to what a ghost is, same as with what a God is.


I am saying all I did was one thing, ask God for forgiveness and all the proof I wanted was there.

The proof was there for your emotional mind set at that time, the proof is not there to prove it actually happened. I think it is great that you have such a high belief, but your belief doesn't help us prove who God, Jesus etc... is?




I am saying that once I got my proof I didnt have to keep looking for it. I have faith but I dont have to keep searching for reasons to keep it.

Once again wouldn't it be nice to prove to the world?




No one. The devil is a prisoner in hell not the warden. Well I guess you can say God.

Interesting, again you say the devil has power over humans but then say he is not in charge of hell. This is also interesting because if the devil isn't in charge that leaves God? This would make God a very nasty dude that is not loving at all.





We cant. You can not prove anything any more then I can. You can say your facts are there. But you can not tell me what you know has more truth then what I know.

Before I told you to believe in Jesus I would want to be able to show you proof that he even existed. This can not be done {at this time} so it either means we need more research or that we need to except the whole Jesus thing as a false teaching.



Jesus performed several miracles while he was on the earth. There were still people who seen them and didnt believe what they seen.

I disagree very strongly with this, Jesus didn't perform any miracles "IF" he did exist at the very most he did interesting parlor tricks. A miracle would help all of his creation not just a few. We are not talking about Bob the mechanic helping a little old lady get her cat out of a tree we are talking about the allmighty, a miracle for It would be on a much higher scale then turning water into wine.

The only one who can give you proof, Maddog, is the one you keep denying exists.

Originally posted by newdsagent3
The only one who can give you proof, Maddog, is the one you keep denying exists.

aaaah, but I have not denied anyone, in fact just the opposite, I've asked for proof. Sorry just because most folks in America have jumped on the band wagon doesn't prove to me that Christ is real. Maybe I want answers not just happy dreams that could very well be false?

If you refuse to ask the only one who can give you proof then I guess you won't receive proof.

How much proof has anyone gotten that has asked for it? Nobody gets proof even if they ask for it. Almost all preachers and other followers of religions will admit they have no definite proof of their beliefs, but they are just that beliefs and faiths. The proof they find is wholly within themselves and is nothing of a substantiative matter.

If the only proof you receive is that through your connection of asking you find a faith and belief in that being, that god, that you ask, then its not proof but merely faith. It shows that through your own need and desires you find faith in that being that you need in order to quell your desires of understanding. You have gained no more proof but have only followed others in their idiocy.

Unless you truly believe this person will receive proof upon his asking, then you must realize that this person has a more grounded understanding of the things around him than you. He is resigned to accept the real things in life around him, and is not a slave to the greatest weakness of human beings, faith in the absence of knowledge.

It relies on the very nature of proof. God cannot be scientifically proven. Science does not touch the issue. If your definition of proof is such that it must be able to be communicated to people who require a scientific proof of God, then that proof is something you will never have.

Just remember that the things science has answers on comprise only a very small part of existance. There are many things which cannot be scientifically demonstrated or proven in existance that nonetheless exist. Science, logic, rationality cannot touch these things. Things such as dreams, stories, tales, emotions, philosophies, ideas. Science can measure *some* of the effects of these things, like the activity in the brain during a dream, but it cannot confirm the content, connections, or even the psychologies of the dream. It can only measure bluntly.

Some people believe in capitalism, that is just as absurd as a belief in God, every bit as irrational. But these things, including God, are not absences of knowledge, they are additions to it.

I don't quite understand napster. What kind of proof is there that can not be measured? Faith? Is there any other kind. Faith alone is the only proof of religion then, right?

I can prove that I dream, I can prove I believe in God. I know I dream, the visions are in my head <It's been far too long since I read Descartes to really get into that>. But I certainly give no validity to the messages, peoples, and places of my dream. There either is or there is not proof that those visions in my dream of places and people are real. Their is solid proof of that. If I dream of a friend, I see him the next day, I can say, "yes, he is real." There has been little or no proof of God's existence that validates or denies our belief in him.

