Thanx for pointing these out.... If u show a girl that u r realy rich She will just want u for the money.. I think this is the answer for Amputees....
The bible clearly states that all christian believers have to do is ask in prayer and it shall be given to them in the name of jesus......you say this is a lie. so which do you believe the bible or your own opinion? is the bible wrong? clearly it is since starving christians pray everyday for food and it doesn't come, amputees pray they will be healed and it never happens....and u say because god suddenly doesn't want to prove himself? BS
@live4pce The Bible doesnt say that. It doesn't say ask for anything and it shall be given. Given that there is a massive body of work on prayer, and none of it says that, I'm going to look to you to prove that.
@SFRobertsDickClarke um how about John 14:13? lol its pretty clear. And I will do whatever u ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.u may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. if you read from about verses 10-15 it goes on to show that god has no problem in showing himself as god. this is as clear cut as it gets. as a christian believing in christ all you have to do is ask in christi name and HE WILL do it, according to scripture, but apparently its wrong,
@SFRobertsDickClarke The bible is clear: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:19 NIV). This is a quote from Jesus. So either he's lying or Christians need to perform some really creative mental gymnastics to get around this one. This is actually one of my favorite verses in the bible as it is VERY specific as to what needs to be done and what will happen afterward.
@SFRobertsDickClarke Actually, whether or not the verse in the bible that addresses the effectiveness of prayer doesn't matter. This particular verse is very clear: pray, and it will be granted. @live4pce also quoted John 14:13 -- also another clear description of the power of prayer. If you have a biblical references to contradict our claims, I'm interested to know them. Surely you can come up with a verse or two to support your position?
@sKIPper76M But what does it mean by "pray"? For some reason, in the modern context, we think it just means "talk to God". But the Bible laced meaning upon meaning about what it meant to pray. John 14:13 specifies that the prayer must be in Jesus's name. That isn't just using the words "In Jesus's name". Praying isn't a spell. It means it has to be in line with what Jesus asks of us. Do you really think praying to god and asking for a million pounds in your bank account would magically work?
@SFRobertsDickClarke You are now playing with semantics, a typical mental gymnastics feat one must do in order to make sense of the incoherent. Let's not call it "pray", then. Matthew 18:19 uses the term "agree" (or whatever the verb translates to). How about you and I do that and ask for million pounds each? Yes, it should "magically" appear in our bank accounts as the verse gives no restrictions whatsoever. We should be able to agree on ANYTHING and get it. The problem is: that's not the case.
@sKIPper76M The issue is the meaning of the word. You've got to remember that A) its been 2000 years since the Gospels were written and B) there are more than 2000 years of previous understandings of what the word prayer means.
If you're going to talk about the word agree, your rather conveniently leaving out Matthew 18:20 where it says "Where two or more are gathered in my name". That is the crucial point. Again, what does "In my name" mean.
@sKIPper76M The issue is the meaning of the word. You've got to remember that A) its been 2000 years since the Gospels were written and B) there are more than 2000 years of previous understandings of what the word prayer means.
If you're going to talk about the word agree, your rather conveniently leaving out Matthew 18:20 where it says "Where two or more are gathered in my name". That is the crucial point. Again, what does "In my name" mean.
@SFRobertsDickClarke So we're using the "it's been 2000 years" as the excuse. Sorry, I missed that one in the sample excuses I provided. By the way, using semantics as a way to explain away a particular problem is a double edge sword. Will you apply the same standard to things you accept as non-problematic? Say you are a homophobe like god and cite verses to support your discrimination. Can one respond with "but what does homosexuality really mean?" Ahh ... mental gymnastics at its finest.
@sKIPper76M No, I'm not simply using "its been 2000 years" as an excuse. I'm saying your expectation that everything will make sense on first reading is flawed, and have then given specific reasons as to why.
@SFRobertsDickClarke So what do we do when things in the bible does not make sense? We try to rationalize. We say, "well, you have to understand the deeper meaning of that verse" or "remember 'no' is also a possible answer to a prayer" or "god works in mysterious ways" and so on. Again, all mental gymnastics. The bible makes extremely bold statements about the power of prayer, but prayer is apparently useless. If you disagree, can you propose an experiment we can do to test its effectiveness?
@sKIPper76M You've taken the verse out of its propper context. The next verse makes it clear that the people who are agreeing are doing so in the name of God. Hence, they don't just get anything. It's not mental gymnastics, its simple reading. If you read a verse out of context, you're going to get some questions. But if you don't, and you look at it for what it says, it makes more sense.
@SFRobertsDickClarke Can we not ask for a million pounds in the name of god? No such restrictions are made, remember. How about we both ask for world hunger to end -- in the name of god? Is that a request worthy enough for god? Let me guess: god has a plan for those dying a horrible death due to starvation? Maybe we should limit our prayers to things that could happen naturally, like the speedy recovery of someone ill or that one does well in a job interview or that our team wins the game, etc.
@sKIPper76M I have seen prayers for money answered before in the name of God. A CU event I was taking part in needed £200 to have enough money to finish. They prayed about it, and what came through the door the next day? A cheque for £200 from a church. And the church couldn't have known about that specific need then, because they had to have posted it a few days before.
@SFRobertsDickClarke So, this is the claim you make: someone prayed for 200 pounds, then a check for 200 pounds came the next day. And this is evidence that prayer works? How were you able to distinguish this from a coincidence? What would have happened if no one prayed for the 200 pounds? Would the check not have arrived? Also, when someone prays for 200 pounds and does not get it, is that evidence that prayer does not work? Or do we accept prayer to work regardless of the outcome?
@sKIPper76M My point is I've seen prayer answered. I'm not saying that prayer is always answered positively, but that when it isn't, it's not God's fault. This prayer fitted the correct conditions. It was in the name of God, in all the proper senses. If no one had prayed, maybe the events would have panned out differently. Who knows? I certainly don't. God does though. The point is though, that when we don't get what we pray for, it isn't God's fault. Prayer isn't a magic spell. Its more complex
@sKIPper76M To continue on the money theme briefly though, you cannot ask for anything in the name of God if you want it for selfish reasons etc. That wouldn't be in the name of God. It has to be there for not sinful reasons.
We do frequently ask world hunger to end, but God isn't going to answer our prayers if we ourselves do nothing towards furthering them ourselves. The Bible says Faith without deeds is dead. God will not move in a divine way to end hunger if we don't move in a human way.
@SFRobertsDickClarke Actually, I should be able to ask for selfish reasons since the verse I quoted makes no such restrictions. Also, let's say I am asking for money for the benefit of humanity (e.g. I'll spend the money to feed the poor) -- will my prayers be answered then? If prayer is not enough to end world hunger and we need to depend on ourselves to end it, why even bother praying? Skip the useless step of praying and let's just start doing something constructive instead.
@sKIPper76M You decontexualised the verse. Read it with the next verse. "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them". What this is saying is "If two of you agree on anything, it will be given, why? Because when you gather in my name, I am with you." The key is there "IN MY NAME". The verse says that it only works when you are gathering in his name. Therefore, you can't ask for selfish things, because if you are so doing, you are not gathering in his name, but your own.
@sKIPper76M I'm not saying we need to depend on ourselves to end it, I am saying that if we do not do anything towards it, God will not do anything. The reason we pray is to put our faith in God and ask him to move. But it is insincere of us to ask him to do something that we ourselves are not willing to do. The reason we ask God's help is for him to do what we cannot. We however, if we want him to do that, must do what we can. If we do what we can, he will do what he can.
@sKIPper76M In answer to your other question, if you are being sincere in your requests for money to give to the poor etc, then God will answer. But the key is, sincerity. IE he's not going to give you anything unless you are already trying to help people. Why should God help you help people if you're not doing it in the first place.
Historically recorded prayer answers have a common theme. They answered when the person praying is helping the church/community. EG the amazing account of George Muller, the miraculous delivery of food for the orphans he cared for
God answers prayer, but he isn't a cosmic consignee. He's not going to do something when we ourselves won't do anything. That's us being hypocrites. How can we sincerely ask for God's help in solving world hunger, when we won't do things to help the hungry ourselves?
i call BS starting from question #1. God wont heal amputees, but he heals other ails because he doesn't want to prove himself? didn't christ perform lots of "proof" miracles? god all through out the bible apparently had no problem doing what we consider impossible, form talking animals to parting seas, but today we are not allowed proof? how then can we live by the same biblical standard of those in these times and except these works? this is just silly.
Would just like to say, that even though i don't agree with your arguement for Q1 (I certainly wouldn't love him if he was real) and, strangely, agree with your points for Q2 but from an athiest point of view, that it is about humanity and not about God. I would just like to say, that you have a very nice voice. Like seriously nice :)
you can try to mitagate,reinterpret, and justify the bible all you like, the fact of the matter is it was stone/ bronze age culture with stone/bronze age ideas and morality and jesus defends or at least appears to be ambivailent about the concept of slavery as well as many other bad ideas of the time. I know you are a true believer and ther is little or no chance for you to become unbrainwashed good luck
exactly!!! I rest my case! fufill doesn't just mean to fufill professy, if you buy that stuff ,more importantly he supported every bronze tribal witchdoctor concept the isrealites came up with . Remember your great hero paul said be a good slave and especially good if you master was a christian ... I'm sure you support paul ,right?There was no hell and eternal torture untill meek and mild jesus(to quote Chritopher Hitchens) ,showed up on the scene
@bluemune2 It meant fufil as in to fufil the promise of the new covenant, one not based on the law. Also, may I point out that Paul's concept of slaves was not the same as the one now, and if you look in Timothy, in the letter to him, you'll see Paul condemning the actions of slave traders.
