Re:"I dont think I am preaching a set of beliefs either. All I need is Christ, and I know that he was crucified."
But... isn't THAT a belief? That's the disconnect I was talking about. HOW do you know that there even WAS a Jesus Christ or that he was crucified? What possible proof could there be? Isn't this simply an idea you accept or reject? Why should anyone give an credence to the Bible? Why?
I was fortunate Geo, in that I was saved and filled with the Holy S. before I bumped into TWI, so I didnt need to homogenize my expereince with them. Interestinly, I never did anymore than simply take PFAL, and is set off a meter in me that something wasnt right.
With respect to the Bible, the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere about Christ certainly give
authenticity to the writings.
I am deeply sadened that you can't take any experience to legitimize God in a daily way for yourself (if this is what has happened)
My prayer for you is that God will make it individually real for you, because I really don't know what else to say.
I knew a man once in a Pentacostal church who proclaimed that the Lord had shown himself to this man in a very supernatural way. ( His story was very profound) He served the Lord for about 5 years. Sometime later he was back into a very terrible life style and had denied the Lord. I asked him why. He told me that he had done more than most people, and if there wasnt more in it for him, he wanted his life style. So he was dictating the terms to God.
If I really beleived what you said, that would make God unfair. I dont believe he is.
I beleive God is righteous. I also think atheists and agnostics tend to homogenize there "objectivity" in a way that suits there own lifestyle, more than Christians believe what they do in order not to upset there own little world of beliefs. True, you can find multitudes of religions to support your arguement, but that doesn't change the fact that the paradigm for the gospel is very very simple so that all can beleive.
It was always my view as a Christian that TWI made a simplistic plan overly complex to be self serving. The gospel warns us that there will be those who do so.
Well, maybe I was "fortunate" as well, in that I'd spent many years in denominational Christianity before WayWorld came along.
But PUHLEEZE, don't be "saddened" for me. I'm fine. I just don't care to adopt an arbitrary religious paradigm as "THE TRUTH", because there's an old book that people claim says so.
And re:"With respect to the Bible, the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere about Christ certainly give
authenticity to the writings."
Uh, How?
Look over your responses and those of the other "believer" folks who've posted. Do you see anybody talking about "evidence"? I sure don't. It's all about what you already believe or what you feel, or - as ckeer conveniently said, the penultimate Wayfer statement of belief "I JUST KNOW".
I'm sorry buddy, but for a non-theist, there's just not enough to go on. If you enjoy it, well I guess that's your business, and I'm not trying to be derisive or confrontational, but for the life of me, I can't see the difference between your chosen "faith" and simple self-delusion.
And re:"With respect to the Bible, the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere about Christ certainly give
authenticity to the writings."
Uh, How?
A Virgin shall concieve and be found with child to
The voice of Rachaels children weeping (Jeremiah)
His name shall be called the wonderful, the prince of peace etc
Isiah 53:2-12 A literal description of the life of Christ.
I could list 25 other references but is that what your really want?
Nawwwwwwwwwww.
your comment:
I'm sorry buddy, but for a non-theist, there's just not enough to go on. If you enjoy it, well I guess that's your business, and I'm not trying to be derisive or confrontational, but for the life of me, I can't see the difference between your chosen "faith" and simple self-delusion.
No problem. I'm not one who is upset if they dont see things as I do. I certainly wont try forcing anything upon you becuase your take on matters is significatly different than mine. Niether will I be scurrying around wondering if what your saying is valid. To me there's nothing subjective about it.
Niether does your beleif system make me feel threatened either Geo, so feel free to punch holes in my "chosen faith" anytime. I just will never see where the concept of finding faith is all that difficult when the author said it was not. The fact that many make it so, doesn't validate the ops of those who use that as an excuse to invalidate what it really is. Why? Because the Almighty said it was not.
I think George's point about the "prophesy" in Isaiah giving authenticity to the gospel record is that it is a circular argument. There is nothing that would prevent a 1st century writer (e.g. a writer of the gospels) from fitting his tale into the framework of an earlier writer. You see it happen every time there is a worldwide event of any significance: Nostradamus is trotted out and the events of the day are fitted into Nostradamus' "predictions".
Now maybe things happened just the way the gospel writers say that they did; I'm certainly not going to go out on a limb and say unequivocally that they didn't, it just that quoting one part of a religion's writings to back up another part of the same religion's writings is circular. Again, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily false, just that circular reasoning doesn't prove anything and is without authority as an objective source.
(I've been involved in enough of these discussions with George that I felt confident in jumping in there :D-->)
quote:To me there's nothing subjective about it.
sky, I don't think you understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective" in the context of this discussion. It's not the same as the difference between "true" and "false".
At the risk of being pedantic, let me give you an analogy:
George W Bush is the President of the United States. This is an objective fact. One may argue about his fitness for office, about the circumstances or legality of his election, including hanging chads, about his intellect or lack of the same, or any other aspect of the quality of his tenure. But the fact remains that he is president. You can't argue it...you cannot reasonably argue that he has not lived in the White House these 3 1/2 years, that he has functioned in all respects as the President, etc.
Something that is sujective in this regard would be his effectiveness as a President. Equally passionate people argue both sides of that question, both sides are equally convinced, by what they consider concrete evidense, that they are right.
Faith is kind of like that. You, and many other Christians, as well as adherents of other faiths, are convinced that you are right about how you perceive God. Maybe you are right. But it's not objectively true, it's not self-evident. Why? Because reasonable people, looking at the plain facts, will come to different conclusions, will have different opinions about what the facts tell them.
One will look at the prophecies that appear to be fullfilled and see God's hand, another will see something else entirely.
Claim that it's objective fact all you want, that doesn't make it so:
Niether does your beleif system make me feel threatened either sky, so feel free to punch holes in my faith in the earth mother anytime. I just will never see where the concept of finding faith in her is all that difficult when the goddess said it was not. The fact that many make it so, doesn't validate the ops of those who use that as an excuse to invalidate what it really is. Why? Because the goddess said it was not. - (adapted from sky4it's last post)
I understand fully the difference between subjective arguements and objective ones, having spent time in numerous science and philosophical classes.