Our best evidence, your best proof, is that there are many things that we don't understand. In the absence of evidence of God, the addition of God to our understanding, you claim, is an addition to our knowledge. Do you know how many different Polytheistic and religious ideas are out there? Are all these, even though you would very likely dismiss many as useless and baseless, an addition to our knowledge. If your next door neighbor claims to be god is that an addition to your knowledge, besides of now knowing he claims to be god and is more than likely an idiot. No, it adds nothing to your knowledge. Man's empty beliefs in notions they have no clue about is not an addition to knowledge. If there is partial evidence of Christianity then it would be an addition to knowledge, but there is no more validity in Christianity than there is in any one of the other thousands of religions. It is based purely on faith and therefore adds nothing to our knowledge, except on historical and perhaps psychological grounds. The knowledge you gain by or through religion is not one that helps us physically understand what is in this world or the next, unless you except notions based purely on speculation.

Capitalism, for the most part can be empirically portrayed and studied. Smith, Marx, many others, ran over and studied Capitalism in its history, its present use, and in its potential use. There are ways to measure all three. The best knowledge we have of God comes from the Bible, oral traditions, and our own belief structure. None of these things stand on any measureable or solid ground whatsoever.

Faith alone is the only proof of religion then, right?

You have not answered the other question, just what is proof to you. Only once you answer that can we say whether we can prove God or not.

I can prove that I dream, I can prove I believe in God.

You can prove that your brain goes into the physical state often associated with dreaming. You cannot prove that you dream. You can describe your dream in great detail, but you cannot prove it.

Our best evidence, your best proof, is that there are many things that we don't understand.

Woah, laddie, I'm not interested in proving God, I haven't even said that he exists.

Do you know how many different Polytheistic and religious ideas are out there? Are all these, even though you would very likely dismiss many as useless and baseless, an addition to our knowledge.

They are not useless or baseless. All knowledge is good knowledge. It is attitudes that can be useless or baseless.

No, it adds nothing to your knowledge.

All knowledge can be used and built upon. In my neighbors case, I could use that knowledge to have some great fun at his expense. I can build something with that knowledge that is greater than the sum of the influences going into it. If you are not creative enough to use information properly, do not blame the knowledge.

The knowledge you gain by or through religion is not one that helps us physically understand what is in this world or the next, unless you except notions based purely on speculation.

You cannot speak of a next world if you do not believe in religion. Religion has created the idea. There is no such thing as physical understanding. You cannot have a physical understanding of this world. All such endeavours are mental understandings. Religious ideas drove the world for a much longer time than scientific ones have. They still have a much greater effect on society than science ever has. Religion has provoked countless wars. Religion has caused much peace. Religion is held much deeper in the hearts of men than science is, for the vast majority of humanity.

Scientific understandings and religious understandings are the same, as far as validity goes. Cultures and peoples are influenced every bit as strongly by the two.

The best knowledge we have of God comes from the Bible, oral traditions, and our own belief structure.

You can measure them the same way. You just cannot evaluate anything outside the realm of science scientifically.

Originally posted by mad dog
Why is forgivness so important, we are human and we do make mistakes? If person A harms person B then the only forgivness needed is that from person B. I also can not ask for forgivness from something that has not proven itself to even exist.

I told Evak I wouldn't reply to this thread any more. I have been rude to mad dog in the past. It is my beliefe that christains should respect everyone. He is due some respect. So I will answer his questions and his questions alone.

What about all the people you can't ask forgiveness from? Or the people who refuse to forgive you?
Forgiveness goes deeper then just regret. There are so many things a person can heal from when you ask for forgiveness, recieve forgiveness, forgive someone yourself. "Forget and forgive" is a phrase that best describes a true christian. With out the ability to forget and forgive the world might as well stop rotating.
That goes for everyone, not just christians.



This is my point, I have no problem with a persons belief, but it still would be nice to have solid proof. How can there be preachers etc that say do this do that but then they have nothing to back up their claim?

There are forms of proof, maybe not so tangable but it is there. The feelling everyone has to find the answers. The world around us. The millions of people who worship God now.
Some preachers tell you what they know will heal the world. Some of them don't often do it the way it should be done. The proof they should be offering is in their life. What God did for them. You may or may not have heard the testimony of a christinas life. But that should be what they are talking about. Not telling you what you are doing wrong.