SF robertsdick , I have heard and read and continue to read that evil book that you think of as the greatest book ever written , just so I can argue against it and poor delusional bastards like yourself What did jesus say about the law, go and read and understand!
So, to which of the things god wants us to do are you referring to, Stoning our kids for talking back or keeping slaves or perhaps stoning our daughters on there wedding night because they weren't virgins, I suppose you mean all of it READ YOUR BIBLE CHRISTIANS its all in there !!
So god doesnt want to prove he's real by actually being helpful and loving to someone who REALLY needs help? He sounds like a pussy the way you described him by saying that as long as he doesn't appear and help someone regenerate there limbs then people will be more inclined to love him. Christians count on god to take care of them and you say that people should take care of themselves. The bible sucks and god sucks if he's even real but he still sounds pretty evil to me.
I would choose not to love him, have you read some of the stuff in the Bible he does, not to mention torturing people for ever.... Man that guy's some piece of work.
What an amazingly load of tortured reasoning. All of this nonsensical crap is done in order to try and show that god *could* do this, but he won't because "he knows what's best for us" and "performing these kinds of miracles in this day and age" would obviate the need for "faith". This is an enormous load of horsecrap. (The lengths that believers will go to never ceases to amaze me.) The answer is simple: god won't heal amputees because there is no god.
@SFRobertsDickClarke: "Do you actually have an argument, or are you here to insult me?"
It's interesting that you get so defensive when I call BS on your convoluted line of "reasoning". You can't accept the fact that there is no god, so when I point out that you're bending over backwards to come up with an insanely complex "explanation" for something that has a simple answer (i.e no god), you take it personally. Here's the simple explanation: god won't heal amputees because there is no god.
@SFRobertsDickClarke: I'm curious- what part of my reply was personally insulting to you? I called you no names and made no personal remarks about you specifically (that I recall).
Also, do you really believe that the reason god won't heal an amputee is because it would obviate the need fo faith? I'm asking in all seriousness.
@mikefromwa You called my reasoning "BS". That's name calling. It's not commenting on its flaws or any internal logic problem. You have simply said you don't believe what I said and called it names, thereby insulting my capacity to reason
I am suggesting that it may be a reason God does not heal an amputee. It may also be that there is an important reason that person is how they are. There are many instances of things happening to people appearing bad leading to greater good. See Job.
It's name calling on your line of logic, not on you. And frankly, I'll be brutally honest; I think it is absolute BS, and here's why:
You completely ignore the most likely explanation in favor of what is probably the least likely one. You could just have as easily said it was because the Almighty Pink Unicorn God enjoys disfigurement. In either case there's not a *shred* of evidence for that line of reasoning.
@mikefromwa Name calling is name calling. If you have a problem with my logic, debate it. Do not insult it. Also, there is plenty of historical evidence in the form of the Bible. See Job again. There are many examples where God demonstrates himself, both then and now.
If it's worthy of insult, that's what I'll do. I'm not going to tip-toe around your delicate sensibilities. If something is ridiculous, I'll say so. If you want to block me to stifle debate, that's your choice.
"There are many examples where God demonstrates himself, both then and now."
No, there are many examples of things that people *attribute* to god. There is NO proof that ANY of it is actually the result of any god.
@mikefromwa Insult =/= debate. If you want to debate my reasoning fine. If you believe it is worthy of insult, do so by demonstrating so. Name calling is not debate.
How do you propose then that you demonstrate something is the result of God? What standards of evidence would you require?
Cause it says so in the Bible, unless the Bible has an error.. Does it have an error? is it not perfectly true?.... Let's go down that road, it'll be a really short walk
@Boomr616 No, it says that Thomas doubted their accounts and then saw their accounts were true. The conclusion being that we should trust what eyewitnesses said about Jesus.
@SFRobertsDickClarke It says he wanted phyiscal proof- to touch his holes, and feel the spear hole. Even JC reprimanded him, and blessed those who believed it on faith alone.
It is a nice story useful for setting up what was to follow: that it christianity should be accepted on faith alone, regardless of any facts.
Just heal some amputees, everything becomes settled.
@SFRobertsDickClarke because you missed the point of the video. who would want to worship a god who would create these rules that prevent healings. you would still be able to chose to believe in god even if he made himself evident. as far as timing I give will give you an example of chance. there is a golfer who hits a golf ball the golf ball lands on a blade of grass and the blade of grass lements " oh why me out of all the blades of grass in the field it hit me"
@SFRobertsDickClarke as for the part about feeding people and god moving through humans. why would other cultures also give to the needy when they dont believe in the same god? you dont think it could be something in human nature that some want to help the underpriveledged. these argument are based on conjecture. you are guessing at the mind of God.
@SFRobertsDickClarke according to the book, prayers are answered, but it is "yes, no or wait" Secondly- he supposedly "proved " himself in the past, but now it is only through faith, with the caveat of eternal torture.
Not much of an act of "free will" there. Additionally, there are many miracles proclaimed, but not ONE has been the healing of an amputee- not in 2000 years, not one; or sure: cancer is cured, asthma, arthritis and so on, but never an amputee. Zip, Zilch none, Null, Nada.
@SFRobertsDickClarke Because the idea that proof denies faith is completetly ridiculous, that he did miracles defying physics in the past but can't do them now is assinine. What you're doing is making it so that you can claim anything you want, and aren't required to prove anything. Too bad, you don't get to have your unassailable position by shrouding yourself in the "faith" arguement. He poroved himself to Thomas, all I ask is the same.
@SFRobertsDickClarke no, not even the same. Thomas didn't accept the account, so obviously it is NOT the same. And then that assumes that Thomas or any of the rest of it is real and true, which is yet to be provenfor the assumption.
see just one little note to all atheists if your'e somehow right (which your'e not) then we die believing wrong and get eternal rest but if we are right (which we are) then we get paradise in heaven while you get eternity in hell so no matter what in the end Christians win
@ SFRobertsDickClarke - you responded quite well .... as gillvideo said --- you have to invent an excuse on God's behalf, create some kind of rationalization in order to handle it. He's right and you know it.
My question for point A is what "manner" separates the Bible from others? Do you mean how well it was written? In that case, if I like, say, Drizzt or Lord of the Rings better than the Bible, does that mean it's better than the Bible?
And even objectively, if the Bible is written so well why are there so many mistranslations?
@SFRobertsDickClarke Sorry mate, your answers are flawed in so many ways, I could only make about 2 minutes into your video before becoming downright flustered with them.
A- The stories in the bible were handed down no differently than Homer's Iliad, or Gilgamesh. Why aren't those hailed as gospel. they are just as fanciful as bible stories.
B- There is scant plausible evidence of ANY of the stories and NONE of them subsantiated. With the exception of location and maybe battles...
@JemmetGK A- They are written differently. Dont forget context. At the times in question, fiction like Gilgamesh and Homer was not written by Jews. Also, people did not react to them in the same way. The gospels were written within the lifetimes of those who would have seen Jesus. When contempoaries heard the gospels, they didn't say "oh yes, nice story" they reacted by saying things like "yes, I saw Jesus do X, Y and Z. So what did it all mean" hence the rise of the early chruch in 50AD
@JemmetGK B- There's lots of evidence that it's not made up. The gospels were all written earlier than 50AD. Jesus died and rose in 30AD, and by 50AD Paul was writing to Churches in Corinth and talking about the resurection tradition. Therefore, the gospel accounts are definitely contempoary accounts. It would have taken quite some time for it to be established all the way in Corinth, so it must have been earlier significently. Why are four eye witnesses testomony not enough?
The evidence your bringing up is in the bible, thus my argument on B remains the same.
And no...
There are thousands of eye witnesses to alien abduction. Those same people have written countless letters to the governments, churches, medical field professionals--doesn't mean those thousands of stories are any more true than the first 4. In todays world where stories can be proven, there are oddly no more biblical stories taking place...
...that really only had little to do with god except to spark them.
C- They were preserved in the same way Homer's Iliad or Gilgamesh were preserved, why aren't they gospel?
The bible literally says it is it's own evidence of the truth. That's RUBBISH! That would be in the same vain as my killing a man, then my CLAIMING I didn't do it is evidence that I didn't do it.
I'm sorry to say a fellow countryman failed to inteligently answer "Why God won't heal amputees"
@JemmetGK C- No they wern't. People don't build churches to fiction. Also, the romans hunted down the gospel authors to end the legitimacy eye witnesses offered. The Romans don't take that kind of threat seriously if there is no evidence behind it.
It is not the same as you claiming you didn't do something. It is the same as four people seeing someone do something or not, writing it down, and then everyone else agreeing with those statements and asking what it means.
People NEVER STOPPED building churches to fiction. Look at Star Trek and Star Wars. The Romans *spit* hunted down those spreading this "word" to the masses. They were interupting societal casting by spouting that everyone was equal and didn't have to cater to anyone else. Thus the Roman order disintegrated and Rome fell. As in every war there's a is the conquered and victorious and history is written by the victors.
Here's a question for you: why are stories from the bible, that are being scrutinized today, failing to stand up to scientific reasoning and crumbling like something in a Mythbuster's segment?
The reason God does not do a bunch of miracles now is, because miracles are not needed now. Let me expand, back then they did not have a Bible (a completed one more of). So the people who were writing it, claiming that it was coming directly from God needed to PROVE that the writings were true. They did so through miraculous actions. Nowadays, we have the Bible. We don't need miracles, because the Bible is complete.
