How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
If you can show millions of transformed lives because of the phone thing I may indeed get rid of mine. We need to go by evidence not empty philosophy.
Why would someone be an atheist because they wanted to, not because of logic? Who wants death to be oblivion instead of paradise? Theists are the ones that have everything to lose in a debate while atheists are the ones that have everything to gain. I think Ravi has it backwards.
@atheist976 Why atheism? To get away from being held accountable for all the wrongs a person has done in their entire lives.. Getting rid of the jail itself rather than face the charges is a powerful motivation for atheism. YOU'RE COMPLETELY RESOLVED OF ALL JUDGEMENTS AGAINST YOUR WRONG DOINGS.
Glad to see an atheist that admits oblivion is an unpleasant idea as well.
@SanEverett Why would someone become an atheist to “get away” with their wrong doings? If you thought you were in danger of going to hell why would you pretend not to believe in god? I don’t think many people covert to atheism because they fear hell...
@atheist976 Sure they do... Lets be realistic here. To live a life completely on your own terms and away from any supreme judgements of your character is a very alluring reason to become an atheist. Especially for those who are coming from the theism side. I'm not saying its everyones motivation but certainly an option in motivations you have to admit.
@atheist976 Sure they do... Lets be realistic here. To live a life completely on your own terms and away from any supreme judgements of your character is a very alluring reason to become an atheist. Especially for those who are coming from the theism side. I'm not saying its everyones motivation but certainly an option in motivations you have to admit.
@atheist976 Sure they do... Lets be realistic here. To live a life completely on your own terms and away from any supreme judgements of your character is a very alluring reason to become an atheist. Especially for those who are coming from the theism side. I'm not saying its everyones motivation but certainly an option in motivations you have to admit.
@SanEverett Being an atheist keeps you safe from the police? I highly doubt anyone throws caution to the wind and goes on a killing spree because they don’t have to go to hell. You really think we are all that naturally evil? I think most atheists would agree crime is wrong and the ones that don’t are still afraid of going to jail or being a social outcasts… Many people are afraid of dying so the hope for an eternal paradise.
@atheist976 There is a difference between punishment for crimes and theism or atheism. Many are not so afraid of dying because of the hope of eternal life. What exactly does atheism offer? Because many atheists talk about being 'set free'. My question to you is free from what? Because when you really dissect atheism its freedom from rules basically. Because man made laws change with the times so they are not objective.
But to be set free from ETERNAL rules THAT is powerful motivation indeed !
@SanEverett So you think people become atheists so they don’t have to have morals? I can assure you I did not become an atheist so I could get away with murder on an objective standpoint. And I doubt you will find very many who have…when they say “set free” I think they are referring to not having to do gods biding in order to evade hell. As in they don’t have to go to church, not eat meat, bow down, or pray a certain number of times a day in order to avoid torture.
@atheist976 What I've been told by other atheists is not what you've stated at all. I understand your views are unique.And like I said not all have the same motivations for atheism I hope you would agree
But rituals have nothing to do with there being a God or atheism in particular. Because if there is a god we bloody well better perform its rituals,or be a fool.. Point being the 'freedom' doesn't come from a lack of rituals no more than me feeling free that todays not sunday so I can sleep in.
@SanEverett Well you are free from Sunday because technically “Sunday” does not exist. It’s the behavior of the humans around you that’s makes “Sunday” and nothing else. Without humans there is no “Sunday”…and are you using Pascal’s Wager when you say we would be a fool’s not to believe in god?
@SanEverett They might not exist but you still have to go through the motions. An atheist might feel free from having to behave a certain way (completing rituals) in order to avoid hell. Once they become atheists they consider themselves “free”. You think they mean free from morals but I’m sayings they mean free from rituals. But, I agree that people don’t turn to atheism because of that.
@atheist976 Atheism is a belief about God NOT rituals. Rituals have nothing to do with theism or atheism. Thats the distinction I was making.
You seem to think rituals have something to do with theism and they don't AT ALL.
As far as your 'pascal' point. Its not pascals point..Theist say it all the time who know nothing of pascal. Its just common sense. (If God exists your screwed) (If he does not it matters not to me) Why gamble??
@SanEverett I never said theism was all about rituals. You originally said atheists kept telling you they were “free”. You think they mean free from morals but I’m saying they probably mean free from rituals when they say that. Not that thats the only reason they turned to atheism, thats just what the feel "free" from.
@SanEverett I just got a message from Allah. He says anyone who doesn’t destroy their phone in the next 24 hours will be sent to a terrible place far more deadly than the Christian hell. Your family and friends will also join your for eternity!
If I’m right you can avoid eternal torture for yourself and loved ones! If I’m wrong, so what you lose some money for a new phone. Have you destroyed you phone? Why gamble? It’s common sense!
@SanEverett No, I am offering you an alternative when you say people become atheists to escape morals. I think we can agree my version is much more probable and you have not met an atheist says they are happy to be free of morals.
The issue is not which god to believe in, the issue is according to you, someone would lack common sense buy not destroying their phone with the threat of a hell. I take it you didn’t dispose of yours. I thought it was common sense?
@atheist976 I never mentioned the word morals once. So your point makes no sense.And you might want to look up the word theism and atheism neither has anything to do with rituals. You're completely off topic here.
@SanEverett Theism can defiantly involve rituals? Check any available history book...you originally said "atheists tell me they are free”…then said you thought they meant free from being held accountable for their actions(moral law)..and I’m saying that’s not true. That was our original conversation. If they were free from anything it would be doing goes biding(rituals/ or certain behaviors).
@atheist976 Look in the dictionary for definitions ok? Theism and atheism.. It does not say theism is the practice of rituals!! Ok?
Before we can talk about the other points I made we need to have the same understanding of terms. If you continue to respond with the understanding that theism is something its not your comments are incoherent. Some theists do rituals some do not but it has NOTHING to do with the DEFINITION.
@atheist976 And your phone analogy fails as well.Because you need to provide a case for it. I have historical evidence of the bibles accuracy. I'm not trying to trick you you are trying to trick me with that analogy.And my common sense view is much more believable than something noone has ever heard of likey your analogy.
Do you agree with the following. Atheism is the view there is no god?
@SanEverett Regardless of how much evidence there is you said it was common sense not to gamble. So you need evidence to believe in my analogy? Well, that is part of the reason I don’t believe in god. Just as you don’t believe in the phone analogy I don’t believe in god; which is why neither of us is worried of going to hell. The phone analogy supports what atheists have been saying over and over.
@atheist976 I already said noone has heard of the phone thing?? But you are claiming thats just as believable as hundreds of millions who believe in God. And your calling THAT common sense. And no other atheist has heard of the phone situation either.And your trying to use that as common sense.
@SanEverett I have never once said rituals where in the definition of theism. All I said was theism CAN involve rituals. And that’s likely what atheists say they are ‘free’ from. Not moral laws like you claim. I don’t know how to make that more clear.
@SanEverett You are proving my point. You say you need evidence to believe in my phone analogy. That’s exactly my response to Christianity. I’m not going to believe in god because of the threat of hell(that what Pascal’s point is)….You said it was common sense to not gamble and go ahead and believe in god no matter what just in case hell exists. Which is why, according to the phone analogy, you would lack common sense if you didn’t destroy your phone just in case my hell exists.
@SanEverett The phone analogy is just meant to show that Pascal’s wager is not a good argument. If we are moving onto evidence then you are right, the bible is more credible then my phone scenario. I was just pointing out believing in god just in case hell exists is not common sense.
@atheist976 I think its a pretend game to think the after life 'if there's one' is not the most important question for anyone. With that knowledge in itself it is common sense to weigh the religions to see if one seems more plausible. the term 'common sense' we can define different ways but I hold it IS common sense for the after life question to be taken seriously is my point. And yes in light of hell or in buddhism returning as an insect,is still common sense to take the issue seriously.
@atheist976 Your whole stand point is from the perception that reality can somehow be bent to your will by what you choose to beleive. No matter what you choose to beleive, reality is just that, reality. If I told myself before goin outside one day that on this day the sky would be purple, and I beleived it with all my heart, it still would not be purple. In the same sense if hell is real, then choosing not to beleive in God doesnt free you from it, rather it garuntees it.
@atheist976 A killing spree is an extreme example, but I live in Angeles city Philippines, and their are several hundred brothels, bars, casinos, etc .... . Many 60 year old men have 10 different 20 year old girlfriends, they get bored of it gamble, drink themselves into oblivion, and say .... this is heaven on earth. I am only 31, Their are drop dead gorgeous girls everywhere and I'm a prime target wealthy and 31 ... but my consciounce wont allow me to take advantage of the situation.
@atheist976 However, If i were Atheist, I need not feel guilty about sleeping with a different model caliber girl every night. The only real deterrent would be the occasional hang over. At 31 I've been told to just enjoy it while I'm young (been here since I was 25). I can worry about finding God later, etc. I am sure many celebrities with similar circumstance find the option of just enjoying it now and worrying about God later very appealing. This may not apply to you, But that is his point.
Physical scientists do not try to disprove creationism. Creationism is an irrelevant fantasy. It is of interest to sociologists and psychologists to whom mass delusion is important.
Very True Ravi, atheistic scientists angle in their research is to disprove creationism at its root. But it must be said that there are a lot of scientists that went on to believe creationism because of their research.
Who the hell is this pompous guy talking to? Has he, through his intellect ever brought one unregenerate man into God's kingdom? It's impossible, with all Ravi's degree's to save one man.
Starting your speech with a false dichotomy isn't the best way to make a point. Especially when painting the opponent of your position as believing things nobody actually believes.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Time plus matter plus chance - what the fuck? My friend - Who, what his/her name?
Was' a doctorial student at a "very prestigious school" - What school, what is the name of the school? "my course is designed to knock the idea of God out of any of your minds" - what course" = what course, what was the course called? The FACT of the matter is that science has Not disproven the existence of God - why would science attempt to 'disprove' a negative? This man is a charlatan..
you are really shallow in every questions u asked... can see that you are really not well informed. Definitely you are not morally grounded in anything good..no wonder you are so loose in your comments.