I can believe in something and still try to answer what it is with facts. I say I might have seen a ghost so instead of saying believe me, I search for what I have seen. Someday maybe we will have proof to what a ghost is, same as with what a God is.

Yes some day maybe you will have proof. But does one instance keep you moving forward in your search?
If I were to say I believe you because I saw a ghost, would that compel you to seek me out and talk to me? What if you have found tens of thousands of people who have seen a ghost. That being the only proof you have. Is eye witnesses. What then?
I am telling you that millions of people all over the world are christians, and countless more from the begining of the religion. All of them say they have had the same feelling I claim to have. What makes a ghost story any more compelling then a God story?


The proof was there for your emotional mind set at that time, the proof is not there to prove it actually happened. I think it is great that you have such a high belief, but your belief doesn't help us prove who God, Jesus etc... is?


What if I told you that I wasnt feeling regret at the moment? I didn't feel any different before I relized I sinned.
We all know we sin. But as you said up top, person A needs forgiveness from person B. Knowing about it, because it is well known and understand it past what you know are two different things. All I did was understand it deeper then I knew it and God gave me proof. I didn't set myself up to be overwhelmed by emotion. God just gave it to me.




Once again wouldn't it be nice to prove to the world?

Yes it would. But then we go back to the faith thing.





Interesting, again you say the devil has power over humans but then say he is not in charge of hell. This is also interesting because if the devil isn't in charge that leaves God? This would make God a very nasty dude that is not loving at all.


Yes to some degree.
All he can do is look in places we as mortals can't and use that knowledge in a persuasive manner. But only because he isn't in the mortal realm. What he can do is common place in his realm. He may know that you are more likely to chase ghost then you are to chase God so he show'ed you one. Things like that.
God really has no reason to govern hell. The people in it realize what they missed when they were alive, by not chosing God and as a result they are so remorsefull that they dont see or know anything other then self pitty.






Before I told you to believe in Jesus I would want to be able to show you proof that he even existed. This can not be done {at this time} so it either means we need more research or that we need to except the whole Jesus thing as a false teaching.

So why dont you research forgiveness?
See how deep it goes. I am not asking you to ask Jesus for forgiveness. I am asking you to research forgiveness as much as possible. If you have the time.





I disagree very strongly with this, Jesus didn't perform any miracles "IF" he did exist at the very most he did interesting parlor tricks. A miracle would help all of his creation not just a few. We are not talking about Bob the mechanic helping a little old lady get her cat out of a tree we are talking about the allmighty, a miracle for It would be on a much higher scale then turning water into wine.

As I said before, people are very Skeptical. With out it there would be no free will.

Originally posted by Inviolable
I told Evak I wouldn't reply to this thread any more. I have been rude to mad dog in the past. It is my beliefe that christains should respect everyone. He is due some respect. So I will answer his questions and his questions alone.

Inviolable I think we have done a complete turn around, don't worry about the misscommunication earlier, stuff happens...

What about all the people you can't ask forgiveness from? Or the people who refuse to forgive you?

Well, in this case a person will have to grow up and deal with their problem. Maybe they would have to learn do forgive themself 1st then worry about others, personal responsibilty.

Forgiveness goes deeper then just regret. There are so many things a person can heal from when you ask for forgiveness, recieve forgiveness, forgive someone yourself. "Forget and forgive" is a phrase that best describes a true christian. With out the ability to forget and forgive the world might as well stop rotating.
That goes for everyone, not just christians.

I agree and have no issues with all the forgivness stuff. example; if I screw up then I take on the responsbility of taking care of things. I am an adult and don't need a babysitter from the heavens to watch over me and pat me on the shoulder. I am also reminded of a saying, "God will help those that help themselfs". If one truely believes this then they don't need forgivness they need to learn responsibilty.


There are forms of proof, maybe not so tangable but it is there.

there are forms of belief, not proof, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Of course this only applys to now who knows what the future may bring.

The feelling everyone has to find the answers. The world around us. The millions of people who worship God now.

If your friends all jumped off a cliff would you? Just because a group of people think they know something doesn't make it fact. Jumping on the bandwagon is not allways the correct thing to do?