I dont want to be offensive either to you or Geo, Oak. But the fact is you guys are calling God a liar. Surely you have read Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says , God has shewed them, Ie.( his God head and invisible nature etc.)
How God reconciles his righteousness with your arguement that it is not so, I know not for sure, but i will think about it,and that is up to him.
I understand fully the difference between subjective arguements and objective ones, having spent time in numerous science and philosophical classes.
But you apparently can't see the difference when it comes to your own dearly held beliefs. Your statement is a logical fallacy, I believe it is "appeal to authority", where you hold your attendance in various classes as if that was an answer to the argument at hand.
quote:I dont want to be offensive either to you or Geo, Oak.
Thanks. I don't think that you are trying to be offensive, and you aren't being unintentionally offensive either. :D-->
quote:But the fact is you guys are calling God a liar. Surely you have read Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says , God has shewed them, Ie.( his God head and invisible nature etc.)
Circular argument, once again. We are not calling God a liar. George is stating that he doesn't see any evidense that he exists, and I'm saying that I see no evidense that your version of him is necessarily more true than any other version of him (or her).
"There is no god but God, and Muhammed is His prophet"...some might say that you are calling God a liar sky4it
I read the Koran 2 years ago. I know what it says. The Koran is bascially a book which plagerizes some of Moses writings. It also pagerizerized the one theisist writings of Moses.
It is a book that asks its followers to engage in numerous rituals. It also repeats its own sayings, (in a somewhat poetic way) over and over again. You really cant use this religion as an arguement for a no God view. Why? Because the book stole from Moses and itself argues that the book of Moses was valid. The Koran also holds out Jesus as a Prophet, a clear contradiction from the writers of the gospels and Christ himself. So for you to argue (as tho it were objective) that that statement validates your op that God doesnt exixt is not subjective. The only thing you can say about Muhammed is that he strayed offthe beaten path. Interestinly that statement you quoted I believe is a direct quote from Muhammed himself. Christ had testators.
your comment:
Circular argument, once again. We are not calling God a liar. George is stating that he doesn't see any evidense that he exists, and I'm saying that I see no evidense that your version of him is necessarily more true than any other version of him (or her).
Niether can I present to you an illustration that to me is objective. Why? Because it wouldnt be objective to you, its simply 2nd hand information. If you didnt witness it or experience it, you would think me a liar perhaps. Therefore I have not ventured down that road.
Here's my question to you oak. What would it take from God to prove his existence? What should he do to validate his existence? What hasnt he done that he ought to do or in what better way ought to he have handled himself? In the next 2 paragraphs, I will illustrate to you why I think you cannot answer this question:
I am sure you have read the story of Lazarus and the rich man, who both died. The rich man asks
God for God to send someone to his family to warn them about what may happen to them if they dont change there ways. The man pleads with God who simply says, they have the law and the prophets and also that they would not believe tho one rose from the dead. (yes im paraphrasing)
Did God not send this man someone out of arrogance? Hardly, he said they will not believe ( basically no matter what the proof)
With respect to heaven or hell and God's method's of justice, there are many human thoughts on the topic, but little talk about God's justice. Interestingly, Christ talked about those bieng cast out into "outer darkness". Where is that? The Bible really doesnt say. I know of only 3 authors whose works have somewhat impacted my own thought on things. Soemwhat thankfully 2 of them are dead and have no followers. One man was a converted Hindu man in India, named Sadhu Sundhar Sing. Sing claimed to have a heavenly vision, where he talks about what certain people are experiencing as a result of there posturing in this life. The concept fits quite well with Christ's statement of outer darkness and the concept of perfect justice. If "perfect justice" is the ticket for proof for the existence of God, you would find this writing quite fascinating.
Anyways, I will post more to you on this topic later, and be sure that I am wieghing your thoughts -->
Oak read my above post first. (yes i am somewhat intrigue by you and am enjoying this)
Your statement:
Your statement is a logical fallacy, I believe it is "appeal to authority", where you hold your attendance in various classes as if that was an answer to the argument at hand.
No, I dont think this is what I am doing Oak let me put it to your this way. (and I am certainly not implying that my attendace in certain classes is my proof)
Scientific assuptions:
1) God exists
2) The writings of Romans Chapter 1 are God's thoughts.
All I am saying is that if ( and only if) these statements are true, God has given us his statement on proving his existence. ( At least if the God that exists is the God of Romans Chapter 1) I am not appealing to authority, I am simply saying that the God of Romans 1, states that he has provided conclusive evidence.
You make the arguement that others say the same (Ie Mohammed) I simply say, there writings don't invalidate number 1 & 2 above.
My simple assertions for proof or evidence to me, have nothing to do with my relionship with others. ( including Mohammed) Why? (Seek and you shall find, knock and a door will be opened to you) Those two statements are actionable and relationship related. I say that they are inherently true (not because the author said they were), but because he proved it to me, for, he can do no less or the statements would not be true. He says if I seek (him personally not a Greek manuscript) I will find. Pretty simple stuff, I think.
On a humorous note I once read Renae DeCartes ( I think therefore I am) the French philospher, who claimed to prove logically the existence of God. I found it rather amusing.
It is not up to me to validate the existence of a God who says he has already done so.
Not to be totally typical by posting definitions, but I think it is rather important to this arguement.
quote: subjective
SYLLABICATION: sub·jec·tive
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: sb-jktv KEY
ADJECTIVE: 1a. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision. b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
2. Moodily introspective.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory.
4. Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.
5. Medicine Of, relating to, or designating a symptom or condition perceived by the patient and not by the examiner.
6. Expressing or bringing into prominence the individuality of the artist or author.
7. Grammar Relating to or being the nominative case.
8. Relating to the real nature of something; essential.
While we typically use this word in the sense of definition (1b), a skeptic might notice how hard it may be for a true believer to even consider thier "proof" as something that is "only in thier mind". It goes against thier belief system. For it to be "proof" to them, it must be truth beyond thier own five sences or cognitive abilities. (I'm not refering to all believers here, but most in my subjectiveexperience)
THe word objective is not as clear in this respect either.
quote: objective
SYLLABICATION: ob·jec·tive
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: b-jktv KEY
ADJECTIVE: 1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb. b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
NOUN: 1. Something that actually exists
The skeptic again can see that by definition alone the true believer will again see thier "proof" as objective, actually existing in reality, and uninfluenced by emotions or person bias. While we usually refer to it here in terms of definition (3b) or (4). To think that thier proof is biased or that it is based largely on emotion or outside of existence, directly threatens thier reality.
