THE QUESTION

[Amanda]

-The point I was trying to make is that you seem to suggest via your earlier post that those who do not adhere to Christianity, but do not necessarily oppose it, are automatically inclusive within it. I find this concept absurd;

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, the wonderful thing about our societies is that each person is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect your right to this also. I was not saying that philosophies similar to Christians are inclusive in Christianity... just that there are similarities, and it is the message that is important... therefore they can be embraced also. I also learned a technique in reading the Bible that goes beyond the surface words and looks for a deeper meaning. Still, just my opinion.

 

-Jews and Muslims believe in Jesus? I think you've got your wires crossed here. Muslims do not believe in Jesus; some assume that he existed, but those that do regard him in a similar manner as most Jews; as little more than a charlatan and political activist who detracts away from their own preconceptions of "the true word of God". The roots of Tibbetan Buddhism are older, far, far, far older than Christianity and biblical faith in general.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jews and Muslims have a tendency to hold Jesus in high regards. Maybe not all think he is the Messiah, yet an admirable person! The Jews still await the Messiah and the Muslims mostly think Jesus was a prophet, yet not the last one. I would say all the religions are older than Christianity, yet the Tibbetan Buddhist refer to one of their most sacred Llamas as Llama Isus, which came to them during the lost years of Christ with similar Biblical stories.

 

 

Psychologically speaking, the faith provides the adherent with a proscribed template of behaviour, perception, attitude and belief by which they are expected to conduct their lives in order to legitimately qualify as "saved".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Faith in itself therefore becomes intrinsically selfish; something by which the adherent is conditioned to define their sense of self, and to which any alternate or opposing ideology is an automatic threat. This is before we even get into the eschatological garbage concernign Heaven, Hell, The Rapture, etc. 

 

Still awaiting an answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the only prescribed attitude is to respect yourself and others. And my personal findings in the Bible is that EVERYONE will be saved, and EVERYONE will be accountable and responsible for their actions. As I perceive the teachings of the scripture, as to be in harmony with the emphasis of most other beliefs... so there is no threat. I've studied and have benefitted from many other spiritual teachers besides those in the Bible. I have learned a lot from Atheism too.

[Amethyst]

Why am I required to defend my non-adherence to Christianity any more than I am my non-adherence to the religious beliefs of the Ancient Greeks, or Mesopotamians, or Maians, or Egyptians?

 

Simple. Because Christianity is popular in the West today, and those other religious cults are not. If most people worshipped the Egyptian deities, for example, I'm sure that they'd try to convince others to believe that those gods were real too.

[Amanda]

I know that Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet and that there are Messianic Jews, but to use the phrase "Jews" without "some" in front of it, I don't think that's kosher. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thank you... I agree and stand corrected.

[Christopher Carrion]

Well, the wonderful thing about our societies is that each person is entitled to their own opinion, and I respect your right to this also. I was not saying that philosophies similar to Christians are inclusive in Christianity... just that there are similarities, and it is the message that is important... therefore they can be embraced also.

 

-If it's the "message" that's important rather than the faith itself why define onesself exclusively as "Christian"? Surely it would be much more spiritually and intellectually productive to abandon the label (and its intrinsic restrictions) and instead consider critically those aspects and ideas one finds palatable from a variety of pre-existing faiths and doctrines? IMO, that path would be much more legitimately "spiritual" in nature as it allows the individual in question to achieve their perspectives through hard-fought and above all OBJECTIVE analysis rather than having them pre-determined and imposed.

 

 

 

I also learned a technique in reading the Bible that goes beyond the surface words and looks for a deeper meaning. Still, just my opinion..

 

-The only "meaning" you will find "beyond the words" as you put it is that which you put there yourself. You may as well do away with the book entirely.

 

Jews and Muslims have a tendency to hold Jesus in high regards...

 

 

-Not the Jews and Muslims I've spoken to. In fact, the vast majority of Jews I've spoken to, and those I have had the pleasure to hear speaking despise Jesus for the ramifications he has had to their faith. As for the Muslims, those I've spoken to either regard him as far, far down the ladder from their own Mohammed, or don't acknowledge him at all.