No, we have not misunderstood anything. You claim God will relieve us of our sins if we pray and repent. When I was young, I was a devout believer, and I prayed to God multiple times a day, often crying out of shame and pain, that he turn me strait. I didn't want to be Gay, I didn't CHOOSE to be ostracized by my culture and walk a path that was deviant from my God. Please explain to me why your "God" would deny a 6th grader his prayer to be the Christian he "writes" for us to be in his Bible.
@OAkritas: I can not give you a definitive answer here, because I do not know you. However, allow me to go on a small limb here. Praying, going to church, etc makes you as much of a Christian as standing in a garage makes you a car. The bottom line is, basically, you allowed Sin to overwhelm you. You let worldly pleasures take you over, quite bluntly. And please don't use the "innocent child" argument thing there. You were a sinner, and you did not accept Jesus' gift and let sin take you.
proof denies faith-God is real so you lose faith in him but yet in your other "God's a rockstar" video if he showed himself he would have rockstar status. Which one is it? "you would have to love him because he is that awesome" so god would take away our freedom of choice. Why do you try to "prove" your faith? With every video you make you are trying to prove that christianity is whats right, sort of like commercials for your religion. God used a lot of magic in the bible, how come not now?
SFRobertsDickClarke, drop the sackcloth and ashes! Believe that what you have already prayed has been answered. Otherwise, why pray? ABOVE ALL: be honest with God. Or pay the price...
Again, your claims in this video are ridiculous. Knowing that someone exists doesn't automatically make me love them. And, if the person really is so awesome that you couldn't help but love them, why is knowing that wrong? The Christians would have us believe that the truth is terrible, it is better you love God because you don't really KNOW he's great, than that you love him for who he really is. Ridiculous, as is most of Christianity. Dump the religion and save your brain.
If prayer doesn't get you what you want, and instead, you merely hope that it lines up with your deities' desires, you admit then that prayer is useless and the act of praying illogical. Yet... you still think that believing in an imaginary being is logical... Fail video is fail.
No, I'm simply saying that Prayers puprose is not to do with the things most people associate it with. I recomend you watch Rob Bell's Nooma video on the subject.
In his nonsensical fundamentalist babble, Rob Bell somehow stumbles out with something along the lines of 'everything happens according to God's will', and that prayer is more a way of asking that 'his will' will somehow happen to help you.
How exactly does this make prayer anything less than completely stupid? Essentially you can wish for whatever the fuck you want, and if you get disappointed, you'll cheer yourself up by saying "s'okay, it's God's will, AMEN!".
Have you actually watched Rob Bell's video on Prayer? If not let me enlighten you. Let me put it this way, in any personal relationship, friendship, family or parnter etc, do you only talk to them to influence them, to make them do what you want? I sincerely hope not.
"Let me put it this way, in any personal relationship, friendship, family or parnter etc, do you only talk to them to influence them, to make them do what you want?"
The difference between this, or even just talking to friends/family is they exist. Your 'god' does not.
You're completely dodging the issue now. In your original point you were using the hypothetical example that God does exist and Prayer etc to show why you thought it was stupid. Now your just jumping back to your beliefs. You believe he doesn't exist, but you cannot prove it. I conversely cannot prove that he does, not to 100% certianty at any rate.
You being an idiot doesn't mean I'm dodging the issue. Someone who wasn't mentally challenged would have seen the point is, prayer accomplishes nothing. Zero. Scientific studies have shown this. You've admitted it. The video link you gave admitted it. Regardless of a 'god' or not, and regardless of 'prayer', life will not change. The prayer still results in a waste of time.
Your still misunderstanding the purpose of Prayer. It isn't to command God to do what we want, it isn't to compell God into bending to our will. Its to develop and deapen our relationship with him, the same way that talking openly to your family and friends deapens your relationship with them.
What kind of relationship do you have with this "God" of yours? Do you guys play street hockey together? Grab a beer on the weekend at the local pub? No, you don't even go running with him as you would with a dog that you could legitimately say you had a relationship with. Your "relationship" with God consists of you talking and then you interpreting feelings you get in your gut as "communication" from God. Sorry, but bad burritos are a better interpretation of that.
No, SF you are wrong. You are actually going against what many tele evangelists and christians have been doing. I know, I was a member of the 700 club. They use prayer a way to get things they want. They pray to heal people and even to get out of financial trouble. You and I know many many christians and christian leaders use it this way. And BTW JESUS himself said that prayer could do anything.
Jesus saidL - if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you. so that is why this question has been asked, why are there not more healings, miracles? Hmmm maybe we dont have enough faith???
If God doesn't want to push the boundaries of physics then why the heck would Jesus go around walking on water? Or healing the dead? You're simply proving the point made in the video you are ostensibly replying to. And for the record, someone could easily choose to not love an awesome being you know exists; that is exactly what Christians claim Satan did. He knew God existed; interacted with him intimately and yet still rebelled against him. Your own faith contradicts your claims here.
This is idiotic; I'm sorry, but it is. If I have a boyfriend/girlfriend I've only known via email my love doesn't evaporate if I happen to meet them in real life. What an absolutely idiotic argument, but I understand why you've thrown it out here; you've seen so many fellow Christians trot it out so you assume it has to be true. Proof doesn't destroy love and faith based upon no proof is nothing we should promote at all.
Your example uses people, and ulitmately people are all equal. However with God its a diffrent matter. He is so amazing, powerful, gracious etc that you would want to if you could understand him in his entirity. Your example doesn't work here.
However a better example of where proof damages love is when people fail to trust their partners and start snooping on them etc.
that implies you can only love something we cannot see. that we can only love something if u put your faith and trust in it. what poor rationalisation... i know of flowers, i have SEEN flowers, and i love them, i have proof but still love them... i have a father, WHOM I CAN SEE PROOF OF, and i love him... etc etc
And I just wanted to bring out that scientists say this world could feed all its inhabitants throughout eternity many times over. If that's a little unclear to anyone, it means nobody should ever go hungry with all the natural resources on this planet. I would just like to bring out the situation in Myanmar as an example. The cyclone that struck devastated a lot of people there, but the government took much of the resources sent by America for its military. It's just sad.
Wow...very good points. Thank you. People expect God to do everything for them. Mankind got itself into this situation (Adam and Eve) and now he's offering the best possible way out, and everyone is blaming him. Well I hope that as a person who can articulate, especially to what I am thinking every time I hear videos like the one you responded to, far better than I can that you continue to do so. =)
Also, your "free will" argument runs into further roadblocks when you consider the will of the powerful being imposed upon those less powerful to their detriment, and a supposedly all powerful being allowing this. Also, certainty does not remove the choice of love. If I knew for a fact that your god existed, I would hate it for what it has allowed.
What your talking about there with the will of the powerful etc is sin. And as I said, God allows sin because he in turn allows people free will because he wants them to love
He has allowed it but he will also punish it at the end.
Free will is an illusion. Ask yourself; why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey God in the first place? Obviously they had a strong ego and a desire to do their own thing and disobey authority figures. But who gave them that desire? Not themselves, that's for sure. The only person that could have given them such desires is God himself. And so only God can be ultimately responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve. It is much simpler to consider this story of Adam and Eve to be an ancient myth.
Wow, more cop-outs on your starving millions answer. God dictates rainfall and drought, therefore, he controls the food productivity in the regions where he creates all those people. Plus, Christians don't go on missions to Africa solely for altruistic reasons. There's usually a stack of bibles following in their wake to convert more vulnerable downtrodden to the cult. You really try hard to let the magic fairy in the sky off the hook when world events belie a "perfect" overseer.
By arguing that God has contorl over the weather therefore he should control the food, your moving into an area of logic thats flawed. So God has to solve the starving millions problems, does he also have to solve the murders, the wars etc. And if he does does he have to stop the layoffs, the resecsions. And if he does does he then have to stop the thieves and the muggers. And if he does, does he have to...the point is your arguing from extreme, not principle. Why does God have to make...
...everyones life perfect. Ultimately we as a species have responsability too. Progression of the logic you use here is ultimately that God should solve our every need all the time. Humans have some responsability here.
Also, so what if they bring Bibles. From their perspective, thats alturisim. Bringing people salvation. You may not agree but it doesnt make them wrong and you right.
You really have a "hands off" view of god that is contrary to most religious people who thank god for everything from getting a promotion to scoring a touchdown.
God helps us when we accept his help. He doesnt shield us from the consequences of our actions. If we move in a direction of a goal that in our own power perhaps we cannot achieve, and it is in accordance with his will, he will help us. What he won't do is protect us from the consequences of our actions when we sin. By your logic, we remove all personal responsability and put it on God. Thats not what Christianity says.
Answer me this, in your vision by your logic, if God does exist and his job is to make everyones lives better, where do you draw the line. Where does God's responsability end and our responsability take over? If rich countries have ripped it out of Africa, does that then mean God should interviene making it massively productive. Doesnt that defeat the point of the responsability of those rich countries? They can just rip it out more as there are no consequences, God will solve it...
I've heard Christians say that God created us, "loves" us, gives us free will but ultimately hopes we'll welcome him and choose him and not get lured away by Satan. So, if God is creating people for the sake of joining him in heaven, why did he slay so many infants in the tsunami, thus denying them the chance to find their way to him. He makes them then almost immediately slays them?