Now... I think it's good that people can find a purpose in their life. I don't think people need a God or holy book to find purpose. It's nice that people can find meaning through religion or theism but I don't think it's good if people have to accept other illogical things because of that particular religion. If someone honestly thinks there are good arguments for the existence of God, out there, then please message me because I don't want to be ignorant now.
Literally, the Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other unbelievers:
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Sura 5, verse 51).
I feel sorry for theists... do not take this comment offensively... I just wish for all of you guys to critically examine all the arguments FOR God and all the arguments AGAINST God's existence. DO extensive reasearch and then come to a rational conclusion...
I was thinking the same thing but on the contrary, I thought that about atheists. I'm not writing this just to write it, I honestly can't figure out 1 good argument against God's existence. This is absolutely no reason to follow God but if you think about it we live a more fulfiling lives than atheists. For atheists you have to make up your own purpose or reason for life and in your world view your reason is no better than ours. So don't worry about it your not the one that has to feel sorry.
Please Pay Attention. This actually shows your lack of attention and critical analysis. I stated Before hand this was not a argument for God's existence or a reason to follow him. The point is that In your world view purpose and meaning is no better than the anyone else's. It is subject to every individual, were as our world view we have a meaning and purpose beyond our preference. So There Is No Logical Reason For You To Feel Sorry Were We Have Every Reason To Feel Sorry For You. Pay Attention
Okay. So we shouldn't feel sorry for you (I'm referring to theists) because you live happier and more fulfilling lives than us. Okay... well, that's nice. It's good to have purpose and fulfillment in your life, but if it comes from a lie then is it really worthwhile? Well, I guess that depends on the person. Now many people don't believe theism is a lie (I know that), but too many religious people have not honestly analyzed the arguments for God's existence and against God's existence.
I'm glad that we could agree on something. You're right many people do believe without thinking about it but that applies to both sides. because a person don't believe in God that doesn't automatically mean that they thought about it. So with that I still strongly believe more Theists should analyze the reasons why they believe what they do. We need stronger Theists.
(sorry I hope nothing happens. I accidentally marked 'Spam' when I meant to hit 'Reply')
Yes, I'm glad we can agree on that. There are of course atheists that don't really think through the whole process of why they don't believe in god(s), etc. There are too many people who don't think it through. However, I think that theists are more responsible for it simply because most people are raised theists and not as atheists. There is so much ignorance that I am faced with when I encounter some
theists that it really annoys me and disgusts me. I am never hostile and simply try to explain why I'm an atheist, but the way they tackle my question or question my 'disbelief' reveals their ignorance.. Now I have no hatred towards them or anything but there is simply so much ignorance and such a great lack of thinking put into their belief/ religious stance that it bothers me. Yes, I know atheists are guilty too but I haven't really encountered any of those types of atheists yet..
Lee Strobel wrote "The Case for Faith", as well as others. These books came about, because as an atheist, he was tired of "the ignorance" of religion. Christianity in particular. He sought to disprove the Bible, and subsequently "got saved". He was an "honest skeptic". He did'nt disbelieve just because, he worked to disprove religion. His books are compilations of interviews of multiple scientists. Are you an "honest skeptic"? Check out his books...I'll be praying for you. Be Blessed
I like to hear some debate on is jesus god or not?. I say he is not go, i don't what other's say. But I believe, there is only one God. There is no contradiction in it.
I don't know if this answers your question but, Christian theism believes that Jesus represents God incarnate (in flesh). Jesus is a part of a triune (three in one) God. So to say Jesus is God is simplistic but not completelt false. God's spirit (the Holy Spirit) is also a part of this trinity. Zacharias will actually argue that this "community" conforms to our ideas of reality because the trinity represents diversity and unity, something which we have tried to explain for centuries. Make sense?
If you dont care what others say, then you have no hope of meaningful debate. Just a question, if God is all powerful then could He not represent himself in three personhoods? I am sure you dont believe that God is subpotent. Keep searching alays ;) And once you find the treasure, study it and polish it till its wort shines thru you! God bless
If we are all equal to god why were the Disciples giving more evidence that god exist than we are today, they saw miracles and people raising from the dead and yet all we get if have faith? How can any intelligent being be so dishonest?
Christians often answer the question why does god not heal amputees with a rhetorical question of why should god heal amputees well because he said he would. In Matthew 21.22, John 16:23 and Mark 11.24 he said anything you ask for you shall be given. So does this make Jesus not the son of god or does it just mean god is a liar?
If Christianity is real why so many Hoaxes, everything from weeping statues, placebo cures, the Shroud of Turin, Books left out the Bible, and people using the Bible to make money and we are supposed to believe that it is real? If the Bible gives so much truth then why are Christians so dishonest? Also why do they have to censor everyone? ExtantDodo has been suspended by false DMCA claims 4 times, why would you do that if you have the truth on your side?
Real simple... The world, the ways of the world and people of the world opposes truth and has a burning to suppress the truth and will use to whatever means to do it. All those things are examples man taking God's truth using for his own purposes including the so-called "Books left out of the Bible".
Does god lie? Well according to Hebrews 6:18 and Titus 1:2 he cannot but according to other sources such as Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and 2 Chronicles 18:22 god most certainly does and he admits it. So is the Bible trust worthy? No!!!!!!
For you to understand the bible you must understand the figures of speech in the Hebrew and Greek it was written in. Ezekiel 14 is dealing with false prophets-know the context. 2 Thess 2:ll is dealing with people who reject Christ, in coming of the Lord. I can go on and on, but you don't know how to read the bible in the proper context so I suggest you learn the language first then comment.
Dude , will you please refer to the verses you have referred. Plzzz... i think you should know the context. you can't just refer to one verse to support your theory dude.
"SEEK". He is there. Do not take my word, but His Word. Let go of this world and there ways. You can know God today. You can know Truth. Its all in one name. Jesus Christ. Glory to God.
I love how you accuse Hairyreasoner for deleting your comments after you spammed his video but I leave a few on your channel and you block me with out even refuting a single point. So I ask Nephilimfree, why the hypocrisy? Why not actually respond to what others are saying?
Yes the LOVE of God is sooo precious and yes beyond, absolutely 100%, stupendously, wondrously beyond mere human reasoning!! We just cannot truly fathom that kind of love--the love that would die for us!!
A TRUE FOLLOWER OF CHRIST DOES NOT CALL ANY ONE STUPID ..CAUSE A TRUE FOLLOWER KNOW THAT EVERYONE WHO DOSE NOT LIVE HE'S, OR HER LIFE ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD IS STILL ATTACH TO THE WORLD...WE MUST NOT TAKE AWAY OR SUBTRACT FROM THE BIBLE TO MAKE OUR OWN PATH
THE MORMONS ARE JUST ONE OF MANY WHO HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE THEYR OWN PATH..BUT WHATS SO UNIC ABOUT THE BIBLE, IS THAT IT TELLS YOU THAT MEN WILL DO THIS..lol...AND WE STILL ASKING WHATS THE RIGHT PATH...LIVE THE BIBLE NOT RELIGIONS....
Deny God and one lacks the necessary a priori conditions for the universals and immutables of the Laws of Logic, the universal and immutable God supplies such; the laws of logic are necessary and certain, thus so is God.
Naturalistic philosophy is banal to it's own purpose in the fact that it has to jump to a particular conclusion that it can't prove to even exist.
The whole "Give me a Reason to believe" thing presupposes without any evidence that we are... reasonable... creatures. Playing by Darwinian rules however guarantees nothing of the sort. Logic and reason have no reasonable defense when intentional purpose for their being is put out of the picture.
"banal to its own purpose..." (?) Do you even know what banal means? Banal is "lacking originality". What you have said is NOT a dig at science. Science does not strive to be original, it strives to get things as they really are, it strives to make a copy or a model of reality.
Saying "give me a reason to believe" in the mouth of a scientist is NOT a request for "reason" (as in logic), but a request for PROOF, as in experiences which can easily be seen.
I think that discussion goes well when nothing is attacked, but rather that ideas are presented. I was once a bit agnostic as well, so I understand where your'e coming from.
Personally, what convinced me was not necessarily scientific evidence, although I saw plenty of that. It was when I became aware that all things can't by nature exist unto themselves... including my mind.
Read up on logic and reason, Ravi. Science does not have to prove the non-existence of the supernatural. The onus is on the one making the claim—so where's your evidence? Educate yourself, instead of wallowing in ancient hateful scripts filled with rape, genocide and human sacrifice. Your voiced fervor doesn't stand up to logic and reason. But go ahead and be a sheep and buy your ticket to Ben Stein's latest joke of a movie. I'm sure you and your deluded followers will dig it.
TruthSeeker, logic and reason are "Claims" that you are making. Where's the evidence then that logic and reason can exist? I think Ravi makes some good points. When you take books that teach about logic and reason to heart, you are accepting without evidence... a claim. Give some evidence why logic and reason can exist. No, the weight is not just on the believer. By accepting reason and logic, you are defaulting to a position of faith. Who are you to say what is logical and reasonable?
I appreciate your tolerate reply; my comment was less than tolerant. However, I believe strongly that the observable universe is much more 'real' than the supernatural. The ideas of science appeal to me much more than many in the Bible. But, like the great skeptic Michael Shermer puts it, 'I could be wrong'. Are you willing to make the same stmt? We're all just trying to find our way, aren't we? That's very cool that you're into astronomy. The pics from the Hubble fill my mind with wonder.
Hey, don't worry about it. I understand when others people get defensive, as I have also done it at times. I don't think anyone is guiltless. :)
Would I admit that I could be wrong about my faith? The thing about faith is that it's placed by necessity without a full disclosure of proof. So, even skeptics and atheists adhere to it. Naturalism having never disclosed it's undeniable validity, the naturalist defaults helplessly to faith.
But, regarding God... I personally see more validity,... both scientifically and philosophically... in His' existence than otherwise. Nothing makes sense unless purpose is applied. If all that exists resulted from an accident, there's nothing that obligates that accident to make anything of sound constitution of us. By Darwinian standards, we may be creatures hopelessly doomed to die in deception.
Purposeful intent excludes the grim possibilities and implications of a purposeless origin.
A tolerate and intelligent individual on the 'tube? What's going on? :) I appreciate all your points and will consider them carefully as I'm just a fence-sitting agnostic. Keep up the astronomy study! BTW, the chief astronomer for the Vatican issued a stmt mid-May that it's possible to believe in intelligence elsewhere in the universe. That's a true step forward IMHO.