There, this is the end of my stereotypical exwafer hyper-semantic post. or at least one of them. ;)-->
Responses to sky4it (as Oak rolls up his sleeves and squares his shoulders)
Response to the "Muslim" paragraph
You do understand that I'm not a Muslim, right?
I was not quoting Mohammed "as if it were objective". Islam is just as subjective as anything else. My point was to demonstrate that there are many convinced-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt Muslims, who believe that they have the no-argument-is-valid "One Truth" and would call you a liar for denying anything in the Koran.
You spent a paragraph arguing why the Koran is inferior to the bible, why Mohammed was "off the beaten path" and why Islam therefore isn't true, objective or otherwise. Guess what? I mostly agree with your assessment of the Koran and Islam. However, don't you see (what am I thinking, of course you don't see ;)-->) that a devout Muslim would reject your arguments against his "holy scriptures" for the same reasons that you reject my arguments against yours?
Circular Argument Response
Okay, we're operating under slightly different definitions of what it means to be objective. Can we agree to disagree on this one? Anyway, I don't think that you are lying about your experience. My point (which I thought was stated reasonably clearly) is that I have experiences too, so does everybody else. They're not all the same. Do you in your mind decide that anyone with a different experience is lying? Possessed? Seeing devil spirits? Deluded? I would think that you'd have to take a position like that if you maintain that your experience (objective as far as your definition goes, subjective in mine)is true while others' experience (when different than yours) is false.
Response to the "Proving God's Existance" section
I have never asserted that God does not exist. You may be confusing me with others who post here.
Response to the Lazarus paragraph
Sorry, but I find the scriptures unconvincing as a whole. God was talking up a storm to Abraham, Moses, and even Balaam, but he can't talk to people now? He sends us off to read a book?
Hey! How come you're rolling your eyes at me at the end of that post?
Response to next post
Correct, others saying that they have the truth don't invalidate the truth of your assumptions...IF they are true.
I'm not sure what you're apologizing for, but we're both being long winded :P-->, and with Mr. Websterhopper there, we're all getting windy
quote: What would it take from God to prove his existence? What should he do to validate his existence? What hasnt he done that he ought to do or in what better way ought to he have handled himself?
This comes up quite frequently when these topics arise, although, I don't think Oak is questioning the existence of a peticular god.
I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof? I would say that if God or Jesus or God-Jesus were to stop me on the road somewhere and audibly speak to me and blind me and then have a stranger or rather one one I would normally hate come over and heal me miraculously, I think I would believe. I haven't even killed any Christains. And I think that if God did that to me I could do a lot of good for God.
Contrary to what you or many may think, agnostics and atheists for the most part wouldn't be dead set against that kind of proof in there personal life just because they don't like the idea of God. It's not like that.
quote:sky said, I read the Koran 2 years ago. I know what it says.
I don't know about you, but I know in my Christain experience i heard this plenty, just insert "Bible" were you have Koran. "It's full of contradictions and it repeats itself a lot, old traditions that dn't apply today, etc etc." How about how the teachings of Moses are basically plagerized from Hammerabi's Stele. Ever heard that one. In fact many texts of world religions bare many similarities. But somehow just because the Bible tells of a historical figure that is raised from the dead, eternally, makes it the most credible text? How does that make sense?
I think mabe you have discounted Islam too quickly. For by your own words, you need to believe first and then see and besides, why get all hung up on doctrine. Right?
quote: The Koran also holds out Jesus as a Prophet, a clear contradiction from the writers of the gospels and Christ himself.
Actually, what you refer to as "Christ himself" was much less than secondhand information. The gospels are believed by scholars to have been written hundreds of years after Jesus's death. And the Epistles were written or dictated by a second hand believer and one that the apostles questioned at first and later turned away from.
quote: Interestinly that statement you quoted I believe is a direct quote from Muhammed himself. Christ had testators.
Paul's "revelation" is only supported by Paul himself. The same can be said of the God of the Bible. "There is no other god before me" Who can validate that outside of "the one true God", right? The Bible speaks of other gods like Baal and the Devil, but they are evil, of course. Why? because the one true God said they are. Oh, OK, easy enough. I'm not trying to be patronizing, by the way, just trying to make my point clear.
I would say that perhaps you shouldn't discount other religions too quickly, unless your have already chosen to believe first, and then put a fraction of the amount of time you have devoted to the Bible into thier text(s) and still come up wanting.
I did recieve your Email, but for some reason when I tried to Email you back my acct wouldnt let me. Anyway, dont ever worry about me, I aint that sensitive. Now I gotta get back to reading your post. Sooooooooo please never feel with me that your walking on egg shells. You oughtaa see me sling mud in the ESPN room, I'd make yah proud. This is a pancake walk in comparison :D-->
As for me, I believe in Jesus Christ and that He was raised from the dead and that He will come again.
God will sort it out at His time, who believed and who didn't and whether or not that mattered. But I believe that believing in Jesus dying for me matters.
Oak: I had this all typed up and lost it on a wrong click, so I worked overtime tonight.
Your com
ver, don't you see (what am I thinking, of course you don't see ) that a devout Muslim would reject your arguments against his "holy scriptures" for the same reasons that you reject my arguments against yours?
I also pretty much agree with your statements on the Muslim topic. To directly answer this question , certainly mine and a Muslims rejections of arguements look similar. I can only argue that I have a valid reason for myself, that is, My faith works. OK, so now you say his faith works too so they are identical? I think this brings us into a completely different topic of judgement oak. Neither am I saying that God's work is to convert Muslims to some sort of Western brand Christology. (This is somewhat why I pointed to the writings of Sundar Sing) Anyways, if your really interested in me driveling on about this subject, ask and you shall receive much drivel.
Your comment about the circular arguement stuff (I didnt repost all your comments)
No, I dont accuse people of bieng possessed, being deluded or having devil spirits. Interesting that you should bring it up. I have never heard from any gospel source what there definition of an unclean spirit is, is it a actual devil spirit or was Christ simply cleaning ( as in making holy) peoples spirits around which some devil spirits resided? (Well for now oak lets leave the devil slaying stuff for another day ok?)