God is not responsable for the creation of those infants in the same way he is responsable for the creation of humanity. One is direct, the other is indirect.
You sound like much more of a deist than a theist, as in God set the wheels in motion but doesn't have a hand in affairs day to day. It's an easier premise to buy than say most Americans who think that God has a hand in the everyday minutia of their lives, and at least somewhat explains the random shit that happens to even good people. BUT...which god? Maybe the Muslims have it right. Maybe the Hindus. Do you believe in the Bible as the word of God?
He does have a hand in things, but the nature of his hand is more complicated than we can imagine. There is direct, indirect, suggestion, inspiriation, moving of the holy spirit, all sorts of things.
So I guess you believe in stoning people who work the Sabbath. That's in your book. Or slaughtering homosexuals. That's in your book. Or killing your teenager if they come home intoxicated. Or that you can drink poisin without harm. Or a man lived inside a whale for 3 days. All those things are in your book. Pretty wacked if you ask me.
Not always, we can make sense of it on occasion, but not always. Look at the life of Ruth for instance. At first she must have been sad beyond description. Immidately after her and her sister got married, both their husbands die. That would have been exceptionally awful. But she left with Naomi back to Israel and there met the man who, when she married him, would create linage to David, who then could take haven in Moab, Ruth being a Moabite herself. God plays the long game, sometimes very long
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
As you can see the bible makes very little sense at all.
Once again, a Christian has failed to answer the amputee question. The simple answer that perfectly explains it, is that there isn't a god. Period. Please tell me how my answer could be wrong. It has nothing to do with whether you or I think there is a god. My answer of "there is no god" 100% explains why amputees aren't healed by god. Your "answer" merely opines on why god wouldn't want some "showy" display of his existance. It's not an answer to the question.
Its an answer that does make sense, its possible. Your answer also makes sense, but it makes the situation even worse for the amputee. Lets say your right, there is no God. Well then, that means that nothing 'wrong' happened to the amputee since there is no objective right or wrong also. There is what people beleive to be right and wrong, but that could be inverted and it wouldn't matter, sincen nothing would be objective...
Right or wrong doesn't apply to an injury. If somebody stupidly put his arm in a crocodile pen, then losing that arm is a logical consequence, not neccessarily "right or wrong". Is or Isn't applies. An injury isn't a question of morality. Answer this: all kinds of Christians claim the Lord heals their "invisible" ailments like arthritis or cancer. Is that all bullshit? Does praying work?
Praying doesn't work like a system or a principle of the universe (IE if I pray this much or for this thing then I will get it). Prayer is much more complicated than that. Ultimately it is about putting our trust in God. Sometimes he will respond to that, sometimes he won't. Prayer isn't a system that gives us everything we want, it gives us what we need. By praying, we're placing our faith in God...
Sometimes he will and sometimes he won't? He NEVER does for amputees. And giving us what we need? Are you telling me a quadruple amputee couldn't use some new limbs?
By the way, the on-again off-again arbritrary way prayers are answered is quite simply a Christian rationalization for the randomness of a god-less world. "Strange ways" huh?
Its also true that the African continent could use a great deal of food. See the earlier point I made about that. Also, although I have no direct proof, many people I know say they have indeed seen "Creative miricles" of limb regrowth etc. Ironically this sort of thing is in Africa and the other developing parts of the world, mainly because (I think) they have more faith due to their circumstance. I don't know, just a thought. I don't know for certian if it happens, but still its interesting.
Right at 4 min you bump right into the problem of evil and don't even know it. If I knew, objectively, that god existed I'd wanna know why it allows what it does. God cannot be both all powerful and all good, this objection to faith has been around since ancient Greece, and never overcome logically.
Actually it can be overcome. The simple fact is this. Evil exists because free will exists. Free will exists because God wanted free will exists. God wanted free will to exist because he wanted us to have the capacity to love. Love at some level requires choice, choice requires free will.
They suffer, but is it indeed an evil? I believe that the reason for that is because we live in a fallen world because of sin. People do not suffer because of their own choices only. They suffer also because of other peoples choices.
The nature of God and proving his existance would make you feel a way for God that would look a lot like love, but wouldn't be love because it would not invovle choice. I should have made that clearer
Actually it's exactly what you said but I will accept your latest post as an explanation of what you meant. I disagree with your theory that proof denies faith and without faith you cannot love God. Proof of God would only confirm ones faith. Proof can never be used to deny whatever it just proved to be true. Faith is not limited to existence. Is my God the correct God? Is he the only God? Is he good or evil? Many avenues left open to apply your faith if you feel it is necessary to love God.
God helps Africa by working through Christians? And those same Christians teach their dogma along with that help. Teaching that condom use is sinful where AIDS claims millions of lives annually is nothing short of genocidal. Who needs that kind of help?
Did I at any point say I'm a Catholic? The biblical nature of contriception is another issue. I see nothing wrong with it myself. I also didn't say that Christians were perfect, so your point is moot.
Did I at any point say my response had anything to do with you. You stated that Christians were helping in Africa. I responded to that by saying that teaching that condom use is sinful is tantamount to genocide. Catholics are still Christians, aren't they? Or do you take the stance that they are not proper Christians? That would be your right, just as it is my right to think all religions do far more harm then they do good.
I take the stance that that particular belief is not biblical. However AIDS would be stoped dead in its tracks if everyone listened to the Bible (IE waited untill they were married to make love to only that partner for the rest of their lives together)
Let's say that I give you a box that contained irrefutable proof that God existed to do with as you wish. Do you hold a press conference to get this news out or do you hide it from the world? Without a doubt you would hold a press conference. So to say that love from faith is somehow better then love from proof is just how Christians rationalize. Only in religion is belief without proof (faith) seen as a virtue.
Love from faith is choice. Its not a virtue in so far as we want no proof. We have proof and evidence but only up to a point. If you prove it all the way, it no longer is a choice and its not the kind of love God wants. It would be very easy for him to do that. But he doesn't because that would be breaking our free will. Love is far more beautiful when there is choice involved. To prove would be to remove choice.
your god hides behind a wall of clauses why would a real god do that? if there was a god, we'll know because it'll be a part of our lives like water, trees, air, animals. he wouldn't hide in a book and in our minds. funny, the other things that do that are dragons, pixies and tooth fairies, notice something?
Thanx for pointing these out.... If u show a girl that u r realy rich She will just want u for the money.. I think this is the answer for Amputees....
dmncharly 3 months ago
Comment removed
polopowers1 6 months ago
The bible clearly states that all christian believers have to do is ask in prayer and it shall be given to them in the name of jesus......you say this is a lie. so which do you believe the bible or your own opinion? is the bible wrong? clearly it is since starving christians pray everyday for food and it doesn't come, amputees pray they will be healed and it never happens....and u say because god suddenly doesn't want to prove himself? BS
live4pce 7 months ago
@live4pce The Bible doesnt say that. It doesn't say ask for anything and it shall be given. Given that there is a massive body of work on prayer, and none of it says that, I'm going to look to you to prove that.
SFRobertsDickClarke 7 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke um how about John 14:13? lol its pretty clear. And I will do whatever u ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.u may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. if you read from about verses 10-15 it goes on to show that god has no problem in showing himself as god. this is as clear cut as it gets. as a christian believing in christ all you have to do is ask in christi name and HE WILL do it, according to scripture, but apparently its wrong,
live4pce 7 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke The bible is clear: "Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven." (Matthew 18:19 NIV). This is a quote from Jesus. So either he's lying or Christians need to perform some really creative mental gymnastics to get around this one. This is actually one of my favorite verses in the bible as it is VERY specific as to what needs to be done and what will happen afterward.
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M And if that were the only scripture in the entire Bible on the subject of prayer and it's answering, you might have a point.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke Actually, whether or not the verse in the bible that addresses the effectiveness of prayer doesn't matter. This particular verse is very clear: pray, and it will be granted. @live4pce also quoted John 14:13 -- also another clear description of the power of prayer. If you have a biblical references to contradict our claims, I'm interested to know them. Surely you can come up with a verse or two to support your position?
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M But what does it mean by "pray"? For some reason, in the modern context, we think it just means "talk to God". But the Bible laced meaning upon meaning about what it meant to pray. John 14:13 specifies that the prayer must be in Jesus's name. That isn't just using the words "In Jesus's name". Praying isn't a spell. It means it has to be in line with what Jesus asks of us. Do you really think praying to god and asking for a million pounds in your bank account would magically work?
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke You are now playing with semantics, a typical mental gymnastics feat one must do in order to make sense of the incoherent. Let's not call it "pray", then. Matthew 18:19 uses the term "agree" (or whatever the verb translates to). How about you and I do that and ask for million pounds each? Yes, it should "magically" appear in our bank accounts as the verse gives no restrictions whatsoever. We should be able to agree on ANYTHING and get it. The problem is: that's not the case.
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M The issue is the meaning of the word. You've got to remember that A) its been 2000 years since the Gospels were written and B) there are more than 2000 years of previous understandings of what the word prayer means.
If you're going to talk about the word agree, your rather conveniently leaving out Matthew 18:20 where it says "Where two or more are gathered in my name". That is the crucial point. Again, what does "In my name" mean.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M The issue is the meaning of the word. You've got to remember that A) its been 2000 years since the Gospels were written and B) there are more than 2000 years of previous understandings of what the word prayer means.