 

 

Maybe not all think he is the Messiah, yet an admirable person! The Jews still await the Messiah and the Muslims mostly think Jesus was a prophet, yet not the last one. I would say all the religions are older than Christianity, yet the Tibbetan Buddhist refer to one of their most sacred Llamas as Llama Isus, which came to them during the lost years of Christ with similar Biblical stories

 

 

-Coincidental. There is no legitimate, objective archaeological or historical evidence that Jesus even existed, so to procrastinate on a journey he might have taken based on certain similarities with another faith stinks of the worst kind of wish-fulfilment. The reason there are "lost years" in Jesus development in the bible is because he has no measurable existence outside of the mythology itself, and the writers of the gospels had more political and socio-cultural use for the figure as an adult. As for finding Jesus "admirable", well that entirely depends upon individual perspective doesn't it?

 

 

I think the only prescribed attitude is to respect yourself and others.

 

-Unless they're not Christian or do not adhere to Christian teachings of course. Then we quite evidently ARE going to HELL (within the self-reflexive preconceptions of the religion of course). Besides, which there are entire reams of "proscribed" attitudes in the bible; read Leviticus. Technically, Christians aren't even allowed to eat shell-fish.

 

And my personal findings in the Bible is that EVERYONE will be saved, and EVERYONE will be accountable and responsible for their actions.

 

-You're going to need to support that. I see no evidence of this claim from my reading of any section of the bible.

 

As I perceive the teachings of the scripture, as to be in harmony with the emphasis of most other beliefs... so there is no threat. I've studied and have benefitted from many other spiritual teachers besides those in the Bible. I have learned a lot from Atheism too.

 

-It's possible to learn from atheists, but not from atheism. Atheism is not a coherent ideology; it has no behavioural or perceptual dictates. Were you to gather all of the "atheists" of the world together in one place the only common factor between them would be their non-adherence to a pre-estabilshed theology, and perhaps a marked tendency towards questionning what is placed before them rather than swallowing it whole-sale.

 

 

STILL awaiting an answer.

[Amanda]

-If it's the "message" that's important rather than the faith itself why define onesself exclusively as "Christian"? Surely it would be much more spiritually and intellectually productive to abandon the label (and its intrinsic restrictions) and instead consider critically those aspects and ideas one finds palatable from a variety of pre-existing faiths and doctrines?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that is what Jesus did! I have considered changing my label... only because of what the popular/traditional interpretation of a Christian has come to mean. Although I do NOT consider the most loudly touted perspectives of Christianity to be quite accurate in adhering to these teachings of Jesus, and I do try to follow the man Jesus Christ, as I perceive him to be. So there my dilemma lies.

-The only "meaning" you will find "beyond the words" as you put it is that which you put there yourself. You may as well do away with the book entirely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I not only read the words, I research them, via lexicons, to the manuscript from which the english translation came, and also how the word evolved. Add cross-referencing, and the context it was used, the time it was suppose to have happened... and I seem to often conclude differently than the popular versions out there now.

 

Your response to my remark, "And my personal findings in the Bible is that EVERYONE will be saved, and EVERYONE will be accountable and responsible for their actions."

-You're going to need to support that. I see no evidence of this claim from my reading of any section of the bible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

First, I think Jesus never fails.. and if he came to save the world, that's what he did! Salvation is a FREE gift, nothing need be done to receive it, moreso than even the air one breathes. Additionally, if EVERYTHING came out of God, then EVERYTHING is part of God, and God will not throw away part of himself... would you? The rewards are the same for ALL in the end. Some verses to consider; Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19, John 10:14,15,16, 2 Timothy 1:9, and many more... yet this is not important. How I perceive spirituality is certainly not the perfectly all encompassing Truth... nor is anyone elses perception of Truth. I think spirituality does not come from intellect, it comes from integrity to self and others and most of all... compassion from the heart. IMO, I have seen more spiritually sensitive people here than I have in the churches I've most recently attended.

-It's possible to learn from atheists, but not from atheism. Atheism is not a coherent ideology; it has no behavioural or perceptual dictates. Were you to gather all of the "atheists" of the world together in one place the only common factor between them would be their non-adherence to a pre-estabilshed theology, and perhaps a marked tendency towards questionning what is placed before them rather than swallowing it whole-sale.

