Do you believe in God?

[DK]

My thoughts would be that the sort of people who seek out this part of GTP are more likely to be atheists.

@20832, IIRC the Länder that used to be in East Germany make up the least religious region in Europe.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Especially the numbers of believers here in Germany, or at least members in churches, has gone down drastically in the last few years.

Yeah but what can you do? All a brother can do now is keep a friendly attitude and make friends with everybody without jeopardizing my faith. A brother just wants to make peace throughout everywhere and bashing people and forcing them to believe what I believe ain't gonna do it.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

My mind is not closed.

Nope.

And my conclusions are anything but predetermined.

Nope.

Rather they are established in, and by, my own personal, testable

Nope.

observable

Nope.

and repeatable results.

Nope.

Still batting a thousand, I see.

 

[20832]

@20832, IIRC the Länder that used to be in East Germany make up the least religious region in Europe.

One of the baltic countries has an atheist population of about 90%, I believe it was Latvia, not sure though.

Yeah but what can you do? All a brother can do now is keep a friendly attitude and make friends with everybody without jeopardizing my faith. A brother just wants to make peace throughout everywhere and bashing people and forcing them to believe what I believe ain't gonna do it.

Not forcing your beliefs onto others (not saying that you do) is the best way to go about it. Religion has always been and always will be a controversial topic and opinions will colide.

Isn't your god also about loving each other and acceptance? Then I think the best way to go about it is to be loving and caring for others regardless of their belief or non-belief for that matter and accepting his choice in not believing in a higher being. If someone chooses to believe, they have plenty of ways to practice that without condemning others for not doing so.

 

[Jet Badger]

One of the baltic countries has an atheist population of about 90%, I believe it was Latvia, not sure though.

Not sure about that. Estonia is known for the highest percentage of non-religious people among the Baltic states, but even then its just over 54% with Latvia and Lithuania being respectably at 20% and 6% (boo Lithuania). The country that's 90% non-religious, believe it or not, seems to be China. Ha!

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Not forcing your beliefs onto others (not saying that you do) is the best way to go about it. Religion has always been and always will be a controversial topic and opinions will colide.

I'm hip. I usually try to stay away from the subject because of the controversy it causes but it will always present itself some way some how.

Isn't your god also about loving each other and acceptance? Then I think the best way to go about it is to be loving and caring for others regardless of their belief or non-belief for that matter and accepting his choice in not believing in a higher being. If someone chooses to believe, they have plenty of ways to practice that without condemning others for not doing so.

You hit the nail right on the head brother. We are told to love thy neighbor as thyself and to have love for your enemies and do good to those who hate you (Not saying you're an enemy, or that you hate me just adding reference). But that's how we gotta live man. Just love people for who they are and respect them.

 

[20832]

Not sure about that. Estonia is known for the highest percentage of non-religious people among the Baltic states, but even then its just over 54% with Latvia and Lithuania being respectably at 20% and 6% (boo Lithuania). The country that's 90% non-religious, believe it or not, seems to be China. Ha!

Yeah, like I said, one of the baltic countries has an incredibly and (for europe) leading low number of believers. Don't know which though.

You hit the nail right on the head brother. We are told to love thy neighbor as thyself and to have love for your enemies and do good to those who hate you (Not saying you're an enemy, or that you hate me just adding reference). But that's how we gotta live man. Just love people for who they are and respect them.

Exactly, and as long as you do that, and not try to force your beliefs, I think nobody will have a problem with you being a christian. Too many christian act as if we atheist/agnostic are off of the "righteous path" and need to find to God to bring back purpose into our life and whatever, which just seems silly to me. I personally see myself more as an antagonist rather than as an atheist, but I personally have nothing against christianity. What I thoroughly dislike though is the overall concept of churces, it's just incredibly offputting to me.

 

[Carbonox]

Yeah, like I said, one of the baltic countries has an incredibly and (for europe) leading low number of believers. Don't know which though.



Exactly, and as long as you do that, and not try to force your beliefs, I think nobody will have a problem with you being a christian. Too many christian act as if we atheist/antagonist are off of the "righteous path" and need to find to God to bring back purpose into our life and whatever, which just seems silly to me. I personally see myself more as an antagonist rather than as an atheist, but I personally have nothing against christianity. What I thoroughly dislike though is the overall concept of churces, it's just incredibly offputting to me.

I hope you meant to say agnostic there.

But sadly, we indeed are the antagonists for lots of ultra-religious folks for no real proper reason.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Exactly, and as long as you do that, and not try to force your beliefs, I think nobody will have a problem with you being a christian. Too many christian act as if we atheist/antagonist are off of the "righteous path" and need to find to God to bring back purpose into our life and whatever, which just seems silly to me. I personally see myself more as an antagonist rather than as an atheist, but I personally have nothing against christianity. What I thoroughly dislike though is the overall concept of churces, it's just incredibly offputting to me.