Some preachers tell you what they know will heal the world. Some of them don't often do it the way it should be done. The proof they should be offering is in their life. What God did for them. You may or may not have heard the testimony of a christinas life. But that should be what they are talking about. Not telling you what you are doing wrong.

I agree, and with that Christians should also try to find actual proof of their believe, this way they could get their message across. Just talking about a bearded man that watches over us doesn't make it true. Sure it would be great to think we are all being taken care of like little babies by their mom, but that is not a fact.


Yes some day maybe you will have proof. But does one instance keep you moving forward in your search?

Sure, why wouldn't I want to prove something that I believe I saw?


If I were to say I believe you because I saw a ghost, would that compel you to seek me out and talk to me?

Why not, that way I would not be alone trying to find truth. I would also expect you to want to get to the bottom of what you saw, find solid evidence.

What if you have found tens of thousands of people who have seen a ghost. That being the only proof you have. Is eye witnesses. What then?

That would be honkydoory but it still wouldn't prove anything. I would expect those 10's of thousands to be searching for the correct answer to what was seen if anything at all. Young kids often make up huge stories about how they saw something etc... Example Johny and his group of friends are playing in the woods, their imagination starts working over time, before you know it Johny and the whole group of friends have seen bigfoot or atleast heard it roar. My point is are we still little kids believing in fairy tails or are we grown ups trying to find truth?


I am telling you that millions of people all over the world are christians, and countless more from the begining of the religion. All of them say they have had the same feelling I claim to have. What makes a ghost story any more compelling then a God story?

Nothing they still both need solid proof/evidence to show they are real. Otherwise they are nothing more then a legend/myth/fairy tail.



What if I told you that I wasnt feeling regret at the moment? I didn't feel any different before I relized I sinned.
We all know we sin. But as you said up top, person A needs forgiveness from person B. Knowing about it, because it is well known and understand it past what you know are two different things. All I did was understand it deeper then I knew it and God gave me proof. I didn't set myself up to be overwhelmed by emotion. God just gave it to me.

I would say you found an inner peace, not God. If you found God you could prove this to the world. What you found was something that made you feel better about yourself you have not shown the rest of the world anything. I feel the same as you describe above, but I don't claim to know God? so what is the difference between your feeling and mine? I think nothing, we both feel an inner peace. JMO



All he can do is look in places we as mortals can't and use that knowledge in a persuasive manner. But only because he isn't in the mortal realm. What he can do is common place in his realm. He may know that you are more likely to chase ghost then you are to chase God so he show'ed you one. Things like that.
God really has no reason to govern hell. The people in it realize what they missed when they were alive, by not chosing God and as a result they are so remorsefull that they dont see or know anything other then self pitty.

So a God that shows no solid proof puts his creation{that he loves} in a place called hell? Sorry but that's not right, infact that is very mean and being just down right nasty.






So why dont you research forgiveness?
See how deep it goes. I am not asking you to ask Jesus for forgiveness. I am asking you to research forgiveness as much as possible. If you have the time.

Been there done that I don't need a Jesus dude, what I needed was self responsibilty and a reality check.



As I said before, people are very Skeptical. With out it there would be no free will.

There are better ways for a God to give us freewill then to deny us the truth of who it is? I could know God and still have the freewill to drink a beer or jump out of a plane?

Originally posted by newdsagent3
If you refuse to ask the only one who can give you proof then I guess you won't receive proof.

I can sit on my roof and look at the moon while asking to myself "where is the man on the moon?" I can sit there day after day hour after hour then BAM! out of the blue there he is, the man on the moon. Does this mean I have proof or does it mean I may have just wanted to believe it so bad that it happened? I have no proof just a belief that I made up in my own mind.

Does bigfoot live

Are there Marsians

Is lochness really alive

Do elfs come out at night and do things

All of these are beliefs that many folks believe are true, BUT as of yet there is no proof of any. According to what your telling me all of these things have to be true because beliefs are better then truth or solid evidence?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faith alone is the only proof of religion then, right?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



<You have not answered the other question, just what is proof to you. Only once you answer that can we say whether we can prove God or not. >

What question?-

"What kind of proof is there that cannot be measured?"