STILL awaiting an answer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I've read and watched documentaries on Madeline O'Hare. Her, and other Atheist authors/speakers I've encountered seem to put a strong alliance in ones own dutiful responsibilities, accountabilities, and capabilities. I liked that!

[Christopher Carrion]

I think that is what Jesus did! I have considered changing my label... only because of what the popular/traditional interpretation of a Christian has come to mean. Although I do NOT consider the most loudly touted perspectives of Christianity to be quite accurate in adhering to these teachings of Jesus, and I do try to follow the man Jesus Christ, as I perceive him to be. So there my dilemma lies.

 

I not only read the words, I research them, via lexicons, to the manuscript from which the english translation came, and also how the word evolved. Add cross-referencing, and the context it was used, the time it was suppose to have happened... and I seem to often conclude differently than the popular versions out there now.

 

Your response to my remark, "And my personal findings in the Bible is that EVERYONE will be saved, and EVERYONE will be accountable and responsible for their actions."

 

First, I think Jesus never fails.. and if he came to save the world, that's what he did! Salvation is a FREE gift, nothing need be done to receive it, moreso than even the air one breathes. Additionally, if EVERYTHING came out of God, then EVERYTHING is part of God, and God will not throw away part of himself... would you? The rewards are the same for ALL in the end. Some verses to consider; Romans 5:18, 2 Corinthians 5:19, John 10:14,15,16, 2 Timothy 1:9, and many more... yet this is not important. How I perceive spirituality is certainly not the perfectly all encompassing Truth... nor is anyone elses perception of Truth. I think spirituality does not come from intellect, it comes from integrity to self and others and most of all... compassion from the heart. IMO, I have seen more spiritually sensitive people here than I have in the churches I've most recently attended.

 

I've read and watched documentaries on Madeline O'Hare. Her, and other Atheist authors/speakers I've encountered seem to put a strong alliance in ones own dutiful responsibilities, accountabilities, and capabilities. I liked that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

-The version of Christianity you have constructed for yourself seems to be intensely personal (as all spiritual perspectives should be) and much more conducive to change, questioning and adaptation than those who adhere to a more doctrinated or episcopal "faith". I think what we have here is a clash of perspectives and ideologies; my personal forays into "spirituality" are inexorably tied to intellectual process and analysis; from the examinations I have thus far conducted (and be assured they are rigorous), I have reached the conclusion that proscribed or pre-established religious schemas function only to absolve the adherent of critical consideration concerning their perspectives, the world around them, and the means by which they define themselves. Therefore legitimate spiritual experience and evolution can only be achieved by the abandonment of the claims and proclamations of others (including Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha and the rest) in favour of intense, personal exploration and the gradual construction of perspectives based upon meditation and experience. Still, as I said, spirituality is intensely personal, and if you find a loose affiliation with christian religious structure helps in that regard then so be it.

 

More later; i don;t have the time for a more cohesive reply.

[Christopher Carrion]

Just as a minor aside, if, as you believe, EVERYONE will be SAVED, then the very notion of Hell and damnation, of judgement itself and therefore of the necessity for said judge becomes utterly redundant.

[Amanda]

Just as a minor aside, if, as you believe, EVERYONE will be SAVED, then the very notion of Hell and damnation, of judgement itself and therefore of the necessity for said judge becomes utterly redundant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Christopher, if you were to look up the word 'damnation', it means judgment! The word fire is from the Greek word purose, root 'pur' which means to cleanse intensely, the word brimstone means 'divine'. So eternal damnation into fire and brimstone means eternally judged into divine purification... that's all.

[white_raven23]

Christopher, if you were to look up the word 'damnation', it means judgment! The word fire is from the Greek word purose, root 'pur' which means to cleanse intensely, the word brimstone means 'divine'. So eternal damnation into fire and brimstone means eternally judged into divine purification... that's all.