You seem to think I need to take a bantering view of my faith, ( in opposition to others) , in order to validate my faith. This is the point where I depart from knowledge oak. It is my view that God's work is far more concerned with "CHARACHTER" than he is with having me have a finely tuned set off knowledge with which to validate my views. This view also reconciles more readily with the disparity of knowledge base (of scriptures) that is found throughout the world. For how could God be just if he hacked the Bible away from Communist countries for centuries and we know he is all powerful to do so at his will. ? His judgement and wisdom is past finding out oak, but I believe the key to understanding it is in God's Charachter.
Your comment:
Sorry, but I find the scriptures unconvincing as a whole. God was talking up a storm to Abraham, Moses, and even Balaam, but he can't talk to people now? He sends us off to read a book?
Well, Oak, I certainly wouldnt say he's talking up a storm, but I get your drift. Unlike man, God is slow to speak. I can even further your arguement Oak for God spoke to Cain after he murdered someone. Yes I believe God can speak. Communion, is that not communication with God? There is a serious disconnect problem tho. What would happen if he said something to be humorous? What would happen if he said something to be taken lightly? Is it possible he is quit careful so as not to be misunderstood? (If you want I will write you a one page letter on this topic) Terrific question.
Sorry for the rolling eyes thing, it wasnt meant condesending. I could not find one that had a face with a hand on chin .thinking , this was my intent.
They don't have the emo that you want, unless you can do the custom smiley deal, which I can't.
It was not my original intention to post this thread here. I posted the same question at Raf's Living Epistles Society forum (where I am the token non-Christian :D-->)
Raf initially set his site up for Christians. When I registered we exchanged a few emails and he referred to me posting there as "an interesting experiment". Recently though, he set up a forum for non-Christians to question Christians. I initiated the forum with the question that started this thread. (Check it out, there is an excellent post by markomalley).
Another GS poster asked me to start the same thread here so she could respond to it. It didn't want to at first, since these type of threads usually go nowhere, and often end up as free-for-alls with the Christians maligning our lack of faith, and my fellow non-believers and I criticizing the believers for lack of thinking ability...it gets real ugly.
The discussion here hasn't devolved into that this time. I've in particular enjoyed our sparring, sky4it. While I don't believe that a believer should be required to explain his or her faith, or "prove" it to anyone for it to be valid, posting on these type of threads is a bit more productive if the discussion goes beyond:
Christian: "Well, I believe in Jesus...I don't care what anyone says"
Agnostic: "Prove it"
Believe it or not, I really am interested in peoples' answers to "Why Christianity?" - I haven't completely rejected any form of religion at this point, nor have I completely bought into any of them, discussions like this are helpful. Nor have I rejected thinking either; if God did indeed create me, then the ability to reason is part of the package...I'm not going to abandon that ability at this stage of the game.
I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof?
No I dont think that your are lindy, in fact that would make God a respecter of persons.When does God give such proof? I dont know. I can only speak for myself that I asked one time "God if your real show me I need your help." He did for me. Perhaps sometimes we get too caught up in what words mean. Was my statement significant enough to constitute belief. I guess it must have been.
With respect to the Koran, I dont think I dismissed it quickly.
Your comment:
How about how the teachings of Moses are basically plagerized from Hammerabi's Stele. Ever heard that one. In fact many texts of world religions bare many similarities. But somehow just because the Bible tells of a historical figure that is raised from the dead, eternally, makes it the most credible text? How does that make sense?
I have never heard of Hemmerabi's Stele
I think a gospel of the resurrection from the dead does make sense. For if God is alive, surely he would address ( if he was merciful) this problem. I think the Bible is the most reliable text. (I pointed out prophecies prior posts)
Your comment:
Actually, what you refer to as "Christ himself" was much less than secondhand information
My apologies, I was refering to when asked by the priest if he was he said I am.
Paul's "revelation" is only supported by Paul himself. The same can be said of the God of the The Bible speaks of other gods like Baal and the Devil, but they are evil, of course. Why? because the one true God said they are. Oh, OK, easy enough
Well, ok, it works for me, cause I think the devil is really evil. As far as Paul goes, someone there are testators as well.
Lindy perhaps you have mistaken me. I make no claims about Western Christology. The last lutheran church I attended the officials gossiped about me because of my wife. I rarely go to church. My theology is the live by the seat of your pants theology. I dont think I have a friend.They gossiped about me because nurses there knew of my wifes illness.
Let me tell you my story. I spent 4 years in a Pentacostal church that collapsed because of adultry.I have a 2 year bible degree and a 4 year college degree. After I was married my wife was in the hospital 50 times (impatient for the next 8 years) with historonic kidney infections. Today she is on numberous medications. My daughter had luekimia at age 5 and survived and is alive today. During my wife's illness I lost my business.
Please please please dont feel sorry for me. This is not the point I wanna make. The point is that through out this (and some things I havent mentioned) I have found my life. Seems you really get a good look at what people really think when you got problems. Thtoughtout all this process there were some times of real dissatisfaction with God for me. Why is it than, that today I somehow find all my loses of time and pain so clearly redeemed? I cannot explain the process. I can only marvel at it. Am I saying God is a sadist? No, niether am I saying that he designs suffering for any man. I only know that he can redeem it all. Clearly, if I can just keep my bearings from bitterness, I always prevail. I cannot explain it. I dont find my life any more perplexing than this.
We talk, we drivel about divine authority. Isnt it enough to simply put it all in his hands. What is his name? Is it not Jah, or in Swedish Jaaah or in English Yea. Whatever his name is , whatever his doctine is, I care not, I only know that he lives
When I said above perhaps you have mistaken me I simply mean this. I cannot define the limits of the word believe. Faith, perhaps this term has been used to redundant. To me in only means having a sincere interest in God. I see my interest in God broading, I see my interest in God more sure and more profound. Somehow I think we have lost the meaning of the word faith. I think thats all that it is, a deepening interest and resolution of his ways.
I think your comments in your last post are very healthy oak, and I think you will prevail.