I feel you, me being a Christian I don't like Church that much myself nowadays. TBH I don't even attend church like I use to, I still have a strong faith but I don't like how the churches are today. They grow and expand more for the sake of bragging about how many people they think they've brought to Christ, while boasting how big their church is. Most of them lose the real purpose of meeting in Church. Now not every church is like this but most of them forget that the definition of "Church" is the body (people) of Christ but they make it seem like church is a mandatory, bragging rights type thing. When really it's just a place where we Christians meet to discuss God.

Damn, I Started lecturing again.

 

[GBO Possum]

Even if there were a test I could think of, unless it exists in a substantive applicable form, then it's irrelevant anyway.

Since the gods are not substantive, are they also irrelevant?

Substantive = having a firm basis in reality and therefore important, meaningful, or considerable: there is no substantive evidence for the efficacy of these drugs.

 

[Scaff]

You hit the nail right on the head brother. We are told to love thy neighbor as thyself and to have love for your enemies and do good to those who hate you (Not saying you're an enemy, or that you hate me just adding reference). But that's how we gotta live man. Just love people for who they are and respect them.

A question if you don't mind.

What about the parts of the Bible (old and new) that don't either advocate this (and often advocate the exact opposite) or directly contradict it?

How do you reconcile those contradictions with your own faith?

 

[Famine]

Nope, I'm a little sad about that too if we're being honest.

I'm just curious why you're sad about members of the site's staff not being religious.

 

[doctorrg]

Oh dear. Looks like there is a little more work to be done in order to explain the concepts of Noumena and Phenomena to you. While I'd prefer to just refer you to some scholary articles, I know you're not going to take it, as you want to hear it from me, but well, here we go again...

No, because you went into all that detail to outline that the cat does not exist in the phenomenal world either. All "real" objects are noumena, and all that exists in the phenomenal world is the phenomena that they generate.

Umm, no, you must have misunderstood this. The cat exists entirely within Phenomenal reality, as "cat" is what we perceive and understand. What exists within noumena is the cat-in-itself, and that's nothing that could sensibly be called "cat". So, to clarify, a cat exists entirely within Phenomenal reality.

If you're going to use the noumena/phenomena idea, at least be consistent about it.

I most certainly am. A shame you don't see it, but let's continue.

The cat is a noumenon. It produces phenomena, the same as God.

No, absolutely not. A cat only exists within phenomenal reality, and I really thought I had been crystal clear about this.

I read them, and it would seem that I've understood Kant differently than you have. Everything is a noumenon. Not just God, or whatever other thing you'd like to apply it to.

Everything-in-itself is Noumena. What we perceive and understand, and that's inclusive of "cat", is Phenomena. I got the impression that you'd understood this previously, was this not the case?

Except that "purely internal" doesn't mean anything.

Surely, you jest? Purely internal as relating entirely to introspection, not to anything that is perceived through sensory perception. How could this not have been clear from my description of the God experience?

Something is perceived, and in the Solipsist view of the world everything other than the self is external.

Huh? You may want to freshen up your understanding of Solipsism. It's quite the contrary, in fact. The Solipsist only has the self. Or what do you think the Solipsist proposes is external?

So you're contradicting yourself.

I can see why you're confused, but as I've said previously, it's you, not me.

You're very clear that God produces some sort of phenomena,

I've been very clear that the only Phenomena relating to God is what can be observed when looking at a human being having what I've previously called the God experience. I've said that time and time again, so I have no idea why this hasn't gotten through yet.

so I choose to accept that and that the phenomena are perceived in whatever way that they happen to be perceived.

Obviously, you have not been reading me. Perception generally refers to sensory input in some form, even if the experience itself is largely mental. What I have described clearly refers to an experience devoid of sensory input. You can see that, right? Have another read of my description of the God experience, and maybe it'll come to you.

If you want to add on this "purely internal" thing, you're going to have to describe how that's different from "normal" perception. Make sure to include how you know this.

Are you telling me that you have absolutely no concept of Introspection?

Or by being the human having the God experience, in which case the perception is no different from my perception of a cat.

Are you telling me that you have absolutely no concept of Introspection?

Why are you stuck on having to observe a third party witnessing a phenomenon, when you can witness the phenomenon directly? Why would I have someone else look at a comet when I could go look at it myself?

Has been explained in minute detail. You're not witnessing a phenomenon, you're having an experience, an experience that is devoid of sensory input. Seriously now, you cannot possibly tell me this was not clear from my description of the God experience.