I was asking whether faith the only kind of proof that can't be measured for correctness. Is there any others?

The only proof that cant be measured is proof taken on pure faith, right. Proof can be measured for the amount of it someone has, but it can't be measured in terms of validity. I can't tell someone the faith in them is wrong if it deals with an immeasurable substance, one that I can not deny or prove, such as religous beliefs. I can dispute the bible for its accuracy and give reasons why it is probably just a fiction of man, but i cannot prove right or wrong whether the God in the bible exists. Therefore Faith, as far as many biblical notions are concerned cannot be measured for its validity.

When it comes to faith, if you have that the computer in front of you is a tree. I may be able to measure that faith and prove that you are wrong given an examination. As long as, we agree to language and a general understanding of the world- what a tree is and what a computer is. Then I would measure the validity of your faith as well as simply measuring your faith by how much of it you have on the subject. But notions that even if we agree to language and terms on, cannot be proven by either, we cannot measure for validity.



You can prove that your brain goes into the physical state often associated with dreaming. You cannot prove that you dream. You can describe your dream in great detail, but you cannot prove it.

I can prove to myself. I know when I wake up that my mind entered into a state that my body did not follow. Under definition then I can prove to myself I dreamed. I can't prove to anyone that I dreamed, but the proof is valid enough for my own understanding. Just as you can prove to yourself that you dream eventhough you cannot prove to anyone else such. I fully sense the state of dreaming prior to being awake, given that the sensation coincides with the definition of dreaming, therefore I dream. I have proven that to myself. If I can prove to myself that I dream, and you can prove to yourself that you dream, then since we both agree to the same terms and language we can prove to each that we dream. Thus in our society we have proven that dreaming exists. Even without the societal and language connection we can still prove individually to ourselves that "I dream" even if we can't prove that "we dream."

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you know how many different Polytheistic and religious ideas are out there? Are all these, even though you would very likely dismiss many as useless and baseless, an addition to our knowledge.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



<They are not useless or baseless. All knowledge is good knowledge. It is attitudes that can be useless or baseless.>


I agree all knowledge is good, but it is good in different contexts. This info helps you understanding the societal world, but it does not help you in understanding the world outside of a cultural sense, psychological sense, and so on. It does not help explain anything of the physical or the scientific world. Beliefs in religion do not help explain the origins of the world, they only add imaginary and baseless "theories" to the subject that have no substantive matter to the subject. Sure they help us understand how many humans understand the subject, but they dont add to our actual understanding of the subject.




All knowledge can be used and built upon. In my neighbors case, I could use that knowledge to have some great fun at his expense. I can build something with that knowledge that is greater than the sum of the influences going into it. If you are not creative enough to use information properly, do not blame the knowledge.

All knowledge is useful in its own ways, I agree. But as I just said, knowledge that is known only through a baseless and nonscientific form cannot then be transferred into the realm of understanding of science (yea, I know you already said that), the only subject that is truly exploring how the world works, the only real form of knowledge. You can turn that knowledge into understanding, but it becomes an entirely different context. You explore it for relevance in the cultural and historical world around it, but it does not add to the knowledge of understanding the subject that it had originally set out on. For Example: If we study religious beliefs about the origins of earth that are pure speculation and fantasies of man, that in itself is knowledge. It helps us understand man and his connection to and view of the world. It does not add to our physical understanding of the origin of the world, though.


Scientific understandings and religious understandings are the same, as far as validity goes. Cultures and peoples are influenced every bit as strongly by the two.

No, they are not the same in validity. They are in two separate languages. People have been influenced a whole lot more by religion throughout history and today, that does not mean that either one is more true.

We can as a culture, as a single people, even as a world culture and world understanding, separate physical understanding from mental understanding. We can, and have, officially separated things that are based on physical truths from things based on beliefs. That is the world of science. I understand the argument that if you go down deep enough everything is based on relativity and mental understanding, but as a universal culture we have the ability to separate the spheres, and divide the invalidated theories from the validated. Religion can be used (and is knowledge) in a cultural understanding of the human race, but it can not be used (does not add knowledge, exept in rare circumstances) to understanding the physical aspects of the world.