When I realized how utterly dependent my mind was on a fundamental level,... in all levels of input and expression... it struck me how irrational it would be for me to trust it's origin to a mindless process. Because, the implications were just too severe and unavoidable. If a blind process fashioned us, chances were just as good that evolution formed the human race to live and die in terminal ignorance. So, I came to believe that my existence was planned. Either way,... we believe.
"The implications were just so severe and unavoidable."
So because the implications are not to your liking you then decide that something else is true? Is this truth? Is this how you would have the world work? You want a world filled with people who shun fearful implications and embrace their favorite thing because the alternative is too scary? You really don't do much for the cause of theism by such proclamations.
homerthompsonman, not at all. To accept Theism is to also default to a "Difficult" position. One that in many ways makes the alternative seem more comfortable.
I do admit finding a great deal of comfort in believing that we were created with purpose and intent. But, that does not negate the other, seemingly less attractive side of the story. To accept Theism is to accept a greater accountability for my life than the alternative provides.
But, getting back to your question at hand, I'm not sure you realize this, but your question comes off as an accusation than anything else. No, I wouldn't want the world filled with people who shun fearful implications. The Bible itself reveals terrifying mysteries regarding the human condition, painting the picture that we're entirely hopeless.
But, it paints the incredible message of Salvation as well.
The implications of Scripture are far more uncomfortable than the alternative...
What convinced me was not that the Bible was an easier alternative, but that without a point of reference... God... I had no way of explaining my perception of reality. Which ultimately meant that I may not be perceiving "Reality" at all. Nothing obligates a mindless accident to result in a sound mind. So, by darwinian standards, the human race may have evolved to be a population of hopelessly distracted and distracting idiots.
Well actually, the remedy comes by faith. At least, that's what the Scriptures say. Faith in the accomplished work of Christ.
A modern metaphor would sound a bit like a terminal disease... sin... suddenly having a cure... Christ. The disease is no longer an issue. The willingness to be "Cured" is.
Something is not quite clear. You have said HOW the "remedy" comes, but you have not said what that remedy is. Saying some person (jesus/god/x) is a remedy doesn't seem to get anywhere. Does the believer simply turn his head skyward and hope for the whole nasty works to be somehow re-booted with the idea that he will be allowed to live? What sort of remedy is this? Who would be so cruel to wish this on other living creatures?
Well, in truth, no real believer wishes that. The Scripture says that God is not willing for any to perish, but that all would be saved.
But, many will not be cured. Christ's mission in this world was to end the "Terminal" part of the disease. But, the cure will not be forced on anyone. It has to be taken willingly, or it's not administered at all.
So, for those who won't believe,... a quarantine is necessary. The separation between the whole and the sick.
OK, I guess I left you with too much on my last post. You responded to my hypotheticals rather than answer the first part, my mistake.
I said you have said HOW the remedy comes, but you have not said what the remedy is. And your last post now gets into terminal diseases! I am to assume that you think humans die because they don't pass muster morally with god?
The remedy is faith in Christ. The metaphor was used as a way of simplifying it. Sin is the sickness, Jesus gave the cure by offering Himself on our behalf.
It's got nothing to do with morality, at least not initially. The Bible's clear that humans can never be "Good enough" to earn a place in Heaven. That necessitated a move on God's part, not our's.
What's asked of us is that we "Believe" in the Son. "Those who believe in the Son have life. Those who don't will not see life." John 3
Not sure I understand your question. Please clarify, because the wording kind of threw me.
Regarding the comment about it being barbaric... yes. It was. But then again, so was the decision to sin, and forsake righteousness.
The cross didn't just demonstrate God's judgement and mercy, but it also reflected what we are as a species. Isaiahs' words that He was "Unrecognizable as a man" painted the portrait of what we became when we cast off His' image and likeness.
Jesus' brutal death somehow pays off all the rule-breaking stuff
Now, if killing off jesus is supposed to fix (or pay-off) all the sinning (rule-breaking), doesn't this just work on its own? What else is there to do? After all when something is fixed (or payed for) how can it be said to be fixed if it needs something else?
In actuality, the dealing of the sin issue is only part of it. God's intent was to restore fellowship with us, not just to pay our debt.
The sacrifice put the sin issue out of the way, but that doesn't mean that people don't still go the way of their' sin, should they choose to do so. I'll give a good example...
If you saw Spiderman 3, a man consumed with revenge against Peter Parker, and is overtaken by a symbiote called "Venom".
At the end of the film, Peter "Does the work" of releasing this man from Venom's hold, pulling him free of it. He throws a bomb into the creature, but the guy follows the bomb and is likewise "Re-consumed" by Venom... and they are both destroyed together.
It's a great picture of what happens to those who will not be free in Christ. They're destroyed with their' sin.
In that sense, one could see that, even though Christ did the work for us, it's our responsibility to enter into fellowship with Him, and just let the thing that consumed us die.
Sin as a "Cause" is dealt with. The "Effects" of sin is still what (we) have to deal with. And, that has the potential of causing us to run back into the creature and be re-consumed by it.
The "Bomb" in venom's chest is the final judgement. But, the choice that exists before ultimate detonation is our's to make.
Hang on, something consumed us? I thought we were granted freewill, and that our "bad" choices (those that god both makes clear and does not make clear) are what this whole killing the lamb thing was about. When did we get consumed? What does that mean? Is supposed to metaphorical? And if so, when am I supposed to know when something is a metaphor?
And how, exactly, and please be specific, does one "enter into fellowship" with some dead guy who's torture and murder got us off the hook?
The Bible's way of addressing this is that we became slaves to sin. Simply put, we gave up our "will" to sin, and became it's servants. So, in a real sense, we do need God's help to even "Want" to be saved. That made the sacrifice necessary, because we couldn't redeem ourselves. The metaphors are just general descriptions.
Now, getting to the other part of your question... Jesus is not dead. That's how we enter into fellowship with Him.
The sacrifice of Christ is a literal account, for a literal need. Metaphor isn't used to "Divert" one away from the reality, but to drive the point home.
We are slaves of sin. Sold under it because we wanted to be. That choice ceased to be a choice once it got it's hold on us, making us helplessly obedient to it. You can read Romans chapter 7 to see it better.
And, that made us hopeless to change on our own, so we needed a Savior. Christ is that Savior.
How about this: Jesus (whether he was real or not) was presented as a fanatic. This guy is like so many leaders in that he presents himself as a solution (one might even venture a 'final solution'. And so what the followers of leaders do is abdicate their responsibility to him so that they do not have to sort out this whole "letter of the law-spirit of the law" thing. The metaphor is, then, that viewing moral solutions in final terms must be killed in a man.
Metaphor is never used to divert (I'm not sure why you used quotes), one from "reality" - I am using quotes to highlight that any claim to know reality is tantamount to claims of truth-the problem is all claims include at least one unstated assumption. Metaphor tries to get at truth, else it would fail as a metaphor and simply be a lie.
So the question: How do you know, when reading the bible BOOK, which part is metaphor and which is not? And if you have some way of knowing could you tell me
Some of the metaphorical parts of the Bible are pretty easy to spot, and others require a bit more. For instance...
Jesus use of metaphor to describe real events was seen in one of His' discussions with the religious leaders. "Destroy this temple, and in three days, I'll raise it up". The leaders assumed He was referring to the literal temple at Jerusalem, but the passage states that He was in reality talking about His' body.
However, as in the book of Revelation, the whole book seems to speak metaphorically. And, it's not a simple way of speaking it either.
So, the Bible does contain metaphors that not even scholars have wrapped their' heads around.
The thing about it though is not to think that symbolism negates it's right to be taken seriously. Scholars agree to disagree with such books as Revelation, but they all agree that it should not be dismissed just because it's hard to understand.
Yes, I was not making any claim that the whole works needs to be dismissed just because it is metaphor. Quite the opposite. I am a fan of fiction and of movies, and in these entirely fictional settings there is plenty of room for "truth". But just because some story has something to say about the human condition, is no reason for claiming that there is any literal truth in it. Many novels and movies take place "today" and are based on real events, but this does not mean they are literal.
True, but at the same time, there's no reason to dismiss what the Bible has to say about the human condition either. It's claim to be God's divinely inspired revelation to humanity can't be downplayed in it's implication. Either it's true, or it's not. To believe it or disbelieve it is to take a stand of faith either way.
I am not dismissing what it has to say about the human condition. Saying true things about the human condition is not the same thing as being literally true. Although the word "literally" seems to bear some resemblance to "literature", "literally" means "not metaphorical" or "in fact actual".
And what I would like to know is how one can claim to know what is literally true in the bible and what is metaphorical. Why don't you view god as a character and/or metaphor?
I guess my answer to your question would be that the Bible's metaphorical parts are there for a reason. Even the difficult to understand passages. You are not supposed to understand everything about it, because the Bible itself states that God's revelation is a continual unfolding process.
The death and resurrection of Jesus is spoken of as a literal event by the Biblical writers. It's also spoken about metaphorically, such as Him being described as a lamb...
This part is a tad iffy. Your answer is something like "we cannot know for sure how to tell metaphor from literal truth". And yet what I see in people of faith is an unshakable belief (to the point of outrage) in what they think is true. And just claims about the existence of a god, but about the existence of absolute good and absolute evil and about being saved and all of this. How does one claim to not know where to draw the line and then draw it so sharply?
Because, the Bible is clear that Christ's mission was to save the world by a literal act of sacrifice. Crucifixion is not a metaphor, it was an ancient method for executing criminals. The account of His' death is not recorded in symbolic language. Names were used, which dismisses the idea that they could be parables. Places were described, which denies the possibility that it was simply a revelation. It's recorded as an actual eye-witnessed event...
Sure. I'm not going to try to undermine any historical view. I am comfortable with there having been a real martyred person named "jesus", who may have said and done and believed many of the things reported in the bible.
What I don't understand is the fist-pounding claim that the story also proves that man literally has to answer to some invisible god/powerful-thing. Why not move the bible into the realm of great literature so that it is no longer an inaccessible mystery?