 

I don't care if you weasel word the meaning of that statement into "baloney and cheez whiz await those who trust the invisible pink unicorn"

 

The meaning is still true. The parts of "me" that make me "me" will be poked and peered at by someone. That someone will decide weather or not those parts of "me" are worthy (based on??). Those parts (or all) of "me" that someone else decides are unsavory will be clensed away, burned out, purified....what have you. Thus I will not truly be "me" anymore, I will be redesigned (or rejected entirely) as befits someone else.

 

And.....you don't see the lack of moral ethic here?

 

This is vile!

 

No supreme being would do such a thing!

[TJR666]

Truly this is one question Christians are unable to answer. I think it comes down to the fact that Christians refuse the fact that the burden of proof is on them to show that "God" exists. This is a question I have asked before (in other places) that NEVER gets answered.

just my 2 cents

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I recognise that it a difficult question to answer.

 

In previous discussions with those who don’t believe in any form of deity, I have asked this question:

 

What exactly (or even not so exactly for that matter) would you consider as evidence?

 

Or, to put it another way: Is there anything that you would say: Yes, this I would accept that as being reasonable proof of the existence of “god”?

 

What evidence exactly is it that you are looking for? Is it even possible to define it?

 

I can never “prove” beyond reasonable doubt that God exists (though I believe He does); the answer is one of probability. The very same can be said for evolutionary theory.

 

For example, I guess God could come down here and poke you in the eye, but would that convince you, or would you think you were just hallucinating?

 

Yes, it is a difficult question to answer indeed.

 

TJR666

[♦ ficino ♦]

I can never “prove” beyond reasonable doubt that God exists (though I believe He does); the answer is one of probability. The very same can be said for evolutionary theory.

 

.

 

TJR666

 

 

There are a huge number of counterexamples that disprove the propositions of Christianity: biblical contradictions, failed promises, etc. looking around at the nature of reality would not lead one to come up with the doctrines of Christianity as a system that explains what we see. You might think, if there's a creator at all, he's a low comedian (H.L. Mencken, I think, said this) or worse.

 

Some stuff happens that religious people attribute to divine intervention, but the occurrences are so haphazard that other hypotheses explain the phenomena more consistently.

 

Looking at DNA, the entire fossil record, etc. on the other hand does lead observers to unify that field of data more successfully with the TOE than any other theory.

 

There is no comparison at all. To suggest or insinuate that Christianity and the TOE are on an equal footing as theories is a complete misconception of the nature of each of those systems.

[Vixentrox]

Probability? Well, the odds against you mate. There are hundreds if not thousands of gods/goddesses. The odds that you got the right one are small.

[Amethyst]

The meaning is still true. The parts of "me" that make me "me" will be poked and peered at by someone. That someone will decide weather or not those parts of "me" are worthy (based on??). Those parts (or all) of "me" that someone else decides are unsavory will be clensed away, burned out, purified....what have you. Thus I will not truly be "me" anymore, I will be redesigned (or rejected entirely) as befits someone else.

 

And.....you don't see the lack of moral ethic here? 

 

This is vile!

 

No supreme being would do such a thing!

 

Agree entirely.

[Ouroboros]

Hi TJR, good to see you're posting in other topics now.

 

I recognise that it a difficult question to answer.

 

In previous discussions with those who don’t believe in any form of deity, I have asked this question:

 

What exactly (or even not so exactly for that matter) would you consider as evidence?

 

Or, to put it another way: Is there anything that you would say: Yes, this I would accept that as being reasonable proof of the existence of “god”?

 

What evidence exactly is it that you are looking for? Is it even possible to define it?

That's true. It would be hard for God to prove himself. We could be fooled by magic tricks and drug induced hallucinations.

 

But why do we have to believe in God? What is the justification that we so necessarely have to believe and submit to God if he exists? What are the arguments that God demands us to bend down and give up our free will?

 

I can never “prove” beyond reasonable doubt that God exists (though I believe He does); the answer is one of probability. The very same can be said for evolutionary theory.

Hmmm. You know my view point there.

 

For example, I guess God could come down here and poke you in the eye, but would that convince you, or would you think you were just hallucinating?

I probably would think "damn flies flying into my eye!"

 

Yes, it is a difficult question to answer indeed.