A cat is a noumenon.

No, it is not. A cat, quite clearly I may add, is part of our phenomenal world. This could not possibly be any more clear. The Cat-in-iself is it's noumenal aspect, but that's not anything that could sensibly be called cat. "Cat" is how we perceive and understand it.

I'll keep saying it until you understand how noumena work.

Says the guy who, by his own admission, has read the Wikipedia article on it yesterday, or was it the day before yesterday? I've been debating Kant for decades, so please don't give me this nonsense.

If you think a cat is not a noumenon, then you're going to have to explain your concept of noumena because it's different to Kant's.

I invite everyone to study Kant, hell, I even invite everyone to read his Critique of Pure Reason, but please don't pretend you know a thing because you've just had a look at the Wikipedia article. Who do you think you are?

Edit: I don't want this to come across wrong. I'm not saying that reading the Wikipedia article would mean you can't enter the debate, it's just a bit thick if you think just having read the Wikipedia article allows you to be a know-it-all.

A cat, clearly, is part of what we perceive and understand. "Cat" has no meaning in the context of noumenal reality. That's just the way it is, I'm afraid.

I don't understand how you're reaching your conclusions, because your idea of what constitutes a phenomena and a noumena are totally different to the Kantian idea, as far as I can tell.

Well, at least you do have a sense of humour.

So how about you stop fobbing me off to Google, stop assuming that what you think is so obvious and spell it out in clear logic.

Are you seriously telling me that this isn't exactly what I've been doing?

Here, I'll do what I can for my part.

Phenomena are produced by noumena.

In a sense.

Phenomena can be observed.

Phenomena is the observed. Or rather, it is what we perceive and understand.

Noumena can not be observed.

Noumena is the thing-in-itself. Phenomena is our perception and understanding of it.

The properties of phenomena are related to the properties of the noumena that produced them.

No. Noumena is not within the realm of our understanding, as such, we cannot attribute any properties to noumena. All we have is Phenomena.

The self exists.

I'd agree.

The self can observe.

I'd agree.

Therefore, the self can infer some properties of noumena by observing related phenomena.

You really didn't read a thing, or did you? Maybe if you would have bothered to read these "walls of text". But I guess that was asked for too much.

A cat is as much a noumena as God.

A cat isn't a noumena at all. A cat is a phenoma.

I cannot observe the cat directly, I can observe the electrical impulse produced by my eyes as they were impacted by light which interacted with the surface of the cat. I can observe the electrical impulse produced by the vibrations of my ear caused by the air that was expelled from the cat noumena.

If you want to take it a step further, the light and air are noumena also. I can't know that they exist. I infer them from certain properties of perceptions that I receive, and so find it useful to have such things to describe noumena that are further down the causal chain.

Sigh.

Ultimately, you end up as a solipsist brain in a jar who can only witness phenomena that are presented directly. In our case, mostly as a series of electrical impulses that we then interpret,

Umm, you know that electrical impulses are a part of our phenomenal reality too, right?

although there may be other means of perception also. Anything beyond that is a constructed reality of noumena. We don't know that we have eyes, or ears, or a sense of balance, all we know is that there is a self and that there is information being fed to it that makes pretty good sense when interpreted in certain ways.

Yet, all you're describing here is part of our phenomenal reality.

I thought this was where you were going with the noumena and solipsist ideas, but obviously I was wrong.

Obviously.

You're going to have to try again, because I don't get it.

Well, let me ponder on why you're not getting it, because I'm at quite the loss at the moment.

Whatever phenomena God ends up producing, it ends up being fed to the self just like any other.

You've just given an account involving sensory input, surely, you must have understood what I was describing with respect to the God experience by now, no?

Hence why I don't understand how you're defining a cat-produced phenomenon as different from a God-produced phenomenon.

In common terms... you can just look at the cat, it's right there in front of you. That's fundamentally different from the God experience, and please don't tell me you're really not getting this. Do you want me to, yet again, describe the God experience to you, and highlight the absence of sensory input? I just don't understand how you could possibly not get this. Really now.

Edit:

Let me just try this one more time. And let's, for now, address this with common language as much as possible. As I fear that otherwise you're just going to get confused again.

So, a cat exists. It's there, right in front of you. It has existence within the phenomanal world. Yes, there is an interaction involving sensory input, but you pretty much project "cat" onto what really is. It would be fair to say, in common language, that you observe a cat.

You can never observe God in the same way. Now, unfortunately, this can't really be gotten through without "walls of text", but let me try to say this in common language. So, how then can you experience God? Well, through introspection (of sorts). God cannot be observed, God can only be experienced through your very self.