If you're going to talk about the word agree, your rather conveniently leaving out Matthew 18:20 where it says "Where two or more are gathered in my name". That is the crucial point. Again, what does "In my name" mean.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke So we're using the "it's been 2000 years" as the excuse. Sorry, I missed that one in the sample excuses I provided. By the way, using semantics as a way to explain away a particular problem is a double edge sword. Will you apply the same standard to things you accept as non-problematic? Say you are a homophobe like god and cite verses to support your discrimination. Can one respond with "but what does homosexuality really mean?" Ahh ... mental gymnastics at its finest.
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M No, I'm not simply using "its been 2000 years" as an excuse. I'm saying your expectation that everything will make sense on first reading is flawed, and have then given specific reasons as to why.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke So what do we do when things in the bible does not make sense? We try to rationalize. We say, "well, you have to understand the deeper meaning of that verse" or "remember 'no' is also a possible answer to a prayer" or "god works in mysterious ways" and so on. Again, all mental gymnastics. The bible makes extremely bold statements about the power of prayer, but prayer is apparently useless. If you disagree, can you propose an experiment we can do to test its effectiveness?
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M You've taken the verse out of its propper context. The next verse makes it clear that the people who are agreeing are doing so in the name of God. Hence, they don't just get anything. It's not mental gymnastics, its simple reading. If you read a verse out of context, you're going to get some questions. But if you don't, and you look at it for what it says, it makes more sense.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke Can we not ask for a million pounds in the name of god? No such restrictions are made, remember. How about we both ask for world hunger to end -- in the name of god? Is that a request worthy enough for god? Let me guess: god has a plan for those dying a horrible death due to starvation? Maybe we should limit our prayers to things that could happen naturally, like the speedy recovery of someone ill or that one does well in a job interview or that our team wins the game, etc.
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M I have seen prayers for money answered before in the name of God. A CU event I was taking part in needed £200 to have enough money to finish. They prayed about it, and what came through the door the next day? A cheque for £200 from a church. And the church couldn't have known about that specific need then, because they had to have posted it a few days before.
I'll answer your second point momentarily
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke So, this is the claim you make: someone prayed for 200 pounds, then a check for 200 pounds came the next day. And this is evidence that prayer works? How were you able to distinguish this from a coincidence? What would have happened if no one prayed for the 200 pounds? Would the check not have arrived? Also, when someone prays for 200 pounds and does not get it, is that evidence that prayer does not work? Or do we accept prayer to work regardless of the outcome?
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M My point is I've seen prayer answered. I'm not saying that prayer is always answered positively, but that when it isn't, it's not God's fault. This prayer fitted the correct conditions. It was in the name of God, in all the proper senses. If no one had prayed, maybe the events would have panned out differently. Who knows? I certainly don't. God does though. The point is though, that when we don't get what we pray for, it isn't God's fault. Prayer isn't a magic spell. Its more complex
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M To continue on the money theme briefly though, you cannot ask for anything in the name of God if you want it for selfish reasons etc. That wouldn't be in the name of God. It has to be there for not sinful reasons.
We do frequently ask world hunger to end, but God isn't going to answer our prayers if we ourselves do nothing towards furthering them ourselves. The Bible says Faith without deeds is dead. God will not move in a divine way to end hunger if we don't move in a human way.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke Actually, I should be able to ask for selfish reasons since the verse I quoted makes no such restrictions. Also, let's say I am asking for money for the benefit of humanity (e.g. I'll spend the money to feed the poor) -- will my prayers be answered then? If prayer is not enough to end world hunger and we need to depend on ourselves to end it, why even bother praying? Skip the useless step of praying and let's just start doing something constructive instead.
sKIPper76M 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M You decontexualised the verse. Read it with the next verse. "For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them". What this is saying is "If two of you agree on anything, it will be given, why? Because when you gather in my name, I am with you." The key is there "IN MY NAME". The verse says that it only works when you are gathering in his name. Therefore, you can't ask for selfish things, because if you are so doing, you are not gathering in his name, but your own.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M I'm not saying we need to depend on ourselves to end it, I am saying that if we do not do anything towards it, God will not do anything. The reason we pray is to put our faith in God and ask him to move. But it is insincere of us to ask him to do something that we ourselves are not willing to do. The reason we ask God's help is for him to do what we cannot. We however, if we want him to do that, must do what we can. If we do what we can, he will do what he can.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
@sKIPper76M In answer to your other question, if you are being sincere in your requests for money to give to the poor etc, then God will answer. But the key is, sincerity. IE he's not going to give you anything unless you are already trying to help people. Why should God help you help people if you're not doing it in the first place.
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
Historically recorded prayer answers have a common theme. They answered when the person praying is helping the church/community. EG the amazing account of George Muller, the miraculous delivery of food for the orphans he cared for
God answers prayer, but he isn't a cosmic consignee. He's not going to do something when we ourselves won't do anything. That's us being hypocrites. How can we sincerely ask for God's help in solving world hunger, when we won't do things to help the hungry ourselves?
SFRobertsDickClarke 4 months ago
i call BS starting from question #1. God wont heal amputees, but he heals other ails because he doesn't want to prove himself? didn't christ perform lots of "proof" miracles? god all through out the bible apparently had no problem doing what we consider impossible, form talking animals to parting seas, but today we are not allowed proof? how then can we live by the same biblical standard of those in these times and except these works? this is just silly.
live4pce 7 months ago
Would just like to say, that even though i don't agree with your arguement for Q1 (I certainly wouldn't love him if he was real) and, strangely, agree with your points for Q2 but from an athiest point of view, that it is about humanity and not about God. I would just like to say, that you have a very nice voice. Like seriously nice :)
NotSoGrimProductions 7 months ago
you can try to mitagate,reinterpret, and justify the bible all you like, the fact of the matter is it was stone/ bronze age culture with stone/bronze age ideas and morality and jesus defends or at least appears to be ambivailent about the concept of slavery as well as many other bad ideas of the time. I know you are a true believer and ther is little or no chance for you to become unbrainwashed good luck
bluemune2 7 months ago
exactly!!! I rest my case! fufill doesn't just mean to fufill professy, if you buy that stuff ,more importantly he supported every bronze tribal witchdoctor concept the isrealites came up with . Remember your great hero paul said be a good slave and especially good if you master was a christian ... I'm sure you support paul ,right?There was no hell and eternal torture untill meek and mild jesus(to quote Chritopher Hitchens) ,showed up on the scene
bluemune2 7 months ago
@bluemune2 It meant fufil as in to fufil the promise of the new covenant, one not based on the law. Also, may I point out that Paul's concept of slaves was not the same as the one now, and if you look in Timothy, in the letter to him, you'll see Paul condemning the actions of slave traders.
SFRobertsDickClarke 7 months ago
SF robertsdick , I have heard and read and continue to read that evil book that you think of as the greatest book ever written , just so I can argue against it and poor delusional bastards like yourself What did jesus say about the law, go and read and understand!
bluemune2 7 months ago
@bluemune2 He said he had come to fufill it.
SFRobertsDickClarke 7 months ago
So, to which of the things god wants us to do are you referring to, Stoning our kids for talking back or keeping slaves or perhaps stoning our daughters on there wedding night because they weren't virgins, I suppose you mean all of it READ YOUR BIBLE CHRISTIANS its all in there !!
bluemune2 7 months ago
@bluemune2 Have you heard of the Old Covenant. Please...
SFRobertsDickClarke 7 months ago
So god doesnt want to prove he's real by actually being helpful and loving to someone who REALLY needs help? He sounds like a pussy the way you described him by saying that as long as he doesn't appear and help someone regenerate there limbs then people will be more inclined to love him. Christians count on god to take care of them and you say that people should take care of themselves. The bible sucks and god sucks if he's even real but he still sounds pretty evil to me.
LOCUSTHATER666 8 months ago
I would choose not to love him, have you read some of the stuff in the Bible he does, not to mention torturing people for ever.... Man that guy's some piece of work.
amiller112 8 months ago
What an amazingly load of tortured reasoning. All of this nonsensical crap is done in order to try and show that god *could* do this, but he won't because "he knows what's best for us" and "performing these kinds of miracles in this day and age" would obviate the need for "faith". This is an enormous load of horsecrap. (The lengths that believers will go to never ceases to amaze me.) The answer is simple: god won't heal amputees because there is no god.
mikefromwa 8 months ago
@mikefromwa Do you actually have an argument, or are you here to insult me?
SFRobertsDickClarke 8 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke: "Do you actually have an argument, or are you here to insult me?"
It's interesting that you get so defensive when I call BS on your convoluted line of "reasoning". You can't accept the fact that there is no god, so when I point out that you're bending over backwards to come up with an insanely complex "explanation" for something that has a simple answer (i.e no god), you take it personally. Here's the simple explanation: god won't heal amputees because there is no god.
mikefromwa 8 months ago
@mikefromwa That's an argument, but you have no reasoning. I have provided reasoning. The fact you disagree with me is no need to insult me.
SFRobertsDickClarke 8 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke: I'm curious- what part of my reply was personally insulting to you? I called you no names and made no personal remarks about you specifically (that I recall).
Also, do you really believe that the reason god won't heal an amputee is because it would obviate the need fo faith? I'm asking in all seriousness.
mikefromwa 8 months ago
@mikefromwa You called my reasoning "BS". That's name calling. It's not commenting on its flaws or any internal logic problem. You have simply said you don't believe what I said and called it names, thereby insulting my capacity to reason
I am suggesting that it may be a reason God does not heal an amputee. It may also be that there is an important reason that person is how they are. There are many instances of things happening to people appearing bad leading to greater good. See Job.