 

TJR666

Yes, it is.

 

What's interesting though is that as soon as you adhere to a certain given holy book that defines God and Gods attributes and behaviours, immediately we can prove or disprove God from that book.

 

An anonymous God without given attributes or behaviours can never be un-proven (I think), but a specific God, defined by a certain book (whichever it would be) can be disproven just by comparing reality to what the book claims.

 

Say for instance a holy book claims God comes down every Tuesday to the local Wal-mart and show his powers and heals people from deadly diseases, it's really easy to to dis-prove by just go to that Wal-mart on Tuesday and wait! Wait and see if it's really true.

 

But, as I said, there is no definition saying if God is a bug, have four eyes, or is Pink and Invisible at the same time, we can't really prove or dis-prove him. Because if I say, "let God come and poke my eye", and it doesn't happen, then you only need to answer, "he doesn't do in people who's name starts with 'H'". And you've saved God from proving himself.

 

So define the God you believe in, and that gives us the tools to know how God can prove himself.

[TJR666]

So define the God you believe in, and that gives us the tools to know how God can prove himself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can we actually measure in some way a spiritual being? How big? How heavy? Etc.

 

I may be misunderstanding you here, but is the only evidence that you may consider something like that in the required holy book that it is stated that an such-and-such an event (such as our hypothetical poke in the eye) will occur in time and space on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time and in such-and-such a place?

 

That would be the question of "prophesy", wouldn't it?

 

If a holy book correctly prophesied an event (or events) well into the future, with a probability that is well beyond any chance of it being just being a lucky guess, then would such an event (or events) qualify as evidence in your mind?

 

TJR666

[Vixentrox]

Can we actually measure in some way a spiritual being? How big? How heavy? Etc.

 

I may be misunderstanding you here, but is the only evidence that you may consider something like that in the required holy book that it is stated that an such-and-such an event (such as our hypothetical poke in the eye) will occur in time and space on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time and in such-and-such a place?

 

That would be the question of "prophesy", wouldn't it?

 

If a holy book correctly prophesied an event (or events) well into the future, with a probability that is well beyond any chance of it being just being a lucky guess, then would such an event (or events) qualify as evidence in your mind?

 

TJR666

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

People belive in Nostrodamus predictions...guess he is divine inspired or is he a god?

[NotBlinded]

If a holy book correctly prophesied an event (or events) well into the future, with a probability that is well beyond any chance of it being just being a lucky guess, then would such an event (or events) qualify as evidence in your mind?

 

TJR666

If it is even remotely possible that something can happen, the odds that it will eventually happen are pretty good.

[Christopher Carrion]

Christopher, if you were to look up the word 'damnation', it means judgment! The word fire is from the Greek word purose, root 'pur' which means to cleanse intensely, the word brimstone means 'divine'. So eternal damnation into fire and brimstone means eternally judged into divine purification... that's all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Providing a potted history of the term does not provide an adequate answer to the somewhat illogical dynamic it holds in your personal belief system Amanda. The fact still stands that Christianity and biblical religion as a whole is based upon an eschatological system, i.e., one of death, judgement, Heaven or HELL. If we all of us, regardless of what we commit in our "earthly" lives are going to ascend to Heaven anyway, then Christians are effectively absolved of any responsibility for their actions, as are the rest of us, since biblical morality is based exclusively upon a psychological dynamic of promise and punishment, i.e., if you do this, this and this, you will be going to Heaven, but if you do that this or that, you will be going to Hell. You also assume that the writers (not to mention the translators) of the bible had some sort of all-encompassing knowledge of the historical connotations of the term "damnation", and therefore when they utilised it meant it in the connotation you state above, i.e., not as a state of punishment, but as a state of purifying transcendence. I'm sorry, but this stinks to me of self-fulfilling optimism; the forcible interpretation of a text's connotations in order to "fit in" with an idealistic and intensely personal set of beliefs. It is absurd to assume that the writers of the bible (and its translators) were consummately aware of the historical connotations of the term "damnation", or meant it in any other manner than what people generally consider it to mean today, i.e., as eternal and unbearable punishment. It might be a more productive and intellectually viable idea to consider the historical contexts in which the books of the bible themselves were produced, rather than harping on the history of particular words and phrases; they are only the trees in the forest, and like trees in a forest, can be fallen and replaced with other related, but not necessarily identical species.