You're still following this?

I'll hold it for now, and wait until you've acknowledged you've understood it thus far, and then I'll dig into it a little deeper. I wouldn't want for you to tell me I'm trying to distract you with "walls of text".

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

A question if you don't mind.

What about the parts of the Bible (old and new) that don't either advocate this (and often advocate the exact opposite) or directly contradict it?

How do you reconcile those contradictions with your own faith?

Well the OT was more of guidelines and law per say for man. In the Old testament man were to follow God's law in order to get to heaven since Jesus had not come. Now Once Jesus walked earth, "New Testament" he explained God's true law. (Now don't quote me on this cause I'm still trying to learn more about the Bible myself) but after Jesus came it the law was to follow him and accept him as Lord and savior. That's really how I don't allow to the so called contradictions affect my belief. Also the law that was written in the OT pertained to a different era of time to where Jesus had not come while the New testament was the new era after Jesus had came. Now the only reason why I say this is because I know how a lot of the OT and NT seem to advocate and sometimes contradict each other but I was trying to bring to light why that seems to be the case. Also I hope I answered your question.

I'm just curious why you're sad about members of the site's staff not being religious.

Like I said in a previous post, it was more of heat of the moment feeling. the amount of atheist/realists/agnostics just caught me by surprise but regardless, It is what it is. Sometimes you'll get a lot of people who believe the same thing you do, sometimes you'll get nobody; nevertheless, it's not going to stop me from being the cool car loving dude I am on here.

 

[Exorcet]

Sigh.

I think a better response is deserved. I was writing my own wall of text in an attempt to understand what you were saying, but it looked like Imari was having more success, until now anyway. I don't think you're being as clear as you think you are.

In common terms... you can just look at the cat, it's right there in front of you. That's fundamentally different from the God experience, and please don't tell me you're really not getting this. Do you want me to, yet again, describe the God experience to you, and highlight the absence of sensory input? I just don't understand how you could possibly not get this. Really now.

It's because we don't have a fundamental validation method for our senses. Seeing a cat does not mean that you are looking at a cat. It means you're receiving cat like sensory information. It could be "fake". You're arguing that if the perception of god occurs through the senses of someone else, it's foreign to us (individuals who are not receiving the experience). All we see is the result of the person's experience in how they react to it, be that their actions or biochemistry.

This is no different from the cat, which may or may not be there. A third party will never know of your perception of the cat by personally experiencing it, just as they can't know of one's perception of god. What can be done is copying as precisely as possible the conditions under which the experience in question occurred. In the case of the cat this could be going towards the cat's location. In the case of god, this could be prayer/drugs/soul leaving the body/sleep deprevation. We can at least, with a few assumptions, determine that there is a cause and effect. To observe something does not require direct stimulation of our senses.

No, it is not only not the best tool, but a useless tool.
That is because it will always seek a carnal, physical explanation to an observation.
Science cannot become spiritually enlightened, only the Scientist can.

If the scientist can learn about spirituality, so can science. I don't know what you mean by physical, but if you mean that science is limited to exploring matter, that is no true at all. Anything that behaves consistently and can be detected is in the realm of science. You seem to be saying that God can be reached reliably with a certain method, that means the method is testable via science.

Assuming you did actually recieve it, from your posts it does not appear that it is of primary authority in your life.
Perhaps, as the Bible says you are quenching it's abilities to manifest itself to you.
You must accommodate and yield to it, or you won't even know it is there.
Remember it is personal, relational.

It would not be the primary authority of my life because it does not actually exist. Looking at this in very basic terms, the non existence of god(s) fits what we observe. Not everyone can reach god, that could simply be because god does not exist.

As far as putting God before all else, yes this was the case before I realized that nothing was coming of it. Of course after that point, you would see me behave differently.

Well the OT was more of guidelines and law per say for man. In the Old testament man were to follow God's law in order to get to heaven since Jesus had not come. Now Once Jesus walked earth, "New Testament" he explained God's true law. (Now don't quote me on this cause I'm still trying to learn more about the Bible myself) but after Jesus came it the law was to follow him and accept him as Lord and savior. That's really how I don't allow to the so called contradictions affect my belief. Also the law that was written in the OT pertained to a different era of time to where Jesus had not come while the New testament was the new era after Jesus had came.

Do you think it's strange that a perfect being would need to change their plan over time, or even have to deal with a "correction" at all?