P.S.- Very confused to this conversation now.

As for proof, keep in mind that there are very few things that can be proven. You are asking for proof of God when you can't even prove gravity. I'm not going to answer the above, because I think it has gone far beyond the original point. This, I hope, will bring the discussion back to a semblance of relevancy.

And if you say that you can observe gravity, well, you can also observe God. You just have to look for him.

It does not help explain anything of the physical or the scientific world.

The scientific world is a very small one, populated by a tiny community of scholars. You are placing undue faith in one world, then complaining that others place undue faith in another.

Sure they help us understand how many humans understand the subject, but they dont add to our actual understanding of the subject.

They are the same. All there is is human understanding. There is no such thing as actual understanding. If you think that science will eventually lead to a singular understanding that can be shared by all, keep in mind the many, many things that science can have no understanding of at all. Science cannot tell you how to get a date, live happily, cook a good meal, or enjoy a boring movie. For that, you need understandings of a different type. Religion fills in some of the cracks. That is all.

Sure they help us understand how many humans understand the subject, but they dont add to our actual understanding of the subject.

If you limit yourself so, you are bound to be disappointed constantly in life. Actual understanding is an absolute term. Human beings cannot come to absolute truths, it is impossible for us. Scientists will continue to come up with conflicting theories on how the world works. There will never be any consensus. All we have are our relative truths. Einstein proved as much, and enshrined relativity as a scientific truth.

The workings of the world are too great for humans to handle.

We can, and have, officially separated things that are based on physical truths from things based on beliefs.

I would like to see you illustrate that. We believe capitalism is the best system, we do not know. We believe that liberalism or conservatism is best, we do not know. We believe in so many things as a society, what is wrong with God? We have a separation of God from state, but God is just a philosophy, just like Marxism. Our society has eliminated one philosophy from influencing certain aspects of the public sphere, but it goes on influencing anyway. We can have ample evidence of this in that every president professes a belief in God, and it becomes a major part of a political campaign. How can we have a true separation? It is impossible.

P.S.- Very confused to this conversation now.

I am a different kind of mystic, a different kind of intellectual. My words are bound to confuse, because our paradigms are very different. I won't try to pull the wool over your eyes with a bunch of mystic bullshit, but neither can I limit myself to a standard debate style. I have to pick the important points out of an argument and elaborate more on my point of view. Please don't look at this like it is a win/lose debate.

At any point, feel free to check out my blog if you want to get a better feel for my form of thinking. You can get there by clicking on the little website button at the upper right part of my post.

This is getting very far off track from Inviolable's thread. We should probably take this into the thread Blob made to discuss my version of God.

Originally posted by mad dog



Well, in this case a person will have to grow up and deal with their problem. Maybe they would have to learn do forgive themself 1st then worry about others, personal responsibilty.


True.


I agree and have no issues with all the forgivness stuff. example; if I screw up then I take on the responsbility of taking care of things. I am an adult and don't need a babysitter from the heavens to watch over me and pat me on the shoulder. I am also reminded of a saying, "God will help those that help themselfs". If one truely believes this then they don't need forgivness they need to learn responsibilty.


I don't think you understoood me. Asking God for forgiveness is taking responsibility. It also makes you completely responsible for anything you may or may not have to be sorry for.
Don't take that the wrong way. I am saying that if someone does something to you, you should forgive them. Its your resposibility to do so.
I believe our lives are controlled more or less by our subconscious. Our subconscious is filled with the memories, moments in our life. These memories can be fear, hate, jealousy any number of emotions that can go along with a moment and unconsciously guide or control us through our subconscious.
What I am talking about is seeing these moments and taking control of all of them. In doing so you can make any future event in your life so much better and make your present very satisfying.


there are forms of belief, not proof, otherwise we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Of course this only applys to now who knows what the future may bring.


Proof is in many different forms. You say you seen a ghost. How do you know it wasnt a shadow or bad lighting? You can't tell me for sure that it wasn't but you have seen it and know you have. So that is all the proof you need to look for more proof.
Funny how that works when you say you seen a ghost but not when I say I seen God. It may just well be that you have seen a ghost and that is exactly why you are looking for him. That doesn't stop you from trying to explain it to me when I ask about it. So why should I stop trying to explain God.
Doesn't matter if you have proof or not.