SFRobertsDickClarke 8 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke: "You called my reasoning "BS". That's name calling."
It's name calling on your line of logic, not on you. And frankly, I'll be brutally honest; I think it is absolute BS, and here's why:
You completely ignore the most likely explanation in favor of what is probably the least likely one. You could just have as easily said it was because the Almighty Pink Unicorn God enjoys disfigurement. In either case there's not a *shred* of evidence for that line of reasoning.
mikefromwa 8 months ago
@mikefromwa Name calling is name calling. If you have a problem with my logic, debate it. Do not insult it. Also, there is plenty of historical evidence in the form of the Bible. See Job again. There are many examples where God demonstrates himself, both then and now.
SFRobertsDickClarke 8 months ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke: "Do not insult it."
If it's worthy of insult, that's what I'll do. I'm not going to tip-toe around your delicate sensibilities. If something is ridiculous, I'll say so. If you want to block me to stifle debate, that's your choice.
"There are many examples where God demonstrates himself, both then and now."
No, there are many examples of things that people *attribute* to god. There is NO proof that ANY of it is actually the result of any god.
mikefromwa 8 months ago
@mikefromwa Insult =/= debate. If you want to debate my reasoning fine. If you believe it is worthy of insult, do so by demonstrating so. Name calling is not debate.
How do you propose then that you demonstrate something is the result of God? What standards of evidence would you require?
SFRobertsDickClarke 8 months ago
Humans are not the chosen ones. Salamanders are. God chose them to regenerate limbs, not humans.
pchtermino1 10 months ago
They have they're growing evidence and that basically comes from God so what kind of evidence is that?
uilium 11 months ago
Cause it says so in the Bible, unless the Bible has an error.. Does it have an error? is it not perfectly true?.... Let's go down that road, it'll be a really short walk
Boomr616 1 year ago
@Boomr616 No, it says that Thomas doubted their accounts and then saw their accounts were true. The conclusion being that we should trust what eyewitnesses said about Jesus.
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke It says he wanted phyiscal proof- to touch his holes, and feel the spear hole. Even JC reprimanded him, and blessed those who believed it on faith alone.
It is a nice story useful for setting up what was to follow: that it christianity should be accepted on faith alone, regardless of any facts.
Just heal some amputees, everything becomes settled.
Boomr616 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke
the determination that we should believe without proof is a bad conclusion.
Boomr616 1 year ago
This guy is speaking out of his ass.
soradakey 1 year ago
@soradakey and your proof?
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke because you missed the point of the video. who would want to worship a god who would create these rules that prevent healings. you would still be able to chose to believe in god even if he made himself evident. as far as timing I give will give you an example of chance. there is a golfer who hits a golf ball the golf ball lands on a blade of grass and the blade of grass lements " oh why me out of all the blades of grass in the field it hit me"
twizelby 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke as for the part about feeding people and god moving through humans. why would other cultures also give to the needy when they dont believe in the same god? you dont think it could be something in human nature that some want to help the underpriveledged. these argument are based on conjecture. you are guessing at the mind of God.
twizelby 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke as for doing what god tells us to do all the time should we not also kill people for blaspheming?
twizelby 1 year ago
what an idiotic line of reasoning
Boomr616 1 year ago
@Boomr616 Do you have a reason to say that?
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke according to the book, prayers are answered, but it is "yes, no or wait" Secondly- he supposedly "proved " himself in the past, but now it is only through faith, with the caveat of eternal torture.
Boomr616 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke
Not much of an act of "free will" there. Additionally, there are many miracles proclaimed, but not ONE has been the healing of an amputee- not in 2000 years, not one; or sure: cancer is cured, asthma, arthritis and so on, but never an amputee. Zip, Zilch none, Null, Nada.
That is why it is idiotic.
Prayer
Boomr616 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke Because the idea that proof denies faith is completetly ridiculous, that he did miracles defying physics in the past but can't do them now is assinine. What you're doing is making it so that you can claim anything you want, and aren't required to prove anything. Too bad, you don't get to have your unassailable position by shrouding yourself in the "faith" arguement. He poroved himself to Thomas, all I ask is the same.
Boomr616 1 year ago
@Boomr616 You have the same, the account of those who saw Thomas.
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke no, not even the same. Thomas didn't accept the account, so obviously it is NOT the same. And then that assumes that Thomas or any of the rest of it is real and true, which is yet to be provenfor the assumption.
Boomr616 1 year ago
@Boomr616 How exactly do you know that Thomas did not accept the account?
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
this answer is model for the fact that religious are fashists.....
robot014 1 year ago 2
see just one little note to all atheists if your'e somehow right (which your'e not) then we die believing wrong and get eternal rest but if we are right (which we are) then we get paradise in heaven while you get eternity in hell so no matter what in the end Christians win
shotgungunshot 1 year ago
@shotgungunshot or you have wasted your life in bigotry, guilt and ignorance.
And just because of that doesn't make it any more correct
911650 1 year ago
@911650 But if there is no meaning to life then it is no more wasted than anyone elses.
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
it's sad when you think of it that every person here arguing that God isnt real will most likely end up in hell
shotgungunshot 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ SFRobertsDickClarke - you responded quite well .... as gillvideo said --- you have to invent an excuse on God's behalf, create some kind of rationalization in order to handle it. He's right and you know it.
ternens 1 year ago
Comment removed
ternens 1 year ago
"Not God's fault " ,sure thing,that stupid woman Eve ate the fruit and here we go.
sekulaadam 1 year ago
theres no such thing a an intelligent christian,because where ever ignorance prevails
superstition does.
rizextoxblaze 2 years ago
That implies Christianity = Superstition, which is not the case.
SFRobertsDickClarke 2 years ago
Thanks for helping to enlighten me about God! :)
PureInnocencez 2 years ago
and how do you know that the stories in the bible are real, and not a product of man's imagination?
henrybronxboy 2 years ago 5
Because
A- of the manner they were written in
B- the other evidence that surrounds them
C- the way in which they were preserved
SFRobertsDickClarke 2 years ago
My question for point A is what "manner" separates the Bible from others? Do you mean how well it was written? In that case, if I like, say, Drizzt or Lord of the Rings better than the Bible, does that mean it's better than the Bible?
And even objectively, if the Bible is written so well why are there so many mistranslations?
MettaliarYanto 2 years ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke Sorry mate, your answers are flawed in so many ways, I could only make about 2 minutes into your video before becoming downright flustered with them.
A- The stories in the bible were handed down no differently than Homer's Iliad, or Gilgamesh. Why aren't those hailed as gospel. they are just as fanciful as bible stories.
B- There is scant plausible evidence of ANY of the stories and NONE of them subsantiated. With the exception of location and maybe battles...
...cont
JemmetGK 1 year ago
@JemmetGK A- They are written differently. Dont forget context. At the times in question, fiction like Gilgamesh and Homer was not written by Jews. Also, people did not react to them in the same way. The gospels were written within the lifetimes of those who would have seen Jesus. When contempoaries heard the gospels, they didn't say "oh yes, nice story" they reacted by saying things like "yes, I saw Jesus do X, Y and Z. So what did it all mean" hence the rise of the early chruch in 50AD
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@JemmetGK B- There's lots of evidence that it's not made up. The gospels were all written earlier than 50AD. Jesus died and rose in 30AD, and by 50AD Paul was writing to Churches in Corinth and talking about the resurection tradition. Therefore, the gospel accounts are definitely contempoary accounts. It would have taken quite some time for it to be established all the way in Corinth, so it must have been earlier significently. Why are four eye witnesses testomony not enough?
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke
The evidence your bringing up is in the bible, thus my argument on B remains the same.
And no...
There are thousands of eye witnesses to alien abduction. Those same people have written countless letters to the governments, churches, medical field professionals--doesn't mean those thousands of stories are any more true than the first 4. In todays world where stories can be proven, there are oddly no more biblical stories taking place...
At least none credible...
JemmetGK 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke
...that really only had little to do with god except to spark them.
C- They were preserved in the same way Homer's Iliad or Gilgamesh were preserved, why aren't they gospel?
The bible literally says it is it's own evidence of the truth. That's RUBBISH! That would be in the same vain as my killing a man, then my CLAIMING I didn't do it is evidence that I didn't do it.
I'm sorry to say a fellow countryman failed to inteligently answer "Why God won't heal amputees"
JemmetGK 1 year ago
@JemmetGK C- No they wern't. People don't build churches to fiction. Also, the romans hunted down the gospel authors to end the legitimacy eye witnesses offered. The Romans don't take that kind of threat seriously if there is no evidence behind it.
It is not the same as you claiming you didn't do something. It is the same as four people seeing someone do something or not, writing it down, and then everyone else agreeing with those statements and asking what it means.
SFRobertsDickClarke 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke
People NEVER STOPPED building churches to fiction. Look at Star Trek and Star Wars. The Romans *spit* hunted down those spreading this "word" to the masses. They were interupting societal casting by spouting that everyone was equal and didn't have to cater to anyone else. Thus the Roman order disintegrated and Rome fell. As in every war there's a is the conquered and victorious and history is written by the victors.
JemmetGK 1 year ago
@SFRobertsDickClarke
Here's a question for you: why are stories from the bible, that are being scrutinized today, failing to stand up to scientific reasoning and crumbling like something in a Mythbuster's segment?
JemmetGK 1 year ago
@henrybronxboy Because of the nature of the history that they were in and that surounds them.