It is refreshing from my standpoint to hear someone who wants answers, I think you will find them and not from any many either. I'll be here. And I agree with you that arguements can take on that velocity that you mentioned. But you and I did not did we? :)-->
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
34
9
5
24
Popular Days
Aug 10
19
Aug 11
14
Aug 12
13
Aug 13
12
Top Posters In This Topic
sky4it 34 posts
George Aar 9 posts
def59 5 posts
Oakspear 24 posts
Popular Days
Aug 10 2004
19 posts
Aug 11 2004
14 posts
Aug 12 2004
13 posts
Aug 13 2004
12 posts
sky4it
Geo:
Re:"I dont think I am preaching a set of beliefs either. All I need is Christ, and I know that he was crucified."
But... isn't THAT a belief? That's the disconnect I was talking about. HOW do you know that there even WAS a Jesus Christ or that he was crucified? What possible proof could there be? Isn't this simply an idea you accept or reject? Why should anyone give an credence to the Bible? Why?
I was fortunate Geo, in that I was saved and filled with the Holy S. before I bumped into TWI, so I didnt need to homogenize my expereince with them. Interestinly, I never did anymore than simply take PFAL, and is set off a meter in me that something wasnt right.
With respect to the Bible, the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere about Christ certainly give
authenticity to the writings.
I am deeply sadened that you can't take any experience to legitimize God in a daily way for yourself (if this is what has happened)
My prayer for you is that God will make it individually real for you, because I really don't know what else to say.
I knew a man once in a Pentacostal church who proclaimed that the Lord had shown himself to this man in a very supernatural way. ( His story was very profound) He served the Lord for about 5 years. Sometime later he was back into a very terrible life style and had denied the Lord. I asked him why. He told me that he had done more than most people, and if there wasnt more in it for him, he wanted his life style. So he was dictating the terms to God.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I dunno know oak.
If I really beleived what you said, that would make God unfair. I dont believe he is.
I beleive God is righteous. I also think atheists and agnostics tend to homogenize there "objectivity" in a way that suits there own lifestyle, more than Christians believe what they do in order not to upset there own little world of beliefs. True, you can find multitudes of religions to support your arguement, but that doesn't change the fact that the paradigm for the gospel is very very simple so that all can beleive.
It was always my view as a Christian that TWI made a simplistic plan overly complex to be self serving. The gospel warns us that there will be those who do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Sky,
Well, maybe I was "fortunate" as well, in that I'd spent many years in denominational Christianity before WayWorld came along.
But PUHLEEZE, don't be "saddened" for me. I'm fine. I just don't care to adopt an arbitrary religious paradigm as "THE TRUTH", because there's an old book that people claim says so.
And re:"With respect to the Bible, the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere about Christ certainly give
authenticity to the writings."
Uh, How?
Look over your responses and those of the other "believer" folks who've posted. Do you see anybody talking about "evidence"? I sure don't. It's all about what you already believe or what you feel, or - as ckeer conveniently said, the penultimate Wayfer statement of belief "I JUST KNOW".
I'm sorry buddy, but for a non-theist, there's just not enough to go on. If you enjoy it, well I guess that's your business, and I'm not trying to be derisive or confrontational, but for the life of me, I can't see the difference between your chosen "faith" and simple self-delusion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Geo:
Your comment:
And re:"With respect to the Bible, the prophecies in Isaiah and elsewhere about Christ certainly give
authenticity to the writings."
Uh, How?
A Virgin shall concieve and be found with child to
The voice of Rachaels children weeping (Jeremiah)
His name shall be called the wonderful, the prince of peace etc
Isiah 53:2-12 A literal description of the life of Christ.
I could list 25 other references but is that what your really want?
Nawwwwwwwwwww.
your comment:
I'm sorry buddy, but for a non-theist, there's just not enough to go on. If you enjoy it, well I guess that's your business, and I'm not trying to be derisive or confrontational, but for the life of me, I can't see the difference between your chosen "faith" and simple self-delusion.
No problem. I'm not one who is upset if they dont see things as I do. I certainly wont try forcing anything upon you becuase your take on matters is significatly different than mine. Niether will I be scurrying around wondering if what your saying is valid. To me there's nothing subjective about it.
Niether does your beleif system make me feel threatened either Geo, so feel free to punch holes in my "chosen faith" anytime. I just will never see where the concept of finding faith is all that difficult when the author said it was not. The fact that many make it so, doesn't validate the ops of those who use that as an excuse to invalidate what it really is. Why? Because the Almighty said it was not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
sky:
I think George's point about the "prophesy" in Isaiah giving authenticity to the gospel record is that it is a circular argument. There is nothing that would prevent a 1st century writer (e.g. a writer of the gospels) from fitting his tale into the framework of an earlier writer. You see it happen every time there is a worldwide event of any significance: Nostradamus is trotted out and the events of the day are fitted into Nostradamus' "predictions".
Now maybe things happened just the way the gospel writers say that they did; I'm certainly not going to go out on a limb and say unequivocally that they didn't, it just that quoting one part of a religion's writings to back up another part of the same religion's writings is circular. Again, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily false, just that circular reasoning doesn't prove anything and is without authority as an objective source.
(I've been involved in enough of these discussions with George that I felt confident in jumping in there
:D-->)
sky, I don't think you understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective" in the context of this discussion. It's not the same as the difference between "true" and "false".At the risk of being pedantic, let me give you an analogy:
George W Bush is the President of the United States. This is an objective fact. One may argue about his fitness for office, about the circumstances or legality of his election, including hanging chads, about his intellect or lack of the same, or any other aspect of the quality of his tenure. But the fact remains that he is president. You can't argue it...you cannot reasonably argue that he has not lived in the White House these 3 1/2 years, that he has functioned in all respects as the President, etc.
Something that is sujective in this regard would be his effectiveness as a President. Equally passionate people argue both sides of that question, both sides are equally convinced, by what they consider concrete evidense, that they are right.
Faith is kind of like that. You, and many other Christians, as well as adherents of other faiths, are convinced that you are right about how you perceive God. Maybe you are right. But it's not objectively true, it's not self-evident. Why? Because reasonable people, looking at the plain facts, will come to different conclusions, will have different opinions about what the facts tell them.
One will look at the prophecies that appear to be fullfilled and see God's hand, another will see something else entirely.