If your friends all jumped off a cliff would you? Just because a group of people think they know something doesn't make it fact. Jumping on the bandwagon is not allways the correct thing to do?


I'm not saying I did it because everyone else did, or telling you to do it because everyone else did. I am telling you that there are more witness to God then there are of ghost. You should be asking them why.



I agree, and with that Christians should also try to find actual proof of their believe, this way they could get their message across. Just talking about a bearded man that watches over us doesn't make it true. Sure it would be great to think we are all being taken care of like little babies by their mom, but that is not a fact.


Faith and truth go hand in hand, cant have truth without first understanding faith. To be completely honest, God isnt looking over us like children, well he is and he isnt. He calls us his children and he looks out for us but he throughs us in the cold, cold water and tells us to swim out. Every now and then he tosses us a life preserver until we dont need it again and takes it away. If he didn't, trust me we wouldnt be having this conversation.



Sure, why wouldn't I want to prove something that I believe I saw?


Why wouldn't I want to share information I know can help make the world a better place?



Why not, that way I would not be alone trying to find truth. I would also expect you to want to get to the bottom of what you saw, find solid evidence.

Believe it or not I have seen ghost, when I was 12 years old. They would stick their red and orange heads out of the wall and whisper my name.
But now I'm on medication.... lol
No really, I have seen it before.


That would be honkydoory but it still wouldn't prove anything. I would expect those 10's of thousands to be searching for the correct answer to what was seen if anything at all. Young kids often make up huge stories about how they saw something etc... Example Johny and his group of friends are playing in the woods, their imagination starts working over time, before you know it Johny and the whole group of friends have seen bigfoot or atleast heard it roar. My point is are we still little kids believing in fairy tails or are we grown ups trying to find truth?


Exactly, thats what I am saying. How do you know what you seen was a ghost for sure?
And why are you looking for proof of ghost?
That is my question to you. What is the driving force that compels you to search for proof of ghost?
Is it simply that you know some where some how proof will pop up eventually?
Why couldnt I be explaining God to you for that reason?


Nothing they still both need solid proof/evidence to show they are real. Otherwise they are nothing more then a legend/myth/fairy tail.


I know we have had this conversation before. But if something happens to you and you cant prove it, that doesnt mean it didn't happen.





I would say you found an inner peace, not God. If you found God you could prove this to the world. What you found was something that made you feel better about yourself you have not shown the rest of the world anything. I feel the same as you describe above, but I don't claim to know God? so what is the difference between your feeling and mine? I think nothing, we both feel an inner peace. JMO


Well, thats you. I know it was a God given emotion. I am not the one to show the world. God is and so far he has shown quite a few people. He wouldn't be God if he didnt save people.



So a God that shows no solid proof puts his creation{that he loves} in a place called hell? Sorry but that's not right, infact that is very mean and being just down right nasty.


No God doesn't put you in hell. You put yourself there. I am not saying God puts you in hell because you didnt listen to him. I am saying that you put yourself in hell because you didnt listen to him. That doesn't mean God punished you. Remember when I said you if you die before you know God you feel remorsefull. Hell is the pit of remorsefull people. No one put them there but themselves.






Been there done that I don't need a Jesus dude, what I needed was self responsibilty and a reality check.


Not sure you understand what I am saying.




There are better ways for a God to give us freewill then to deny us the truth of who it is? I could know God and still have the freewill to drink a beer or jump out of a plane?

He hasnt denied you the truth. You deny yourself. You look everywhere but in Gods direction.
Are you asking if christians still have free will? Yes they do, if that is what you are asking.

Originally posted by Inviolable
True.

He hasn't denied you the truth. You deny yourself. You look everywhere but in Gods direction.
Are you asking if christians still have free will? Yes they do, if that is what you are asking.

Mad Dog stop dumpin' on the board!:D

Originally posted by Inviolable
[ don't think you understoood me. Asking God for forgiveness is taking responsibility. It also makes you completely responsible for anything you may