 

[Scaff]

Well the OT was more of guidelines and law per say for man. In the Old testament man were to follow God's law in order to get to heaven since Jesus had not come. Now Once Jesus walked earth, "New Testament" he explained God's true law. (Now don't quote me on this cause I'm still trying to learn more about the Bible myself) but after Jesus came it the law was to follow him and accept him as Lord and savior. That's really how I don't allow to the so called contradictions affect my belief. Also the law that was written in the OT pertained to a different era of time to where Jesus had not come while the New testament was the new era after Jesus had came. Now the only reason why I say this is because I know how a lot of the OT and NT seem to advocate and sometimes contradict each other but I was trying to bring to light why that seems to be the case. Also I hope I answered your question.

Unfortunately it doesn't because not only does in never state in the NT that the OT laws are no longer applicable (with a few very specific exceptions such as circumcision) Jesus states quite clearly in Matthew that he doesn't come to abolish the old laws but to fore-fill them (much of Matthew is along these lines).

We then have the question of if the OT laws were abolished by Jesus (which as I say is never stated - quite the opposite) why do churches still display the Ten Commandments, which are quite clearly Jewish laws from the OT (certainly every church I have been in has them and they are still very much taught as part of biblical studies as valid).

However most confusing was that Jesus himself drove the money lenders out of the temple, now its easy to imagine that this was just with harsh words and a shove, however the Bible states that this was a whip, and if you look at older versions they are more specific that it was a scourge.

Which is a whip to which the multiple cords have been knotted and have metal beads and sharp metal/stone discs attached to them. An utterly viscous tool designed to violently tear skin and flesh away from the body. These don't gel with me as the actions of a man of peace practicing the act of turning the other cheek.

Its these kind of contradictions that I often wonder how one can reconcile with regard to faith?

 

[Dotini]

Its these kind of contradictions that I often wonder how one can reconcile with regard to faith?

Nice photo of scourge! Cat-o'-nine-tails and flail would be similar weapons.

The Knights Templar were the military arm of the faith in medieval times.

In Game of Thrones, the "Faith Militant" are the muscles and weapons of the Faith of Seven Gods, the crown-sanctioned religion of Westeros.

Militancy does not seem to be a contradiction to faith, but rather it emerges at times as organic and integral.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Do you think it's strange that a perfect being would need to change their plan over time, or even have to deal with a "correction" at all?

He didn't change it. It was all planned. He planned for Jesus to walk on Earth for it was written. The law as it is, is still the original law. It's just that the guidelines to truly follow God have changed. Before in OT times, to broaden the idea, was for man to be as perfect as possible, while now it is to submit your life to The Lord and accept Jesus as your Lord and savior. It's kinda hard to explain anymore. I have to do more studying on the matter.

Unfortunately it doesn't because not only does in never state in the NT that the OT laws are no longer applicable (with a few very specific exceptions such as circumcision) Jesus states quite clearly in Matthew that he doesn't come to abolish the old laws but to fore-fill them (much of Matthew is along these lines).

We then have the question of if the OT laws were abolished by Jesus (which as I say is never stated - quite the opposite) why do churches still display the Ten Commandments, which are quite clearly Jewish laws from the OT (certainly every church I have been in has them and they are still very much taught as part of biblical studies as valid).

However most confusing was that Jesus himself drove the money lenders out of the temple, now its easy to imagine that this was just with harsh words and a shove, however the Bible states that this was a whip, and if you look at older versions they are more specific that it was a scourge.

Which is a whip to which the multiple cords have been knotted and have metal beads and sharp metal/stone discs attached to them. An utterly viscous tool designed to violently tear skin and flesh away from the body. These don't gel with me as the actions of a man of peace practicing the act of turning the other cheek.

Its these kind of contradictions that I often wonder how one can reconcile with regard to faith?

Nooo, I didn't say that we abolish all OT laws for the law itself has never changed. My mistake for explaining it the way I did. I'm going to try to answer this question as best as I can though. regarding your first point, like you said, "Jesus states quite clearly in Matthew that he doesn't come to abolish the old laws but to fore-fill them." Jesus came to sacrifice himself for the law. I hate that this just came to my mind. But in the OT, you were to give a sacrifice every time you were to sin. Jesus fulfilled that by dying on the cross for all of us, which is why we don't have to sacrifice every time we sin. Now to your second point, regarding Jesus using a scourge to lure the money lenders out of the temple, I can't really give much insight on that account because I'm still learning the Bible and that's a portion I am still learning and I do not want to give you falsely informed or blind answers.

I do see how this stuff seems contradictory. I definitely feel where you're coming from which is why I respect the way you think about it. It's more of a learning process with me with the Bible, but why my faith is unchanging is because God stepped into my life and revealed himself to me, he also changed my life and kept me from going down a path I was going to regret. that's the ultimate reason why I have everlasting faith.