Also, with the possible exception of three books in the Bible, Song of Songs, most of Daniel and Revelation... all the other books are written as histories, geneologies, documentations, personal experiences, poetry etc. Granted, within these are prophetic writings... but prophetic writings can only go from symbol to "event" once the event has happened, and you see it in hind-sight.
Most agree that Revelation and most of Daniel has not happened yet...
You are right that all professed truths come with a starting assumption. Belief in the Bible as God's word to human-kind comes with the "Assumption" that it's (truly) God's word. That's what faith is all about. Human beings have no choice but to start with an unprovable claim in order to have something to base the rest of their' claims upon.
That seems about right. The problem I am having is that it seems strange that one jumps to faith in some sort of non-visible being/thing first. If all that one needs to get things started is some sort of faith, why not have some sort of faith in physical reality? Why not have faith that if one jumps off a 100 story building that one will die? Does one need belief in the supernatural in order to make claims about the natural?
Actually, the God of the Bible advocates human reason. Jesus talked about things to people that often appealed to human reason, while at the same time challenging them to not be limited by "Only" what they see.
No, one doesn't need to believe in the supernatural in order to make claims about the natural. However, naturalism starts with an unprovable presupposition too. All world-views default to "Faith" at some point... even atheism. Yes, one could make claims without a supernatural view.
OK. Once one can make claims about the natural, and have those claims be verified or confirmed by repeated evidence, why is this not enough for believers to shift their faith to the material world? After all, as you have said, one only needs an initial act of faith, so why not take physical reality on faith and let that be your starting point? In time the truth of human foibles will come to light enough and the bible will stand as a great piece of art, reflecting human experience.
The only time that reasoning is encouraged in the Bible is early in Isaiah "Come let us reason TOGETHER- though your sins be as scarlet..." Other than that it seems that mere human reason doesn't get you anywhere (or leads you astray) without being coupled with the Spirit of truth. You'd have a hard time finding verses about reasoning- most involve Jesus rebuking pharisees and scribes reasoning process.
It is interesting that believers rally around the idea that reason is weak and yet all of their claims are reason-based.
You see, although science is often strongly associated with reasoning, science is about discovery. The world just is the way it is. There is no way to "prove" the existence of anything. The only thing we have is experience. We are made of the same stuff as world (remember, ashes to ashes). Experience in the world precedes reason.
Thou hypocrite! Seeing the mote in thy neighbour's eye with a log in thine own. If religion isn't a pre-commitment to a worldview, I don't know what is. You bet this jerk and others like him don't run their lucrative ministries on the basis of faith: they have accountants to make sure nothing slips through the cracks. In other words, they sell faith to their weak-minded customers, but keep hard-headed logic for their own businesses.
that just great.....another ass hole telling the world about god. there is no god but stupid human like this made all this shit up so the church and him could make money out of ur weak minded to have hope.
"need to have faith because there is no way to definitively prove his/her existence" - I think you're missing the point. The faith of the Christian doctrine is HISTORICAL and EMPIRICAL faith, because there is evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Without evidence, faith is nothing but a blind belief without justification. Ex: My father tells me to take out the trash every day. If I obey him, then he has faith that I will continue to do take out the trash every day. That's what faith is.
"need to have faith because there is no way to definitively prove his/her existence" - I think you're missing the point. The faith of the Christian doctrine is HISTORICAL and EMPIRICAL faith, because there is evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Without evidence, faith is nothing but a blind belief without justification. Ex: My father tells me to take out the trash every day. If I obey him, then he has faith that I will continue to do take out the trash every day. That's what faith is.
you can't prove god exists and you can't prove god doesn't. People who believe in god do it with FAITH, which lies in the supernatural realm. There is no logic involved. Read the Bible, then the Koran, then whatever other religious works you can find. You'll see they were just works authored by men and used to control other men (and women).
I strongly disagree with you, kemup. 1) Throughout the Bible, faith is defined as a loyalty based on evidence of performance so it is not limited to the supernatural. 2) There IS logic involved in faith and it is usually like this: if he/she has performed trustworthy and reliable behavior, then logically I must trust him/her. I don't have enough room here to write more but if you think logic is not used whatsoever in measuring truth in religions, then you're way off target. No offense of course.
ok, faith in god, not a person that can absolutely beyond any doubt be proven to exist in the first place, lies in the supernatural realm. So for he/she to be god and reliable and trustworthy i need to have faith because there is no way to definitively prove his/her existence, but for he/she to be a good person and have me expect them to continue to do so well that's just following a behavioral pattern---of a person.
So if I claim that "I have faith that my friend, X, won't die from lung cancer," I have 3 problems: 1) There is no truth claim that refers to any linkage between the act of loyalty and the act of having cancer, itself, 2) the act of having cancer is an event that is not directly controlled the relationship between me and person X (in other words, it is not a voluntary performance), and 3) I have next to no evidence of friend X surviving past cases of cancer.
BassP86, your examples of faith in (2) still involve varying degrees of doubt. There may be a logical basis for a particular instance of faith, but faith derives its value from its level of doubt. Suppose that I am holding a pen and exclaim, "I have faith that I am holding this pen." It sounds silly since I have very little doubt. If I say, "I have faith that my friend, X, won't die from lung cancer," the faith is less trivial. My faith is greater in the latter instance, as is the doubt.
Actually, I think you're misunderstanding my point. Faith is LOYALTY, or TRUST, meaning that it applies truth claims based on personal experience in relationships. In order for one to have faith in another person, there must FIRST be a consistent basis of evidence of prior performance. Without that prior evidence, faith is necessarily blind.
This has been flagged as spam show
How many Lies do you think you have told in your life? Have you ever stolen anything, even something small? Have you ever looked at a person with lust? Ever used GOD's name as a curse word? If so, GOD sees you as a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Guilty will end up in Hell. That's not GOD's will. You broke GOD's laws, but Jesus paid your fine! (IF) you Repent, and trust in Christ alone, GOD will forgive every sin you have ever committed, and grant you Eternal life!
EXALTEDDIRT 4 weeks ago
This man is a genius. I hope to be somthing like him when I'm done with college. Go Jesus!!!!!!!
lightsid100 2 months ago
atheists are one of the saddest, depressed, and loneliest people....i used to be one
patriciacarrasco 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wonderful
Macjorie 4 months ago
wonderful
Macjorie 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 8 months ago
Just becasue you dont believe in hell does not mean it does not exisit
marcelluswtf1 11 months ago 6
If you can show millions of transformed lives because of the phone thing I may indeed get rid of mine. We need to go by evidence not empty philosophy.
SanEverett 1 year ago
But I will repeat,it is not everyones motivation.
SanEverett 1 year ago
Why would someone be an atheist because they wanted to, not because of logic? Who wants death to be oblivion instead of paradise? Theists are the ones that have everything to lose in a debate while atheists are the ones that have everything to gain. I think Ravi has it backwards.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 Why atheism? To get away from being held accountable for all the wrongs a person has done in their entire lives.. Getting rid of the jail itself rather than face the charges is a powerful motivation for atheism. YOU'RE COMPLETELY RESOLVED OF ALL JUDGEMENTS AGAINST YOUR WRONG DOINGS.
Glad to see an atheist that admits oblivion is an unpleasant idea as well.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett Why would someone become an atheist to “get away” with their wrong doings? If you thought you were in danger of going to hell why would you pretend not to believe in god? I don’t think many people covert to atheism because they fear hell...
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 Sure they do... Lets be realistic here. To live a life completely on your own terms and away from any supreme judgements of your character is a very alluring reason to become an atheist. Especially for those who are coming from the theism side. I'm not saying its everyones motivation but certainly an option in motivations you have to admit.
SanEverett 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheist976 Sure they do... Lets be realistic here. To live a life completely on your own terms and away from any supreme judgements of your character is a very alluring reason to become an atheist. Especially for those who are coming from the theism side. I'm not saying its everyones motivation but certainly an option in motivations you have to admit.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@atheist976 Sure they do... Lets be realistic here. To live a life completely on your own terms and away from any supreme judgements of your character is a very alluring reason to become an atheist. Especially for those who are coming from the theism side. I'm not saying its everyones motivation but certainly an option in motivations you have to admit.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett Being an atheist keeps you safe from the police? I highly doubt anyone throws caution to the wind and goes on a killing spree because they don’t have to go to hell. You really think we are all that naturally evil? I think most atheists would agree crime is wrong and the ones that don’t are still afraid of going to jail or being a social outcasts… Many people are afraid of dying so the hope for an eternal paradise.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 There is a difference between punishment for crimes and theism or atheism. Many are not so afraid of dying because of the hope of eternal life. What exactly does atheism offer? Because many atheists talk about being 'set free'. My question to you is free from what? Because when you really dissect atheism its freedom from rules basically. Because man made laws change with the times so they are not objective.
But to be set free from ETERNAL rules THAT is powerful motivation indeed !
SanEverett 1 year ago
Comment removed
atheist976 1 year ago
@SanEverett So you think people become atheists so they don’t have to have morals? I can assure you I did not become an atheist so I could get away with murder on an objective standpoint. And I doubt you will find very many who have…when they say “set free” I think they are referring to not having to do gods biding in order to evade hell. As in they don’t have to go to church, not eat meat, bow down, or pray a certain number of times a day in order to avoid torture.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 What I've been told by other atheists is not what you've stated at all. I understand your views are unique.And like I said not all have the same motivations for atheism I hope you would agree
But rituals have nothing to do with there being a God or atheism in particular. Because if there is a god we bloody well better perform its rituals,or be a fool.. Point being the 'freedom' doesn't come from a lack of rituals no more than me feeling free that todays not sunday so I can sleep in.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett Well you are free from Sunday because technically “Sunday” does not exist. It’s the behavior of the humans around you that’s makes “Sunday” and nothing else. Without humans there is no “Sunday”…and are you using Pascal’s Wager when you say we would be a fool’s not to believe in god?
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 You're making my point,rituals don't exist. They are not the motivation for atheism.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett They might not exist but you still have to go through the motions. An atheist might feel free from having to behave a certain way (completing rituals) in order to avoid hell. Once they become atheists they consider themselves “free”. You think they mean free from morals but I’m sayings they mean free from rituals. But, I agree that people don’t turn to atheism because of that.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 Atheism is a belief about God NOT rituals. Rituals have nothing to do with theism or atheism. Thats the distinction I was making.