SFRobertsDickClarke 8 months ago
if i'd lost a limb and someone healed me i would love that person.
avo8 2 years ago
No, you wouldn't. You'd love what they did for you. To love the person takes a relationship of some kind with them.
SFRobertsDickClarke 2 years ago
The reason God does not do a bunch of miracles now is, because miracles are not needed now. Let me expand, back then they did not have a Bible (a completed one more of). So the people who were writing it, claiming that it was coming directly from God needed to PROVE that the writings were true. They did so through miraculous actions. Nowadays, we have the Bible. We don't need miracles, because the Bible is complete.
Korther 2 years ago
No, we have not misunderstood anything. You claim God will relieve us of our sins if we pray and repent. When I was young, I was a devout believer, and I prayed to God multiple times a day, often crying out of shame and pain, that he turn me strait. I didn't want to be Gay, I didn't CHOOSE to be ostracized by my culture and walk a path that was deviant from my God. Please explain to me why your "God" would deny a 6th grader his prayer to be the Christian he "writes" for us to be in his Bible.
OAkritas 3 years ago
I don't say God will stop us sinning automatically. I say that God will forgive our sins and help us.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
@OAkritas: I can not give you a definitive answer here, because I do not know you. However, allow me to go on a small limb here. Praying, going to church, etc makes you as much of a Christian as standing in a garage makes you a car. The bottom line is, basically, you allowed Sin to overwhelm you. You let worldly pleasures take you over, quite bluntly. And please don't use the "innocent child" argument thing there. You were a sinner, and you did not accept Jesus' gift and let sin take you.
Korther 2 years ago
proof denies faith-God is real so you lose faith in him but yet in your other "God's a rockstar" video if he showed himself he would have rockstar status. Which one is it? "you would have to love him because he is that awesome" so god would take away our freedom of choice. Why do you try to "prove" your faith? With every video you make you are trying to prove that christianity is whats right, sort of like commercials for your religion. God used a lot of magic in the bible, how come not now?
sharethewealth03 3 years ago
if god knows whats best for u why bother ask??
crisis902 3 years ago
SFRobertsDickClarke, drop the sackcloth and ashes! Believe that what you have already prayed has been answered. Otherwise, why pray? ABOVE ALL: be honest with God. Or pay the price...
ZotDudot7 3 years ago
Again, your claims in this video are ridiculous. Knowing that someone exists doesn't automatically make me love them. And, if the person really is so awesome that you couldn't help but love them, why is knowing that wrong? The Christians would have us believe that the truth is terrible, it is better you love God because you don't really KNOW he's great, than that you love him for who he really is. Ridiculous, as is most of Christianity. Dump the religion and save your brain.
JasawChan 3 years ago
Knowing that another human exists, yes, but with God its a whole differnt situation.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
If prayer doesn't get you what you want, and instead, you merely hope that it lines up with your deities' desires, you admit then that prayer is useless and the act of praying illogical. Yet... you still think that believing in an imaginary being is logical... Fail video is fail.
You are mentally handicapped by religion.
truthnotsuperstition 3 years ago
No, I'm simply saying that Prayers puprose is not to do with the things most people associate it with. I recomend you watch Rob Bell's Nooma video on the subject.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
In his nonsensical fundamentalist babble, Rob Bell somehow stumbles out with something along the lines of 'everything happens according to God's will', and that prayer is more a way of asking that 'his will' will somehow happen to help you.
How exactly does this make prayer anything less than completely stupid? Essentially you can wish for whatever the fuck you want, and if you get disappointed, you'll cheer yourself up by saying "s'okay, it's God's will, AMEN!".
You're a fucking lunatic.
truthnotsuperstition 3 years ago
Have you actually watched Rob Bell's video on Prayer? If not let me enlighten you. Let me put it this way, in any personal relationship, friendship, family or parnter etc, do you only talk to them to influence them, to make them do what you want? I sincerely hope not.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"Let me put it this way, in any personal relationship, friendship, family or parnter etc, do you only talk to them to influence them, to make them do what you want?"
The difference between this, or even just talking to friends/family is they exist. Your 'god' does not.
truthnotsuperstition 3 years ago
You're completely dodging the issue now. In your original point you were using the hypothetical example that God does exist and Prayer etc to show why you thought it was stupid. Now your just jumping back to your beliefs. You believe he doesn't exist, but you cannot prove it. I conversely cannot prove that he does, not to 100% certianty at any rate.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
"You're completely dodging the issue now."
You being an idiot doesn't mean I'm dodging the issue. Someone who wasn't mentally challenged would have seen the point is, prayer accomplishes nothing. Zero. Scientific studies have shown this. You've admitted it. The video link you gave admitted it. Regardless of a 'god' or not, and regardless of 'prayer', life will not change. The prayer still results in a waste of time.
truthnotsuperstition 3 years ago
Your still misunderstanding the purpose of Prayer. It isn't to command God to do what we want, it isn't to compell God into bending to our will. Its to develop and deapen our relationship with him, the same way that talking openly to your family and friends deapens your relationship with them.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
What kind of relationship do you have with this "God" of yours? Do you guys play street hockey together? Grab a beer on the weekend at the local pub? No, you don't even go running with him as you would with a dog that you could legitimately say you had a relationship with. Your "relationship" with God consists of you talking and then you interpreting feelings you get in your gut as "communication" from God. Sorry, but bad burritos are a better interpretation of that.
JasawChan 3 years ago
No, SF you are wrong. You are actually going against what many tele evangelists and christians have been doing. I know, I was a member of the 700 club. They use prayer a way to get things they want. They pray to heal people and even to get out of financial trouble. You and I know many many christians and christian leaders use it this way. And BTW JESUS himself said that prayer could do anything.
easeconnect 3 years ago
Jesus saidL - if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you. so that is why this question has been asked, why are there not more healings, miracles? Hmmm maybe we dont have enough faith???
easeconnect 3 years ago
If God doesn't want to push the boundaries of physics then why the heck would Jesus go around walking on water? Or healing the dead? You're simply proving the point made in the video you are ostensibly replying to. And for the record, someone could easily choose to not love an awesome being you know exists; that is exactly what Christians claim Satan did. He knew God existed; interacted with him intimately and yet still rebelled against him. Your own faith contradicts your claims here.
JasawChan 3 years ago
This is idiotic; I'm sorry, but it is. If I have a boyfriend/girlfriend I've only known via email my love doesn't evaporate if I happen to meet them in real life. What an absolutely idiotic argument, but I understand why you've thrown it out here; you've seen so many fellow Christians trot it out so you assume it has to be true. Proof doesn't destroy love and faith based upon no proof is nothing we should promote at all.
JasawChan 3 years ago
Your example uses people, and ulitmately people are all equal. However with God its a diffrent matter. He is so amazing, powerful, gracious etc that you would want to if you could understand him in his entirity. Your example doesn't work here.
However a better example of where proof damages love is when people fail to trust their partners and start snooping on them etc.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
that implies you can only love something we cannot see. that we can only love something if u put your faith and trust in it. what poor rationalisation... i know of flowers, i have SEEN flowers, and i love them, i have proof but still love them... i have a father, WHOM I CAN SEE PROOF OF, and i love him... etc etc
smithhedgehog 3 years ago
what a strawmen argument "if i prove to you, you wouldn't love him!!"- WHAT!!!!
smithhedgehog 3 years ago
And I just wanted to bring out that scientists say this world could feed all its inhabitants throughout eternity many times over. If that's a little unclear to anyone, it means nobody should ever go hungry with all the natural resources on this planet. I would just like to bring out the situation in Myanmar as an example. The cyclone that struck devastated a lot of people there, but the government took much of the resources sent by America for its military. It's just sad.
StonedEmoKid 3 years ago
Wow...very good points. Thank you. People expect God to do everything for them. Mankind got itself into this situation (Adam and Eve) and now he's offering the best possible way out, and everyone is blaming him. Well I hope that as a person who can articulate, especially to what I am thinking every time I hear videos like the one you responded to, far better than I can that you continue to do so. =)
StonedEmoKid 3 years ago
Also, your "free will" argument runs into further roadblocks when you consider the will of the powerful being imposed upon those less powerful to their detriment, and a supposedly all powerful being allowing this. Also, certainty does not remove the choice of love. If I knew for a fact that your god existed, I would hate it for what it has allowed.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
What your talking about there with the will of the powerful etc is sin. And as I said, God allows sin because he in turn allows people free will because he wants them to love
He has allowed it but he will also punish it at the end.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Free will is an illusion. Ask yourself; why did Adam and Eve choose to disobey God in the first place? Obviously they had a strong ego and a desire to do their own thing and disobey authority figures. But who gave them that desire? Not themselves, that's for sure. The only person that could have given them such desires is God himself. And so only God can be ultimately responsible for the sin of Adam and Eve. It is much simpler to consider this story of Adam and Eve to be an ancient myth.
JasawChan 3 years ago
Wow, more cop-outs on your starving millions answer. God dictates rainfall and drought, therefore, he controls the food productivity in the regions where he creates all those people. Plus, Christians don't go on missions to Africa solely for altruistic reasons. There's usually a stack of bibles following in their wake to convert more vulnerable downtrodden to the cult. You really try hard to let the magic fairy in the sky off the hook when world events belie a "perfect" overseer.
uccomic 3 years ago
By arguing that God has contorl over the weather therefore he should control the food, your moving into an area of logic thats flawed. So God has to solve the starving millions problems, does he also have to solve the murders, the wars etc. And if he does does he have to stop the layoffs, the resecsions. And if he does does he then have to stop the thieves and the muggers. And if he does, does he have to...the point is your arguing from extreme, not principle. Why does God have to make...