 

[Scaff]

Militancy does not seem to be a contradiction to faith, but rather it emerges at times as organic and integral.

Violent militancy is a direct contradictions of the words Jesus preached in the NT and many claim to be the central tenant of Christianity. That he contradicted his own teachings is also rather odd for someone claimed to be divine.

I understand why the church (and many faiths) use militancy, but that doesn't stop it being a direct contradiction to the teachings.

 

[doctorrg]

I think a better response is deserved. I was writing my own wall of text in an attempt to understand what you were saying, but it looked like Imari was having more success, until now anyway. I don't think you're being as clear as you think you are.

Fair enough, Exorcet.

It's because we don't have a fundamental validation method for our senses. Seeing a cat does not mean that you are looking at a cat. It means you're receiving cat like sensory information.

Why'd you even call it cat like? You're receiving sensory information, that much is clear (well, in a phenomenal sense).

It could be "fake". You're arguing that if the perception of god occurs through the senses of someone else, it's foreign to us (individuals who are not receiving the experience).

No, I do not argue that at all. God can only be known through introspection (of sorts). You experience God by, in a sense, transcending your phenomenal self. By being what you really (in an absolute sense) are, devoid of perception and understanding. Naturally, as soon as you are trying to understand your experience, you are automatically back within the realm of phenomenal reality. You will have, in a sense, already lost the experience. The experience itself cannot be observed by the person having the experience. Yet, while a person is having such experience, the person can still be observed by a third party.

I've said this all before.

All we see is the result of the person's experience in how they react to it, be that their actions or biochemistry.

Yes.

This is no different from the cat, which may or may not be there.

You mean if you're going all the way back to an essentially Solipsist position? You are aware that this all is said from within a context that has accepted the existence of noumenal reality, correct? So there really is something, outside of your self, that within the process of perception and understanding becomes a cat. The cat is really there. It exists as part of Phenomenal reality. This is fundamentally different for God.

A third party will never know of your perception of the cat by personally experiencing it, just as they can't know of one's perception of god. What can be done is copying as precisely as possible the conditions under which the experience in question occurred. In the case of the cat this could be going towards the cat's location.

But you have accepted that the cat has a location, correct? You have, in essence, accepted that the cat exists in reality (not in an absolute sense). Is this not correct?

In the case of god, this could be prayer/drugs/soul leaving the body/sleep deprevation. We can at least, with a few assumptions, determine that there is a cause and effect. To observe something does not require direct stimulation of our senses.

And that's nothing I'd disagree with.

Yet, I still don't see why you'd make no distinction between a cat and God. By the same logic, using a more common language, you wouldn't be able to make a distinction between a real and an imagined object. Are you saying that that is your position?

Edit: It just dawned on me... If you guys have been addressing this from a position that says there's no difference between, using common language, a real and an imagined object, then my apologies, I've indeed completely missed that. I was in an entirely different context, which, in my defense, I thought I had made crystal clear. But if that's the context of your argument, yes, I get it now. I agree that there's absolutely no difference between a cat and God.

 

[Scaff]

Nooo, I didn't say that we abolish all OT laws for the law itself has never changed. My mistake for explaining it the way I did. I'm going to try to answer this question as best as I can though. regarding your first point, like you said, "Jesus states quite clearly in Matthew that he doesn't come to abolish the old laws but to fore-fill them." Jesus came to sacrifice himself for the law. I hate that this just came to my mind. But in the OT, you were to give a sacrifice every time you were to sin. Jesus fulfilled that by dying on the cross for all of us, which is why we don't have to sacrifice every time we sin.

So all the OT laws still stand, including the ones about killing homosexuals, rape victims who didn't scream out enough or children who disrespect parents?

Now to your second point, regarding Jesus using a scourge to lure the money lenders out of the temple, I can't really give much insight on that account because I'm still learning the Bible and that's a portion I am still learning and I do not want to give you falsely informed or blind answers.

No he drove them out of the temple.

I do see how this stuff seems contradictory. I definitely feel where you're coming from which is why I respect the way you think about it. It's more of a learning process with me with the Bible, but why my faith is unchanging is because God stepped into my life and revealed himself to me, he also changed my life and kept me from going down a path I was going to regret. that's the ultimate reason why I have everlasting faith.

Everlasting?

So nothing at all, no evidence what so ever would ever change that?

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

So all the OT laws still stand, including the ones about killing homosexuals, rape victims who didn't scream out enough or children who disrespect parents?

Obviously not. but like I said before I'm still learning and growing so I can't exactly give you an answer to everything I don't have all knowledge about.

No he drove them out of the temple.