You seem to think rituals have something to do with theism and they don't AT ALL.
As far as your 'pascal' point. Its not pascals point..Theist say it all the time who know nothing of pascal. Its just common sense. (If God exists your screwed) (If he does not it matters not to me) Why gamble??
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett I never said theism was all about rituals. You originally said atheists kept telling you they were “free”. You think they mean free from morals but I’m saying they probably mean free from rituals when they say that. Not that thats the only reason they turned to atheism, thats just what the feel "free" from.
atheist976 1 year ago
@SanEverett I just got a message from Allah. He says anyone who doesn’t destroy their phone in the next 24 hours will be sent to a terrible place far more deadly than the Christian hell. Your family and friends will also join your for eternity!
If I’m right you can avoid eternal torture for yourself and loved ones! If I’m wrong, so what you lose some money for a new phone. Have you destroyed you phone? Why gamble? It’s common sense!
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 So rationally you concede the point..Its really a matter of finding WHICH God is the real God..
You said from rituals...The ones I"ve talked to never mention a ritual..Maybe thats just an issue with religion that you have.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett No, I am offering you an alternative when you say people become atheists to escape morals. I think we can agree my version is much more probable and you have not met an atheist says they are happy to be free of morals.
The issue is not which god to believe in, the issue is according to you, someone would lack common sense buy not destroying their phone with the threat of a hell. I take it you didn’t dispose of yours. I thought it was common sense?
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 I never mentioned the word morals once. So your point makes no sense.And you might want to look up the word theism and atheism neither has anything to do with rituals. You're completely off topic here.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett Theism can defiantly involve rituals? Check any available history book...you originally said "atheists tell me they are free”…then said you thought they meant free from being held accountable for their actions(moral law)..and I’m saying that’s not true. That was our original conversation. If they were free from anything it would be doing goes biding(rituals/ or certain behaviors).
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 Look in the dictionary for definitions ok? Theism and atheism.. It does not say theism is the practice of rituals!! Ok?
Before we can talk about the other points I made we need to have the same understanding of terms. If you continue to respond with the understanding that theism is something its not your comments are incoherent. Some theists do rituals some do not but it has NOTHING to do with the DEFINITION.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@atheist976 And your phone analogy fails as well.Because you need to provide a case for it. I have historical evidence of the bibles accuracy. I'm not trying to trick you you are trying to trick me with that analogy.And my common sense view is much more believable than something noone has ever heard of likey your analogy.
Do you agree with the following. Atheism is the view there is no god?
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett Regardless of how much evidence there is you said it was common sense not to gamble. So you need evidence to believe in my analogy? Well, that is part of the reason I don’t believe in god. Just as you don’t believe in the phone analogy I don’t believe in god; which is why neither of us is worried of going to hell. The phone analogy supports what atheists have been saying over and over.
Yes as an atheist I assert that there is no god.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 I already said noone has heard of the phone thing?? But you are claiming thats just as believable as hundreds of millions who believe in God. And your calling THAT common sense. And no other atheist has heard of the phone situation either.And your trying to use that as common sense.
Comeon man,thats just stupid.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett I have never once said rituals where in the definition of theism. All I said was theism CAN involve rituals. And that’s likely what atheists say they are ‘free’ from. Not moral laws like you claim. I don’t know how to make that more clear.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 Atheism can involve rituals as well.. Define ritual..
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett You are proving my point. You say you need evidence to believe in my phone analogy. That’s exactly my response to Christianity. I’m not going to believe in god because of the threat of hell(that what Pascal’s point is)….You said it was common sense to not gamble and go ahead and believe in god no matter what just in case hell exists. Which is why, according to the phone analogy, you would lack common sense if you didn’t destroy your phone just in case my hell exists.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 Fair enough..So we need to do a bible study and see it holds up with its historical references etc etc.
Please give me the phone sources to back up your new phone religion..
Like I said its about real evidence not empty philosophy.
Your using your imagination and I'm talking real evidence,there is a real difference.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@SanEverett The phone analogy is just meant to show that Pascal’s wager is not a good argument. If we are moving onto evidence then you are right, the bible is more credible then my phone scenario. I was just pointing out believing in god just in case hell exists is not common sense.
atheist976 1 year ago
@atheist976 I think its a pretend game to think the after life 'if there's one' is not the most important question for anyone. With that knowledge in itself it is common sense to weigh the religions to see if one seems more plausible. the term 'common sense' we can define different ways but I hold it IS common sense for the after life question to be taken seriously is my point. And yes in light of hell or in buddhism returning as an insect,is still common sense to take the issue seriously.
SanEverett 1 year ago
@atheist976 Your whole stand point is from the perception that reality can somehow be bent to your will by what you choose to beleive. No matter what you choose to beleive, reality is just that, reality. If I told myself before goin outside one day that on this day the sky would be purple, and I beleived it with all my heart, it still would not be purple. In the same sense if hell is real, then choosing not to beleive in God doesnt free you from it, rather it garuntees it.
lightsid100 2 months ago
@atheist976 A killing spree is an extreme example, but I live in Angeles city Philippines, and their are several hundred brothels, bars, casinos, etc .... . Many 60 year old men have 10 different 20 year old girlfriends, they get bored of it gamble, drink themselves into oblivion, and say .... this is heaven on earth. I am only 31, Their are drop dead gorgeous girls everywhere and I'm a prime target wealthy and 31 ... but my consciounce wont allow me to take advantage of the situation.
lion575 4 weeks ago
@atheist976 However, If i were Atheist, I need not feel guilty about sleeping with a different model caliber girl every night. The only real deterrent would be the occasional hang over. At 31 I've been told to just enjoy it while I'm young (been here since I was 25). I can worry about finding God later, etc. I am sure many celebrities with similar circumstance find the option of just enjoying it now and worrying about God later very appealing. This may not apply to you, But that is his point.
lion575 4 weeks ago
This guy slanders Huxley. That is not all what Huxley said. His lying s typical of of the Christian huckster.
funboy7979 1 year ago
Physical scientists do not try to disprove creationism. Creationism is an irrelevant fantasy. It is of interest to sociologists and psychologists to whom mass delusion is important.
funboy7979 1 year ago
@funboy7979
I wonder if he knows the difference between noumenal and phenomenal ?
hieronomy 1 year ago
Very True Ravi, atheistic scientists angle in their research is to disprove creationism at its root. But it must be said that there are a lot of scientists that went on to believe creationism because of their research.
Judgement220 1 year ago
one of my favorite speakers Alan
gloripine 1 year ago
Who the hell is this pompous guy talking to? Has he, through his intellect ever brought one unregenerate man into God's kingdom? It's impossible, with all Ravi's degree's to save one man.
Pfsif 1 year ago
@Pfsif
Ravi pompous? LOL, why because he speaks clearly and with conviction?
And to answer your question "NO" people cannot bring people into the kingdom of God, Ravi would be the first to tell you this....
d4024 1 year ago
@d4024
I think Pfsis needs to take his happy meds or something.
planes3333 1 year ago
I just tuned in, can someone tell me, where is the rest of this talk?
moranplano 2 years ago
@moranplano
The rest of his talk is on you tube at the LDS temple. 132 minutes
2002chloe 1 year ago
@moranplano Hopefully encased in a Mason jar at the bottm of bloody sea , mate
hieronomy 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
♥† HOW TO GET SAVED FROM THE BURNING HELL and HAVE ETERNAL and EVERLASTING LIFE & HAPPINESS IN HEAVEN!: visit my channel for link in description. †♥
howtogetsaved 2 years ago
Starting your speech with a false dichotomy isn't the best way to make a point. Especially when painting the opponent of your position as believing things nobody actually believes.
NotQuiteGobShite 2 years ago
Hey something happened on the other page, it showed that it was 8:39 minutes long, but this was only 39 seconds what happened? Thanks
Jileek 2 years ago
@Jileek
Maybe somebody had the good sense to DELETE 8:00 of this drivel !
hieronomy 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Time plus matter plus chance - what the fuck? My friend - Who, what his/her name?
Was' a doctorial student at a "very prestigious school" - What school, what is the name of the school? "my course is designed to knock the idea of God out of any of your minds" - what course" = what course, what was the course called? The FACT of the matter is that science has Not disproven the existence of God - why would science attempt to 'disprove' a negative? This man is a charlatan..
manhglit123 2 years ago
you are really shallow in every questions u asked... can see that you are really not well informed. Definitely you are not morally grounded in anything good..no wonder you are so loose in your comments.
LeeKhenHowe 2 years ago
@manhglit123 The point that you are failing to see is that you are a reed , yet a thinking reed and this numbnutz
is on a mission from his Ego ( God ) and he cannot or will not acknowledge the psychological root of his obsession
The more untenable , unbelievable their assertions the more willful and intolerant they become somewhat like a
temper tantrum prone child . My projection of my ego IS god , damn it . Like Eddie Murphy once famously said ,
" I am Gumby damn it !
hieronomy 1 year ago
Now... I think it's good that people can find a purpose in their life. I don't think people need a God or holy book to find purpose. It's nice that people can find meaning through religion or theism but I don't think it's good if people have to accept other illogical things because of that particular religion. If someone honestly thinks there are good arguments for the existence of God, out there, then please message me because I don't want to be ignorant now.
Diviniteee 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Literally, the Koran says the following about the Jews, Christians, and other unbelievers:
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Sura 5, verse 51).
kamajiboy 2 years ago 2
I feel sorry for theists... do not take this comment offensively... I just wish for all of you guys to critically examine all the arguments FOR God and all the arguments AGAINST God's existence. DO extensive reasearch and then come to a rational conclusion...
Diviniteee 2 years ago
I was thinking the same thing but on the contrary, I thought that about atheists. I'm not writing this just to write it, I honestly can't figure out 1 good argument against God's existence. This is absolutely no reason to follow God but if you think about it we live a more fulfiling lives than atheists. For atheists you have to make up your own purpose or reason for life and in your world view your reason is no better than ours. So don't worry about it your not the one that has to feel sorry.