Claim that it's objective fact all you want, that doesn't make it so:
Niether does your beleif system make me feel threatened either sky, so feel free to punch holes in my faith in the earth mother anytime. I just will never see where the concept of finding faith in her is all that difficult when the goddess said it was not. The fact that many make it so, doesn't validate the ops of those who use that as an excuse to invalidate what it really is. Why? Because the goddess said it was not. - (adapted from sky4it's last post)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I understand fully the difference between subjective arguements and objective ones, having spent time in numerous science and philosophical classes.
I dont want to be offensive either to you or Geo, Oak. But the fact is you guys are calling God a liar. Surely you have read Romans Chapter 1 where Paul says , God has shewed them, Ie.( his God head and invisible nature etc.)
How God reconciles his righteousness with your arguement that it is not so, I know not for sure, but i will think about it,and that is up to him.
Anyway later and peace
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
"There is no god but God, and Muhammed is His prophet"...some might say that you are calling God a liar sky4it
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oakspear:
your comment:
"There is no god but God, and Muhammed is His prophet"...some might say that you are calling God a liar sky4it
I read the Koran 2 years ago. I know what it says. The Koran is bascially a book which plagerizes some of Moses writings. It also pagerizerized the one theisist writings of Moses.
It is a book that asks its followers to engage in numerous rituals. It also repeats its own sayings, (in a somewhat poetic way) over and over again. You really cant use this religion as an arguement for a no God view. Why? Because the book stole from Moses and itself argues that the book of Moses was valid. The Koran also holds out Jesus as a Prophet, a clear contradiction from the writers of the gospels and Christ himself. So for you to argue (as tho it were objective) that that statement validates your op that God doesnt exixt is not subjective. The only thing you can say about Muhammed is that he strayed offthe beaten path. Interestinly that statement you quoted I believe is a direct quote from Muhammed himself. Christ had testators.
your comment:
Circular argument, once again. We are not calling God a liar. George is stating that he doesn't see any evidense that he exists, and I'm saying that I see no evidense that your version of him is necessarily more true than any other version of him (or her).
Niether can I present to you an illustration that to me is objective. Why? Because it wouldnt be objective to you, its simply 2nd hand information. If you didnt witness it or experience it, you would think me a liar perhaps. Therefore I have not ventured down that road.
Here's my question to you oak. What would it take from God to prove his existence? What should he do to validate his existence? What hasnt he done that he ought to do or in what better way ought to he have handled himself? In the next 2 paragraphs, I will illustrate to you why I think you cannot answer this question:
I am sure you have read the story of Lazarus and the rich man, who both died. The rich man asks
God for God to send someone to his family to warn them about what may happen to them if they dont change there ways. The man pleads with God who simply says, they have the law and the prophets and also that they would not believe tho one rose from the dead. (yes im paraphrasing)
Did God not send this man someone out of arrogance? Hardly, he said they will not believe ( basically no matter what the proof)
With respect to heaven or hell and God's method's of justice, there are many human thoughts on the topic, but little talk about God's justice. Interestingly, Christ talked about those bieng cast out into "outer darkness". Where is that? The Bible really doesnt say. I know of only 3 authors whose works have somewhat impacted my own thought on things. Soemwhat thankfully 2 of them are dead and have no followers. One man was a converted Hindu man in India, named Sadhu Sundhar Sing. Sing claimed to have a heavenly vision, where he talks about what certain people are experiencing as a result of there posturing in this life. The concept fits quite well with Christ's statement of outer darkness and the concept of perfect justice. If "perfect justice" is the ticket for proof for the existence of God, you would find this writing quite fascinating.
Anyways, I will post more to you on this topic later, and be sure that I am wieghing your thoughts
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak read my above post first. (yes i am somewhat intrigue by you and am enjoying this)
Your statement:
Your statement is a logical fallacy, I believe it is "appeal to authority", where you hold your attendance in various classes as if that was an answer to the argument at hand.
No, I dont think this is what I am doing Oak let me put it to your this way. (and I am certainly not implying that my attendace in certain classes is my proof)
Scientific assuptions:
1) God exists
2) The writings of Romans Chapter 1 are God's thoughts.
All I am saying is that if ( and only if) these statements are true, God has given us his statement on proving his existence. ( At least if the God that exists is the God of Romans Chapter 1) I am not appealing to authority, I am simply saying that the God of Romans 1, states that he has provided conclusive evidence.
You make the arguement that others say the same (Ie Mohammed) I simply say, there writings don't invalidate number 1 & 2 above.
My simple assertions for proof or evidence to me, have nothing to do with my relionship with others. ( including Mohammed) Why? (Seek and you shall find, knock and a door will be opened to you) Those two statements are actionable and relationship related. I say that they are inherently true (not because the author said they were), but because he proved it to me, for, he can do no less or the statements would not be true. He says if I seek (him personally not a Greek manuscript) I will find. Pretty simple stuff, I think.
On a humorous note I once read Renae DeCartes ( I think therefore I am) the French philospher, who claimed to prove logically the existence of God. I found it rather amusing.
It is not up to me to validate the existence of a God who says he has already done so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I apologize for that last line of the last post. I intended that to fit in the paragraph that started with the word "All".
I also apologize for being long winded, but I am enjoying this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Not to be totally typical by posting definitions, but I think it is rather important to this arguement.
While we typically use this word in the sense of definition (1b), a skeptic might notice how hard it may be for a true believer to even consider thier "proof" as something that is "only in thier mind". It goes against thier belief system. For it to be "proof" to them, it must be truth beyond thier own five sences or cognitive abilities. (I'm not refering to all believers here, but most in my subjectiveexperience)
THe word objective is not as clear in this respect either.
The skeptic again can see that by definition alone the true believer will again see thier "proof" as objective, actually existing in reality, and uninfluenced by emotions or person bias. While we usually refer to it here in terms of definition (3b) or (4). To think that thier proof is biased or that it is based largely on emotion or outside of existence, directly threatens thier reality.
There, this is the end of my stereotypical exwafer hyper-semantic post. or at least one of them.
;)-->
editing? Y ask Y
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Responses to sky4it (as Oak rolls up his sleeves and squares his shoulders)
Response to the "Muslim" paragraph
You do understand that I'm not a Muslim, right?