My mistake that's what I meant to say. My mind is working too fast right now.

Everlasting?

So nothing at all, no evidence what so ever would ever change that?

No, because in the circumstances he stepped into my life is evidence enough for me that he is real. If I die and he's not real, I guess that's that and I wasted my life.

 

[Scaff]

Obviously not. but like I said before I'm still learning and growing so I can't exactly give you an answer to everything I don't have all knowledge about.

Then my question whould be why not? After all these are the words of God, who got to pick and chose which words of God were right and wrong? It certainly wasn't Jesus given that he says no such thing in the NT.

Hence my question about the contradiction between the Bible and your words " Just love people for who they are and respect them.", as to believe the Bible says this alone requires quite a bit of cherry picking.

My mistake that's what I meant to say. My mind is working too fast right now.

Understandable, but once again we have a very direct contradiction to " Just love people for who they are and respect them." with what is a very, very violent act.

And an aside from killing a fig tree, because it didn't have fruit on it out of season! Which to this day strikes me as an act of petty vindictiveness on a bizarre level.

No, because in the circumstances he stepped into my life is evidence enough for me that he is real. If I die and he's not real, I guess that's that and I wasted my life.

Would you be willing to share you experience?

I only ask, as to date we have asked a number of members to outline how they came to God and they have either avoided answering or answered in a manner that simply isn't repeatable.

I myself went through a very long spiritual journey when younger and have followed the same path many who claim to have experienced God have done, yet I saw and felt nothing at all. Which leads me to the options that either no Gods exist (as we have no verifiable evidence to s reasonable standard) or we have Gods who are fickle and petty and not worth the investment (and we still have no verifiable evidence to s reasonable standard).

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Then my question whould be why not? After all these are the words of God, who got to pick and chose which words of God were right and wrong? It certainly wasn't Jesus given that he says no such thing in the NT.

Hence my question about the contradiction between the Bible and your words " Just love people for who they are and respect them.", as to believe the Bible says this alone requires quite a bit of cherry picking.

Why not what in particular? Why I don't have all the knowledge?

Would you be willing to share you experience?

I only ask, as to date we have asked a number of members to outline how they came to God and they have either avoided answering or answered in a manner that simply isn't repeatable.

I myself went through a very long spiritual journey when younger and have followed the same path many who claim to have experienced God have done, yet I saw and felt nothing at all. Which leads me to the options that either no Gods exist (as we have no verifiable evidence to s reasonable standard) or we have Gods who are fickle and petty and not worth the investment (and we still have no verifiable evidence to s reasonable standard).

I'll tell you one. It was how I got into college. I got declined from every college that I applied to my senior year (I applied to 7 schools) and I really wanted to go to college, so me getting declined from 7 schools was very discouraging. I thought I was done. Then I found another college that I had not applied to, that was around my academic prestige (Or so I thought) and still taking applications. So I sent my in my application, I called them a month later just for them to tell me I didn't get in. They told me I was well under the minimum requirement for SAT and GPA. However, 3 days later they called me back and told me they somehow changed their decision and let me in the school. There's more details but I don't feel like getting into them. And that's just one of the stories I have on how God stepped in and changed something in my life.

 

[Scaff]

Why not what in particular? Why I don't have all the knowledge?

Why these laws are still not in place and being followed by Christians.

I'll tell you one. It was how I got into college. I got declined from every college that I applied to my senior year (I applied to 7 schools) and I really wanted to go to college, so me getting declined from 7 schools was very discouraging. I thought I was done. Then I found another college that I had not applied to, that was around my academic prestige (Or so I thought) and still taking applications. So I sent my in my application, I called them a month later just for them to tell me I didn't get in. They told me I was well under the minimum requirement for SAT and GPA. However, 3 days later they called me back and told me they somehow changed their decision and let me in the school. There's more details but I don't feel like getting into them. And that's just one of the stories I have on how God stepped in and changed something in my life.

I'm sorry but I don't see Gods hand in this at all.

I myself have employed people over others who, on paper, were better qualified because they were a better fit for the team I was looking to place them in and/or had displayed non-academic skills or experience that made them better suited. In pretty much every case it was the right choice.

Now these people may well not have been aware of these circumstances, but just because you don't know exactly why an event occurred doesn't make it divine.

 

[20832]

I'm sorry but I don't see Gods hand in this at all.

I myself have employed people over others who, on paper, were better qualified because they were a better fit for the team I was looking to place them in and/or had displayed non-academic skills or experience that made them better suited. In pretty much every case it was the right choice.

Now these people may well not have been aware of these circumstances, but just because you don't know exactly why an event occurred doesn't make it divine.