Juni1013 2 years ago
See? Juni is an example. What kind of logic is "Atheists live less fulfilling lives than theists; therefore, the existence of God must be true"
If someone cannot see the faulty logic in that then I feel really sorry for them.
Diviniteee 2 years ago
Please Pay Attention. This actually shows your lack of attention and critical analysis. I stated Before hand this was not a argument for God's existence or a reason to follow him. The point is that In your world view purpose and meaning is no better than the anyone else's. It is subject to every individual, were as our world view we have a meaning and purpose beyond our preference. So There Is No Logical Reason For You To Feel Sorry Were We Have Every Reason To Feel Sorry For You. Pay Attention
Juni1013 2 years ago
Okay. So we shouldn't feel sorry for you (I'm referring to theists) because you live happier and more fulfilling lives than us. Okay... well, that's nice. It's good to have purpose and fulfillment in your life, but if it comes from a lie then is it really worthwhile? Well, I guess that depends on the person. Now many people don't believe theism is a lie (I know that), but too many religious people have not honestly analyzed the arguments for God's existence and against God's existence.
Diviniteee 2 years ago
I'm glad that we could agree on something. You're right many people do believe without thinking about it but that applies to both sides. because a person don't believe in God that doesn't automatically mean that they thought about it. So with that I still strongly believe more Theists should analyze the reasons why they believe what they do. We need stronger Theists.
Juni1013 2 years ago
(sorry I hope nothing happens. I accidentally marked 'Spam' when I meant to hit 'Reply')
Yes, I'm glad we can agree on that. There are of course atheists that don't really think through the whole process of why they don't believe in god(s), etc. There are too many people who don't think it through. However, I think that theists are more responsible for it simply because most people are raised theists and not as atheists. There is so much ignorance that I am faced with when I encounter some
Diviniteee 2 years ago
(cont'd)
theists that it really annoys me and disgusts me. I am never hostile and simply try to explain why I'm an atheist, but the way they tackle my question or question my 'disbelief' reveals their ignorance.. Now I have no hatred towards them or anything but there is simply so much ignorance and such a great lack of thinking put into their belief/ religious stance that it bothers me. Yes, I know atheists are guilty too but I haven't really encountered any of those types of atheists yet..
Diviniteee 2 years ago
Lee Strobel wrote "The Case for Faith", as well as others. These books came about, because as an atheist, he was tired of "the ignorance" of religion. Christianity in particular. He sought to disprove the Bible, and subsequently "got saved". He was an "honest skeptic". He did'nt disbelieve just because, he worked to disprove religion. His books are compilations of interviews of multiple scientists. Are you an "honest skeptic"? Check out his books...I'll be praying for you. Be Blessed
BoomsDad 2 years ago
Thank you, BoomsDad. I have already read Strobel's Caise for Faith. I look forward to reading his other books too.
Diviniteee 2 years ago
Juni1013,
"We need stronger Theists."
This cannot be truer, I agree 100%, there are thinking theists out there, but its time to step up for God
Jesus is Lord
InDefenseofChrist 2 years ago 6
AMEN!!!!
arktheball 2 years ago
@InDefenseofChrist
Your concept of Jesus is YOUR lord , no prob . However , taint necessarily ebody elses . You must accept this or there will be war .
hieronomy 1 year ago
Jesus is not God. Where the hell do these christians get this?
Zaphkielonoma 2 years ago
We get it from Jesus himself, in the gospels.
dugw15 2 years ago
I like to hear some debate on is jesus god or not?. I say he is not go, i don't what other's say. But I believe, there is only one God. There is no contradiction in it.
anandaprasad 2 years ago
I don't know if this answers your question but, Christian theism believes that Jesus represents God incarnate (in flesh). Jesus is a part of a triune (three in one) God. So to say Jesus is God is simplistic but not completelt false. God's spirit (the Holy Spirit) is also a part of this trinity. Zacharias will actually argue that this "community" conforms to our ideas of reality because the trinity represents diversity and unity, something which we have tried to explain for centuries. Make sense?
apparrattus 2 years ago 2
If you dont care what others say, then you have no hope of meaningful debate. Just a question, if God is all powerful then could He not represent himself in three personhoods? I am sure you dont believe that God is subpotent. Keep searching alays ;) And once you find the treasure, study it and polish it till its wort shines thru you! God bless
arktheball 2 years ago
Jesus was a fully God realised man.
He was flesh and blood but manifesting God by obeying His will. He could have chosen a different path at any point.
He enabled God to manifest in the physical world.
jonesgerard 2 years ago
If we are all equal to god why were the Disciples giving more evidence that god exist than we are today, they saw miracles and people raising from the dead and yet all we get if have faith? How can any intelligent being be so dishonest?
checkme92705 3 years ago
Good point...
thefullmonte03 2 years ago
Christians often answer the question why does god not heal amputees with a rhetorical question of why should god heal amputees well because he said he would. In Matthew 21.22, John 16:23 and Mark 11.24 he said anything you ask for you shall be given. So does this make Jesus not the son of god or does it just mean god is a liar?
checkme92705 3 years ago
God does heal amputees today! You should read about smith wigglesworth.
MattLem922 3 years ago
If Christianity is real why so many Hoaxes, everything from weeping statues, placebo cures, the Shroud of Turin, Books left out the Bible, and people using the Bible to make money and we are supposed to believe that it is real? If the Bible gives so much truth then why are Christians so dishonest? Also why do they have to censor everyone? ExtantDodo has been suspended by false DMCA claims 4 times, why would you do that if you have the truth on your side?
checkme92705 3 years ago
Because people have evil in them. It is hard, that's why so many people are so by name, but not by deeds.
elizasunshine 2 years ago
Real simple... The world, the ways of the world and people of the world opposes truth and has a burning to suppress the truth and will use to whatever means to do it. All those things are examples man taking God's truth using for his own purposes including the so-called "Books left out of the Bible".
psykomystro 2 years ago
Does god lie? Well according to Hebrews 6:18 and Titus 1:2 he cannot but according to other sources such as Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11 and 2 Chronicles 18:22 god most certainly does and he admits it. So is the Bible trust worthy? No!!!!!!
checkme92705 3 years ago
For you to understand the bible you must understand the figures of speech in the Hebrew and Greek it was written in. Ezekiel 14 is dealing with false prophets-know the context. 2 Thess 2:ll is dealing with people who reject Christ, in coming of the Lord. I can go on and on, but you don't know how to read the bible in the proper context so I suggest you learn the language first then comment.
ikkabus76 2 years ago
Dude , will you please refer to the verses you have referred. Plzzz... i think you should know the context. you can't just refer to one verse to support your theory dude.
anandaprasad 2 years ago
The promise of God is by one Word.
"SEEK". He is there. Do not take my word, but His Word. Let go of this world and there ways. You can know God today. You can know Truth. Its all in one name. Jesus Christ. Glory to God.
jazzbummer 3 years ago
Zacharias destroys atheism. All of his speeches are great. If you haven't you should watch every one of them that is available.
NephilimFree 3 years ago 3
Nephilimfree is dishonest he refuse to answer any questions on creationism.
checkme92705 3 years ago
I love how you accuse Hairyreasoner for deleting your comments after you spammed his video but I leave a few on your channel and you block me with out even refuting a single point. So I ask Nephilimfree, why the hypocrisy? Why not actually respond to what others are saying?
extra11off 2 years ago
Yes the LOVE of God is sooo precious and yes beyond, absolutely 100%, stupendously, wondrously beyond mere human reasoning!! We just cannot truly fathom that kind of love--the love that would die for us!!
EndTimeLadyPreacher 3 years ago
Thats why sin needs to be preached.
jazzbummer 3 years ago
the bigest agravation is the lds spinning there web so from the scripture i want to barf all over them
102303113 3 years ago
the mormons are stupid brain dead blind
102303113 3 years ago
A TRUE FOLLOWER OF CHRIST DOES NOT CALL ANY ONE STUPID ..CAUSE A TRUE FOLLOWER KNOW THAT EVERYONE WHO DOSE NOT LIVE HE'S, OR HER LIFE ACCORDING TO THE WORD OF GOD IS STILL ATTACH TO THE WORLD...WE MUST NOT TAKE AWAY OR SUBTRACT FROM THE BIBLE TO MAKE OUR OWN PATH
THE MORMONS ARE JUST ONE OF MANY WHO HAVE DECIDED TO MAKE THEYR OWN PATH..BUT WHATS SO UNIC ABOUT THE BIBLE, IS THAT IT TELLS YOU THAT MEN WILL DO THIS..lol...AND WE STILL ASKING WHATS THE RIGHT PATH...LIVE THE BIBLE NOT RELIGIONS....
tazluv007 3 years ago
phenomenal.
deltaboy60073 3 years ago 18
I know, what an amazing story!
virindi73 3 years ago 14
Naturalism is a philosophy, almost a religion simple as that. Why can't people just accept it?
braino2000 3 years ago
God's existence is necessary and certain. (repost)
MeekServant 3 years ago
God's existence is necessary and certain.
Deny God and one lacks the necessary a priori conditions for the universals and immutables of the Laws of Logic, the universal and immutable God supplies such; the laws of logic are necessary and certain, thus so is God.
God lives.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago
Goddoesexist, that's what I believe as well.
Naturalistic philosophy is banal to it's own purpose in the fact that it has to jump to a particular conclusion that it can't prove to even exist.
The whole "Give me a Reason to believe" thing presupposes without any evidence that we are... reasonable... creatures. Playing by Darwinian rules however guarantees nothing of the sort. Logic and reason have no reasonable defense when intentional purpose for their being is put out of the picture.
JoelJW 3 years ago
"banal to its own purpose..." (?) Do you even know what banal means? Banal is "lacking originality". What you have said is NOT a dig at science. Science does not strive to be original, it strives to get things as they really are, it strives to make a copy or a model of reality.
Saying "give me a reason to believe" in the mouth of a scientist is NOT a request for "reason" (as in logic), but a request for PROOF, as in experiences which can easily be seen.
Do you think the world is flat?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Yes, I will do that, thank you. :)
I think that discussion goes well when nothing is attacked, but rather that ideas are presented. I was once a bit agnostic as well, so I understand where your'e coming from.
Personally, what convinced me was not necessarily scientific evidence, although I saw plenty of that. It was when I became aware that all things can't by nature exist unto themselves... including my mind.