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
...everyones life perfect. Ultimately we as a species have responsability too. Progression of the logic you use here is ultimately that God should solve our every need all the time. Humans have some responsability here.
Also, so what if they bring Bibles. From their perspective, thats alturisim. Bringing people salvation. You may not agree but it doesnt make them wrong and you right.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
You really have a "hands off" view of god that is contrary to most religious people who thank god for everything from getting a promotion to scoring a touchdown.
uccomic 3 years ago
God helps us when we accept his help. He doesnt shield us from the consequences of our actions. If we move in a direction of a goal that in our own power perhaps we cannot achieve, and it is in accordance with his will, he will help us. What he won't do is protect us from the consequences of our actions when we sin. By your logic, we remove all personal responsability and put it on God. Thats not what Christianity says.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Answer me this, in your vision by your logic, if God does exist and his job is to make everyones lives better, where do you draw the line. Where does God's responsability end and our responsability take over? If rich countries have ripped it out of Africa, does that then mean God should interviene making it massively productive. Doesnt that defeat the point of the responsability of those rich countries? They can just rip it out more as there are no consequences, God will solve it...
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
I've heard Christians say that God created us, "loves" us, gives us free will but ultimately hopes we'll welcome him and choose him and not get lured away by Satan. So, if God is creating people for the sake of joining him in heaven, why did he slay so many infants in the tsunami, thus denying them the chance to find their way to him. He makes them then almost immediately slays them?
uccomic 3 years ago
God is not responsable for the creation of those infants in the same way he is responsable for the creation of humanity. One is direct, the other is indirect.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
You sound like much more of a deist than a theist, as in God set the wheels in motion but doesn't have a hand in affairs day to day. It's an easier premise to buy than say most Americans who think that God has a hand in the everyday minutia of their lives, and at least somewhat explains the random shit that happens to even good people. BUT...which god? Maybe the Muslims have it right. Maybe the Hindus. Do you believe in the Bible as the word of God?
uccomic 3 years ago
He does have a hand in things, but the nature of his hand is more complicated than we can imagine. There is direct, indirect, suggestion, inspiriation, moving of the holy spirit, all sorts of things.
And yes I do believe in the God of the Bible.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
So I guess you believe in stoning people who work the Sabbath. That's in your book. Or slaughtering homosexuals. That's in your book. Or killing your teenager if they come home intoxicated. Or that you can drink poisin without harm. Or a man lived inside a whale for 3 days. All those things are in your book. Pretty wacked if you ask me.
uccomic 3 years ago
Look up the differnce between the Old and New covenant on the laws front. As for the accounts, yes I do believe them.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Jesus contradicts the idea of separate covenants, stating "not a jot or a tittle" of the old law was to be altered.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
Yes, which is why he says that he is here not to remove the law, but to fufill it.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Exactly; to fulfill a law that insists upon stoning as infidels those who break the sabbath.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
Too complicated for us to imagine.
Translation: makes no fucking sense.
Amen.
uccomic 3 years ago
Not always, we can make sense of it on occasion, but not always. Look at the life of Ruth for instance. At first she must have been sad beyond description. Immidately after her and her sister got married, both their husbands die. That would have been exceptionally awful. But she left with Naomi back to Israel and there met the man who, when she married him, would create linage to David, who then could take haven in Moab, Ruth being a Moabite herself. God plays the long game, sometimes very long
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Copied & pasted; user Vitamin B100:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... yeah, makes perfect sense.
As you can see the bible makes very little sense at all.
Jonah didn't live in a fish for 3 days.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
Once again, a Christian has failed to answer the amputee question. The simple answer that perfectly explains it, is that there isn't a god. Period. Please tell me how my answer could be wrong. It has nothing to do with whether you or I think there is a god. My answer of "there is no god" 100% explains why amputees aren't healed by god. Your "answer" merely opines on why god wouldn't want some "showy" display of his existance. It's not an answer to the question.
uccomic 3 years ago
Its an answer that does make sense, its possible. Your answer also makes sense, but it makes the situation even worse for the amputee. Lets say your right, there is no God. Well then, that means that nothing 'wrong' happened to the amputee since there is no objective right or wrong also. There is what people beleive to be right and wrong, but that could be inverted and it wouldn't matter, sincen nothing would be objective...
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Right or wrong doesn't apply to an injury. If somebody stupidly put his arm in a crocodile pen, then losing that arm is a logical consequence, not neccessarily "right or wrong". Is or Isn't applies. An injury isn't a question of morality. Answer this: all kinds of Christians claim the Lord heals their "invisible" ailments like arthritis or cancer. Is that all bullshit? Does praying work?
uccomic 3 years ago
Praying doesn't work like a system or a principle of the universe (IE if I pray this much or for this thing then I will get it). Prayer is much more complicated than that. Ultimately it is about putting our trust in God. Sometimes he will respond to that, sometimes he won't. Prayer isn't a system that gives us everything we want, it gives us what we need. By praying, we're placing our faith in God...
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Sometimes he will and sometimes he won't? He NEVER does for amputees. And giving us what we need? Are you telling me a quadruple amputee couldn't use some new limbs?
By the way, the on-again off-again arbritrary way prayers are answered is quite simply a Christian rationalization for the randomness of a god-less world. "Strange ways" huh?
uccomic 3 years ago
Its also true that the African continent could use a great deal of food. See the earlier point I made about that. Also, although I have no direct proof, many people I know say they have indeed seen "Creative miricles" of limb regrowth etc. Ironically this sort of thing is in Africa and the other developing parts of the world, mainly because (I think) they have more faith due to their circumstance. I don't know, just a thought. I don't know for certian if it happens, but still its interesting.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
...we're expressing the fact that we believes he knows whats best. We place our faith in him.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Right at 4 min you bump right into the problem of evil and don't even know it. If I knew, objectively, that god existed I'd wanna know why it allows what it does. God cannot be both all powerful and all good, this objection to faith has been around since ancient Greece, and never overcome logically.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
Actually it can be overcome. The simple fact is this. Evil exists because free will exists. Free will exists because God wanted free will exists. God wanted free will to exist because he wanted us to have the capacity to love. Love at some level requires choice, choice requires free will.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Nonsense, children born with heart defects suffer an evil that has nothing to do with free will.
JoeyMarvelous07 3 years ago
They suffer, but is it indeed an evil? I believe that the reason for that is because we live in a fallen world because of sin. People do not suffer because of their own choices only. They suffer also because of other peoples choices.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
#1. "If I prove to you objectively that God does exist it's very difficult now for you to love him".
#2. If I proved all of the amazing things I know about God then you wouldn't be able to choose to love him or not, you would simply have to".
SF, don't your comments contradict each other? Now I'm confused. Will proof make it difficult for me to love him or make me have to?
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
The nature of God and proving his existance would make you feel a way for God that would look a lot like love, but wouldn't be love because it would not invovle choice. I should have made that clearer
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Actually it's exactly what you said but I will accept your latest post as an explanation of what you meant. I disagree with your theory that proof denies faith and without faith you cannot love God. Proof of God would only confirm ones faith. Proof can never be used to deny whatever it just proved to be true. Faith is not limited to existence. Is my God the correct God? Is he the only God? Is he good or evil? Many avenues left open to apply your faith if you feel it is necessary to love God.
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
God helps Africa by working through Christians? And those same Christians teach their dogma along with that help. Teaching that condom use is sinful where AIDS claims millions of lives annually is nothing short of genocidal. Who needs that kind of help?
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
Did I at any point say I'm a Catholic? The biblical nature of contriception is another issue. I see nothing wrong with it myself. I also didn't say that Christians were perfect, so your point is moot.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Did I at any point say my response had anything to do with you. You stated that Christians were helping in Africa. I responded to that by saying that teaching that condom use is sinful is tantamount to genocide. Catholics are still Christians, aren't they? Or do you take the stance that they are not proper Christians? That would be your right, just as it is my right to think all religions do far more harm then they do good.
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
I take the stance that that particular belief is not biblical. However AIDS would be stoped dead in its tracks if everyone listened to the Bible (IE waited untill they were married to make love to only that partner for the rest of their lives together)
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Proof denying faith means simply that if you prove it then it isn't faith anymore so it isn't that same kind of love
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Let's say that I give you a box that contained irrefutable proof that God existed to do with as you wish. Do you hold a press conference to get this news out or do you hide it from the world? Without a doubt you would hold a press conference. So to say that love from faith is somehow better then love from proof is just how Christians rationalize. Only in religion is belief without proof (faith) seen as a virtue.
dunwrkn4 3 years ago
Love from faith is choice. Its not a virtue in so far as we want no proof. We have proof and evidence but only up to a point. If you prove it all the way, it no longer is a choice and its not the kind of love God wants. It would be very easy for him to do that. But he doesn't because that would be breaking our free will. Love is far more beautiful when there is choice involved. To prove would be to remove choice.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
Proof denys faith becuase it no longer is faith. It is just understanding.
SFRobertsDickClarke 3 years ago
your god hides behind a wall of clauses why would a real god do that? if there was a god, we'll know because it'll be a part of our lives like water, trees, air, animals. he wouldn't hide in a book and in our minds. funny, the other things that do that are dragons, pixies and tooth fairies, notice something?
Sentinen 3 years ago