I was not quoting Mohammed "as if it were objective". Islam is just as subjective as anything else. My point was to demonstrate that there are many convinced-beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt Muslims, who believe that they have the no-argument-is-valid "One Truth" and would call you a liar for denying anything in the Koran.
You spent a paragraph arguing why the Koran is inferior to the bible, why Mohammed was "off the beaten path" and why Islam therefore isn't true, objective or otherwise. Guess what? I mostly agree with your assessment of the Koran and Islam. However, don't you see (what am I thinking, of course you don't see
;)-->) that a devout Muslim would reject your arguments against his "holy scriptures" for the same reasons that you reject my arguments against yours?
Circular Argument Response
Okay, we're operating under slightly different definitions of what it means to be objective. Can we agree to disagree on this one? Anyway, I don't think that you are lying about your experience. My point (which I thought was stated reasonably clearly) is that I have experiences too, so does everybody else. They're not all the same. Do you in your mind decide that anyone with a different experience is lying? Possessed? Seeing devil spirits? Deluded? I would think that you'd have to take a position like that if you maintain that your experience (objective as far as your definition goes, subjective in mine)is true while others' experience (when different than yours) is false.
Response to the "Proving God's Existance" section
I have never asserted that God does not exist. You may be confusing me with others who post here.
Response to the Lazarus paragraph
Sorry, but I find the scriptures unconvincing as a whole. God was talking up a storm to Abraham, Moses, and even Balaam, but he can't talk to people now? He sends us off to read a book?
Hey! How come you're rolling your eyes at me at the end of that post?
Response to next post
Correct, others saying that they have the truth don't invalidate the truth of your assumptions...IF they are true.
I'm not sure what you're apologizing for, but we're both being long winded
:P-->, and with Mr. Websterhopper there, we're all getting windy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I would also like to answer sky's question of,
This comes up quite frequently when these topics arise, although, I don't think Oak is questioning the existence of a peticular god.
I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof? I would say that if God or Jesus or God-Jesus were to stop me on the road somewhere and audibly speak to me and blind me and then have a stranger or rather one one I would normally hate come over and heal me miraculously, I think I would believe. I haven't even killed any Christains. And I think that if God did that to me I could do a lot of good for God.
Contrary to what you or many may think, agnostics and atheists for the most part wouldn't be dead set against that kind of proof in there personal life just because they don't like the idea of God. It's not like that.
I don't know about you, but I know in my Christain experience i heard this plenty, just insert "Bible" were you have Koran. "It's full of contradictions and it repeats itself a lot, old traditions that dn't apply today, etc etc." How about how the teachings of Moses are basically plagerized from Hammerabi's Stele. Ever heard that one. In fact many texts of world religions bare many similarities. But somehow just because the Bible tells of a historical figure that is raised from the dead, eternally, makes it the most credible text? How does that make sense?
I think mabe you have discounted Islam too quickly. For by your own words, you need to believe first and then see and besides, why get all hung up on doctrine. Right?
Actually, what you refer to as "Christ himself" was much less than secondhand information. The gospels are believed by scholars to have been written hundreds of years after Jesus's death. And the Epistles were written or dictated by a second hand believer and one that the apostles questioned at first and later turned away from.
Paul's "revelation" is only supported by Paul himself. The same can be said of the God of the Bible. "There is no other god before me" Who can validate that outside of "the one true God", right? The Bible speaks of other gods like Baal and the Devil, but they are evil, of course. Why? because the one true God said they are. Oh, OK, easy enough. I'm not trying to be patronizing, by the way, just trying to make my point clear.
I would say that perhaps you shouldn't discount other religions too quickly, unless your have already chosen to believe first, and then put a fraction of the amount of time you have devoted to the Bible into thier text(s) and still come up wanting.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I did recieve your Email, but for some reason when I tried to Email you back my acct wouldnt let me. Anyway, dont ever worry about me, I aint that sensitive. Now I gotta get back to reading your post. Sooooooooo please never feel with me that your walking on egg shells. You oughtaa see me sling mud in the ESPN room, I'd make yah proud. This is a pancake walk in comparison
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
Believe what you want to believe.
As for me, I believe in Jesus Christ and that He was raised from the dead and that He will come again.
God will sort it out at His time, who believed and who didn't and whether or not that mattered. But I believe that believing in Jesus dying for me matters.
But that is my opinion.
Steve Spencer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak: I had this all typed up and lost it on a wrong click, so I worked overtime tonight.
Your com
ver, don't you see (what am I thinking, of course you don't see ) that a devout Muslim would reject your arguments against his "holy scriptures" for the same reasons that you reject my arguments against yours?
I also pretty much agree with your statements on the Muslim topic. To directly answer this question , certainly mine and a Muslims rejections of arguements look similar. I can only argue that I have a valid reason for myself, that is, My faith works. OK, so now you say his faith works too so they are identical? I think this brings us into a completely different topic of judgement oak. Neither am I saying that God's work is to convert Muslims to some sort of Western brand Christology. (This is somewhat why I pointed to the writings of Sundar Sing) Anyways, if your really interested in me driveling on about this subject, ask and you shall receive much drivel.
Your comment about the circular arguement stuff (I didnt repost all your comments)
No, I dont accuse people of bieng possessed, being deluded or having devil spirits. Interesting that you should bring it up. I have never heard from any gospel source what there definition of an unclean spirit is, is it a actual devil spirit or was Christ simply cleaning ( as in making holy) peoples spirits around which some devil spirits resided? (Well for now oak lets leave the devil slaying stuff for another day ok?)
You seem to think I need to take a bantering view of my faith, ( in opposition to others) , in order to validate my faith. This is the point where I depart from knowledge oak. It is my view that God's work is far more concerned with "CHARACHTER" than he is with having me have a finely tuned set off knowledge with which to validate my views. This view also reconciles more readily with the disparity of knowledge base (of scriptures) that is found throughout the world. For how could God be just if he hacked the Bible away from Communist countries for centuries and we know he is all powerful to do so at his will. ? His judgement and wisdom is past finding out oak, but I believe the key to understanding it is in God's Charachter.