 

STILL AWAITING AN ANSWER.

[Christopher Carrion]

I recognise that it a difficult question to answer.

 

In previous discussions with those who don’t believe in any form of deity, I have asked this question:

 

What exactly (or even not so exactly for that matter) would you consider as evidence?

 

 

Or, to put it another way: Is there anything that you would say: Yes, this I would accept that as being reasonable proof of the existence of “god”?

 

What evidence exactly is it that you are looking for? Is it even possible to define it?

 

I can never “prove” beyond reasonable doubt that God exists (though I believe He does); the answer is one of probability. The very same can be said for evolutionary theory.

 

For example, I guess God could come down here and poke you in the eye, but would that convince you, or would you think you were just hallucinating?

 

Yes, it is a difficult question to answer indeed.

 

TJR666

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

What would I require as evidence? A miracle or two would be nice; something unambiguous like many of those that occur in the Old Testament. Strange how Bible God has been so very quiet for the past 2000 years, ain't it?

 

Seriously speaking, "God" is an abstract; an idea with no quantifiable basis, and therefore relies entirely upon "faith" in order to maintain significance. I'm not interested in whether your "God" has any measurable existence; the question I asked is why he or the faith he represents is any more or less fundamental than the thousands of other faiths and deities that have existed in the history of the human race, since there is no more evidence for their existence or non-existence than that of the Christian god.

 

 

-The same is most certainly NOT true of Evolutionary Theory. It is a time honoured defence mechanism on behalf of the faithful to render every conceivable concept down to a matter of faith. In that manner, they are able to establish perspectives and ideas that are potentially damaging to the dictates of their belief system as diametrically opposed to the notion of "God", i.e., as that which relies upon willful adherence, rather than as something which is self evident. Evolution is a pre-existing and above all PHYSICALLY QUANTIFIABLE phenomena to which a number of theories have been constructed and applied. Unlike the notion of God, it is not an abstract, and therefore does not rely upon faith to maintain significance. Belief in Evolution is redundant; it self-evidently exists and functions whether you choose to "believe" in it or not. God on the other hand occupies a realm of intellectual abstraction, since there is no quantifiable evidence for his existence outside of the scriptures or "theories" (for want of a better) that pertain to him.

 

Stop trying to answer the question you want top consider, and try answering the one I actually asked.

[Amanda]

The fact still stands that Christianity and biblical religion as a whole is based upon an eschatological system, i.e., one of death, judgement, Heaven or HELL. If we all of us, regardless of what we commit in our "earthly" lives are going to ascend to Heaven anyway, then Christians are effectively absolved of any responsibility for their actions, as are the rest of us, since biblical morality is based exclusively upon a psychological dynamic of promise and punishment, i.e., if you do this, this and this, you will be going to Heaven, but if you do that this or that, you will be going to Hell. You also assume that the writers (not to mention the translators) of the bible had some sort of all-encompassing knowledge of the historical connotations of the term "damnation", and therefore when they utilised it meant it in the connotation you state above, i.e., not as a state of punishment, but as a state of purifying transcendence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Christopher, in my belief... Eveyone gets treated the same. Everyone is saved, and Everyone is accountable and responsible for their actions. Everyone is judged and gets the repercussions of their (bad) actions, and these repercussions can be unpleasant... reocurring regularly in regards to these (bad) actions till we say we are not going to do that again... part of the purification process in all of us.

[Ouroboros]

Can we actually measure in some way a spiritual being? How big? How heavy? Etc.

 

I may be misunderstanding you here, but is the only evidence that you may consider something like that in the required holy book that it is stated that an such-and-such an event (such as our hypothetical poke in the eye) will occur in time and space on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time and in such-and-such a place?

 

That would be the question of "prophesy", wouldn't it?

 

If a holy book correctly prophesied an event (or events) well into the future, with a probability that is well beyond any chance of it being just being a lucky guess, then would such an event (or events) qualify as evidence in your mind?