Not to mention that if the system is the same in the US as it is here, people are still in the race for a place in college regardless of their qualifications and if enough people decline their spot or do not sign up, there's still a chance for even people with a lower qualification to score a spot, that has nothing to do with God, just sheer luck.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

Why these laws are still not in place and being followed by Christians.

Because when these laws were broken they were then acts against God which are sins, and the wage for sin was death. To spare your own life, one had to sacrifice a lamb to take place of the death you were suppose to serve. Now when Jesus died on the cross, he was the ultimate lamb sacrifice. He died so we wouldn't have to sacrifice every time we sin. Therefore, the laws are still in place and still followed, it's just that since Jesus died for our sins, one does not have to die or sacrifice every time for sinning. I'm going to just leave it at that.

I'm sorry but I don't see Gods hand in this at all.

I myself have employed people over others who, on paper, were better qualified because they were a better fit for the team I was looking to place them in and/or had displayed non-academic skills or experience that made them better suited. In pretty much every case it was the right choice.

Now these people may well not have been aware of these circumstances, but just because you don't know exactly why an event occurred doesn't make it divine.

Just because an event isn't "supernatural" or out of the ordinary, it doesn't necessarily mean God wasn't behind it.

Not to mention that if the system is the same in the US as it is here, people are still in the race for a place in college regardless of their qualifications and if enough people decline their spot or do not sign up, there's still a chance for even people with a lower qualification to score a spot, that has nothing to do with God, just sheer luck.

I don't believe in luck. Y'all don't have to believe it was God that stepped in, I'm just telling you what I believe. I'm just leaving it at that. Hope you gentlemen have a great day though! In all seriousness.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Maybe if you published your "findings", with the actual proof, then there'd be a chance of "disproving".

The only actual proof, is testimonial.

Huh? How do you know which is what? How do you know you got it by the "right" end?

The same way a person learns to tell if a bill is counterfeit.
They become completely familiarized with genuine article.

What? Please speak English. I expect you are trying to explain something to me here, so please use a common language. Or is your answer just "I don't know" and you're trying to hide that by using some made-up language?

I think it best for now not to elaborate any further on that concept.

I have. I did.

It didn't work.

Is it, "it didn't work", or "you do not believe it worked"?
Make absolutely sure that you are adhereing to this requirement:

If any of you is deficient in wisdom, let him ask of the giving God [Who gives] to everyone liberallyand ungrudgingly, without reproaching or faultfinding, and it will be given him.

6 Only it must be in faith that he asks with no wavering (no hesitating, no doubting). For the one who wavers (hesitates, doubts) is like the billowing surge out at sea that is blown hither and thither and tossed by the wind.

7 For truly, let not such a person imagine that he will receive anything [he asks for] from the Lord,

8 [For being as he is] a man of two minds (hesitating, dubious, irresolute), [he is] unstable andunreliable and uncertain about everything [he thinks, feels, decides].



It's "all in" or nothing.
No retreat.
If you are having trouble with that, then ask him to help you with it.

 

[Famine]

Just because an event isn't "supernatural" or out of the ordinary, it doesn't necessarily mean God wasn't behind it.

Just because an event is out of the ordinary, it doesn't mean that any deity was behind it. And, lest we forget, just because it's good for you doesn't mean a deity did it - this particular deity is renowned for not paying the slightest attention to the things people ask it for and indeed is well known more for doing downright despicable things as "a test of faith", so the concept it got you into college for your benefit is a little out of its character.

And why this deity? Why would it not be Odin that got you into college? Or Satan? Did the deity present itself to you and say "Hi Manasseh257NSX, I'm God! Here, have a college place!"?

I don't believe in luck.

Don't worry, luck believes in you.

 

[Scaff]

Is it, "it didn't work", or "you do not believe it worked"?
Make absolutely sure that you are adhereing to this requirement:

If any of you is deficient in wisdom, let him ask of the giving God [Who gives] to everyone liberallyand ungrudgingly, without reproaching or faultfinding, and it will be given him.

6 Only it must be in faith that he asks with no wavering (no hesitating, no doubting). For the one who wavers (hesitates, doubts) is like the billowing surge out at sea that is blown hither and thither and tossed by the wind.

7 For truly, let not such a person imagine that he will receive anything [he asks for] from the Lord,

8 [For being as he is] a man of two minds (hesitating, dubious, irresolute), [he is] unstable andunreliable and uncertain about everything [he thinks, feels, decides].



It's "all in" or nothing.
No retreat.
If you are having trouble with that, then ask him to help you with it.

I did.

I do however find it interesting that you think you know better than I what I have gone through, what my actions were and what the result was.

Stunningly arrogant.