Your comment:
Sorry, but I find the scriptures unconvincing as a whole. God was talking up a storm to Abraham, Moses, and even Balaam, but he can't talk to people now? He sends us off to read a book?
Well, Oak, I certainly wouldnt say he's talking up a storm, but I get your drift. Unlike man, God is slow to speak. I can even further your arguement Oak for God spoke to Cain after he murdered someone. Yes I believe God can speak. Communion, is that not communication with God? There is a serious disconnect problem tho. What would happen if he said something to be humorous? What would happen if he said something to be taken lightly? Is it possible he is quit careful so as not to be misunderstood? (If you want I will write you a one page letter on this topic) Terrific question.
Sorry for the rolling eyes thing, it wasnt meant condesending. I could not find one that had a face with a hand on chin .thinking , this was my intent.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak : see above
:)-->
Eagle: sounds good to me thats one cor that that will some day work. I like it simple to Steve, cause it really is.
:)-->
lindy: I kinda posted a barage of answers tonight to oak, I am thinking about what your saying and will get back to it.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
sky:
They don't have the emo that you want, unless you can do the custom smiley deal, which I can't.
It was not my original intention to post this thread here. I posted the same question at Raf's Living Epistles Society forum (where I am the token non-Christian
:D-->)
Raf initially set his site up for Christians. When I registered we exchanged a few emails and he referred to me posting there as "an interesting experiment". Recently though, he set up a forum for non-Christians to question Christians. I initiated the forum with the question that started this thread. (Check it out, there is an excellent post by markomalley).
Another GS poster asked me to start the same thread here so she could respond to it. It didn't want to at first, since these type of threads usually go nowhere, and often end up as free-for-alls with the Christians maligning our lack of faith, and my fellow non-believers and I criticizing the believers for lack of thinking ability...it gets real ugly.
The discussion here hasn't devolved into that this time. I've in particular enjoyed our sparring, sky4it. While I don't believe that a believer should be required to explain his or her faith, or "prove" it to anyone for it to be valid, posting on these type of threads is a bit more productive if the discussion goes beyond:
Christian: "Well, I believe in Jesus...I don't care what anyone says"
Agnostic: "Prove it"
Believe it or not, I really am interested in peoples' answers to "Why Christianity?" - I haven't completely rejected any form of religion at this point, nor have I completely bought into any of them, discussions like this are helpful. Nor have I rejected thinking either; if God did indeed create me, then the ability to reason is part of the package...I'm not going to abandon that ability at this stage of the game.
(You going to the Weenie Roast?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
P.S. - I didn't email you - I sent you a Private Topic.
You can respond by going to the PT itself and treating it like any other thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Lindy:
Your comment:
I would ask this. Am I any less worthy than Paul? Am I any less needy of proof?
No I dont think that your are lindy, in fact that would make God a respecter of persons.When does God give such proof? I dont know. I can only speak for myself that I asked one time "God if your real show me I need your help." He did for me. Perhaps sometimes we get too caught up in what words mean. Was my statement significant enough to constitute belief. I guess it must have been.
With respect to the Koran, I dont think I dismissed it quickly.
Your comment:
How about how the teachings of Moses are basically plagerized from Hammerabi's Stele. Ever heard that one. In fact many texts of world religions bare many similarities. But somehow just because the Bible tells of a historical figure that is raised from the dead, eternally, makes it the most credible text? How does that make sense?
I have never heard of Hemmerabi's Stele
I think a gospel of the resurrection from the dead does make sense. For if God is alive, surely he would address ( if he was merciful) this problem. I think the Bible is the most reliable text. (I pointed out prophecies prior posts)
Your comment:
Actually, what you refer to as "Christ himself" was much less than secondhand information
My apologies, I was refering to when asked by the priest if he was he said I am.
Paul's "revelation" is only supported by Paul himself. The same can be said of the God of the The Bible speaks of other gods like Baal and the Devil, but they are evil, of course. Why? because the one true God said they are. Oh, OK, easy enough
Well, ok, it works for me, cause I think the devil is really evil. As far as Paul goes, someone there are testators as well.
Lindy perhaps you have mistaken me. I make no claims about Western Christology. The last lutheran church I attended the officials gossiped about me because of my wife. I rarely go to church. My theology is the live by the seat of your pants theology. I dont think I have a friend.They gossiped about me because nurses there knew of my wifes illness.
Let me tell you my story. I spent 4 years in a Pentacostal church that collapsed because of adultry.I have a 2 year bible degree and a 4 year college degree. After I was married my wife was in the hospital 50 times (impatient for the next 8 years) with historonic kidney infections. Today she is on numberous medications. My daughter had luekimia at age 5 and survived and is alive today. During my wife's illness I lost my business.
Please please please dont feel sorry for me. This is not the point I wanna make. The point is that through out this (and some things I havent mentioned) I have found my life. Seems you really get a good look at what people really think when you got problems. Thtoughtout all this process there were some times of real dissatisfaction with God for me. Why is it than, that today I somehow find all my loses of time and pain so clearly redeemed? I cannot explain the process. I can only marvel at it. Am I saying God is a sadist? No, niether am I saying that he designs suffering for any man. I only know that he can redeem it all. Clearly, if I can just keep my bearings from bitterness, I always prevail. I cannot explain it. I dont find my life any more perplexing than this.
We talk, we drivel about divine authority. Isnt it enough to simply put it all in his hands. What is his name? Is it not Jah, or in Swedish Jaaah or in English Yea. Whatever his name is , whatever his doctine is, I care not, I only know that he lives
When I said above perhaps you have mistaken me I simply mean this. I cannot define the limits of the word believe. Faith, perhaps this term has been used to redundant. To me in only means having a sincere interest in God. I see my interest in God broading, I see my interest in God more sure and more profound. Somehow I think we have lost the meaning of the word faith. I think thats all that it is, a deepening interest and resolution of his ways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
Oak:
I think your comments in your last post are very healthy oak, and I think you will prevail.
It is refreshing from my standpoint to hear someone who wants answers, I think you will find them and not from any many either. I'll be here. And I agree with you that arguements can take on that velocity that you mentioned. But you and I did not did we?
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sky4it
oak: last comment i made:
I meant not from any "Man"
later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
You know, you can go back and edit posts that you made errors in
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.