JoelJW 3 years ago
Read up on logic and reason, Ravi. Science does not have to prove the non-existence of the supernatural. The onus is on the one making the claim—so where's your evidence? Educate yourself, instead of wallowing in ancient hateful scripts filled with rape, genocide and human sacrifice. Your voiced fervor doesn't stand up to logic and reason. But go ahead and be a sheep and buy your ticket to Ben Stein's latest joke of a movie. I'm sure you and your deluded followers will dig it.
xTruthSeeker 3 years ago
TruthSeeker, logic and reason are "Claims" that you are making. Where's the evidence then that logic and reason can exist? I think Ravi makes some good points. When you take books that teach about logic and reason to heart, you are accepting without evidence... a claim. Give some evidence why logic and reason can exist. No, the weight is not just on the believer. By accepting reason and logic, you are defaulting to a position of faith. Who are you to say what is logical and reasonable?
JoelJW 3 years ago
I appreciate your tolerate reply; my comment was less than tolerant. However, I believe strongly that the observable universe is much more 'real' than the supernatural. The ideas of science appeal to me much more than many in the Bible. But, like the great skeptic Michael Shermer puts it, 'I could be wrong'. Are you willing to make the same stmt? We're all just trying to find our way, aren't we? That's very cool that you're into astronomy. The pics from the Hubble fill my mind with wonder.
xTruthSeeker 3 years ago
Hey, don't worry about it. I understand when others people get defensive, as I have also done it at times. I don't think anyone is guiltless. :)
Would I admit that I could be wrong about my faith? The thing about faith is that it's placed by necessity without a full disclosure of proof. So, even skeptics and atheists adhere to it. Naturalism having never disclosed it's undeniable validity, the naturalist defaults helplessly to faith.
Yes, I may very well be wrong in my faith. But,
JoelJW 3 years ago
But, regarding God... I personally see more validity,... both scientifically and philosophically... in His' existence than otherwise. Nothing makes sense unless purpose is applied. If all that exists resulted from an accident, there's nothing that obligates that accident to make anything of sound constitution of us. By Darwinian standards, we may be creatures hopelessly doomed to die in deception.
Purposeful intent excludes the grim possibilities and implications of a purposeless origin.
JoelJW 3 years ago
By the way, thank you for the compliment. Astronomy is a huge passion of mine. :)
Yes, Hubble has taken extraordinary images. Just beautiful. I love to study them.
JoelJW 3 years ago
A tolerate and intelligent individual on the 'tube? What's going on? :) I appreciate all your points and will consider them carefully as I'm just a fence-sitting agnostic. Keep up the astronomy study! BTW, the chief astronomer for the Vatican issued a stmt mid-May that it's possible to believe in intelligence elsewhere in the universe. That's a true step forward IMHO.
xTruthSeeker 3 years ago
When I realized how utterly dependent my mind was on a fundamental level,... in all levels of input and expression... it struck me how irrational it would be for me to trust it's origin to a mindless process. Because, the implications were just too severe and unavoidable. If a blind process fashioned us, chances were just as good that evolution formed the human race to live and die in terminal ignorance. So, I came to believe that my existence was planned. Either way,... we believe.
JoelJW 3 years ago
"The implications were just so severe and unavoidable."
So because the implications are not to your liking you then decide that something else is true? Is this truth? Is this how you would have the world work? You want a world filled with people who shun fearful implications and embrace their favorite thing because the alternative is too scary? You really don't do much for the cause of theism by such proclamations.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
homerthompsonman, not at all. To accept Theism is to also default to a "Difficult" position. One that in many ways makes the alternative seem more comfortable.
I do admit finding a great deal of comfort in believing that we were created with purpose and intent. But, that does not negate the other, seemingly less attractive side of the story. To accept Theism is to accept a greater accountability for my life than the alternative provides.
JoelJW 3 years ago
But, getting back to your question at hand, I'm not sure you realize this, but your question comes off as an accusation than anything else. No, I wouldn't want the world filled with people who shun fearful implications. The Bible itself reveals terrifying mysteries regarding the human condition, painting the picture that we're entirely hopeless.
But, it paints the incredible message of Salvation as well.
The implications of Scripture are far more uncomfortable than the alternative...
JoelJW 3 years ago
So, ease had nothing to do with my decision.
What convinced me was not that the Bible was an easier alternative, but that without a point of reference... God... I had no way of explaining my perception of reality. Which ultimately meant that I may not be perceiving "Reality" at all. Nothing obligates a mindless accident to result in a sound mind. So, by darwinian standards, the human race may have evolved to be a population of hopelessly distracted and distracting idiots.
JoelJW 3 years ago
OK. You have shown a match: bible paints bad picture of human hopeless condition, and chaos and Darwin the same.
Now how is it that this reality (of a messy or bad human condition) is remedied by your beliefs in god or scripture?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Well actually, the remedy comes by faith. At least, that's what the Scriptures say. Faith in the accomplished work of Christ.
A modern metaphor would sound a bit like a terminal disease... sin... suddenly having a cure... Christ. The disease is no longer an issue. The willingness to be "Cured" is.
JoelJW 3 years ago
Something is not quite clear. You have said HOW the "remedy" comes, but you have not said what that remedy is. Saying some person (jesus/god/x) is a remedy doesn't seem to get anywhere. Does the believer simply turn his head skyward and hope for the whole nasty works to be somehow re-booted with the idea that he will be allowed to live? What sort of remedy is this? Who would be so cruel to wish this on other living creatures?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Well, in truth, no real believer wishes that. The Scripture says that God is not willing for any to perish, but that all would be saved.
But, many will not be cured. Christ's mission in this world was to end the "Terminal" part of the disease. But, the cure will not be forced on anyone. It has to be taken willingly, or it's not administered at all.
So, for those who won't believe,... a quarantine is necessary. The separation between the whole and the sick.
JoelJW 3 years ago
OK, I guess I left you with too much on my last post. You responded to my hypotheticals rather than answer the first part, my mistake.
I said you have said HOW the remedy comes, but you have not said what the remedy is. And your last post now gets into terminal diseases! I am to assume that you think humans die because they don't pass muster morally with god?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
The remedy is faith in Christ. The metaphor was used as a way of simplifying it. Sin is the sickness, Jesus gave the cure by offering Himself on our behalf.
It's got nothing to do with morality, at least not initially. The Bible's clear that humans can never be "Good enough" to earn a place in Heaven. That necessitated a move on God's part, not our's.
What's asked of us is that we "Believe" in the Son. "Those who believe in the Son have life. Those who don't will not see life." John 3
JoelJW 3 years ago
The remedy is the blood of Christ. "Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission for sin."
JoelJW 3 years ago
Um...Yikes! This seems pretty barbaric. And if it worked, doesn't just work as matter of it having been done? And therefore all is forgiven?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Not sure I understand your question. Please clarify, because the wording kind of threw me.
Regarding the comment about it being barbaric... yes. It was. But then again, so was the decision to sin, and forsake righteousness.
The cross didn't just demonstrate God's judgement and mercy, but it also reflected what we are as a species. Isaiahs' words that He was "Unrecognizable as a man" painted the portrait of what we became when we cast off His' image and likeness.
JoelJW 3 years ago
Sorry I was a little too brief.
Here's what I think we have:
God creates man
Man breaks rules
Jesus is sent by god (or is god?)
Jesus' brutal death somehow pays off all the rule-breaking stuff
Now, if killing off jesus is supposed to fix (or pay-off) all the sinning (rule-breaking), doesn't this just work on its own? What else is there to do? After all when something is fixed (or payed for) how can it be said to be fixed if it needs something else?
So does his death fix it or not?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Oh, now I see, thank you. :)
In actuality, the dealing of the sin issue is only part of it. God's intent was to restore fellowship with us, not just to pay our debt.
The sacrifice put the sin issue out of the way, but that doesn't mean that people don't still go the way of their' sin, should they choose to do so. I'll give a good example...
JoelJW 3 years ago
If you saw Spiderman 3, a man consumed with revenge against Peter Parker, and is overtaken by a symbiote called "Venom".
At the end of the film, Peter "Does the work" of releasing this man from Venom's hold, pulling him free of it. He throws a bomb into the creature, but the guy follows the bomb and is likewise "Re-consumed" by Venom... and they are both destroyed together.
It's a great picture of what happens to those who will not be free in Christ. They're destroyed with their' sin.
JoelJW 3 years ago
In that sense, one could see that, even though Christ did the work for us, it's our responsibility to enter into fellowship with Him, and just let the thing that consumed us die.
Sin as a "Cause" is dealt with. The "Effects" of sin is still what (we) have to deal with. And, that has the potential of causing us to run back into the creature and be re-consumed by it.
The "Bomb" in venom's chest is the final judgement. But, the choice that exists before ultimate detonation is our's to make.
JoelJW 3 years ago
Hang on, something consumed us? I thought we were granted freewill, and that our "bad" choices (those that god both makes clear and does not make clear) are what this whole killing the lamb thing was about. When did we get consumed? What does that mean? Is supposed to metaphorical? And if so, when am I supposed to know when something is a metaphor?
And how, exactly, and please be specific, does one "enter into fellowship" with some dead guy who's torture and murder got us off the hook?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
The Bible's way of addressing this is that we became slaves to sin. Simply put, we gave up our "will" to sin, and became it's servants. So, in a real sense, we do need God's help to even "Want" to be saved. That made the sacrifice necessary, because we couldn't redeem ourselves. The metaphors are just general descriptions.
Now, getting to the other part of your question... Jesus is not dead. That's how we enter into fellowship with Him.
JoelJW 3 years ago
The sacrifice of Christ is a literal account, for a literal need. Metaphor isn't used to "Divert" one away from the reality, but to drive the point home.
We are slaves of sin. Sold under it because we wanted to be. That choice ceased to be a choice once it got it's hold on us, making us helplessly obedient to it. You can read Romans chapter 7 to see it better.
And, that made us hopeless to change on our own, so we needed a Savior. Christ is that Savior.