 

TJR666

I think we're talking about the same thing.

 

God can not be described.

And only something that can be described can be proven or not proven.

(Since you have to know what you're proving with a certain test)

 

Say that you want to prove God by him poking my eye, that means that he has at least one description: "He can poke someones eye".

 

If we go into prophesy, it's the same thing, that means one of his characteristics are we can get prophesies from him.

 

And so on.

 

So either God can be described to certain extent, and then we can prove/disprove him.

 

Or he can't be described at all, and can never be proved/disproved.

[Christopher Carrion]

Christopher, in my belief... Eveyone gets treated the same. Everyone is saved, and Everyone is accountable and responsible for their actions. Everyone is judged and gets the repercussions of their (bad) actions, and these repercussions can be unpleasant... reocurring regularly in regards to these (bad) actions till we say we are not going to do that again...  part of the purification process in all of us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Precisely my point Amanda; in YOUR belief. It seems to me that you have picked and chosen those aspects of Christianity you find palatable, and cannabalised them with components from a variety of other spiritual ideologies to produce an intensely personal pseudo-religion. I have no problem with this; you have found what works for you, which is what spirituality should be all about. However, be very wary that you do not confuse your own faith with the parent ideology from which it is derived; there are certain aspects of what you believe that are irreconcilable with claims made in the bible (e.g., that those who do not adhere to the word of God as it is written will be damned for all eternity, that Hell is ETERNAL, with no hope of betterment or release). Therefore, you cannot possibly defend the criticisms I level at the religion as a whole using your own belief-system as a guide line.

 

STILL AWAITING AN ANSWER.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Can we actually measure in some way a spiritual being? How big? How heavy? Etc.

 

I may be misunderstanding you here, but is the only evidence that you may consider something like that in the required holy book that it is stated that an such-and-such an event (such as our hypothetical poke in the eye) will occur in time and space on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time and in such-and-such a place?

 

That would be the question of "prophesy", wouldn't it?

 

If a holy book correctly prophesied an event (or events) well into the future, with a probability that is well beyond any chance of it being just being a lucky guess, then would such an event (or events) qualify as evidence in your mind?

 

TJR666

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I say that I want proof I mean I want some evidences to give me confidence. I can believe if given confidence by bible god.

 

What would give me confidence would be for bible god to reveal itself to myself and everyone else that ever lived as he did with adam. If god would have done this and consistently through out everyones life; let us see, talk and listen to god in a physical way....ears as well as eyes then I would believe based on those evidences. If god made a cameo appearnce when ever we needed him.

 

If god is everywere then he could do this easy.

[Christopher Carrion]

"Oh why are we waiting, we are suffocating, why are we waiting, why, why, why?"

 

Seriously, would one of the Christians contributing to this thread attempt to engage with the question asked?

[Amanda]

However, be very wary that you do not confuse your own faith with the parent ideology from which it is derived; there are certain aspects of what you believe that are irreconcilable with claims made in the bible (e.g., that those who do not adhere to the word of God as it is written will be damned for all eternity, that Hell is ETERNAL, with no hope of betterment or release). Therefore, you cannot possibly defend the criticisms I level at the religion as a whole using your own  belief-system as a guide line.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Christopher, I don't know what 'parent ideology' you are referring. If you are comparing me with the 'religous right'... well, I get more criticism from them than I do from this site! I know that!

 

Still, I believe that I adhere to the teachings of Jesus, as I perceive them to be. My standard does not come by the KJV... although I do use it as a resource to go where that manuscript came. I don't agree totally with the KJV transcribers though. There was a team, and I don't think they translated it with all components in harmony, yet they made it easier for us to do so... with much effort. So what exactly are you referring...

 

I think that most of the people on this site are much closer to the conclusions I got from studying the Bible than what I find in most churches.... I don't pick and choose... and some have pointed out errors in my thinking... yet the overwhelming benefits have outweighed my lack of ability to congruently digest their presentations. I'm sure once I do so, a remarkable transformation will take place in my understandings... and that is a wonderful thing. I certainly don't find that in the churches I've attended!