JoelJW 3 years ago
How about this: Jesus (whether he was real or not) was presented as a fanatic. This guy is like so many leaders in that he presents himself as a solution (one might even venture a 'final solution'. And so what the followers of leaders do is abdicate their responsibility to him so that they do not have to sort out this whole "letter of the law-spirit of the law" thing. The metaphor is, then, that viewing moral solutions in final terms must be killed in a man.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Metaphor is never used to divert (I'm not sure why you used quotes), one from "reality" - I am using quotes to highlight that any claim to know reality is tantamount to claims of truth-the problem is all claims include at least one unstated assumption. Metaphor tries to get at truth, else it would fail as a metaphor and simply be a lie.
So the question: How do you know, when reading the bible BOOK, which part is metaphor and which is not? And if you have some way of knowing could you tell me
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Some of the metaphorical parts of the Bible are pretty easy to spot, and others require a bit more. For instance...
Jesus use of metaphor to describe real events was seen in one of His' discussions with the religious leaders. "Destroy this temple, and in three days, I'll raise it up". The leaders assumed He was referring to the literal temple at Jerusalem, but the passage states that He was in reality talking about His' body.
JoelJW 3 years ago
However, as in the book of Revelation, the whole book seems to speak metaphorically. And, it's not a simple way of speaking it either.
So, the Bible does contain metaphors that not even scholars have wrapped their' heads around.
The thing about it though is not to think that symbolism negates it's right to be taken seriously. Scholars agree to disagree with such books as Revelation, but they all agree that it should not be dismissed just because it's hard to understand.
JoelJW 3 years ago
Yes, I was not making any claim that the whole works needs to be dismissed just because it is metaphor. Quite the opposite. I am a fan of fiction and of movies, and in these entirely fictional settings there is plenty of room for "truth". But just because some story has something to say about the human condition, is no reason for claiming that there is any literal truth in it. Many novels and movies take place "today" and are based on real events, but this does not mean they are literal.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
True, but at the same time, there's no reason to dismiss what the Bible has to say about the human condition either. It's claim to be God's divinely inspired revelation to humanity can't be downplayed in it's implication. Either it's true, or it's not. To believe it or disbelieve it is to take a stand of faith either way.
JoelJW 3 years ago
I am not dismissing what it has to say about the human condition. Saying true things about the human condition is not the same thing as being literally true. Although the word "literally" seems to bear some resemblance to "literature", "literally" means "not metaphorical" or "in fact actual".
And what I would like to know is how one can claim to know what is literally true in the bible and what is metaphorical. Why don't you view god as a character and/or metaphor?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
I guess my answer to your question would be that the Bible's metaphorical parts are there for a reason. Even the difficult to understand passages. You are not supposed to understand everything about it, because the Bible itself states that God's revelation is a continual unfolding process.
The death and resurrection of Jesus is spoken of as a literal event by the Biblical writers. It's also spoken about metaphorically, such as Him being described as a lamb...
JoelJW 3 years ago
This part is a tad iffy. Your answer is something like "we cannot know for sure how to tell metaphor from literal truth". And yet what I see in people of faith is an unshakable belief (to the point of outrage) in what they think is true. And just claims about the existence of a god, but about the existence of absolute good and absolute evil and about being saved and all of this. How does one claim to not know where to draw the line and then draw it so sharply?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Because, the Bible is clear that Christ's mission was to save the world by a literal act of sacrifice. Crucifixion is not a metaphor, it was an ancient method for executing criminals. The account of His' death is not recorded in symbolic language. Names were used, which dismisses the idea that they could be parables. Places were described, which denies the possibility that it was simply a revelation. It's recorded as an actual eye-witnessed event...
JoelJW 3 years ago
Sure. I'm not going to try to undermine any historical view. I am comfortable with there having been a real martyred person named "jesus", who may have said and done and believed many of the things reported in the bible.
What I don't understand is the fist-pounding claim that the story also proves that man literally has to answer to some invisible god/powerful-thing. Why not move the bible into the realm of great literature so that it is no longer an inaccessible mystery?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Also, with the possible exception of three books in the Bible, Song of Songs, most of Daniel and Revelation... all the other books are written as histories, geneologies, documentations, personal experiences, poetry etc. Granted, within these are prophetic writings... but prophetic writings can only go from symbol to "event" once the event has happened, and you see it in hind-sight.
Most agree that Revelation and most of Daniel has not happened yet...
JoelJW 3 years ago
You are right that all professed truths come with a starting assumption. Belief in the Bible as God's word to human-kind comes with the "Assumption" that it's (truly) God's word. That's what faith is all about. Human beings have no choice but to start with an unprovable claim in order to have something to base the rest of their' claims upon.
All claims rest on the foundation of faith.
JoelJW 3 years ago
That seems about right. The problem I am having is that it seems strange that one jumps to faith in some sort of non-visible being/thing first. If all that one needs to get things started is some sort of faith, why not have some sort of faith in physical reality? Why not have faith that if one jumps off a 100 story building that one will die? Does one need belief in the supernatural in order to make claims about the natural?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Actually, the God of the Bible advocates human reason. Jesus talked about things to people that often appealed to human reason, while at the same time challenging them to not be limited by "Only" what they see.
No, one doesn't need to believe in the supernatural in order to make claims about the natural. However, naturalism starts with an unprovable presupposition too. All world-views default to "Faith" at some point... even atheism. Yes, one could make claims without a supernatural view.
JoelJW 3 years ago
OK. Once one can make claims about the natural, and have those claims be verified or confirmed by repeated evidence, why is this not enough for believers to shift their faith to the material world? After all, as you have said, one only needs an initial act of faith, so why not take physical reality on faith and let that be your starting point? In time the truth of human foibles will come to light enough and the bible will stand as a great piece of art, reflecting human experience.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
The only time that reasoning is encouraged in the Bible is early in Isaiah "Come let us reason TOGETHER- though your sins be as scarlet..." Other than that it seems that mere human reason doesn't get you anywhere (or leads you astray) without being coupled with the Spirit of truth. You'd have a hard time finding verses about reasoning- most involve Jesus rebuking pharisees and scribes reasoning process.
- Peace, I appreciate what you've been writing
EVSjahms 3 years ago
It is interesting that believers rally around the idea that reason is weak and yet all of their claims are reason-based.
You see, although science is often strongly associated with reasoning, science is about discovery. The world just is the way it is. There is no way to "prove" the existence of anything. The only thing we have is experience. We are made of the same stuff as world (remember, ashes to ashes). Experience in the world precedes reason.
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
We have different definitions of the word faith.
plakey2001 3 years ago
OK, so what's your's, or what do you think is different about them?
homerthompsonman 3 years ago
Thou hypocrite! Seeing the mote in thy neighbour's eye with a log in thine own. If religion isn't a pre-commitment to a worldview, I don't know what is. You bet this jerk and others like him don't run their lucrative ministries on the basis of faith: they have accountants to make sure nothing slips through the cracks. In other words, they sell faith to their weak-minded customers, but keep hard-headed logic for their own businesses.
antinatter 3 years ago
that just great.....another ass hole telling the world about god. there is no god but stupid human like this made all this shit up so the church and him could make money out of ur weak minded to have hope.
nickbuakaew 3 years ago
I use to be an atheist. Until God spoke to me audibly in my car one day. That chaned my life.
To read the full story see my blog on yahoo360 "whomareyouseeking" Ray's Blog.
I hope you are blessed by what he did in my life.
Ray
whomareyouseeking 3 years ago
"need to have faith because there is no way to definitively prove his/her existence" - I think you're missing the point. The faith of the Christian doctrine is HISTORICAL and EMPIRICAL faith, because there is evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Without evidence, faith is nothing but a blind belief without justification. Ex: My father tells me to take out the trash every day. If I obey him, then he has faith that I will continue to do take out the trash every day. That's what faith is.
BassP86 3 years ago
"need to have faith because there is no way to definitively prove his/her existence" - I think you're missing the point. The faith of the Christian doctrine is HISTORICAL and EMPIRICAL faith, because there is evidence that Jesus resurrected from the dead. Without evidence, faith is nothing but a blind belief without justification. Ex: My father tells me to take out the trash every day. If I obey him, then he has faith that I will continue to do take out the trash every day. That's what faith is.
BassP86 3 years ago
you can't prove god exists and you can't prove god doesn't. People who believe in god do it with FAITH, which lies in the supernatural realm. There is no logic involved. Read the Bible, then the Koran, then whatever other religious works you can find. You'll see they were just works authored by men and used to control other men (and women).
kemup 3 years ago
I strongly disagree with you, kemup. 1) Throughout the Bible, faith is defined as a loyalty based on evidence of performance so it is not limited to the supernatural. 2) There IS logic involved in faith and it is usually like this: if he/she has performed trustworthy and reliable behavior, then logically I must trust him/her. I don't have enough room here to write more but if you think logic is not used whatsoever in measuring truth in religions, then you're way off target. No offense of course.
BassP86 3 years ago
ok, faith in god, not a person that can absolutely beyond any doubt be proven to exist in the first place, lies in the supernatural realm. So for he/she to be god and reliable and trustworthy i need to have faith because there is no way to definitively prove his/her existence, but for he/she to be a good person and have me expect them to continue to do so well that's just following a behavioral pattern---of a person.
kemup 3 years ago
So if I claim that "I have faith that my friend, X, won't die from lung cancer," I have 3 problems: 1) There is no truth claim that refers to any linkage between the act of loyalty and the act of having cancer, itself, 2) the act of having cancer is an event that is not directly controlled the relationship between me and person X (in other words, it is not a voluntary performance), and 3) I have next to no evidence of friend X surviving past cases of cancer.
BassP86 3 years ago
BassP86, your examples of faith in (2) still involve varying degrees of doubt. There may be a logical basis for a particular instance of faith, but faith derives its value from its level of doubt. Suppose that I am holding a pen and exclaim, "I have faith that I am holding this pen." It sounds silly since I have very little doubt. If I say, "I have faith that my friend, X, won't die from lung cancer," the faith is less trivial. My faith is greater in the latter instance, as is the doubt.
FBacon34 3 years ago
Actually, I think you're misunderstanding my point. Faith is LOYALTY, or TRUST, meaning that it applies truth claims based on personal experience in relationships. In order for one to have faith in another person, there must FIRST be a consistent basis of evidence of prior performance. Without that prior evidence, faith is necessarily blind.
BassP86 3 years ago